The one and only place Paul mentioned 'Hades' was not translated "HELL" as in the Gospels and Book of Revelation in the more popular translations. Why?
Ahoy High Premise! Referring to 1st Corinthians 15 verse 55, Apostle Paul is talking about the resurrection rather than specifically the afterlife. Take Ezekiel 37 for instance. In the 1st verse it's mentioned "The hand of the LORD was on me, and he brought me out by the Spirit of the LORD and set me in the middle of the valley; that was full of bones." - Ezekiel 37:1 (NIV). In this vision Ezekiel is having, God asks him whether these bones can live. Ezekiel responds back saying, "You alone know." After God encourages him to speak to the bones, they come alive on the battlefield. "Come, breath, from the four winds and breathe into these slain, that they may live" (Eze 37:9 NIV). God's people shall be brought new life and those who were lost will be given a future. "I will put my Spirit in you and you will live" (Eze 37:14 NIV). Also, there's Matthew 19:26 (NIV): With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible Apostle Paul is talking about the raising of the dead through God. P.S. When it comes to 1st Corinthians 15:55, when read alongside Hosea 13:14, I'm aware this teaching has a double application, each one being correct depending on the context, which I myself need to get more familiar with. I'm curious what others may have to say about this as well.
Looking at my interlinear (SBLGNT) and Westcott-Hort, the Greek word ᾅδη does not appear in the critical texts. This is one reason you do not see 'hell' in 1 Cor. 15.55 in the more contemporary popular versions.
Paul didn't write Revelations. St. John did. And "hell" is not mentioned at all in Scripture, as it is not a biblical word, Rather it is a pagan word grafted into later Bible translations. Young's Literal Translation along with some other Bible translations keep the four original names that were later interpreted as "hell". Those being Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, and Gehenna --none of which originally conveyed what hell has come to mean, i.e., a place of eternal conscious torment. A thing which is imho repugnant to the love and mercy revealed by God in Scripture and contrary to the teachings of Our Lord, who conquered death and hades for the whole world by his saving life, death, and resurrection.
In 1 Cor. 15:55, Paul was loosely quoting or referring to Hosea 13:14. I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes. (KJV) I shall ransom them from the power of Sheol; I shall redeem them from Death. O Death, where are your plagues? O Sheol, where is your sting? Compassion is hidden from my eyes. (ESV) That, as far as I know, is the only time Paul writes concerning hades (a/k/a sheol, the grave).
What do you make of this? Mat 25:46 (Jesus speaking): And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
Jesus was a hellfire preacher. Consider Matthew 5:29, Matthew 10:28, Matthew 23:33, and most famously Luke 16:19-31. I think the core problem that some Christians have with the eternal punishment of sinners in hell is that they assume the sinners will repent once they have experienced the torments of hell. But as the passage in Luke makes clear, the door to salvation doesn't stay open forever; once closed, it remains closed and the sinner is in his sin for eternity. Now, you can argue that hell is not literally a place of fire and brimstone; that this is simply a metaphor. Sheol/Gehenna was the worst place near Eastern Christians could imagine, so they assumed that this is what Hell looked like. But it is clear from Jesus' own teaching that he saw Hell in this way (Luke 16:22-26): C. S. Lewis treats this exact subject in his book "The Great Divorce", by the way. I recommend it if you haven't read it already.
I agree with everything you say except this part. I think you meant to say, we can argue that it is not a place of physical fire and brimstone. But yes we definitely can say that it is literally and really a place of fire and brimstone. It is very likely that the words 'fire' / 'brimstone' used by the Almighty were meant in an analogical way (as with almost everything else that has to do with the supernatural). So perhaps there's not physical fire, and that's fine. But even if the 'fire' he meant is analogical, it is still real and literal; just like the heavenly Body of our Lord in the sacrament is 100% real and literal, without needing to be physical.
Ugh. That's one point upon which we won't agree. The rector did a Sunday School series on this, so I read roughly the first half of it... skipped to the last couple of pages and then tossed it aside in disgust. Couldn't stand it. And I fail to see the value of trying to glean spiritual truths from a fanciful work of fiction (in which, at the end, the main character falls out of bed and discovers he's been dreaming the whole thing). Especially when that work of fiction can be seen to lend support to the RC belief in purgatory. The book is revolting to me.
That seems harsh. It's a fanciful book, to be sure, much in the same vein as Dante's Inferno. But it's not theology, and I don't think Lewis intended it as theology. I think Lewis was trying to cast Hell into a metaphor more comprehensible to moderns and out of the medieval "fiery pit" imagery. You should read it in the same sense that you would read Lewis's Narnia books, or his Space Trilogy.
Would any worthwhile rector conduct Sunday School classes on Narnia or the Space Trilogy? If I took this book too seriously, as you suggest, it's because it was being taken too seriously at the parish!
Actually our men's group just had a Bible study series on the "Space Trilogy". It led to a lot of very fruitful discussion. I'm always surprised at how few people have read Lewis' "Space Trilogy" books, even those who have read most of Lewis' books. They comprise some of his very best work in my view. I make it a point to read Bunyan's "The Pilgrim's Progress" once every couple of years. I don't see that Bunyan's book is all that different than Lewis' book (unless you dislike Bunyan's book as well). Or take the recent series "The Chosen" about the ministry of Jesus Christ: it takes a lot of dramatic liberties and extrapolates about many things we don't know from the bible stories*, but I certainly don't find it heterodox or objectionable in terms of Christian theology. Drama is a fine vehicle for Christian themes and stories. The Bible is packed with drama. "Ben Hur", "Quo Vadis", "The Ten Commandments" and so on -- mostly I think they're fine. Even Ridley Scott's recent "Exodus: Gods and Kings" had its merits, though the casting was often ludicrous. (John Turturro as Pharaoh? Really? And Sigourney Weaver was in the movie for about five minutes in a role that could easily have been cut without affecting the plot a whit.) It was at least a respectful treatment of the story. Bear in mind all this is coming from a man who believes in the Bible as God's inerrant Word, passed to his people through the work of the Holy Spirit in the pen of those who wrote the books. There are terrible works of fiction based on stories or themes from the Bible, but it is not a priori blasphemous to do so. Stories are a good way of teaching people. As Tiffy often reminds us, our Lord spoke in parables for a reason (Mark 4:10-12). *I didn't care much for how they wrote the character of the apostle Matthew, I have to admit. I think they took dramatic license a bit too far in that case.
Another book I want to mention, mainly because it specifically deals with the issues we're discussing here: Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose. The dialogues between Jorge of Burgos and William of Baskerville are particularly interesting. (Turturro also appears as William of Baskerville in a recent Italian adaptation of the book, oddly enough. He's miscast in that role as well, but so was Sean Connery in the 1986 movie.)