Matthew 25:41 King James Bible
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

How can you consider this a physical place?
Unless you want to claim that just outside Jerusalem there is the devil selling souvenirs or something, your claim is just wrong.

It is clear that Matthew has a clear picture of 'Gehenna', an everlasting fire where the devil and his angels dwell.
Whenever he mentions "everlasting fire" "thrown into the hell of fire." "Rather fear HIM who can destroy both soul and body in hell." he is referring to the same idea of a place of suffering in the afterlife.
This is an acceptable and logical context the church uses today and it does makes sens.
Matthew is quite coherent with this.

You are just trying desperately to make the OT idea of 'Gehenna' fit all the other author's idea of hell.

I say you are trying to make a mission impossible here..
There is simply no way to do that, it simply is contradictory in many ways.

Well I am trying hard to be patient here.
Although your credentials are awe inspiring, they give no credit to your argument at all.

Address the quotes and my questions please.

I did not ask about your opinion of what they should mean according to your theology.
But what the sentences mean objectively without applying your bias to them.

You just took parts of those sentences and parts of others and made a nice preaching about it.
You keep avoiding the main argument.

"I'm not trying to make Gehenna fit. Gehenna is that actual word."
I did not say it wasn't the actual word, I said : "the OT "IDEA" of 'Gehenna' fit"
Which means that you are assuming that when the authors said 'Gehenna' they actually meant it's literal meaning or reference.
If you put yourself in the author of Mathew you can see that he wanted to show that there is 'somewhere worse then death' and he used the idea 'Gehenna' as a place to describe it. He is very vague when it comes to describing 'this place which is worse then death'.
But he had a picture of a place where the souls can be destroyed and a place of fire, even eternal fire.

Though this theological argument is useless with you because you cannot even see the facts that, 'Gehenna' of the new testament cannot possibly be a physical place like it is in the OT.

If we cannot even agree on this very obvious fact, then there is no point in arguing any more, you are just ignoring this fact and resort to preaching something which is not related.

I don't care if you are the most informed person or the person that is always wrong.
I judge an argument without applying my bias. If you make a solid argument I will acknowledge it however do not expect me to acknowledge any argument which is contradictory either.

Currently your claim about 'Gehenna' in the NT being a physical place is contradictory to most of the text and beryl fits some of them.
If there is just 1 place where 'Gehenna' as a physical place does not fit, your claim is wrong.

I have showed you where it does not fit and you chose to change subject every single time.

"Are you claiming that all Jews are or were thrown in the Gehenna when they died?" No answer.

"The KJV is not a good translation"
Again you keep pushing this forced stupid behavior that is pissing me off,
STOP making claims without supporting them.
Who cares about The KJV, if you have a different translation of the quote I made, do not attack the The KJV but quote the correct translation.
You are acting like a guilty politician that constantly has to alienate and change subject because he knows that he is wrong.
If you think that this translation:
"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels"
Is not a good translation of the Greek version then please support your claim because i have checked and nearly all bibles have the same translation.

This kind of behavior is unacceptable in a serious discussion. QUOTE to support your arguments and not claim things alone.
I feel I am talking ta a 5 year old kid that cannot even read basic English.
I am tired of constantly telling you how to support your claims and being ignored all the time.

"Yes there are human authorities like Rome who can kill you - but don't fear because God is in control and he can raise you from the dead anyway to be a part of his glorious kingdom. But fear the devil, because if you go down that path you'll die and not be a part of the kingdom."
Where is this quote from?
This:
"Matt. 10:28,"And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell."
Does not mean your quote.
Here he is saying that your soul can be destroyed by the devil in 'Gehenna'.
You just skipped this part because it contradicts you physical version of 'Gehenna' and made it nice and polished to fit your claim.
This is what we call applying your bias to an argument.
You keep ignoring every single question or anything that I pointed out.

Now are you doing this willingly or is your brain programmed to ignore those things?
How do you expect me to treat you like a mature intellectual when you have such a behavior to a very simple question?

Is the devil current address in the physical 'Gehenna' of the OT? Does the physical 'Gehenna' destroy souls?
Since it is a fact that Jews physical bodies are not thrown there even though they are sinners, your claim is simply wrong.
'Gehenna' of the NT does not mean 'Gehenna' of the OT.

It is useless changing the subject here, you either answer or don't, I am not a fool you can somehow divert my attention from the main argument.
You are insulting my intelligence by doing so and it is irritating me. I have no other choice but repeating the question that you haven't answered:

"Matt. 10:28,"And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell."
Jesus referring to the devil that can destroy your soul in hell, a place in the afterlife, your soul does not dwell in a physical place."

