>>18513322
jews don't believe in after death fantasy lands, and anyone who does has been misled into a false understanding of what the world to come and the kingdom of heaven meant

>>18513322
Because hell as a fiery place where souls go to suffer for thousands of years, getting poked by the devil and demons, is a Catholic fanfic.
It's not in the bible. Neither the old nor the new testament.

Modern Christians are in love with the concept though. Both to keep fellow Christians in line and to feel smug about people they don't like getting tortured in the future.

>David killing Goliath
Also "Thou Shall not Kill" is a mistranslation. It's actually "Thou shall not Murder." Capital punishment, self-defense and state-sanctioned warfare are okay.

>>18513322
>Christians are in love with the concept though
until you get to the problematic implications of unbaptized children, people born before Christ and good people who never heard of Christ going to hell.
Honestly, the basis of Christanity as a religion of peace, love, forgiveness, etc, is great, even as unpractical as it is in a brutal world. But man, the theology they built on it over almost 2 millennia is so retarded. Virgin birth, Trinity, Hell and Limbo, rules of Lent,...

>>18513363
Strawman. Time doesn’t exist in hell and the bible doesn’t ever attribute the role of punishing to the demons (who are themselves punished), but hell is absolutely biblical doctrine and liberalism is the only reason it is ever questioned.
>>18513322
David did not sin by killing Goliath because it was just killing in a just war. Nor did David go to hell for his many sins, since he was saved by Christ.

>>18513322
God commands against murder, the killing of the innocent. But God commands to kill the wicked. If there is a town of wicked people, a rigtheous man is allowed to raid it, kill everyone inside and steal all their goods including cattle and virgin girls. This is true rigtheousness, the rigtheousness that the Most High teaches.

Blessed will be the one who kills their oppressors.

>>18513396
>Time doesn’t exist in hell
>but hell is absolutely biblical doctrine
What bible passages do you base this on?

>>18513329
David clearly taught that while the wicked die like animals God would redeem him from the grave and when he awoken will get to see his face.

>>18513403
Matthew 25:46

>>18513322
First of all, in the parable, Goliath represents Anti-Intellectuals who look down upon or dismiss fields like literature, fine art, philosophy, and classical music as useless or pretentious. So King David is not really killing a giant caveman, so much as he is defeating the concepts described above.

Second, the command uses the word רָצַח. This means murder, not kill.

>>18513407
For a year David lived off of raiding of philistine villages and killing every single person in them so they couldn't tell the king he was killing them since David was telling the king he was actually raiding Israelite villages instead and the philistine king believed him because Saul the king of Israel was trying to kill him.

None of this was considered evil by God because the philistines were wicked people who worshipped demons dressed as gods and loved to do evil things.

>>18513406
It was originally written in greek.
It actually says:
>kolasin aiōnion
kolasin means "correction", "pruning" or "punishment".
aiōnion means "lasting an eon", "age-long" or "eternal"

Reading it to mean "eternal punishment" is a choice by the translator.

>>18513415
That’s not how language works, a word may have many senses in general but only one possible sense in a given context. Of the options you gave eternal punishment is the only one that makes sense in the context. Jesus is talking about the judgement of evil men for their sins at the last day, therefore “punishment” alone fits here. And it is opposed to “eternal life”, which would be absurd to posit that He is only saying this life will last a long time, and then end, which would contradict the whole tenor of the bible and His teachings. Therefore, eternal punishment is the meaning of the words.

>>18513406
Everytime you touch a hot stove, it will burn. This punishment will last forever, in. The sense that it will always burn when you touch it. The solution is to stop touching the hot stove. If you reject God, and insist on making bad choices, instead of accepting objectively good choices, the you will burn forever on that stove. The choice is yours.

Every sin is forgiven, except for the sin of denying forgiveness. You cant be forgiven if you dont even acknowledge that forgivness exists.

>>18513418
"Gehenna" as a place where souls go after death for 12 months to be cleansed of their sins was a popular concept at the time of Jesus in Judaism. It makes much more sense to assume it is a place of correction rather than punishment and it lasting forever makes no sense at all.

>>18513424
>Every sin is forgiven, except for the sin of denying forgiveness
None of the sins of the reprobate are forgiven
>>18513426
There’s no exegetical argument here, just a philosophical argument against the actual teachings of Jesus. There are many concepts of contemporary Judaism which Jesus explicitly rejected, and the idea of a 12 month purgatory is incompatible with His teaching in general and in this text in particular. First, He is not speaking of man’s death, but the final judgement at the end of the world (verse 31). Second, a period of 12 months does not accord with the use of the word aiōnion. Third, I think Jesus is wiser than you, and will choose to believe what He teaches instead of what makes sense to you. It is punishment and it is eternal because God is infinitely holy and just. It is good that hell exists, because if there was no hell then God would be unjust and the wicked would be permitted to get away with their crimes.

>>18513434
I did not say it was meant to be 12 months, I pointed out Gehenna involves a temporary period and it makes more sense that ideas based on this concept would also rather be meant to be temporary than eternal if you have interpretive ambiguity between the two.

>a philosophical argument against the actual teachings of Jesus
No, just against your (admittedly mainstream) translator bias

>>18513451
Again, there is not an argument here. There is no interaction with my arguments. As far as that goes I declare victory because my arguments stand unopposed. This text is very clear and you simply do not believe it because you are a liberal.
>would also rather be meant to be temporary than eternal if you have interpretive ambiguity between the two
1. There is no ambiguity 2. This would require that the eternal life of the righteous is also temporary, which is impossible

File: Motivation.jpg (25 KB, 377x530)

25 KB JPG

>>18513434
>reprobate

A reprobate is rejecting God and not repenting. They are not seeking forgiveness/correction.

