DEBUNKING THE MYTH of HELL

[Smellin Coffee]

The doctrine of eternal torment in hell or a lake of fire is pure myth. This doctrine is nowhere to be found in the Bible.

The word "hell" appears 53 times in both Old and New Testaments.

Every Old Testament mention of the word hell is always a translation of the word ?sheol.? However, sheol is not always translated in the Old Testament as hell. Sometimes it is translated as grave (Genesis 37:35); sometimes as pit (Numbers 16:33)

Ten times in the New Testament the word hell is translated from the Greek word ?hades.? Eleven times it is translated from the Greek word ?gehenna.? Once it is translated from the Greek word ?tartaroo.? And there is at least one occasion in the New Testament where the word hades is translated as ?grave.?

I thought that the reason Jesus was sent to die on the cross was to provide an escape from Hell.

If there is no hell, then why did Jesus come and die?

1. Emanuel - God with us. He partners with those being victimized with injustices. 2. Public execution so a public resurrection could verify Jesus was who he said he was.3. To demonstrate and model nonviolent resistance. 4. To model forgiveness in the worst of circumstances, even to one's own murder. 5. To demonstrate the evils/violence of mankind. 6. To show that doing evil to others is not in accordance to God?s will.

So his death wasn't for redemptive purposes to fulfill the justice of a raging lunatic of a God but rather to show how to love and forgive even the worst of our enemies.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Much damage has been done to the cause of the gospel by telling the world they will go to hell ?because they don?t believe in Jesus.?  This makes no sense to the ungodly.  If a man jumps out of a plane without a parachute, he will perish because he transgressed the law of gravity.  Had he put on a parachute, he would have been saved.  In one sense, he perished because he didn?t put on the parachute.  But the primary reason he died was because he broke the law of gravity.

Nice try, but the opposite is true. The man jumps out of the plane and he succumbs to gravity and its effects. If he "broke the law of gravity" he would actually fly and probably be safe.

But carry on.

 

[Gringo]

The doctrine of eternal torment in hell or a lake of fire is pure myth. This doctrine is nowhere to be found in the Bible.

The word "hell" appears 53 times in both Old and New Testaments.

Every Old Testament mention of the word hell is always a translation of the word ?sheol.? However, sheol is not always translated in the Old Testament as hell. Sometimes it is translated as grave (Genesis 37:35); sometimes as pit (Numbers 16:33)

Ten times in the New Testament the word hell is translated from the Greek word ?hades.? Eleven times it is translated from the Greek word ?gehenna.? Once it is translated from the Greek word ?tartaroo.? And there is at least one occasion in the New Testament where the word hades is translated as ?grave.?

I thought that the reason Jesus was sent to die on the cross was to provide an escape from Hell.

If there is no hell, then why did Jesus come and die?

1. Emanuel - God with us. He partners with those being victimized with injustices. 2. Public execution so a public resurrection could verify Jesus was who he said he was.3. To demonstrate and model nonviolent resistance. 4. To model forgiveness in the worst of circumstances, even to one's own murder. 5. To demonstrate the evils/violence of mankind. 6. To show that doing evil to others is not in accordance to God?s will.

So his death wasn't for redemptive purposes to fulfill the justice of a raging lunatic of a God but rather to show how to love and forgive even the worst of our enemies.

Help this agnostic to understand John 3:16. When it talks about perishing, if it isn't hell, what IS it that one perishes from?

And when you say that Jesus died to "forgive even the worst of our enemies" does that mean even the ones that don't "believeth on him"?

 

[logos1560]

You know that the same English word can have different meaning in different contexts, and the same is true of words in other languages such as Hebrew and Greek. 

As it is, the ambiguity leaves open the possibility of anyone, including you and me, to interpret a particular verse any way we wish. 

Your opinion is incorrect.  The fact that a word may have a different meaning in different contexts does not entitle you to interpret it any way you wish.    In a particular context, a word does not have all its different possible meanings at the same time.    A word may have a particular meaning in a particular context while having a different meaning in a different context.

