[dwashbur]

Assuming you can verify your description of hell, you run up against two very determinative refutations of all you say re hell.

The first one is that nowhere in the Bible can your description of hell be found.

The second one and much more importantly is that hell is a contradiction of the nature of God. We say that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, and eternal.

Point 1: verify it how? What do you expect me to do?

Point 2: 2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment...there are many varied descriptions of hell in the Bible.

Point 3: Loving someone and sending them away are not contradictory. Ask any parent who's had to kick a kid out of the house.

You haven't made your points, and I get the feeling you're asking the impossible from me with this "verify" stuff.

This would be an unpleasant experience for Sam for eternity and in no possible way would it reflect a perfect love that God had for Sam. By the act of creating Sam, God has condemned Sam. God chose to create Sam anyway, thereby KNOWINGLY, in effect, sending Sam to hell since Sam cannot do other than what God has foreseen, else God lacks perfect knowledge.

Sorry, but this fallacy has been answered many, many times. Read most any good book on philosophy of religion. Foreknowledge and free will are not contradictory, either. Would you eliminate free will? Would you have us be created robots who can't violate the rules? That's the alternative.
You're using very old, tired arguments, my friend. Most every theologian from Origen on has answered them, but people don't seem to get the message.

[Athos]

IAccording to the New Testament he's (Satan) a real critter and I'll take that testimony over yours any day, pardon me.

After such a nice apology, now you're being insulting by setting up the New Testament against "my testimony". As you well know, or should know, it is not "MY TESTIMONY", but it is the well-established factual description of the evolution of Satan as the figure moved from Persian religion into Christianity. I can only note that you completely avoided replying to that contention and instead substituted your own personal "testimony" (belief) as refutation.

I will stand by my factual description of Satan against your belief in his reality and leave him out of this thread other than to reply where necessary.

The "morning star" passage is about the king of Babylon. It says so right there. The word "Lucifer" grates on my nerves every time I hear it. It's a Latin rendering of a Greek translation of a Hebrew phrase and it's meaningless. But Satan is real.

Thank you for supporting my point about Lucifer. You admit that Lucifer is a meaningless translation but accept Satan as real! The mind boggles.

You have two other posts of which I have read one and will shortly reply to that one. The other (Universalism) I have yet to read, but will as soon as I can.

[Athos]

Point 1: verify it how? What do you expect me to do?

The "verify" was YOUR thought, not mine. You brought it up in replying to "punishment" in your post #15. I was simply using your own language.

Point 2: 2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment

Jerome took the mythological Greek "tartarus" and translated it into "infernum" which means "intense fire" which is not any part of the meaning of tartarus and which was later translated into the English word "hell". 2 Peter also has no mention of eternal or punishment. His "gloomy dungeons" is a holding cell awaiting judgement. So this example fails on many points.

...there are many varied descriptions of hell in the Bible.

All mistranslated similar to the above.

Point 3: Loving someone and sending them away are not contradictory. Ask any parent who's had to kick a kid out of the house.

This is so far from the point about hell, I wondered if I should even reply. Well ok, parents do not know they will have to kick their kid out of the house BEFORE THE CHILD IS EVEN BORN!

You haven't made your points

Of course I have. Saying I haven't is not the same as actually responding to those points to argue against them. The arguments you did make are very weak as I have pointed out.

, and I get the feeling you're asking the impossible from me with this "verify" stuff.

As noted earlier, the "verify stuff" came from you, not me.

Sorry, but this fallacy has been answered many, many times.

Sorry, yourself. If it has been answered "many, many times", how about explaining just ONE of the times?

Read most any good book on philosophy of religion.

Come on, this is the oldest dodge on the internet. I don't like to "pull rank" here, but if I must, I must. Based on your answers on the philosophy of religion, I can guarantee you I have read more books on the subject than you have even dreamed of. No reply necessary for this one.

Foreknowledge and free will are not contradictory, either.

Foreknowledge and free will AND CREATOR!! You left out the big one, didn't you? Not good for one who criticizes another for a lack of reading re the philosophy of religion.

Would you eliminate free will? Would you have us be created robots who can't violate the rules? That's the alternative.

No, the alternative is realizing there is no hell based on God-given logic.

You're using very old, tired arguments, my friend.

MY FRIEND, how about refuting those very old arguments instead of just saying so? Huh? My friend.

