Does Hell Exist?

[Data]

The question for debate is does hell exist? If so, what does the Bible teach hell is?

[onewithhim]

You and myth have done exactly that---cherry-picked verses,

I don't know about myth, I wasn't paying attention to what they wrote. I was more interested in the commenter asserting that a particular theological viewpoint was biblical, but insisting that some verses don't mean what they say. Since I believe that all of the authors meant what they wrote and I'm not hamstrung by the notion that they somehow have to fit together like misshapen puzzle pieces, you can hardly claim that I'm cherry-picking. I might be wrong for some other reason, but I accept that every Bible verse is just as valid in its own context as any other.

and not paying attention to the explanations of those verses,

I definitely paid attention to them. Explaining why they're wrong is pretty much the opposite of ignoring them. You can have whatever theology you want, but you can't discard parts of the Bible and still believably call it biblical.

which make sense entirely.

I don't see it. Perhaps you could make sense for me of what 2timothy316 didn't?

To refresh your memory, Revelation 14:9-10 says that anyone worshipping the beast will be tormented in fire and brimstone. Taken out of context, one might claim that such torment has an end, but verse 11 first says that the smoke from their torment is eternal, then says that those being tormented will never have rest from the torment. Then, as though it were anticipating faulty Witness theology, it reiterates that those being eternally tormented are those that worship the beast and receive his mark.

Now, perhaps you can make sense of your theology that must treate Revelation 14:9-11 as though it doesn't say what it says, yet purports to be biblical.

I guess you think the beast that comes out of the sea is literal. And locusts with women's hair and lion's teeth.

Rev.14:9-10 speaks symbolically of those that worship the beast will be obliterated forever. They aren't in flames, apparently, but the smoke is rising forever. It shows that they will be dead forever. "Torment" is not actual torture. It means that those beast worshippers will not be able to function any more, because they will be totally annihilated.

And why do you attack us JWs rather than proving your point with scriptural examples? All you do is speak badly of us and our beliefs.

[Difflugia]

I guess you think the beast that comes out of the sea is literal. And locusts with women's hair and lion's teeth.

That's your response? I already said I didn't. Rather than turning my argument into a straw man, I'm expecting you to actually engage with it.

You're trying to imply that as literal beasts rising out of the sea and literal locusts with monstrous qualities are ridiculous, so supernatural torture is ridiculous, too. The glaring problem with that is that supernatural destruction is just as ridiculous as supernatural torture.

Do you think that Jesus, the angels, and the devil are literal? I expect that you do. Well, then, "I guess you think the beast that comes out of the sea is literal. And locusts with women's hair and lion's teeth."

If you have some sort of evidence that the author of Revelation agrees with you, I'd love to see it. I expect that you're just going to keep asserting it without justification, though. I hope I'm wrong.

Rev.14:9-10 speaks symbolically of those that worship the beast will be obliterated forever. They aren't in flames, apparently, but the smoke is rising forever. It shows that they will be dead forever. "Torment" is not actual torture. It means that those beast worshippers will not be able to function any more, because they will be totally annihilated.

Oh, well.

And why do you attack us JWs

Telling you why you're wrong in the context of voluntary debate is an attack? Instead of making such an emotional appeal, perhaps you'd instead explain how you decide which verses are authoritative and which aren't, which is what our conversation is actually about.

[Difflugia]

I have not seen you use the Bible to refute any of what is posted on this thread.

Are you joking? Our entire exchange has been about specific Bible verses. In fact, I began the discussion by using Revelation 14 to refute your assertion that eternal torment isn't biblical.

I'm not sure you have even read everything on this thread.

I'm guessing that says more about you than it does me.

For example: Don’t be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Rather, fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.
Matt. 10:28

The term destroy means in Webster's definition: to put out of existence.

Yes. And I'm sure that Webster's definitions of "forever" and "torment" are equally interesting. What would be even more interesting is if you would tell us how you decide which verses are authoritative and which aren't when deciding between destruction and torment.

You say you read the Bible for what it says.

I do say that.

Do you do that here with Matt 10:28?

Yes.

Or must we not take Matthew 10:28 at 'face value'?

Why wouldn't I? As I said, I haven't limited myself to believing that all of the biblical authors share a single, narrow theology. Matthew wrote what Matthew wrote and I believe that he wanted to be understood. The Revelator wrote what the Revelator wrote and I believe that he wanted to be understood. If there's a conflict between them, that conflict is biblical by virtue of being in the Bible. If I believed a god had anything to do with the Bible, I'd have to believe that God wanted me to understand what both Matthew and the Revelator had to say.

[2timothy316]

Why wouldn't I? As I said, I haven't limited myself to believing that all of the biblical authors share a single, narrow theology.

There it is, the real issue.

Who really is the author of the Bible in your opinion? Men writing down their own theology or men writing down what Jehovah God told them to write through His Son Christ Jesus?

In the book of Matthew, Jesus is being quoted as to what happens to the wicked, destruction. In Revelation 1:1, John says it was Jesus who told him what to write. Are you saying that Jesus told them two totally different things as to the final judgement on the wicked? Does Jesus have two different theologies himself? Or do you think one or both Bible writers is making up his own theology?

Explain as to why I should think that two men VERY close to Jesus, speaking with him for years, would have two different theologies.

[Difflugia]

Why wouldn't I? As I said, I haven't limited myself to believing that all of the biblical authors share a single, narrow theology.