 

[logos1560]

The doctrine of eternal torment in hell or a lake of fire is pure myth. This doctrine is nowhere to be found in the Bible.

You fail to prove your human opinions to be sound and true.    By assuming something is a myth, you have not actually debunked any myth.  Perhaps you may in effect be trying to invent your own myth to suit your own preconceived opinions.

The Bible's doctrine of hell is not merely based on the translation of one word as you attempt to suggest. 

 

[Route_70]

Your opinion is incorrect.  The fact that a word may have a different meaning in different contexts does not entitle you to interpret it any way you wish.    In a particular context, a word does not have all its different possible meanings at the same time.    A word may have a particular meaning in a particular context while having a different meaning in a different context.

A word cannot have a different meaning depending upon context if it does not have a definition for each context.

Define the word hades.  Please include all contexts; and please use an authoritative source.

 

[logos1560]

4.  There is no fire in the grave, but there is fire in hell (Luke 16:23)

Luk 16:23  And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

Your valid point was not answered by the person who started this thread.    In support of your point, Matthew 18:8 and Matthew 18:9 could also be compared.  A place of "everlasting fire" (Matthew 18:8 ) is parallel to the place of "hell fire" (Matt. 18:9). 

Would translating the Greek word as "grave" at Matthew 18:9 make sense and be accurate since the grave is not a place of fire?

The grave has not been demonstrated to be a place of fire while hell is indicated to be a place of fire.

 

[logos1560]

Define the word hades.  Please include all contexts; and please use an authoritative source.

You do not practice what you preach in this thread that you started.  You did not define the word hades and include all contexts.    You did not use an authoritative source.    Your imperfect human opinions are not an authoritative source.    You presented no authoritative source for your opinion about hell supposedly being a myth. 

What do you actually accept as an authoritative source?

 

[Route_70]

What do you actually accept as an authoritative source?

Yes, I suppose you would have a difficult time finding an "authoritative" source.  It is clear that the etymology of the word "hades" is unclear, but what is clear is that the concept of hades has its genesis in Greek mythology.  Notice the word mythology.  "Pluto" is considered a substitute word for hades, and was the god of the underworld.

Insofar as the Bible is concerned, the meaning of hades is ambiguous.  As I mentioned earlier, the word hades is sometimes translated as "grave," sometimes as "hell."

But the real interest is this:  the writers of the New Testament, if they originally wrote in Greek (they spoke Armaic), then what they were doing was borrowing from the Old Testament, referring to a place called, in the Hebrew, shoel or sheol, depending on the translation.  Instead of using the Hebrew word sheol, they substituted the Greek word hades.  There is only one place in the Old Testament where it is specifically indicated that sheol was "made" or "created," and that was in the case of thie destruction of Korah (Numbers 16), in which case not only people, but houses and other goods were there consigned and annihilated.  Sheol in that case was translated as "pit."

To some of the New Tesatment writers, it is apparent that at the worst, hades and sheol are one and the same -- a place of annihilation.

 

[logos1560]

Yes, I suppose you would have a difficult time finding an "authoritative" source. 

Actually you have demonstrated that you have a difficult time finding any "authoritative" source for your own subjective opinions.    You have not demonstrated that you are an "authoritative" source.

Insofar as the Bible is concerned, the meaning of hades is ambiguous.  As I mentioned earlier, the word hades is sometimes translated as "grave," sometimes as "hell."

You have not proven your biased opinions to be true.  You have not demonstrated that the meaning of hades in the Bible is actually ambiguous in all its uses.    Because you make the claim is not proof that it actually is. 

The fact that the word hades is translated two different ways in different contexts does not lead to your bogus opinion that it is supposedly ambiguous.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

The doctrine of eternal torment in hell or a lake of fire is pure myth. This doctrine is nowhere to be found in the Bible.