"their bodies were buried but some part of them (soul) was kept safe in a kind of peaceful lodging house"
QUOTE, where in the OT does it mention SOUL.
The devil can destroy "some part of them (soul) was kept safe in a kind of peaceful lodging house"??????
Matt. 10:28 "Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna."

So now the soul is a physical thing that is placed in a "peaceful lodging house" yet somehow the devil can destroy physical objects that are both in the "peaceful lodging house" and in Gehenna right outside Jerusalem at the same point in time.

This is becoming so ridiculous and nonsensical that I am starting to think that you are just wasting my time on purpose.

You are making stuff up and it is shown by the fact that you are not quoting all the big claims you are claiming.

You cannot mix the OT meaning of 'Gehenna' with the NT because it won't make sens at all and i showed it with pure logic.
There are more contradictions which I could show but I think that you would just ignore them anyway.

"I was trying to place the verses in question into the larger context of first century Jewish and Christian belief."
If you want to make a claim about the "context of first century Jewish and Christian belief." you need to support your claim with evidence, which you failed.
That was my point, I am tired of repeating myself. You cannot shoot claims left right and center.

"You can't take random verses out of the cultural context."
I am not doing that, I know that Jesus time was a war-zone with constant guerrilla type of war against the Romans where it escalated to a full rebellion in 66 AD. There were several zealots at that time that wanted to push the Romans out.
The Julio Claudians wanted their statues to be put in the Temple of God and most of the Jews could not accept that.
The fact that Jesus in the NT says nothing against the Romans breaking the 1'st and 3'rd commandments by his own father says a lot about which political inclination Jesus or the authors of the NT had. The authors are Pro Roman, they support peace and not fighting for your religion.
Matthew 26:52
"Then Yeshua said to him, “Return the sword to its place, for all of those who take up swords will die by swords."
Here the author is referring to what will happen in 70 AD where all those who took arms against Rome will die by the sword.

You are doing exactly that, you built your own context that works for your theology but failed to support that context with evidence.
My context is shown from every sentence: "Mathew wants to show that sinning is bad, and he believes in the devil and that your soul can be destroyed by him"

"Yes I think when they say Gehenna they mean Gehenna. These are the same people as those in the old testament."
Now you are finally catching on, you are letting your bias jump to the conclusion that "These are the same people as those in the old testament." and you use this context you have concluded without evidence as the only reason for your claim.

"If your belief is that the meaning of the word drastically changed for the New Testament Jews, what would cause that kind of drastic change?"
Very easy, since they are not the same people, thus mistakes of translation and misunderstanding of prophecies happen.
Here I am not saying that Jews were not helping in the translation, but it was a minority view, the Jews never agreed much between themselves on the text, that is why there were 3 main factions at the time. The Romans used the Alexanders knowledge and interpretation and their own historian which was a Pharisee priest Flavius Josephus.
So it seems logical to me that they would do mistakes when it comes to prophecies of the other factions they did not believe in.(thus not studied)
Apart from that, Mathew wanted to make 'something worse then death' and Gehenna fit that description.
He made Gehenna mean a fiery place where souls can be destroyed.
Matt. 10:28 "Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna."
He did not care much about it because this religion was not for the Jews but for the peasants or slaves that cannot even read.
The Romans at that time were promoting Rabbinic Judaism as a religion for the Jews instead.

To support this I pointed out that:
Matt. 10:28 "Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna."
Now you again failed to answer how Gehenna is a place where souls can be destroyed while being a physical place?
I am not denying that in the OT it was a physical place but you are claiming that Mathew had the same concept when referring to Gehenna where it is clearly not so.
You are the one that needs to support your claim here by answering that question.
Saying that the cultural context, or the bigger picture somehow answers my question or nullifies what Mathew is saying here is just you showing me that you cannot find a decent answer for my question without admitting that you claim about "Gehenna" is at least partially wrong.
I have read the entire context and it does fit with a fiery afterlife place perfectly while it does not fit with a physical place at all.
Unless you support your claim of "cultural context" you are just inventing an excuse.

"'Gehenna' of the new testament cannot possibly be a physical place like it is in the OT." And yet it is. It was a local landmark. This is an important fact."
Here you are just being stupid. I said clearly that it is a "local landmark" and it is "an important fact" but the author of Mathew could just as easily mean anything that he wants with that word since he clearly wants to mean "somewhere that is worse then death".
Gehenna just happens to be one of the few options for words he had for it.
EG:
If I say: Today's' schools are hell.
It does not mean that we build hell on earth in every town just because we build schools. It just means "a bad place"
Now in case of Mathew, there was no 'hell' word to use for a place worse then death and he used 'Gehenna' to describe a "a bad place".

