Does Hell Exist?

[Data]

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

[2timothy316]

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.

"Criticism of sources, authorship, or redaction with the intent to discredit the authority of the canon are more appropriate for the Christianity and Apologetics subforum." viewtopic.php?t=11496
Difflugia is posting in the wrong forum with their debate. They have been told by the monitor of this forum in other threads but refuse to abide to the rules. Which is why they are now on my ignore list. If I wanted to debate the authorship of the Bible then I'd go to that forum. I come to this one so I don't have to deal with kiddie pool debates.

[Difflugia]

You are once again trying to show that the Bible is untrue.

Which verses have I treated as untrue? The debate here is theological with the understanding that the Bible is authoritative and I've been treating it as such.

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.

Which is exactly what I've been trying to convince you.

We take the Bible as it is written, also including its symbolism as well as its being literal.

Except you haven't. This conversation started when 2timothy316 asserted that eternal torture is unbiblical and the result of religious tradition. I provided scriptural references demonstrating that his or her statement is untrue. Neither of you has effectively countered my response, but you have both instead tried to assert your positions without support, scriptural or otherwise. When I pointed that out, you presented numerous excuses in an attempt to pretend I'm somehow cheating in the debate.

I hope other people will look beyond your untoward "teaching" and find the truth elsewhere.

And now you're resorting to insults. Have you nothing else?

[Difflugia]

"Criticism of sources, authorship, or redaction with the intent to discredit the authority of the canon are more appropriate for the Christianity and Apologetics subforum."

Difflugia is posting in the wrong forum with their debate.

When as part of this debate have I questioned the authority of the canon? I've persisted in trying to have a debate with you based on scripture with the assumption that the Bible is authoritative, which is exactly appropriate for this forum. When I pointed out that your responses were based on religious tradition instead of the Bible, you began to deflect from your lack of scriptural support for your position.

They have been told by the monitor of this forum in other threads but refuse to abide to the rules. Which is why they are now on my ignore list.

You could just engage with the subject of the debate. Alternatively, you could admit that you have no effective scriptural counter to my claims and move on.

If I wanted to debate the authorship of the Bible then I'd go to that forum.

Nobody's asked you to. That was part of an off-topic conversation that you started yourself. I'm happy shifting to another subject if you find this one too difficult, but starting off-topic debates with me and then complaining that they're off-topic is a bit hypocritical.

I come to this one so I don't have to deal with kiddie pool debates.

I tried to pull you into the deep end, but you have to let go of the human traditions that keep you tethered to the shallows.

[onewithhim]

You are once again trying to show that the Bible is untrue.

Which verses have I treated as untrue? The debate here is theological with the understanding that the Bible is authoritative and I've been treating it as such.

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.

Which is exactly what I've been trying to convince you.

We take the Bible as it is written, also including its symbolism as well as its being literal.

Except you haven't. This conversation started when 2timothy316 asserted that eternal torture is unbiblical and the result of religious tradition. I provided scriptural references demonstrating that his or her statement is untrue. Neither of you has effectively countered my response, but you have both instead tried to assert your positions without support, scriptural or otherwise. When I pointed that out, you presented numerous excuses in an attempt to pretend I'm somehow cheating in the debate.

I hope other people will look beyond your untoward "teaching" and find the truth elsewhere.

And now you're resorting to insults. Have you nothing else?

You have not supported your teaching with anything scriptural, and I'm not insulting any more than you have yourself. We have shown your opinions to be lacking in truth, and we have not declined to show the truth from the Bible.

[onewithhim]

"Criticism of sources, authorship, or redaction with the intent to discredit the authority of the canon are more appropriate for the Christianity and Apologetics subforum."

Difflugia is posting in the wrong forum with their debate.

When as part of this debate have I questioned the authority of the canon? I've persisted in trying to have a debate with you based on scripture with the assumption that the Bible is authoritative, which is exactly appropriate for this forum. When I pointed out that your responses were based on religious tradition instead of the Bible, you began to deflect from your lack of scriptural support for your position.

They have been told by the monitor of this forum in other threads but refuse to abide to the rules. Which is why they are now on my ignore list.

You could just engage with the subject of the debate. Alternatively, you could admit that you have no effective scriptural counter to my claims and move on.