The word "hell" appears 53 times in both Old and New Testaments.

Every Old Testament mention of the word hell is always a translation of the word ?sheol.? However, sheol is not always translated in the Old Testament as hell. Sometimes it is translated as grave (Genesis 37:35); sometimes as pit (Numbers 16:33)

Ten times in the New Testament the word hell is translated from the Greek word ?hades.? Eleven times it is translated from the Greek word ?gehenna.? Once it is translated from the Greek word ?tartaroo.? And there is at least one occasion in the New Testament where the word hades is translated as ?grave.?

I thought that the reason Jesus was sent to die on the cross was to provide an escape from Hell.

If there is no hell, then why did Jesus come and die?

1. Emanuel - God with us. He partners with those being victimized with injustices. 2. Public execution so a public resurrection could verify Jesus was who he said he was.3. To demonstrate and model nonviolent resistance. 4. To model forgiveness in the worst of circumstances, even to one's own murder. 5. To demonstrate the evils/violence of mankind. 6. To show that doing evil to others is not in accordance to God?s will.

So his death wasn't for redemptive purposes to fulfill the justice of a raging lunatic of a God but rather to show how to love and forgive even the worst of our enemies.

Help this agnostic to understand John 3:16. When it talks about perishing, if it isn't hell, what IS it that one perishes from?

And when you say that Jesus died to "forgive even the worst of our enemies" does that mean even the ones that don't "believeth on him"?

I believe annihilation (non-existence), so the option was given for eternal life or non-existence.

That is a great question because you just proved we all come at texts with a bias. Like you. I was always taught that perishimg meant hell, but hell was never brought up in that conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus.

 

[logos1560]

There are references to people going to hell, but as we have seen, the word used in the original languages and translated as "hell," is also translated in the Bible as "grave." So where are the lost going: to hell or the grave? We don't know about any hell, but we all know about the grave. We don't know for a fact that hell, a place of real flame and eternal torment exists, but we all know that the grave exists.

Matthew 18:8 and Matthew 18:9 could be compared where  a place of "everlasting fire" (Matthew 18:8 ) is parallel to the place of "hell fire" (Matt. 18:9). 

Would translating the Greek word as "grave" at Matthew 18:9 make sense and be accurate since the grave is not a place of real flame and eternal torment?

The grave has not been demonstrated to be a place of real fire and eternal torment while hell is indicated to be such a place.

There is a place where some go away into everlasting punishment while the righteous go into a place of life eternal.  It is clearly indicated that there are two different places to go [not just one place]

Matthew 25:46
And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal.

Would you suggest that the grave is supposedly a place of everlasting punishment and that you will go to a place of everlasting punishment when you go to the grave?

 

[Route_70]

To reiterate, as stated in th OP:  "The doctrine of eternal torment in hell or a lake of fire is pure myth. This doctrine is nowhere to be found in the Bible."

Prove me wrong.

 

[logos1560]

To reiterate, as stated in th OP:  "The doctrine of eternal torment in hell or a lake of fire is pure myth. This doctrine is nowhere to be found in the Bible."

Prove me wrong.

You have it backwards.  You make your assertion as the topic of this thread so you are responsible to prove it to be true since you suggest or claim that it is.   

You are not entitled to assume your own unproven or preconceived opinion to be true just because you may claim that it supposedly is.   

Why would an unproven opinion or assumption have to be proven wrong?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

To reiterate, as stated in th OP:  "The doctrine of eternal torment in hell or a lake of fire is pure myth. This doctrine is nowhere to be found in the Bible."

Prove me wrong.

Plus hell can?t be the Lake of Fire. Hell was cast into it. And nowhere in the Bible is it taught that anyone who doesn?t ?receive Jesus as Savior? goes there upon death.

 

[Route_70]

To reiterate, as stated in th OP:  "The doctrine of eternal torment in hell or a lake of fire is pure myth. This doctrine is nowhere to be found in the Bible."

Prove me wrong.

