Is Hellfire A Bible Teaching?

Alter2Ego

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

The teaching of hellfire is commonplace in Christendom and non-Christian religions. This teaching defames the Creator and portrays him as a sadist who tortures people in flames of fire for all eternity—as punishment for wrongdoing committed during the relatively brief human lifespan. The hellfire dogma was brought into Christianity by the Roman Catholics who copied it from pagan religions. (Pagans are those who do not worship the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible.)

The Bible makes it clear as to how God views the ritual burning of people. Jehovah ended up rejecting the ancient Israelites after they got involved with pagan worship, which included burning their children to death.

"And they [the Israelites/sons of Judah] have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, in order to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, a thing that I had not commanded and that HAD NOT COME UP INTO MY HEART." (Jeremiah 7:31)


"{58} And they kept offending him with their high places, and with their graven images they kept inciting him to jealousy. {59} God heard and got to be furious, and he condemned Israel very much. {60} And he finally forsook the tabernacle of Shiloh, the tent in which he resided among earthling men."
(Psalms 78:58-60)


The scriptures indicate that hell is nothing more than mankind’s common grave. Proof of this is provided by a verse of scripture in the Bible, which no hellfire-believing Christian can explain away. I’m referring to the scripture that says Jesus Christ--the epitome of a perfect, sinless, and obedient man--died and went to hell.

"{21} In fact, to this course you were called, because even Christ suffered for you, leaving you a model for you to follow his steps closely. {22} He committed no sin, nor was deception found in his mouth." (1 Peter 2:21-22)


"He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that HIS SOUL WAS NOT LEFT IN HELL, neither his flesh did see corruption."
(Acts 2:31--King James Version)


NOTE #1: The Bible uses the word "fire" symbolically to indicate cleansing OR permanent death OR permanent destruction. In the few times when the Bible used the word "fire" literally, it was with reference to events such as the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah--at which point, the individuals did not suffer eternal torment, they died immediately.

NOTE #2: the words "Hell" and "Hades" and "Sheol" and "Pit" are synonyms that mean THE GRAVE (of mankind).

NOTE #3: "High Places" as used in the scriptures that I quote in this thread refer to the worship of the false gods.


DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. According to Jeremiah 7:31, did Jehovah command the ancient Israelites to burn anyone in the fire?

2. According to Jeremiah 7:31, did the burning of people come to God's heart?

3. According to Jeremiah 7:31 and Psalms 78:58-59, did the ancient Israelites offend God by getting involved with false worship in their "high places", which included burning people to death?

4. According to those who teach hellfire torment, hell is a place for people who are wicked and sinful. If Hellfire is for wicked people, why did Jesus spend three days in hell--considering that it says at 1 Peter 2:22 that he did not commit any sin?

5. Jesus obeyed Jehovah and died a slow and torturous death for mankind. Hadn't he suffered enough? He'd suffered terribly--because of being obedient to his Heavenly Father. So why was he being punished again with burning hellfire? What's the logic for punishing him all over again?

6. Recall that after Jesus' resurrection, he appeared and spoke to several of his faithful apostles on different occasions before he returned to heaven. Why is it that Jesus made no mention to any of his apostles--after his resurrection--that he went to hell where he burned for three days?

7. When people are being tortured in hellfire, wouldn't they have to KNOW or be conscious/aware of the fact that they are being burned? I mean to say, what's the point of punishing people in hell if they aren't even aware?

8. Those who believe in eternal torment say that the person's soul is being burned forever. What is the soul? Is it something separate from the person's body? Are animals souls also or is this only for humans?

Run_to_da_hills

Hell is very much reallity according to scripture and it was a place not intended for mankind and it was not something that was invented by the Catholic Church.

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the Devil and his angels. (Matthew 25:41).

God never intended for one single person to end up in Hell. It is NOT God’s will that anyone should perish in their sins and go to Hell “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that ALL should come to REPENTANCE” (2nd Peter 3:9).