The problem with my argument is that it does not appear to address the injustice of sins against others, such as pushing an innocent person into a hot stove, or curcifying an innocent man. In this case, the wicked are forgiven, and the sin is transferred to the scapegoat.

God does not desire sacrifice like this. He desires mercy, and mercy requires a repentant heart.

Some use a rod to encourage mercy, others use a staff.

>>18513459
Christ dies only for the sins of the elect. The reprobate is not forgiven for any sin and all of them are held against him.

>>18513456
>Again, there is not an argument here. There is no interaction with my arguments. As far as that goes I declare victory because my arguments stand unopposed.
...
>There’s no exegetical argument here, just a philosophical argument against the actual teachings of Jesus.
Not an argument

>There are many concepts of contemporary Judaism which Jesus explicitly rejected, and the idea of a 12 month purgatory is incompatible with His teaching in general and in this text in particular.
Not an argument

>First, He is not speaking of man’s death, but the final judgement at the end of the world (verse 31).
Yes, he will gather all nations before him and separate them into two groups. It does not say what happens to those already dead

>Second, a period of 12 months does not accord with the use of the word aiōnion.
I explained this one. Strawman I guess. I did not say it was 12 months, but the concept it is based on is 12 months long hence temporary in nature.

>Third, I think Jesus is wiser than you, and will choose to believe what He teaches instead of what makes sense to you.
You are also translating the words of the Matthew gospel in a way that makes sense to you. The argument is about what he actually teaches.

>It is punishment and it is eternal because God is infinitely holy and just. It is good that hell exists, because if there was no hell then God would be unjust and the wicked would be permitted to get away with their crimes.
You are both saying God can decide whatever he wants and it would be just and that you agree with his decision. If he decided something else it would also be just, so this isn't an argument in favor of your point. You are working backwards form the conclusion to justify getting to the conclusion.

>>18513461
At the very least we can say that some were forgiven, because they didnt know what they were doing at the time.

>>18513480
This is what twisting the scriptures (to your own destruction) looks like
>Yes, he will gather all nations before him and separate them into two groups. It does not say what happens to those already dead
It is about those who already dead, indeed each and every man who ever lived, raised for this final judgement.
>I did not say it was 12 months, but the concept it is based on is 12 months long hence temporary in nature.
This presupposes that Christ’s teaching is based on the Jewish error, which is false.
>The argument is about what he actually teaches.
Which you have yet to join us in because your liberal heresy is indefensible. You certainly can’t walk it from verse 31 to verse 46
>You are both saying God can decide whatever he wants and it would be just and that you agree with his decision. If he decided something else it would also be just, so this isn't an argument in favor of your point. You are working backwards form the conclusion to justify getting to the conclusion.
This strawman is incoherent, so I will ignore it and clarify that God could not have a different character than He has, and what is good is not good arbitrarily, but really, objectively, absolutely, and universally, and is so because of the eternal and unchanging nature of God.

>>18513322
>>Thou Shall not Kill
>Then Why didn’t David go to Hell for killing Goliath?
Because it was a war, which was an obvious exception, especially seeing that God commanded them to fight. I write "obvious" not to imply that you're stupid for not seeing it, but to point out that it was obvious enough for Hebrews.

>>18513392
>the problematic implications of unbaptized children, people born before Christ and good people who never heard of Christ going to hell.
There are implications to the contrary.

>>18513322
Because it is actually "thou shall not kill jews". It's implied since they don't consider anyone else to be people.

ου φονεύσεις means don't murder, not "don't kill"

>>18513405
That does not mean what you think it does.

>>18513322
Because the original text says "Thou shall not murder". Big distinction between killing and murder. Simple as.

>>18513322
Why are they all cyclops

>>18513322
Was goliath a human?

File: images (2).jpg (66 KB, 494x621)

66 KB JPG

>>18513628
This, it's so simple
"nowhere in the Ten Commandments or even the entire Torah is it written: "Thou shalt not kill," and understanding this is vital to being able to comprehend and appreciate the true approach to morality in the Torah.

The original Hebrew word in the Ten Commandments is "Lo tirtzaj," which means "You shall not murder." The word that refers to "killing" is "Harigá," a completely different verb. There is a world of meaning in this choice of words.

Murder is taking the life of an innocent being, and it is always a forbidden act. However, killing is taking any life, which is sometimes permitted and could even become an obligation.

The Torah compels us to kill those who have lost their innocence. There are two ways to categorize these people:

1- Someone was found guilty in court for certain crimes, such as murder or kidnapping.

2- Someone who clearly and directly threatens the lives of innocent people. An example of this could be an armed man who breaks into people's homes. (Exodus 22:2)"

Because it only applies for the jewish tribe
Kill a person of the tribe- bad
kill a person of the enemy tribe- good
This is a moral principle for most tribal religions in history

>>18513363
LIAR

Matthew 5:29-30
If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. / And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to depart into hell.

I can find more scripture proving it. Read Revelation 21:8

>>18513322
Murder. MURDER. It has to do with blood feuds. Holy fuck you're stupid.

File: IMG_0506.jpg (197 KB, 1048x581)

197 KB JPG

>>18513322
He also collected foreskins

>>18514342
so does OP but he leaves the foreskins on after he sucks them