Most every theologian from Origen on has answered them,

Rather than just SAYING Origen answered them, why not give us the arguments so we can discuss them? That's the way these things are usually done.

but people don't seem to get the message.

No argument there. People thought the earth was flat for thousands of years.

Finally, you obviously didn't understand (based on your replies) my argument about the nature of God. Please read it again as carefully as possible, this time reflecting on my answers to your objections.

[Wondergirl]

Point 3: Loving someone and sending them away are not contradictory. Ask any parent who's had to kick a kid out of the house.

That's not love. It might be self defense, but it ain't love!

[jlisenbe]

That's not love. It might be self defense, but it ain't love!

Very frequently, that's love in action.

[dwashbur]

Athos
Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
Point 1: verify it how? What do you expect me to do?
The "verify" was YOUR thought, not mine. You brought it up in replying to "punishment" in your post #15. I was simply using your own language.

Oh, I see, you're ripping my statement out of context inasmuch as I was only referring to one of your points, and all I said was, I couldn't verify that particular description. I'll thank you not to do that to my words.

Point 2: 2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment
Jerome took the mythological Greek "tartarus" and translated it into "infernum" which means "intense fire" which is not any part of the meaning of tartarus and which was later translated into the English word "hell". 2 Peter also has no mention of eternal or punishment. His "gloomy dungeons" is a holding cell awaiting judgement. So this example fails on many points.

Not so. Tartarus is one of the many words the NT writers used to try and describe the indescribable. I'm talking about Peter, not Jerome, I have my own issues with Jerome and his mistranslations are irrelevant. We know what Peter was talking about and your dodge doesn't change that.

...there are many varied descriptions of hell in the Bible.
All mistranslated similar to the above.

Not so again. I repeat: we know what they were talking about, and no amount of dragging centuries-later theologians will alter that fact. You're not making the case that you think you are.

Point 3: Loving someone and sending them away are not contradictory. Ask any parent who's had to kick a kid out of the house.
This is so far from the point about hell, I wondered if I should even reply. Well ok, parents do not know they will have to kick their kid out of the house BEFORE THE CHILD IS EVEN BORN!

I love how you keep trying to change the game. You only pull this out of your bag when you're backed into a corner, and I've already answered it. Try something else.

Sorry, but this fallacy has been answered many, many times.
Sorry, yourself. If it has been answered "many, many times", how about explaining just ONE of the times?

I already have in multiple threads. You seem to think if I repeat myself enough times it'll come out the way you want.

Foreknowledge and free will are not contradictory, either.
Foreknowledge and free will AND CREATOR!! You left out the big one, didn't you? Not good for one who criticizes another for a lack of reading re the philosophy of religion.

Because it doesn't affect anything. It has zero to do with free will unless you are saying the existence of a creator nullifies free will. You haven't even begun to demonstrate such a thing.

Would you eliminate free will? Would you have us be created robots who can't violate the rules? That's the alternative.
No, the alternative is realizing there is no hell based on God-given logic.

I have no idea how you made that connection. It's like saying because I have a bad leg, there is no Tacoma. Why don't you address the actual question? Would you prefer to be a robot?

After such a nice apology, now you're being insulting by setting up the New Testament against "my testimony". As you well know, or should know, it is not "MY TESTIMONY", but it is the well-established factual description of the evolution of Satan as the figure moved from Persian religion into Christianity. I can only note that you completely avoided replying to that contention and instead substituted your own personal "testimony" (belief) as refutation.

I will stand by my factual description of Satan against your belief in his reality and leave him out of this thread other than to reply where necessary.

You're welcome to follow those unfounded assumptions. I take the New Testament more seriously than that, as the Word of God, and I really don't care what those who would tear it down want to try and say. He is presented as a real person in both Testaments so that's good enough for me. It is in fact "your" testimony because you're the one passing on the fallacious arguments. Similarity does not imply origin. That's a massive historical fallacy.

The "morning star" passage is about the king of Babylon. It says so right there. The word "Lucifer" grates on my nerves every time I hear it. It's a Latin rendering of a Greek translation of a Hebrew phrase and it's meaningless. But Satan is real.
Thank you for supporting my point about Lucifer. You admit that Lucifer is a meaningless translation but accept Satan as real! The mind boggles.

Who told you the existence of Satan rises or falls on the word "Lucifer"? That doesn't make sense.