It is NOT God’s fault if men and women are stubborn and unwilling to REPENT of their unbelief. Hell was NOT created for human beings but rather for Satan and his horde of demons. We are ALL without excuse for the wrong decisions we make in life we CANNOT blame God.

Also purgatory dose not exist as there is nowhere in Scripture to say that one will have to undergo "purification" after death. There is no detour to heaven, you are either hot or cold you decide in this life whether to take the broad and wide road to hell or the straight and narrow to salvation. ...Its Your Choice.

"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgement." -Heb. 9:27

JimiTime

I don't believe so anyway. Fire throughout scripture was metephorically used for two things, 1) Tempering, and 2) Destruction. So the fire of 'hell', is a metephor for total destruction, and everlasting destruction i.e. and unquenchable fire. Sure we are told as much in Revelation when john actually tells us what 'the lake of fire' literally means. he actually categorically says it more than once that it is, 'The second death from which there is no resurrection'. In all honesty though, apart from Roman Catholics and those kinds of dogmatic religions, most Christians are fairly guessy and clueless with regards to what hell is. I suppose they see the important thing being that, whatever it is, we should be following Christ, thus avoiding it anyway.

Benny_Cake

Alter2Ego, I've a degree of sympathy with the annihilationist position in that it seems to me to be more merciful than eternal conscious torment. But your post looks like it was copied and pasted from a copy of the Watchtower or Awake - I assume you are a Jehovahs Witness?

Zombrex

Alter2Ego wrote: »

This teaching defames the Creator and portrays him as a sadist who tortures people in flames of fire for all eternity—as punishment for wrongdoing committed during the relatively brief human lifespan.

Yup. Pretty good reason to reject Christianity as nonsense, don't ya think?

Alter2Ego wrote: »

The hellfire dogma was brought into Christianity by the Roman Catholics who copied it from pagan religions. (Pagans are those who do not worship the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible.)

Nope, it comes from the Gospels.

Matthew 18:9
New International Version (NIV)
9 And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

Matthew 5:22
New International Version (NIV)
22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister[a] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[c] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Mark 9:47-50
New International Version (NIV)
47 And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48 where
“‘the worms that eat them do not die,
and the fire is not quenched.’

49 Everyone will be salted with fire.

Matthew 25:41
New International Version (NIV)
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

Matthew 25:46
New International Version (NIV)
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Alter2Ego

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Alter2Ego, I've a degree of sympathy with the annihilationist position in that it seems to me to be more merciful than eternal conscious torment. But your post looks like it was copied and pasted from a copy of the Watchtower or Awake - I assume you are a Jehovahs Witness?

Everything in my original post is mine and mine alone. You will notice that I listed scriptures that can be found in any Bible. So that's not me saying it, nor is it Jehovah's Witnesses saying it. That's God saying it.

Alter2Ego

JimiTime wrote: »

I don't believe so anyway. Fire throughout scripture was metephorically used for two things, 1) Tempering, and 2) Destruction. So the fire of 'hell', is a metephor for total destruction, and everlasting destruction i.e. and unquenchable fire. Sure we are told as much in Revelation when john actually tells us what 'the lake of fire' literally means. he actually categorically says it more than once that it is, 'The second death from which there is no resurrection'. In all honesty though, apart from Roman Catholics and those kinds of dogmatic religions, most Christians are fairly guessy and clueless with regards to what hell is. I suppose they see the important thing being that, whatever it is, we should be following Christ, thus avoiding it anyway.

That's it exactly. The only time God used fire literally in the Bible was in the matter of Sodom and Gomorrah, as I recall. And whenever fire is used literally in the Bible, it's to kill people immediately. It's not to burn them for eternity after they are already dead.

Alter2Ego

Zombrex wrote: »

Alter2Ego wrote: »

This teaching defames the Creator and portrays him as a sadist who tortures people in flames of fire for all eternity—as punishment for wrongdoing committed during the relatively brief human lifespan.