There it is, the real issue.

Yes. That's what I said when we started. I'm glad you're keeping up.

Who really is the author of the Bible in your opinion?

A whole host of people that have tried to make sense of the world they live in through the lens of religious tradition.

Men writing down their own theology or men writing down what Jehovah God told them to write through His Son Christ Jesus?

People writing down their own theologies. Jehovah's not real.

In the book of Matthew, Jesus is being quoted as to what happens to the wicked, destruction. In Revelation 1:1, John says it was Jesus who told him what to write. Are you saying that Jesus told them two totally different things as to the final judgement on the wicked?

No. They each shaped the words of Jesus to reflect their own theology.

Does Jesus have two different theologies himself?

Probably not. Unfortunately, we can only guess at what Jesus' theology was (or theologies were), assuming there was a real Jesus. The number of conflicting "historical Jesus" studies show just how little concrete information we have.

Or do you think one or both Bible writers is making up his own theology?

Yes.

Explain as to why I should think that two men VERY close to Jesus, speaking with him for years, would have two different theologies.

Explain why you think that two men with such different theologies were ever actually in the presence of Jesus. Remember that there's no scriptural reason to think that any of the Gospel authors were ever in the presence of Jesus, knew him personally, or heard any of his words firsthand.

[2timothy316]

Explain as to why I should think that two men VERY close to Jesus, speaking with him for years, would have two different theologies.

Explain why you think that two men with such different theologies were ever actually in the presence of Jesus. Remember that there's no scriptural reason to think that any of the Gospel authors were ever in the presence of Jesus, knew him personally, or heard any of his words firsthand.

Here is another problem.

Whether or not if they heard Jesus speak isn't up for debate on this board. If Matthew and John said they heard something from Jesus then wrote it down, in this forum is accepted as true. I don't have to prove the what is written in the Bible as true.

"Responses to topics with "but first you have to prove that the Bible is true" is not allowed here." viewtopic.php?t=3168
"A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John." Rev 1:1
If you don't accept this as true, you're in the wrong place. This scripture if it is true or not isn't up for debate according to the rules of this forum.

Perhaps you'd like to debate in another forum where this rule doesn't apply and anything goes. I come here to use the Bible to debate theology, doctrine and dogma and not if what is written in the Bible is true or not. I like to debate with people that are past novice discussions, where people are accountable to proving something from the Bible. If you can't do that then and your best reply is, 'prove what the Bible writers wrote is true' then I have nothing more to say to you.

[Difflugia]

Whether or not if they heard Jesus speak isn't up for debate on this board. If Matthew and John said they heard something from Jesus then wrote it down, in this forum is accepted as true. I don't have to prove the what is written in the Bible as true.

I'm not saying that's an issue. You asked me what I thought, but it has nothing to do with my argument. I already said that for the purposes of this discussion that both verses are authoritative.

"Responses to topics with "but first you have to prove that the Bible is true" is not allowed here." viewtopic.php?t=3168
"A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John." Rev 1:1
If you don't accept this as true, you're in the wrong place. This scripture if it is true or not isn't up for debate according to the rules of this forum.

I haven't asked to you "prove the Bible is true." I'm accepting for this discussion that it is. You're the one telling me that when the Bible asserts eternal torture, that it's not true.

Perhaps you'd like to debate in another forum where this rule doesn't apply and anything goes. I come here to use the Bible to debate theology, doctrine and dogma and not if what is written in the Bible is true or not. I like to debate with people that are past novice discussions, where people are accountable to proving something from the Bible.

As much as you seem to want to wriggle out of answering, we're debating in this one and I'm following the rules.

If you can't do that then and your best reply is, 'prove what the Bible writers wrote is true' then I have nothing more to say to you.

To the contrary, I'm asking you to prove that the Bible's not true, as you seem to assert.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #67]

You said, "Remember that there's no scriptural reason to think that any of the Gospel authors were ever in the presence of Jesus, knew him personally, or heard any of his words firsthand. "

"Next, while moving on from there, Jesus caught sight of a man named Matthew sitting at the tax office, and he said to him: “Be my follower.” At that he rose up and followed him." Matthew 9:9-13

Looky there, there's a scripture. Thus what you said is false.
Since you can't carry on a debate on topic, you're on my ignore list. Don't bother replying as I will not see it.

[Difflugia]

Looky there, there's a scripture. Thus what you said is false.

Only if you believe the unbiblical religious tradition that Matthew wrote "Matthew." We don't actually know, scripturally or otherwise, who wrote the Gospels. That's true no matter how authoritative the Bible is.

Since you can't carry on a debate on topic, you're on my ignore list. Don't bother replying as I will not see it.

That's too bad. I enjoy teaching people about the Bible.

[onewithhim]

Looky there, there's a scripture. Thus what you said is false.

Only if you believe the unbiblical religious tradition that Matthew wrote "Matthew." We don't actually know, scripturally or otherwise, who wrote the Gospels. That's true no matter how authoritative the Bible is.

Since you can't carry on a debate on topic, you're on my ignore list. Don't bother replying as I will not see it.

That's too bad. I enjoy teaching people about the Bible.

You are once again trying to show that the Bible is untrue. I think it was well asserted that this forum is not the place to speculate concerning the Bible's truthfulness, whether or not it is factual. We take the Bible as it is written, also including its symbolism as well as its being literal. I hope other people will look beyond your untoward "teaching" and find the truth elsewhere.