If you go through the context of the entire page, there is no way to interpret "Gehenna" as a physical place and make sens.
Please do so yourself BEFORE claiming otherwise. Then quote THE PAGE it would fit without contradiction.

"It seems like you are ignoring everything I say about the culture and expectations of the Jews of the Jesus' time. Why?"
I am not ignoring anything, quote what I did not answer?
It is clear to me that you have no concept of the OT and what happened to the Jews, have a read:
https://clas-pages.uncc.edu/james-tabor/ancient-judaism/death-afterlife-...
"The traditional Christian concept of an immaterial and immortal soul distinct from the body was not found in Judaism before the Babylonian Exile"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul_in_the_Bible

Beneames:
"kept safe in a kind of peaceful lodging house (that's what the word means - "paradise""
"I didn't say the soul was a physical object."
Was it kept safe in a physical place they called "peaceful lodging house" or not?

"these are all words we use to try to describe things that can't be scientifically described"
Lol, are there things that "can't be scientifically described"?
We live in a physical and logical universe, so everything CAN "be scientifically described", it is just a matter of WHEN.
A soul might have been called a soul in the past by people that cannot even read, but if it was describing energy then it can be "scientifically described" Yes.

Your claim that there are things that "can't be scientifically described" is not supported with evidence but on your bias alone.
Again more unsupported claims.

The reason I asked you to quote where you have found SOUL in the old testament is because I wanted to see how knowledgeable were you on the Jewish scripture.
This proved to me that you know next to nothing about the political and social context of that time.
Have a read:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Exile.html
"written after the exile, as well as many of the Psalms,"
This will put a more clear picture of what happened and why more prophecies and prophets were needed by the Jews.

This means that the Jews after the Babylonian Exile invented or redefined the definition of a SOUL and the NT authors redefined or copied the term from the Jews.
This means that there is no eternal soul after you die, at least not a christian type of soul. It is all based on an invention by desperate and defeated people after the Babylonian Exile.

As I have previously mentioned after their god left them( after Babylonian Exile) the Jews started to invent prophets and prophecies to give hope to the Jews. They used a method to validate these claimed prophets which is called TYPOLOGY in the text they were creating.
This TYPOLOGY takes elements of old stories and retells the stories in a different form. That is why most prophets have so many similarities. (eg; 40 days/years in the desert). They also BACK DATE the prophets so no one can confirm if the prophet is genuine or not.

Now, when the Romans captured the scripture(70 AD), they saw this TYPOLOGY that was used to validate those invented prophets and decided to create their own prophet and prophecies.(Jesus)(they Back Dated him in the times of their enemies, The Julio Claudian dynasty)
It is really that strait forward, the Roman did not invent much, they just copied the idea from someone else(Jewish priests) as they usually do.

We had a similar argument about what was invented about child sacrifice in an other topic. I was quoting the OT BEFORE the Babylonian Exile and you were constantly referring me to the OT AFTER the Babylonian Exile.
Which I replied that the Jews changed their ways after the the Babylonian Exile and it reflected in no more child sacrifice since it was not needed.(they have lost all claims to their land which god promised)

Aramaic Bible in Plain English:
“And if your eye subverts you, pull it out and throw it from you, for it is better for you that you would enter life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, that you would fall into The Gehenna of fire."
--Jeff
"Are you claiming that all Jews are or were thrown in the Gehenna when they died?"
--Beneames
"No."
"as a colorful way of saying "Go that way and you'll get yourself killed."
This makes no sens, if Gehenna means a physical place and "you'll get yourself killed" then how do you explain that we have Jewish sinners today that are not thrown in "Gehenna of fire"/killed? Why are they not killed?

Let me replace the word "Gehenna of fire" with an other physical place "Paris of fire" or "Prison of Fire" or "Tomb of fire"

“And if your eye subverts you, pull it out and throw it from you, for it is better for you that you would enter life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, that you would fall into The TOMB of fire."
If it means killed, then all the Jews that are sinners and are still alive are somehow dead too.(contradiction)

See why it cannot be a physical place, it just doesn't fit the context of what the author wants to say.
This is not a matter of opinion, it is just an obvious fact.
He is implying that sinning is worse then death. So you can sin and be alive but the punishment is far worse.