Yup. Pretty good reason to reject Christianity as nonsense, don't ya think?

ALTER2EGO -to- ZOMBREX:
I am a Christian, and my position is that the Bible does not support the hellfire dogma. You are blaming people with their false teachings and condemning all of Christianity as a result.

Zombrex wrote: »

Alter2Ego wrote: »

The hellfire dogma was brought into Christianity by the Roman Catholics who copied it from pagan religions. (Pagans are those who do not worship the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible.)

Nope, it comes from the Gospels.

Matthew 18:9
New International Version (NIV)
9 And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

Mark 9:47-50
New International Version (NIV)
47 And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48 where
“‘the worms that eat them do not die,
and the fire is not quenched.’

49 Everyone will be salted with fire.

All of the scriptures you quoted are using symbolic language--meaning none of it is literal. You are ignoring the context (the surrounding words, verses, or chapters) and instead you are selecting only the words that line up with your own preconceived ideas. Take, for example, the following scriptures.

"if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away." (Matthew 18:9)

"And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out." (Mark 9:47)

Now, tell me, who in his or her right mind would pluck out his literal eye? Everyone knows that the literal eye is very important and to lose it would be a terrible blow. So those scriptures are telling us that we have to make big sacrifices in order to not have anything interfere with our relationship with God.

Since common sense tells us that Jesus would not be telling people to pluck out their literal eye, if "plucking out the eye" is not literal, it follows that the other words in the same verse of scripture are also not literal. They are symbolic of something else.

Whenever "fire" is used in the Bible in a symbolic way, it is with reference to (1) cleansing or (2) permanent destruction or permanent death.

Zombrex

Alter2Ego wrote: »

I am a Christian, and my position is that the Bible does not support the hellfire dogma.

That position seems nothing more than wishful thinging, ignoring the bad bits of the Bible because they are troublesome to accepting the good bits of the Bible.

What next? God didn't order genocide in the Old Testament?

Alter2Ego wrote: »

You are blaming people with their false teachings and condemning all of Christianity as a result.[/SIZE][/COLOR]

I'm blaming the New Testament. If you are a Christian who doesn't accept the Gospels fair enough, though I would wonder if "Christian" is the correct term to use to identify yourself.

Alter2Ego wrote: »

All of the scriptures you quoted are using symbolic language--meaning none of it is literal.

They all describe the punishment as eternal suffering. How literal the fire is (I doubt it is actually meant to be understood as a chemical reaction between oxygen and a fuel) doesn't change that. The message is startling clear given how many times it is repeated, those who choose to accept Jesus will have eternal life in heaven those who reject the offer will face eternal punishment. There is nothing to suggest what happens to them is that they are destroyed.

Alter2Ego wrote: »

Now, tell me, who in his or her right mind would pluck out his literal eye? Everyone knows that the literal eye is very important and to lose it would be a terrible blow. So those scriptures are telling us that we have to make big sacrifices in order to not have anything interfere with our relationship with God.

Since common sense tells us that Jesus would not be telling people to pluck out their literal eye, if "plucking out the eye" is not literal, it follows that the other words in the same verse of scripture are also not literal. They are symbolic of something else.

Yes, the lake of fire is symbolic of eternal suffering. The symbolic bit is the lake of fire, not the eternal suffering bit. I very much doubt the authors if the gospels believe there was an actual physical lake some where that was all on fire. That isn't the point of the story, the point of the story is to highlight that the suffering in hell is eternal, just as life in heaven is eternal. I know this because it actually says it in the Bible itself.

Matthew 25:46
New International Version (NIV)
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Alter2Ego wrote: »

Whenever "fire" is used in the Bible in a symbolic way, it is with reference to cleansing or permanent destruction or permanent death.

That is not true. It is used throughout the New Testament to refer to eternal suffering, as I've show in the likes above.

You can ignore this if you wish, heck its up to you what to believe. But it is rather ridiculous to argue that this isn't what the New Testament refers to just because you personally find it distasteful.

