, Dickson & Clarke"]To dismiss, ignore or soften the idea of God’s final judgment “hell”] is to depart from a key element of what Jesus taught
10%?? 
I think He mentions “Hell” explicitly 11 times & James once but giving them benefit of the doubt and including any mention of weeping and gnashing of teeth, etc. Which other authors? Any other suggestions to improve this point?
It were four occasions in the Gospels when Jesus talked about Gehenna, not counted Matthew 25:46:
1st occasion: Matthew 5:22-30
2nd occasion: Matthew 10:28 and Luke 12:5
3rd occasion: Matthew 18:9 and Mark 9:43-47
4th occasion: Matthew 23:15-33
References to Hades in the gospels, though not related to final judgment:
#1 Matthew 11:23 and Luke 10:5
#2 Matthew 16:18
#3 Luke 16:23, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus
It appears to me that common references to “final judgment” passages employ an adjective that none of these texts use. I assume that how much one thinks Jesus verbally defined the “final” judgment will depnd on one’s interpretation of his four statements about “Gehenna.”
10%?? I think He mentions “Hell” explicitly 11 times & James once but giving them benefit of the doubt and including any mention of weeping and gnashing of teeth, etc. Which other authors? Any other suggestions to improve this point?
Alex, I think it is really great that you are interacting with John in this way. But I think you need to be careful not to feel as though you have to jump on everything that you may have a slight disagreement with. If you lose focus, he may get lost in the detail, and then you can lose your impact.
I may be wrong, but from what I have read from you, your main issue is with the eternality of hell, not with the idea of eschatological judgement, wrath, and destruction. I don’t think you are wanting to say that he never speaks of “hell” do you? So what exact percentage of Jesus teaching is about hell, and what percentage constitutes “key” is not the central issue. Even if Jesus spoke about hell 20% of the time and it was “key”, the main issue is whether he definitely spoke about it as eternal, and hopeless.
So I think you may be better to agree with him where you can, and therefore agree with him that you do not wish to dismiss, ignore or soften the idea of God’s judgment “hell”], you just want to be accurate in understanding what exactly he taught… not to soften or harden it beyond the information we have.
To quote from Robin Parry
Just my 2c worth. 
God’s blessing to you.
I agree with Bob that the adjective “final” could be misleading, as this isn’t something actually found in what Jesus says, but is an interpretation of terminology (mostly to do with eonian, into the eon, etc.)
Having said that, Jesus talks about God and/or Himself doing judgment, by parable or otherwise, quite a bit. And that doesn’t count the Gospel authors themselves occasionally talking about it! (Or other people like John the Baptist who certainly talks about it in his brief appearances.)
I’d have to work my way through KoS again to get a count (thus eliminating duplicate accounts of the same incident, e.g. Mark 9 and its parallel in GosMatt don’t count as two occurrences where they’re relating the same information in the same incident, but do count as two occurrences when they’re relating different information in the same incident!)
On the other hand, I like to quip that at least 80% of what Jesus has to say about punitive judgment is directed at lazy and/or uncharitable and/or unmerciful servants of His, up to and including the apostles!
Thanks sven, Bob & Jason. Good point about final & that it’s often directed at self-righteous or lazy Christians!
Thanks
That’s very astute of you Craig! One of the reasons for posting this draft was to see if anyone would say that, as I was feeling uneasy about even addressing this point because it could easily be misinterpreted as me wanting to just ignore judgment, which I don’t.
Thanks for the quote, might just use that!
Found another good one too:
, Parry"]The critic may reply that a hell that has an exit is not as severe as one with none. Indeed, so perhaps the critic feels that nothing short of eternal conscious torment with no hope for redemption amounts to taking hell seriously. If this is so, then we must throw up our hands and confess that we do indeed fail to take hell seriously. But of course, this is absurd. To suppose that one does not take divine punishment seriously unless one construes it in the most maximally awful way possible is just playing games. That is akin to suggesting that the only people who take the dangers of drug-taking seriously are those who suppose that every person who has ever taken drugs will die an inevitable, painful, and lingering death with no hope of deliverance. It is perfectly possible to take hell very seriously without believing that it is as bad as it could possibly be. Clearly one need not construe the consequences of sin or drug taking in a maximally bad way to take them seriously. For the universalist, hell is something to be avoided at all costs, just as Jesus warned us. To object by saying, “Well, if hell is not forever, it doesn’t really matter if someone has a spell there,” is like suggesting that because you will recover from the long and painful illness, it isn’t worth taking precautions to avoid it. It is like telling an Old Testament prophet not to bother warning Israel to repent, because God will always restore them after the judgment anyway. The prophet would reply that it is better to avoid the judgment in this first place, and the prophet is surely correct.
Yes Alex. My own experience with Sydney Anglicans (I belong to a Sydney Anglican church) is that for them to listen to me at all, I have had to work very hard to get them to understand that I am not suggesting pluralism, and that I am not saying that there is no judgement or “hell” to come.
It is encouraging to hear that God seemed to give you an “uneasy feeling” while at the same time prompting me to write something. Praise God that He works in each of us to build us up through the fellowship here. God has used you and the others here to bring great blessing to me many times.
Yes, I imagine that would be the case. (You’re the 2nd member in 2 days to tell me they go to a Sydney Anglican church - that very encouraging to hear!)
Amen!
Thanks. I find this forum is usually a blessing to me also (apart from when I have to moderate people but thankfully that only happens occasionally).
Jesus speaks on hell and destruction. 46 Verses
pg 291 Bill Wiese - Hell, Separate Truth from Fiction
He only needs to say it once…
“Verily I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgement, than for this city” - Matthew 10
Video. Ashen Remains of Sodom and Gomorrah
isaiah666.com/sodom_gomorrah.htm
Well, Bill Wiese is simply wrong. Jesus does not warn of “Hell” even once. Sadly, Hinnom Valley (gehenna) is misinterpreted as Hell in many, most, English translations, and many people read Hell into many other passages. Jesus actually warned of the devestation of sin that comes in this life, and of judgment to come whether that correction of sin comes in this life or the life to come.
Note that the passge you mentioned im Mt. 10, is warning of the judgment that would come to a city, like the judgment that came upon Sodom and Gomorrah. These cities were destroyed by fire - terrible judgment of sin in this life, but it does not affirm ECT. It’s important to look at what the passage actually says. Of course, if one believes in ECT then it is challenging to read scripture without that filter causing on to read ECT into many passages.
There was a Greek work that meant “Hell” - Tartarus. And Jesus did not even once warn of Tartarus, not once! If there was a Hell, surely God would have warned Adam and Eve of it, but He didn’t. Surely Moses would have warned of such, but he didn’t. Surely, Jesus would have warned of such and the disciples would have used the word Tartarus to communicate such, but He/they didn’t. Surely Paul would have warned of Tartarus, but he didn’t. Instead, Jesus said that He came to save the World, to save the lost, that if He was lifted up He’d draw All to Himself. And Paul envisions all of creation reconciled to God, every knee bowing in worship, every tongue confessing Jesus as Lord.
Anyhow, in short, Jesus did not once warn of Hell.
On the other hand, while I do agree Jesus was warning people of hell (including in that incident), Jesus in that incident was referencing a scripture from Ezekiel where Sodom is eventually reconciled post-mortem with Israel (who has sinned even more greatly than Israel).
Granted, that’s rather more complex and hopeful than people were expecting. Apparently this is why He had to say it more than once. 