4 ms·

>Mark (9:43) ...into the fire that never shall be quenched" It doesn't say they will still be alive, just burned to death. Many other scriptures confirm a perm

>Mark (9:43) ...into the fire that never shall be quenched" It doesn't say they will still be alive, just burned to death. Many other scriptures confirm a permanent death, none say everlasting torment. >Revelation (20:10): “And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.” It says the "devil" and the beast and the false prophet will tormented, but no one else is listed here. In Rev 22:18,19 and Deut 4:2 have strict warnings about adding to or taking away words from the bible. I would completely support a statement that these scriptures "strongly imply" or even "seem to imply", but they certainly do not state plainly that people will go to the classical hell taught by many today.

jezclaremurugan 8y ago
where their worm shall never die..
- RobertRoberts 8y ago
  "Worm", not person/soul (or whatever word for human). As much as I feel it would have ended many religious debates if the bible had been written more clearly, there are some things that just aren't there.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> It says the "devil" and the beast and the false prophet will tormented, but no one else is listed here. The mentioned devil and beast may or may not be, but the false prophet is a person so this: > I would completely support a statement that these scriptures "strongly imply" or even "seem to imply", but they certainly do not state plainly that people will go to the classical hell taught by many today. Is only correct in the sense that the classical hell is an amalgam of images of Sheol/Hades, Gehenna, the Revelations lake of fire, Tartarus, and definitely other places/outcomes that don't have proper names mentioned in parables, etc., and not directly tied to one single image in the Bible, and the Bible never explicitly says all of these are the same place. But it's absolutely the case that the Bible explicitly and literally says that people in some number n where n ≥ 1 will be punished in everlasting fire, which is the point that was in dispute.
- RobertRoberts 8y ago
  It doesn't explicitly state that the "false prophet" will "burn forever", only the fire itself burns forever. There are many verses worded is ways that are non-specific, and if you take other scriptures into account as well, it's plain no human is condemned to eternal torment. For example the idea of a mass resurrection, it's contradictory to be both resurrected to life and be in hell forever. (or to be in heaven and resurrected back to earth) If you want to make an exception for this one person (false prophet), I would easily give in and willing to admit it's possible (what do I know accept what is written?). Then the elephant in the room is metaphor. If we are going to be literal with every verse, then even the ones where Jesus says "this is a parable" must be questioned. (lots of contradictions come from this) If we are going to accept there is metaphor, now we get to arguing which verses are metaphors and which aren't, now it's pure opinion (or educated opinion). And then what is the point of discussing any further? I ascribe to "educate on facts, debate on opinion", the second of which I feel is almost never useful.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > It doesn't explicitly state that the "false prophet" will "burn forever", only the fire itself burns forever. No, it says the devil and the beast and the false prophet will be “tormented forever and ever” in the lake of fire. Explicitly, the punishment is eternal, not just the fire itself. > There are many verses worded is ways that are non-specific, and if you take other scriptures into account as well, it's plain no human is condemned to eternal torment. That's...far from plain. It's certainly a possible conclusion that, while not without problems, isn't particularly less tenable as a resolution of some of the surface contradictions as others. > For example the idea of a mass resurrection, it's contradictory to be both resurrected to life and be in hell forever. It's not contradictory to be resurrected and then thrown into Hell, which is exactly what happens in the second resurrection in Revelation. (Equating the lake of fire with Hell, of course.) Now, unlike the devil, beast, and false prophet, we aren't explicitly told that those in the second resurrection are “tormented forever and ever”, only that they are thrown into the lake of fire, after which the narrative shifts to other topics. So, sure, the text, read literally, admits the possibility that they get only a finite experience of torment, but that's not the natural interpretation, especially in light of the parallel of the two resurrections in Revelation to the two eternal outcomes foretold in Daniel. But, in any case, my point isn't that the proper interpretation of the Bible involves any particular prevalence of eternal punishment, but merely that the upthread claim that the idea of eternal punishment in a lake of fire in Christianity comes from Greco-Roman mythology by way of Catholic theology and not from the text of the Bible is not correct; the idea is—whether or not it is the best interpretation when viewing the Bible holistically—grounded directly in descriptions in the Bible, including quite literal ones.

jezclaremurugan 8y ago

where their worm shall never die..

RobertRoberts 8y ago
"Worm", not person/soul (or whatever word for human). As much as I feel it would have ended many religious debates if the bible had been written more clearly, there are some things that just aren't there.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> It says the "devil" and the beast and the false prophet will tormented, but no one else is listed here. The mentioned devil and beast may or may not be, but the false prophet is a person so this: > I would completely support a statement that these scriptures "strongly imply" or even "seem to imply", but they certainly do not state plainly that people will go to the classical hell taught by many today. Is only correct in the sense that the classical hell is an amalgam of images of Sheol/Hades, Gehenna, the Revelations lake of fire, Tartarus, and definitely other places/outcomes that don't have proper names mentioned in parables, etc., and not directly tied to one single image in the Bible, and the Bible never explicitly says all of these are the same place. But it's absolutely the case that the Bible explicitly and literally says that people in some number n where n ≥ 1 will be punished in everlasting fire, which is the point that was in dispute.

RobertRoberts 8y ago
It doesn't explicitly state that the "false prophet" will "burn forever", only the fire itself burns forever. There are many verses worded is ways that are non-specific, and if you take other scriptures into account as well, it's plain no human is condemned to eternal torment. For example the idea of a mass resurrection, it's contradictory to be both resurrected to life and be in hell forever. (or to be in heaven and resurrected back to earth) If you want to make an exception for this one person (false prophet), I would easily give in and willing to admit it's possible (what do I know accept what is written?). Then the elephant in the room is metaphor. If we are going to be literal with every verse, then even the ones where Jesus says "this is a parable" must be questioned. (lots of contradictions come from this) If we are going to accept there is metaphor, now we get to arguing which verses are metaphors and which aren't, now it's pure opinion (or educated opinion). And then what is the point of discussing any further? I ascribe to "educate on facts, debate on opinion", the second of which I feel is almost never useful.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > It doesn't explicitly state that the "false prophet" will "burn forever", only the fire itself burns forever. No, it says the devil and the beast and the false prophet will be “tormented forever and ever” in the lake of fire. Explicitly, the punishment is eternal, not just the fire itself. > There are many verses worded is ways that are non-specific, and if you take other scriptures into account as well, it's plain no human is condemned to eternal torment. That's...far from plain. It's certainly a possible conclusion that, while not without problems, isn't particularly less tenable as a resolution of some of the surface contradictions as others. > For example the idea of a mass resurrection, it's contradictory to be both resurrected to life and be in hell forever. It's not contradictory to be resurrected and then thrown into Hell, which is exactly what happens in the second resurrection in Revelation. (Equating the lake of fire with Hell, of course.) Now, unlike the devil, beast, and false prophet, we aren't explicitly told that those in the second resurrection are “tormented forever and ever”, only that they are thrown into the lake of fire, after which the narrative shifts to other topics. So, sure, the text, read literally, admits the possibility that they get only a finite experience of torment, but that's not the natural interpretation, especially in light of the parallel of the two resurrections in Revelation to the two eternal outcomes foretold in Daniel. But, in any case, my point isn't that the proper interpretation of the Bible involves any particular prevalence of eternal punishment, but merely that the upthread claim that the idea of eternal punishment in a lake of fire in Christianity comes from Greco-Roman mythology by way of Catholic theology and not from the text of the Bible is not correct; the idea is—whether or not it is the best interpretation when viewing the Bible holistically—grounded directly in descriptions in the Bible, including quite literal ones.