You have it backwards.  You make your assertion as the topic of this thread so you are responsible to prove it to be true since you suggest or claim that it is.   

You are not entitled to assume your own unproven or preconceived opinion to be true just because you may claim that it supposedly is.   

Why would an unproven opinion or assumption have to be proven wrong?

If you believe in eternal punishment, and if your belief is based on what the Bible says, then you should have no trouble "putting me in my place."  You don't do it because you cannot do it.  Go ahead.  Show me up.  Make me look like a fool.

Show me that doctrine in the Bible.  I betcha can't do it. 

 

[logos1560]

To reiterate, as stated in th OP:  "The doctrine of eternal torment in hell or a lake of fire is pure myth. This doctrine is nowhere to be found in the Bible."

Prove me wrong.

You have it backwards.  You make your assertion as the topic of this thread so you are responsible to prove it to be true since you suggest or claim that it is.   

You are not entitled to assume your own unproven or preconceived opinion to be true just because you may claim that it supposedly is.   

Why would an unproven opinion or assumption have to be proven wrong?

If you believe in eternal punishment, and if your belief is based on what the Bible says, then you should have no trouble "putting me in my place."  You don't do it because you cannot do it.  Go ahead.  Show me up.  Make me look like a fool.

Show me that doctrine in the Bible.  I betcha can't do it.

Does your response show use of the fallacy of reversing the burden of proof?  Instead of honoring your own burden of proof by proving your own claims to be true, you try to reverse the burden of proof.    That would suggest that your demands are insincere and invalid.  Use of a fallacy would not support your opinions.  Do you attempt to rationalize or excuse your failure to prove what you claimed?

You have not shown that you will accept what the Bible states and teaches as authoritative.    You have avoided some posts where  the Bible has been cited or quoted.

Are you suggesting that you will accept what the Bible states instead of your unproven opinions that you have been posting in this thread?

 

[Route_70]

Does your response show use of the fallacy of reversing the burden of proof?  Instead of honoring your own burden of proof by proving your own claims to be true, you try to reverse the burden of proof.    That would suggest that your demands are insincere and invalid.  Use of a fallacy would not support your opinions.  Do you attempt to rationalize or excuse your failure to prove what you claimed?

You have not shown that you will accept what the Bible states and teaches as authoritative.    You have avoided some posts where  the Bible has been cited or quoted.

Are you suggesting that you will accept what the Bible states instead of your unproven opinions that you have been posting in this thread?

Blah, blah, blah ...

As usual, the typical wordy, mindless response.

 

[Twisted]

Make me look like a fool.

No offense, but you've done that yourself.

 

[Route_70]

Matthew 18:8 and Matthew 18:9 could be compared where  a place of "everlasting fire" (Matthew 18:8 ) is parallel to the place of "hell fire" (Matt. 18:9).

So, the fire is "everlasting."  What about the torment?  Where is the verse that says "everlasting torment?"

Would translating the Greek word as "grave" at Matthew 18:9 make sense and be accurate since the grave is not a place of real flame and eternal torment?

The grave has not been demonstrated to be a place of real fire and eternal torment while hell is indicated to be such a place.

"Real fire" seems to be there; but where does the Bible say "eternal torment?"

There is a place where some go away into everlasting punishment while the righteous go into a place of life eternal.  It is clearly indicated that there are two different places to go [not just one place]

Matthew 25:46
And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal.

Would you suggest that the grave is supposedly a place of everlasting punishment and that you will go to a place of everlasting punishment when you go to the grave?

"Everlasting punishment:"  Let's see.  Death is everlasting, is it not?  So is annihilation.

As to the suggestion that context makes the difference, what about what Jesus said in Matthew 10:28, "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

According to Jesus, whatever happens to the body in hell also happens to the soul.  In hell, according to Jesus, the body is destroyed and the soul is destroyed.  Or would you suggest, that Matthew 10:28 should be taken as two distinct contexts?