If you read something that you don't accept or believe then don't believe in it. Trying to re-interpret the thing to get to the answer you want is nuts.

Alter2Ego

Zombrex wrote: »

Alter2Ego wrote: »

The hellfire dogma was brought into Christianity by the Roman Catholics who copied it from pagan religions. (Pagans are those who do not worship the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible.)

Nope, it comes from the Gospels.

Matthew 5:22
New International Version (NIV)
22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister[a] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[c] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Matthew 25:41
New International Version (NIV)
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

Matthew 25:46
New International Version (NIV)
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

ALTER2EGO -to- ZOMBREX:

As a reminder, whenever "fire" is used in the Bible symbolically, it means either (1) cleansing or (2) permanent death or permanent destruction. Accordingly, the scripture at Matthew 5:22 is giving a warning that certain spoken words can cause a person to wind up with permanent death from which there is no resurrection.

The verses of scriptures you are quoting from Matthew 25:41 and 46 suffer from the same flaw that you previously demonstrated when you quoted the scriptures about "plucking out the eye." Specifically, you ignored the context--the surrounding words, verses, or chapters that give the correct meaning to individual verses.


With reference to the scripture at Matthew 25:41 and 46 that you quoted above, this is not literal. It's part of an illustration aka a parable in which Jesus uses fire to signify total and permanent destruction. Look at the context where you're taking this quotation from.

In the very first 12 verses of Mathew chapter 25, Jesus spends the entire 12 verses giving an illustration in which he compares the kingdom of the heavens to ten virgins.

I will quote the beginning of the illustration for the benefit of others reading this post. To read the entire illustration, you'll have to read all the way through to verse 12 in your own Bible.

JESUS GIVES ILLUSTRATION #1:
"Then the kingdom of the heavens will become like ten virgins that took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom." (Matthew 25:1)


Jesus used up the first 12 verses giving this illustration, and then he issued a warning at verse 13 that we must be on the watch as we don't know when Christ will return.

Now we're up to verse 14 where he now presents another illustration, which continues all the way through to verse 30. In this new illustration, Jesus compares the kingdom of the heavens to A MAN travelling abroad. I will quote verse 14 here, and you can read the rest of the illustration in your spare time, which continues all the way through to verse 30.

JESUS GIVES ILLUSTRATION #2:
"For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods," (Matthew 25:14)

As soon as Jesus finished this illustration about the man travelling abroad at verse 30, guess what happens? He begins another illustration at verse 32. This time, he uses himself in the illustration, which runs from verses 32-41. In this latest illustration, he is now separating the sheep from the goats.

Zombrex, surely you don't think Jesus was talking about literal sheep and goats? Look at what he said to the "sheep" at verses 35-36 after he placed them to his right, and I ask that you keep your eyes on the words that are in bold print:

JESUS GIVES ILLUSTRATION #3:
"{35} For I became hungry and you gave me something to eat; I got thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you received me hospitably; {36} naked, and you clothed me. I fell sick and you looked after me. I was in prison and you came to me." (Matthew 25:35-36)

Zombrex, Jesus would not have been talking to literal sheep. But think about this: up until the time Jesus gave this illustration, when was he ever hungry, thirsty, a stranger, naked, sick, or in prison? Never! It was not until days later that he was arrested and crucified.

Since Jesus wasn't talking to literal sheep and he never was hungry, thirsty, naked, etc., all of this is just another illustration, including verses 41 and 46 about certain ones being cast into everlasting fire--which is part of the very same "sheep and the goats" illustration.

Since these are all part of a SERIES OF ILLUSTRATIONS, and are not literal, the everlasting fire likewise is not literal. Fire is used in the Bible to symbolize permanent destruction.

Zombrex

Alter2Ego wrote: »

As a reminder, whenever "fire" is used in the Bible symbolically, it means either (1) cleansing or (2) permanent death or permanent destruction. Accordingly, the scripture at Matthew 5:22 is giving a warning that certain spoken words can cause a person to wind up with permanent death from which there is no resurrection.