[Athos]

Oh, I see, you're ripping my statement out of context inasmuch as I was only referring to one of your points, and all I said was, I couldn't verify that particular description. I'll thank you not to do that to my words.

I don't think it was taken out of context. It described your idea of hell's punishment as possible but not verified. It was to give you an opportunity to refute my "determinative refutations". However, maybe I did overuse it. I'll avoid that going forward.

Not so. Tartarus is one of the many words the NT writers used to try and describe the indescribable

Tartarus was translated as Latin "infernum". It is a very bad translation since it translates a "gloomy place" from mythology as a place of "fiery intensity". I don't know why you say "Not so". It IS so.

I'm talking about Peter, not Jerome,

You are quoting Peter which book (2 Peter) only appears in translation around the 4th century.

I have my own issues with Jerome and his mistranslations are irrelevant.

I disagree, but that can be another topic.

We know what Peter was talking about and your dodge doesn't change that.

Of course we know what Peter was talking about - he says it as "putting them (angels) into gloomy dungeons to await judgment". That is not a description of hell (a place of fiery intensity). It describes Tartarus.

I don't know why you're accusing me of a "dodge". I've described EXACTLY what the situation is. There is no "dodge" here.

Not so again

This "not so" refers to my claim that all Bible translations into hell are misleading. I stand by that claim and I will be happy to discuss that with you any time. Maybe another suitable topic.

I repeat: we know what they were talking about, and no amount of dragging centuries-later theologians will alter that fact.

What you are talking about, DW, is a hell that is a fiery place, but that is NOT what Peter is talking about as I explained above in the clearest terms possible. The 4th century reference is the earliest date of the 2 Peter manuscript.

You're not making the case that you think you are.

DW, I have no objection to you saying that but I DO require you to give some evidence of your contention, rather than just declaiming it from on high, so to speak. So far, I have supplied excellent support for every case I am making.

fm DW
Point 3: Loving someone and sending them away are not contradictory. Ask any parent who's had to kick a kid out of the house.

fm Athos
This is so far from the point about hell, I wondered if I should even reply. Well ok, parents do not know they will have to kick their kid out of the house BEFORE THE CHILD IS EVEN BORN!

fm DW
I love how you keep trying to change the game. You only pull this out of your bag when you're backed into a corner, and I've already answered it. Try something else.

I have not changed the game, DW, I have CORRECTED the game. You left out the key part which is necessary to examine your statement. The analogy of God and a parent omits the critical aspect of God that the parent cannot possess - God is the Creator.

I'm sorry to say that your tone has developed into one who is losing an argument and resorts to personal attacks like you have done here. I find it very disappointing.

fm Athos
This would be an unpleasant experience for Sam for eternity and in no possible way would it reflect a perfect love that God had for Sam. By the act of creating Sam, God has condemned Sam. God chose to create Sam anyway, thereby KNOWINGLY, in effect, sending Sam to hell since Sam cannot do other than what God has foreseen, else God lacks perfect knowledge.

fm DW
Sorry, but this fallacy has been answered many, many times.

fm Athos
Sorry, yourself. If it has been answered "many, many times", how about explaining just ONE of the times?

fm DW
I already have in multiple threads.

I researched all your replies going several pages back in several threads and I can find no instance of your ever answering this even once, much less "many, many times". Would you now repost this specific fallacy or tell me where it can be found?

You seem to think if I repeat myself enough times it'll come out the way you want.

No, I don't think that especially since I couldn't find it even once which makes it impossible to "repeat".

Read most any good book on philosophy of religion. Foreknowledge and free will are not contradictory, either. Would you eliminate free will? Would you have us be created robots who can't violate the rules? That's the alternative.

Actually, when you add creation to foreknowledge and the other qualities of God, they are contradictory to free will. However, that's another topic for discussion. Predestination might be q good title. For now, let's stick to the current topic.

You're welcome to follow those unfounded assumptions.

I have not made any unfounded assumptions. You're doing it again, making accusations without backing up those accusations.

I take the New Testament more seriously than that, as the Word of God, and I really don't care what those who would tear it down want to try and say.

Neither do I care about those who would tear it down. I prefer to discuss where it has been misinterpreted or mistranslated leading to unfortunate false doctrines such as hell. There is a sizable fraction of Christianity who keys on hellfire to describe their faith when the message of Jesus is overwhelmingly about loving God, neighbor, and self - and, strikingly, one's enemy.

He (Satan) is presented as a real person in both Testaments so that's good enough for me.