"This is a bizarre discussion because you, an atheist, are telling me, a Christian minister and theologian, what Christians believe and then judging me to be wrong when I beg to differ."
This is what the majority of Christians think and it is not because they misinterpret what Mathew wants to say as you are implying.
It is exactly what Mathew means since it cannot be interpreted in any other way. It cannot be a physical place in the NT even if the actual word means a physical place in the OT.
You are trying to correct a wrong "HELL punishment" for the wrong reasons and that is why I am judging you, because your aim is to act as a moderate to defend the christian theology while panning it all on the current church.
I am agreeing with you about "HELL punishment" is wrong but I'm showing that it is coming from the theology and not just the church.

"1. Jesus used an actual place name"
Correct
"2. Jesus used it metaphorically to describe something else."
Correct
"3. Jesus wanted his listeners to take the metaphor literally
There are some logical problems with that."
Incorrect

Who said that Jesus wanted it to mean literally? I said that Mathew wanted to make "something worse then death" and used the word Gehenna as the next best word for a word that was not invented yet.
However whatever he had in mind, he describes it as a place of fire and where the devil dwells and destroys souls.
Then I agree with you about today's concept of hell:
"Those images came more from people like Michelangelo and Dante."
They do but they used a magnified version of "Gehenna of fire" to do it and not the other way round as you seem to imply without evidence.

"I'm not dismissing the fiction bits in the Bible "-

So why isn't the whole thing fiction?

Hello! I am so glad that you asked these "unanswerable" questions.First of all, your argument about the age of the earth is is a non-sequitur. We can not say that because the human species is much younger than the earth that God doesn't care about us. As for the bit about the Old testament, I don't think you quite understand the difference between Old and New law. In the old testament the old law was in place which is quite different than the natural morality that we now have because Christ had not yet died for our sins. I encourage you to look up the distinction. Finally, being a Catholic, hell is absolutely not punishment for every crime only those that are grave ( called mortal sin) and not repented of. God is fair and merciful because we fail him everyday ad he is still willing to except our apologies.
In Christ, God Bless you.

It's a major problem that you are reading the texts back through the eyes of later Romans. You're not going to understand any of this until we get past that. So let's stick to that for a bit then.

The theory is that Christianity was invented by the Flavians after 70AD. Atwill says 73AD. So if we can prove that Christianity existed before then, the theory is flawed from the outset.

So let's have a look at the sources.
1. Suetonius. In his work "The Lives of the Twelve Caesars," in the "Nero 16" section, Suetonius listed various laws that were used by Nero to maintain public order, including: "Punishment was inflicted on the Christians." Nero reigned from 54-68AD, before Christianity was invented? Note, Christianity is mentioned, but no mention of the incredible fact that the Romans made it up.

2. Tacitus also assumes the existence of a good number of Christians in Rome at the time of Nero - specifically the time of the fire in 64AD. Many of the Roman population suspected Nero of starting the fire. Tacitus wrote:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".

And he goes on to describe the torture. Again this is before 73AD. This reference is doubly important because Tacitus was a member of "Quindecimviri sacris faciundis," a council of priests whose duty it was to supervise foreign religious cults in Rome. He is generally well-respected by scholars for carefully checking his facts, and you can easily see from this reference that he wasn't biased towards Christians. One would assume that if Christianity was made up by Romans, Tacitus would have mentioned the fact.

This also shows that there were quite a number of Christians in Rome before 70AD, enough for them to be a suitable scapegoat for Nero to put forward.

So there were a good number of Christians in Rome BEFORE Flavius supposedly invented Christianity. The theory is flawed. But I may as well keep going....

3. Pliny the Younger. Around 112AD, Pliny the Younger, the Roman governor of Bithynia-Pontus wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan and asked for counsel on dealing with Christians. Interestingly, Trajan's advice doesn't include the suggestion that Pliny inform the Christians that their entire religion was made up. It does show however that Emperor Trajan felt that if a person was found to be a Christian, that was sufficient grounds in itself for judicial action. Here is the advice, so we know definitively Rome’s position on Christianity at the time:
“…if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it–that is, by worshiping our gods–even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon…”
Also note that this was only 40 years after Christianity was supposedly made up by the Flavians. That is a very short time.

4. The New Testament writings themselves. Paul’s letters. 13 of the letters in the New Testament are attributed to Paul. Atwill would say these were made up later, but most scholars place them ALL before 68AD, for various textual and biographical reasons.
Acts 5:29 (“We must obey God rather than human beings!”) is a direct contradiction to the idea that Christians should submit to authorities.
It’s not difficult to see anti-empire themes in Revelation, and many times believers are warned about powerful world authorities and encouraged to stay faithful and true to God even when persecuted. Not to mention the end of the story, where Jesus is vindicated and God is king.