Eternal suffering in hell would involve no resurrection.

Alter2Ego wrote: »

The verses of scriptures you are quoting from Matthew 25:41 and 46 suffer from the same flaw that you previously demonstrated when you quoted the scriptures about "plucking out the eye." Specifically, you ignored the context--the surrounding words, verses, or chapters that give the correct meaning to individual verses. With reference to the scripture at Matthew 25:41 and 46 that you quoted above, this is not literal. It's part of an illustration aka a parable in which Jesus uses fire to signify total and permanent destruction.

No, he uses fire to signify eternal suffering. There is nothing about permanent destruction in those passages. Notice the everlasting bit. Constantly and consistently the punishment is referred to as eternal.

Equating everlasting fire with eternal punishment makes sense. Equating everlasting fire with a once off destruction event doesn't. You talk about context and then completely ignore what is actually written in the Bible.

What next, everlasting life in heaven really means you are destroyed once in a state of happiness?

Alter2Ego wrote: »

Zombrex, surely you don't think Jesus was talking about literal sheep and goats?

Of course not. I don't think he is talking about a literal lake of fire either. It is a metaphor for the eternal suffering one is supposed to face in hell.

Just like there isn't literally a city in heaven. That again is a metaphor. That doesn't mean heaven isn't eternal, any more than it means hell isn't eternal.

You are inserting into the gospels notions that are not present, simply because you find what is present distasteful.

Alter2Ego

Zombrex wrote: »

Alter2Ego wrote: »

I am a Christian, and my position is that the Bible does not support the hellfire dogma.

That position seems nothing more than wishful thinging, ignoring the bad bits of the Bible because they are troublesome to accepting the good bits of the Bible.

ALTER2EGO –to- ZOMBREX:
Wishful thinking? Hardly. I accept the entire Bible (the Old Testament and the New Testament) as the inspired Word of God--including the "troublesome" parts that seem to be an issue with Bible critics and unbelievers.

Zombrex wrote: »

Alter2Ego wrote: »

You are blaming people with their false teachings and condemning all of Christianity as a result.

I'm blaming the New Testament. If you are a Christian who doesn't accept the Gospels fair enough, though I would wonder if "Christian" is the correct term to use to identify yourself.

ALTER2EGO –to- ZOMBREX:
The New Testament does not teach literal hellfire. All of the scriptures you gave me in your last post as examples of eternal hellfire were taken from parables/illustrations that Jesus was using. You quoted Jesus Christ in each and every instance. Concerning Jesus' method of teaching, the Bible says:

"All these thing Jesus spoke to the crowds BY ILLUSTRATIONS [parables]. Indeed, without an illustration he would not speak to them;... " (Matthew 13:34)


Those verses of scriptures you are relying on are symbolic for permanent death. They were not with reference to burning dead people for all eternity. Most people who believe hellfire fail to realize that the gospel accounts in which Jesus is speaking are parables. They are never about literal hellfire. But because people have been taught hellfire since childhood, they ignore the context within which the verses of scriptures appear. The context makes it abundantly clear that these were parables/illustrations.

Alter2Ego

Zombrex wrote: »

What next? God didn't order genocide in the Old Testament?

ALTER2EGO –to- ZOMBREX:

This thread is about hellfire: dealing with the injustice of burning people for all eternity for short-term sins. It's not about instances of genocide in the Old Testament. But since you want to go there, let's do that. I posted my answer to this issue in my thread entitled: "THE BIBLE: God's Word or Man's?"

Zombrex

Alter2Ego wrote: »

The New Testament does not teach literal hellfire. All of the scriptures you gave me in your last post as examples of eternal hellfire were taken from parables/illustrations that Jesus was using.

I'm not sure if you are purposefully not listening or what.