Actually, he's not presented as a real person in either Testament.

In Job, he is hardly presented as the epitome of evil in a story which is not to be taken literally. In the New Testament, Satan is a literary creation used to give evil a sinister persona. If you review the mentions of Satan in the Gospels, his fictional character becomes obvious and has been of such great appeal as a bogeyman that he continues to flourish today in all forms of art and entertainment.

I realize you don't believe any of this and that's ok. We can agree to disagree.

It is in fact "your" testimony because you're the one passing on the fallacious arguments.

My arguments have at least been accompanied by reasons and examples. Have yours?

Similarity does not imply origin. That's a massive historical fallacy.

What similarity? What "massive historical fallacy"? Please clarify.

Who told you the existence of Satan rises or falls on the word "Lucifer"? That doesn't make sense.

Satan and Lucifer are often used interchangeably. Most (some?) Christians identify Satan and Lucifer as the same fallen angel.

[jlisenbe]

DW will perhaps reply to this point by point. It will only take the rest of the day.

[dwashbur]

I'm talking about Peter, not Jerome,
You are quoting Peter which book (2 Peter) only appears in translation around the 4th century.

I have no idea what you mean by that. I'm talking about the original Greek letter, dated to somewhere in the middle of the first century based on language and manuscript history, though some critics try to place it in the second century.

You seem hung up on translations. I'm not interested in translations, Jerome's or otherwise. I'm looking at the source.

[Athos]

I'm talking about the original Greek letter,

The original Greek letter has "tartarus". That has been rendered as "hell" in English. Tartarus does not mean hell. It was mistranslated into Latin as 'infernum". Infernum does not mean tartarus. Infernum means a fiery place. Infernum was rendered as hell in English.

The point - tartarus was mistranslated as infernum which led to hell in English.

You seem hung up on translations. I'm not interested in translations, Jerome's or otherwise. I'm looking at the source.

When discussing hell, I have to be interested in translations since hell is an English word translated from the Latin which was translated from the Greek.

My contention is that hell as traditionally understood in Christianity does not exist. This example of tartarus is one of the proofs of my contention.

Was there anything else in my reply above that you wish to comment on?

[jlisenbe]

You have yet to say how you think tartarus should be translated. Seeing as how it refers to the lowest place of the dead where the gods condemned their enemies, I'm not sure how that helps your cause any. It can be certain that Peter was not suggesting that sinners would be condemned to a literal place described in Greek mythology, so how should the word be translated?

At the risk of bringing down your disapproval, we might consider again the words of Christ. "The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, 42 and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear."

[jlisenbe]

Actually, that's not the case. Jesus was giving an explanation for His previous, well-crafted allegory. Read it in context and you will see for yourself.

His disciples came to Him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field.”

(posted following day) Oh for goodness sake. Now, rather than addressing my reply, WG runs for the hills by deleting her comment where she said the words of Jesus were a "well-crafted allegory". Sad to be so fearful of open dialogue. It never ceases to surprise me and yet always makes me glad that I don't hold a position so fragile as to need protection from the give and take of discussion.

[Athos]

Actually, that's not the case. Jesus was giving an explanation for His previous, well-crafted allegory. Read it in context and you will see for yourself.

The disappearance of WG's post led me to manually unblock this post of yours and also your previous post #31. I will reply to each.


#32. WG was correct when she called it a “well-crafted” allegory. I have read your reply, read what you suggested, and still agree with WG.

#31.

You have yet to say how you think tartarus should be translated.

The discussion is how tartarus IS translated, not how it should be translated.

Seeing as how it refers to the lowest place of the dead where the gods condemned their enemies, I'm not sure how that helps your cause any.

My “cause” is that hell as traditionally understood does not exist. You admit you're not sure how my cause is helped by tartarus referring to the “lowest place of the dead”. My cause is helped because that description is not the description of hell, yet it is translated as hell.

It can be certain that Peter was not suggesting that sinners would be condemned to a literal place described in Greek mythology, so how should the word be translated?

If you are certain about Peter's words, then it is up to you to translate the word.

At the risk of bringing down your disapproval

There is little risk of that not occurring. My disapproval of what you post is almost always consistent.

we might consider again the words of Christ. "The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, 42 and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear."