5. It’s worth noting as well the ABSENCE of any writings that show the Romans using this kind of strategy. There’s no record of it ever being used anywhere, including here. There’s especially no reason to try such a sophisticated and improbable technique with the Jews, who had already been defeated soundly in 70AD. Why not save it for a real threat, like the Gauls?

6. Josephus. Atwill’s theory relies on supposed parallels between the life of Jesus and the Wars of the Jews. But only Atwill has the code to deciphering it, conveniently. Many of the parallels are so vague that it becomes bizarre. Eg. “’Follow me and I will make you fishers of men.’ And the disciples left their nets and followed Jesus” is apparently a parallel with the story where Titus, after a naval defeat of the Jews, finished off the ones still in the water by spearing them and cutting off their hands. Tenuous. Note, there are SOME parallels between the Wars of the Jews and the gospel of Luke, but it’s more likely that either Josephus had copies of Luke, or Luke had copies of Josephus. That kind of thing happened a lot.

Now logically....
1. Why would Christians be persecuted at all by Romans (including Jesus killed on a Roman cross) if Christianity was pro-Roman?
2. Why would you make up a religion to control Jews, which (1) negatively portrays the Jewish leaders, and (2) which has the climax of the story being the death of the central, Jewish, hero figure at the hands of the Romans? How on earth would that inspire middle-eastern people to peacefully lay down weapons before the empire? This would have been a very dangerous strategy, risking large-scale slave revolt (something Rome really was worried about). And clearly it didn’t inspire the Jews to lay down weapons. The revolutions kept happening after 70AD.
3. Matthew's gospel concludes with Jesus saying the words "All authority on heaven and earth has been given to me." Simply put, Jesus is king of the universe. How do you think that went down in Rome? Actually, this is part of the reason Christians were persecuted by Romans. They refused to acknowledge that "Caesar is Lord" which was an everyday kind of salute for those living in Rome. Also, Rome was ok with other religions AS LONG AS they also worshiped the Roman gods. Christians refused to do that, so were punished and killed. Why would this happen if Christianity was concocted to be accommodationist and pro-Roman? Why didn’t they just say “Caesar is Lord?” If you read the new testament as Christian texts that describe the real Jesus, it makes sense. Each of the four gospels finishes with the Romans killing Jesus, and then Jesus beating death itself, in essence becoming more powerful than Rome itself.
4. The supposed rewriting of the Jews’ history occurred only 40 years after the events were meant to have happened. There would have been people around who could have definitely called bullshit BECAUSE THEY WERE THERE. And the number increases exponentially if you include the children of people who were there. One conversation would have done it.
“Hey Dad, you know how we always go to Jerusalem every year? Do you remember a guy named Jesus who was doing amazing miracles and healings, and preaching to thousands of people, and was taken to King Herod and then Pontius Pilate and then crucified out on the hill?”
“Nope, don’t remember that happening.”
“Well I’ve just heard that he’s actually our Messiah.”
“Oh, well I guess we’d better become Christians.”
“Yeah. Although I probably should mention that they’re persecuting Christians in Rome at the moment….”
It’s very unlikely that a made-up theory like this would have actually caught on.
5. The theory only works if the Christians first bought it, AND THEN MISUNDERSTOOD THE POINT ENTIRELY, refusing to submit to Rome’s authority.
6. Why in the world would the Romans use this strategy at all? They’d already crushed the Jews in 70AD, even to the point of destroying the city and the temple. There’s no reason to add some more psychological warfare to the equation. And the Jews really weren’t a military threat at that point (or ever).
7. If the point was to make the Jews good Roman citizens, then why would the New Testament proclaim a desire to “reach the Gentiles” throughout the writings, if the Gentiles were already good Roman citizens? Paul even often states a desire to take the message to Rome and convert the Romans there. If the writer is a Roman, it seems that he thinks he himself and all his friends should convert to Christianity. But if a Roman converted to Christianity, it would turn a good emperor-worshipping Roman citizen into a non-emperor-worshipping enemy of the state, loyal to their God above the emperor himself. Not a great plan.
8. There are quite a few writings from Roman historians that speak of the first century, and Christianity is mentioned, but there is not one mention from any historian (even later ones) of the Flavians inventing Christianity. We don't see that explanation until we fast forward 2000 years to Joseph Atwill. It is established that these Roman historians give us a good idea of what was going on at the time (especially in Rome). If this were not the case we'd have to throw out a lot of what we know about ancient Rome (and trust Atwill?).

Over to you.