If I wanted to debate the authorship of the Bible then I'd go to that forum.

Nobody's asked you to. That was part of an off-topic conversation that you started yourself. I'm happy shifting to another subject if you find this one too difficult, but starting off-topic debates with me and then complaining that they're off-topic is a bit hypocritical.

I come to this one so I don't have to deal with kiddie pool debates.

I tried to pull you into the deep end, but you have to let go of the human traditions that keep you tethered to the shallows.

We JWs have eschewed human tradition and rely totally on what the Bible actually teaches. Something you have failed to do.

[LittleNipper]

Revelations 20 most assuredly proves that HELL exists:

1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to LittleNipper in post #76]

No, Revelation 20 doesn't prove that a fiery hell exists. Most of Revelation is SYMBOLIC, and the verses you posted are no different. The lake of fire is allegorical for COMPLETE DESTRUCTION, just as what fire does to anything---it makes it non-existent. Put a piece of paper in a flame and what happens to it? That is what Jesus was telling us, that wicked people who are "cast into the lake of fire" will be annihilated. They have no consciousness ("the dead are conscious of nothing"...Ecclesiastes 9:5) and they really are dead. Not alive somewhere undergoing excruciating pain forever.

And how can you throw hell and death into something? You can't, can you? Throwing them into the lake of fire means that there is no more death, no more grave. The same with the Devil and his minions. They are no more. They will be completely obliterated.

[TheRootOfDavid]

[Replying to LittleNipper in post #76]

No, Revelation 20 doesn't prove that a fiery hell exists. Most of Revelation is SYMBOLIC, and the verses you posted are no different. The lake of fire is allegorical for COMPLETE DESTRUCTION, just as what fire does to anything---it makes it non-existent. Put a piece of paper in a flame and what happens to it? That is what Jesus was telling us, that wicked people who are "cast into the lake of fire" will be annihilated. They have no consciousness ("the dead are conscious of nothing"...Ecclesiastes 9:5) and they really are dead. Not alive somewhere undergoing excruciating pain forever.

And how can you throw hell and death into something? You can't, can you? Throwing them into the lake of fire means that there is no more death, no more grave. The same with the Devil and his minions. They are no more. They will be completely obliterated.

Are you going to hell?
Yes or no?

[TheRootOfDavid]

[Replying to Data in post #1]

The word hell is derived from an Anglo-Saxon word meaning “to conceal,” or “to cover” according to the Webster's dictionary.
This word is translated in the Hebrew Scriptures as sheol. In Greek, hades.
All of these words refer to what we call today, the grave.

So, in the strictest sense of the original meaning of the word, hell does exist.
What doesn't exist is a place where dead people (but not actually dead people) burn forever.

Definition of dead according to Webster's: "deprived of life : no longer alive"
Webster's calls alive, "still in existence, force, or operation".

Yet, the majority of people on the earth today think that a dead person is alive somehow. To call a dead person alive is an oxymoron.

What does the Bible say is the condition of the dead?
"For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all." - Ecc 9:5
"His spirit (ftn: 'breath') goes out, he returns to the ground; On that very day his thoughts perish." Ps 146:4

So the truth of the matter is, if a person is in the grave, "sheol, hades, hell" they are dead and buried. Simple as that. False religions will say otherwise.

Are you going to hell?
Yes or no?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to LittleNipper in post #76]

No, Revelation 20 doesn't prove that a fiery hell exists. Most of Revelation is SYMBOLIC, and the verses you posted are no different. The lake of fire is allegorical for COMPLETE DESTRUCTION, just as what fire does to anything---it makes it non-existent. Put a piece of paper in a flame and what happens to it? That is what Jesus was telling us, that wicked people who are "cast into the lake of fire" will be annihilated. They have no consciousness ("the dead are conscious of nothing"...Ecclesiastes 9:5) and they really are dead. Not alive somewhere undergoing excruciating pain forever.

And how can you throw hell and death into something? You can't, can you? Throwing them into the lake of fire means that there is no more death, no more grave. The same with the Devil and his minions. They are no more. They will be completely obliterated.

Are you going to hell?
Yes or no?

Hell is the grave. If I die before Armageddon I will go to hell (Hades---the place where all people go when they die).