Jesus is quoted as saying ”... and those who commit lawlessness...” will be in a furnace of fire weeping and gnashing their teeth. That is obviously not to be taken literally since the victims will hardly be weeping in the fire. If anything, they will be screaming at the top of their lungs for the few seconds it takes to turn them into crispy critters and ashes. Also, to further the figure of speech, the righteous will shine like the sun is an obvious simile, and the ear remark completes the colorful way of expression. Allegorical to the Nth degree.

Jesus often spoke in allegories (parables). In the Gospel of John he says that very thing, “I have spoken these things to you in allegories”. He is not addressing this specific parable, but in general.

Just this one time, if you reply directly, I will consider your reply. If you deflect or divert, I will not reply and manually block you again.

[jlisenbe]

#32. WG was correct when she called it a “well-crafted” allegory. I have read your reply, read what you suggested, and still agree with WG.

When Jesus was asked to explain his parable (allegory), he gave an explanation. I don't know how much plainer it could be. To suggest his explanation was itself an allegory is just silliness. "Jesus, will you explain your parable to us?" "Sure! I'll explain my parable with another parable!" You really believe that???

But it's nice of you to try and justify WG's hasty retreat.

The discussion is how tartarus IS translated, not how it should be translated.

It is now.

My “cause” is that hell as traditionally understood does not exist. You admit you're not sure how my cause is helped by tartarus referring to the “lowest place of the dead”. My cause is helped because that description is not the description of hell, yet it is translated as hell.

It's a simple explanation. It's a word that has more than one meaning. When used in a NT context, it has a NT meaning.

But if you want to contend it does not mean hell, then you should say what, in your view, it does mean. In other words, how should it be translated? You seem fearful of doing so. I wonder why. At any rate, it does not indicate a place of anything other than dread and punishment, so I'm still not sure what your point is. It's not a place of eternal fire? OK, then it's a place of eternal dread and terror, filled as it will be with the devil and his demons. Sound good?

Just this one time, if you reply directly, I will consider your reply.

You are welcome, as always, to do as you please, but I will add that replying directly is not my problem. It's yours. You're the one who ignores questions you can't comfortably answer. And if I had to guess, I would guess you will continue that practice now. I hope not, but we'll see.

[Athos]

When Jesus was asked to explain his parable (allegory), he gave an explanation. I don't know how much plainer it could be. To suggest his explanation was itself an allegory is just silliness. "Jesus, will you explain your parable to us?" "Sure! I'll explain my parable with another parable!" You really believe that???

But it's nice of you to try and justify WG's hasty retreat.

I had to smile at that reply. Clever, but weak. It's problematical. I'm sure you know the obvious difficulty. You still have to deal with the language which 2 Peter used to send people to Tartarus. If, as you contend, the 2 Peter explanation is not a parable, then you have to explain its reality. Did 2 Peter/Jesus therefore believe in Tartarus as a real place from Greek mythology? The answer to that is certainly NO.

It's a simple explanation. It's a word that has more than one meaning.

If you claim Tartarus has more than one meaning in the NT, (which you are claiming), then it is incumbent upon you to provide that meaning and a defense of your claim.

When used in a NT context, it has a NT meaning.

It means what it has always meant – I variously described it above in posts 23, 27, 30, and 33. Or you can look it up yourself.

But if you want to contend it does not mean hell, then you should say what, in your view, it does mean. In other words, how should it be translated?

It should be translated according to its meaning. I have done that in the posts noted above and also suggested you can look for the meaning yourself if you doubt me.

You seem fearful of doing so. I wonder why.

This comment is why you're so disliked here.

At any rate, it does not indicate a place of anything other than dread and punishment

Correct! I might quibble about the punishment part and even the dread since neither is mentioned, but no matter. The point is Tartarus does not mean anything remotely like an eternal fiery torture chamber like hell. It's described as a "gloomy place", a "dungeon", something like a holding cell.

, so I'm still not sure what your point is.

My point – Tartarus is NOT hell – couldn't be any clearer. In fact, you just made my point for me when you wrote, "At any rate, it does not indicate a place of anything other than dread and punishment".

It's not a place of eternal fire? OK, then it's a place of eternal dread and terror, filled as it will be with the devil and his demons. Sound good?

No, sounds completely wrong! It's certainly not described as “a place of eternal dread and terror”. As to devils and demons, let's leave that one alone and possibly save it for a future thread. (Hint – they don't exist. But don't run off and start deflecting with that. Save it for its own topic.)


These comments were mean-spirited.