The "fire" isn't the literal or even important bit. The eternal suffering bit is. The Bible does not teach literal fire. It does teach literal eternal suffering. The fire is a metaphor for the suffering. Constantly pointing out that Jesus is using metaphor is pointless, I know he is. The fire is the metaphor, it s a metaphor of the suffering. I don't think anyone thinks the authors meant to imply an actual lake of fire and sulphur.

No where in these passage does the idea that what actually happens is destruction and oblivion make any contextual sense. That is not eternal torment, it is not ever lasting suffering, it is not eternal punishment.

It is purely wishful thinking on the part of those who do not believe that a loving God would sentence people to eternal suffering as a punishment.

You really need to stop telling me what I already know, that these are metaphorical passages, and start listening to what I'm telling you, that the fire is the metaphor for the suffering.

Otherwise we are just going around and around in circles.

Alter2Ego

Zombrex wrote: »

Alter2Ego wrote: »

As a reminder, whenever "fire" is used in the Bible symbolically, it means either (1) cleansing or (2) permanent death or permanent destruction. Accordingly, the scripture at Matthew 5:22 is giving a warning that certain spoken words can cause a person to wind up with permanent death from which there is no resurrection.

Eternal suffering in hell would involve no resurrection.

ALTER2EGO –to- ZOMBREX:
So according to your logic, God will make the person suffer for all eternity without bringing them to? So let me ask you this: How is someone supposed to suffer for all eternity--as punishment--if the person is not aware of it?

Zombrex wrote: »

You are inserting into the gospels notions that are not present, simply because you find what is present distasteful.

ALTER2EGO –to- ZOMBREX:
And you are applying literal meaning to the symbolic language that is nested within parables.

Do you understand what's meant by the words "illustration" or "parable"? Do you understand that an illustration or parable is not a literal event? The parts of the parable that are not literal would use language that is symbolic.

For the last time, whenever the Bible uses fire symbolically, it is with reference to (1) cleansing or (2) permanent death or permanent destruction. The fact that Jesus was speaking in illustrations is the red flag that hellfire is not literal. The fact that the Bible at Acts says Jesus himself went to hell for three days--as righteous and as sinless as he was--provides the logic that hell is nothing more than mankind's common grave.

"{21} In fact, to this course you were called, because even Christ suffered for you, leaving you a model for you to follow his steps closely. {22} He committed no sin, nor was deception found in his mouth." (1 Peter 2:21-22)

"He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that HIS SOUL WAS NOT LEFT IN HELL, neither his flesh did see corruption."
(Acts 2:31--King James Version)


Since hell is mankind's grave and "fire" symbolizes permanent death, the eternal torment being spoken of is symbolic for permanent death--no resurrection from the grave.


Think of this: In the real world, a house that gets damaged in an earthquake can be repaired. When a house burns down in a fire, it is gone. Fire completely destroys.

In the real world, if a person gets in a car accident, the person can be patched up. If a person gets burned in a fire, that person's skin that was burned is permanently destroy and requires skin grafting and surgery after surgery because the skin can no long stretch--it's permanently destroyed.


This is the reason why the Bible uses "fire" symbolically, because it's something we can all relate to in the real world as a means of permanent destruction.

And then there's the matter of making the person suffer for eternity without first bringing the person back to life. You just got though arguing that the person won't be resurrected. So how do you expect the person to be literally suffering for eternity if the person stays dead?

Zombrex

Alter2Ego wrote: »

So according to your logic, God will make the person suffer for all eternity without bringing them to? So let me ask you this: How is someone supposed to suffer for all eternity--as punishment--if the person is not aware of it?

Who says they aren't aware of it?

Alter2Ego wrote: »

And you are applying literal meaning to the symbolic language that is nested within parables.

No I'm not. If I was I would say there is literally a lake of fire.

Alter2Ego wrote: »

Do you understand what's meant by the words "illustration" or "parable"? Do you understand that an illustration or parable is not a literal event?