"To suggest his explanation was itself an allegory is just silliness."
"...try and justify WG's hasty retreat".
"You seem fearful of doing so. I wonder why".
"You're the one who ignores questions you can't comfortably answer."


You were warned about replying directly without the snarky comments. I answered since I said I would. This finishes my reply to you on this thread.

[jlisenbe]

I'm sure you know the obvious difficulty.

I sure do. You're not paying attention. I quoted an explanation by Jesus in Matthew which WG referred to as an "allegory". You agreed with her. An explanation of an allegory is generally not itself an allegory, so you were simply wrong. I was clearly not referring to the 2 Peter passage.

As to tartarus as used in 2 Peter 2, it is almost universally translated as "hell". Pretty sure those guys know a lot more than you, so I'm content with that. And since the angels held there are being held until a day of "judgment", then I just don't see how you have much to stand on.

If you claim Tartarus has more than one meaning in the NT, (which you are claiming), then it is incumbent upon you to provide that meaning and a defense of your claim.

Actually I did not claim that was the case.

These comments were mean-spirited.

"To suggest his explanation was itself an allegory is just silliness."
"...try and justify WG's hasty retreat".
"You seem fearful of doing so. I wonder why".
"You're the one who ignores questions you can't comfortably answer."

I laughed when I read that. If you can't handle some honesty, then talk to someone else.

You were warned about replying directly without the snarky comments

I was warned?? Please drop the drama. I have no concern at all about what you decide to do. If you deal with me, you will deal with someone who is going to tell you the truth.

[Athos]

I sure do. You're not paying attention. I quoted an explanation by Jesus in Matthew which WG referred to as an "allegory". You agreed with her. An explanation of an allegory is generally not itself an allegory, so you were simply wrong

No, I was right - clearly. Here's my reply from post 33:

Jesus is quoted as saying ”... and those who commit lawlessness...” will be in a furnace of fire weeping and gnashing their teeth. That is obviously not to be taken literally since the victims will hardly be weeping in the fire. If anything, they will be screaming at the top of their lungs for the few seconds it takes to turn them into crispy critters and ashes. Also, to further the figure of speech, the righteous will shine like the sun is an obvious simile, and the ear remark completes the colorful way of expression. Allegorical to the Nth degree.

I was clearly not referring to the 2 Peter passage.

Yes, I know. That was obvious. The principle remained the same - that an allegory is still an allegory even when it is used to explain another allegory. My first example referred to your Jesus quote in your post 31. The next example referred to 2 Peter 2. Here is that reply by me:

If, as you contend, the 2 Peter explanation is not a parable, then you have to explain its reality. Did 2 Peter/Jesus therefore believe in Tartarus as a real place from Greek mythology? The answer to that is certainly NO.

You wrote that I "was simply wrong". No, my friend, the wrong is all yours. I trust that now you will be able to review it all again and understand what is being described.

As to tartarus as used in 2 Peter 2, it is almost universally translated as "hell".

Yes, I know that too. I would drop "almost". It's ALWAYS translated that way. That's the problem and the very issue being discussed. It is being translated incorrectly. I gave you the proof for that. Here is the proof again:

The original Greek letter has "tartarus". That has been rendered as "hell" in English. Tartarus does not mean hell. It was mistranslated into Latin as 'infernum". Infernum does not mean tartarus. Infernum means a fiery place. Infernum was rendered as hell in English. The point - tartarus was mistranslated as infernum which led to hell in English.

Pretty sure those guys know a lot more than you, so I'm content with that.

That is your privilege - to believe whatever you want. In every translation of that passage, there is a footnote telling the reader that "hell" in the passage is actually "tartarus" from the Greek.

You now have two reasons to not be so content "with those guys".

And since the angels held there are being held until a day of "judgment", then I just don't see how you have much to stand on.

On the contrary, that is additional proof that Tartarus is not hell. Hell is definitely not a place where angels are held for a day of judgment. Hell is permanent. When you get there, you are there to stay. Judgment has already occurred.

I trust all this is resonating with you, showing you the facts of the matter.

fm Athos
If you claim Tartarus has more than one meaning in the NT, (which you are claiming), then it is incumbent upon you to provide that meaning and a defense of your claim.

fm JL
Actually I did not claim that was the case.

Yes, you did make that claim. Here are your exact words:

"It's a word that has more than one meaning. When used in a NT context, it has a NT meaning."

To repeat: You need to provide the other meanings you claim are there along with a defense of your claim.

[jlisenbe]

No, I was right - clearly. Here's my reply from post 33:

I was referring to the Matthew passage which you and WG both understood very well to be the case. The passage I quoted was, to any thinking person, plainly not an allegory but the explanation of an allegory. How do we know that? Because his disciples had just requested that he EXPLAIN the parable to them. But be stubborn if you wish.

Yes, I know that too. I would drop "almost". It's ALWAYS translated that way.

Except that it's not, and if you would do your homework then you would know that. Some translations such as the HCSB actually use "tartarus" as the translation. Young's literal translation does likewise.

that an allegory is still an allegory even when it is used to explain another allegory

Oh brother. Your principle seems to be this. Any passage that says something with which you are not comfortable must surely be an allegory, even if the passage is the explanation for an allegory. It's just ridiculous.

That is your privilege - to believe whatever you want. In every translation of that passage, there is a footnote telling the reader that "hell" in the passage is actually "tartarus" from the Greek.

That is not true. It is true that most (not "every") do. The Amplified, for instance, says this. "For emphasis Peter uses a word (tartarus) from Greek mythology describing a hell reserved for the most horrendous of people to emphasize the terrible doom awaiting false prophets and teachers who manipulate and twist the truth of the gospel message." That footnote is not helpful to your cause.

Believe what you will about hell. It is a bad place which Christ himself said is eternal. I don't want to go there.

Yes, you did make that claim. Here are your exact words:

"It's a word that has more than one meaning. When used in a NT context, it has a NT meaning."

But I did not say it had more than one meaning in the NT. It has one meaning in Greek mythology, and another meaning in the one and only place it is used in the NT. Either that, or you would seriously have us believe that Peter thought angels were committed to an imaginary place that existed only in Greek literature. Surely you know that cannot be correct.

[Athos]

I was referring to the Matthew passage .....etc., etc., etc. The full text is immediately above for those interested.

Let me sum up this entire thread for you so it doesn't descend further into constant repetition.

1. Tartarus is from Greek mythology. MYTHOLOGY!
2. It was incorrectly translated into English as Hell via Jerome's Latin.
3. It continues to be translated as Hell in English with new Bible editions.

I will now give you the two most important reasons for the non-existence of Hell. One I have already provided in depth, the other is new.

1. The argument from the Nature of God. Presented in depth in my post # 19 in this thread. I'll repeat it here: Hell is a contradiction of the nature of God. We say that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, and eternal.
   
   The contradiction lies in a God that is both perfectly loving and creator of all. For a hell to exist would mean God is not perfectly loving since as an all-powerful creator who has perfect knowledge, God would know that someone would deliberately reject God and go to hell for eternity.
   This would be an unpleasant experience for eternity and in no possible way would it reflect the perfect love of God. By the act of creating someone, God has condemned that person. God chose to create the person anyway, thereby KNOWINGLY, in effect, sending him/her to hell since he/she cannot do other than what God has foreseen, else God lacks perfect knowledge.
   
   QED. There is no hell.
   
   
   2. “I think that perhaps no single belief has done more to undercut the spiritual journey of more Western people than the belief that God could be an eternal torturer of people who do not like him or disobey him. And this after Jesus exemplified and taught us to love our enemies and forgive offenses 70 x 7 times! The very idea of Hell (with a capital ‘H’) constructs a very toxic and fear-based universe, starting at its very center and ground. Hatred, exclusion, and mistreatment of enemies is legitimated all the way down the chain of command.” -Richard Rohr

Rohr accurately points out that Hell's continuation in Christianity is essentially a form of revenge religion designed to punish our enemies and those we dislike that are not approachable in this life.

Hell, however, is being re-thought, even by the Catholic Church. John Paul II gave it a nuanced definition in a papal letter that softens the worst Dante-esque descriptions of Hell. Hell still remains a stalwart of evangelicals and fundamentalists, although some evangelicals are also reconsidering the idea.

God bless you, JL. I hope this dialogue has encouraged you to consider and examine your sources of Hell and to not follow blindly a Bible that has been translated into many languages in various editions over the centuries without employing your God-given mental faculties to discern the original core truth.

I will now bow out of the dialogue since I have said all that can be said.

[jlisenbe]

Very well. I remain committed to the words of Jesus about hell which you have neglected to mention.

The primary issue is this. God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, so that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have life everlasting.