Do you understand that the lake of fire is not meant to be taken as a literally a lake of fire. That would require it was made of water, and had I don't know Earth around it, and it was set in some mountains etc.

That is the metaphor, the lake of fire bit. I'm at a loss as to why that point has to be constantly explained to you.

Alter2Ego wrote: »

For the last time, whenever the Bible uses fire symbolically, it is with reference to (1) cleansing or (2) permanent death or permanent destruction.

That is such a silly argument. The whole New Testament is full of examples where that isn't true.

Its like saying Jesus can't be the son of God, sure Jesus is never mentioned in the Old Testament :rolleyes:

Alter2Ego wrote: »

The fact that Jesus was speaking in illustrations is the red flag that hellfire is not literal. The fact that the Bible at Acts says Jesus himself went to hell for three days--as righteous and as sinless as he was--provides the logic that hell is nothing more than mankind's common grave.

So Jesus was permanently annihilated for 3 days was he :rolleyes:

Alter2Ego wrote: »

Since hell is mankind's grave and "fire" symbolizes permanent death, the eternal torment being spoken of is symbolic for permanent death--no resurrection from the grave.

You cannot suffer torment if you don't exist. If as you say people are annihilated in hell there is no torment or suffering, and thus no punishment. They simply cease to exist.

Alter2Ego wrote: »

Think of this: In the real world, a house that gets damaged in an earthquake can be repaired.When a house burns down in a fire, it is gone. Fire completely destroys.

There isn't literally a fire. The fire represents the suffering those in hell face.

the worms that eat them do not die,
and the fire is not quenched

The fire symbolically represents the pain people in hell continuously suffer.

Alter2Ego wrote: »

This is the reason why the Bible uses "fire" symbolically, because it's something we can all relate to in the real world as a means of permanent destruction.

No it is something we all relate to in terms of suffering. Everyone knows what it feels like to burn. Now imagine always feeling like that.

It does not feel like being on fire to simply die and rot away.

Alter2Ego wrote: »

And then there's the matter of making the person suffer for eternity without first bringing the person back to life. You just got though arguing that the person won't be resurrected. So how do you expect the person to be literally suffering for eternity if the person stays dead?

You are ignoring the entire Jewish context that the New Testament is based upon.

Death in Judaism is not ceasing to exist. Jesus would not have had to explain to the people he was preaching too that people were being brought back to life to continue on either in hell or heaven. Death was descending into sheol. It was a given that you went there. No one believed that when you died you simply ceased to exist. What Christianity added was a firm notion of judgement and two outcomes, eternal punishment in hell or eternal happiness in heaven.

Doc Farrell

Do either of you have a particularly strong view on the eternal/aeon translation debate?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeon

Or the Gehenna/ hell debate for that matter?

Btw Zombrex, I'm firmly convinced that you are a Jesuit in a very good disguise!

ISAW

Alter2Ego wrote: »

That's it exactly. The only time God used fire literally in the Bible was in the matter of Sodom and Gomorrah, as I recall. And whenever fire is used literally in the Bible, it's to kill people immediately. It's not to burn them for eternity after they are already dead.

Of the top of my head

God identifies himself to Moses as "I am" when he speaks from a bush of fire. Nobody immediately killed.

Before Moses leads them across the red sea the Egyptian Army come to get the Hebrews. the Army are held back by a wall of fire. None of them are killed . Indeed it lasts for the night and the Israelites sneak out in the meantime. The Pharaohs army then pursue the Red sea Pedestrians but not before the fire which does not kill them is removed. They in fact are later killed by drowning and not burning.

Run_to_da_hills

Hell fire and 100 % scriptural.

PDN

Mod Direction
Alter-Ego, instead of creating or spamming multiple threads propagating Jehovah's Witness teachings, can you please create a new thread to discuss JW teachings and confine that stuff to there.
This forum is for the discussion of Christianity in general, and it is not reasonable to expect that discussion of the doctrines of a small heterodox group should dominate the board.