Annihilationism Is Actually...Biblical

[Jordan Henshaw]

Standard "I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh huh!" argument.

Why don't you use Genesis 1:1 for support of ECT?

Because if I reply back with something like, "Um, that has nothing to do with ECT vs Annihilationism," you could just respond by saying that I am using your, "I'm right and you're wrong!" argument, and automatically be right.

You really ought to use Genesis 1:1. I'm telling you. You will never be stopped.

 

[Der Alte]

Um... really?
So if I call chicken tasty one day and call chicken spicy a week later, I now consider "tasty" and "spicy" to be synonymous?
So now if I call a habanero pepper very spicy, it must also be very tasty?
Last time I checked, that's not the way logic works.

What you may/may not say about anything is irrelevant. I don't know of anyone arguing that spicy and tasty are synonymous. It is often argued by folks who could not conjugate a Greek verb if their life depended on it, that aionios does not mean "eternal, everlasting etc." Both "aidios" and "aionios" refer to a length of time. As I stated Paul used both "aidios" and "aoionios" synonymously. Here are a few more verses.
In the following twenty verses αἰών and αἰώνιος are defined/described by other words and phrases as eternal, everlasting etc.: 1 Timothy 1:17, 2 Corinthians 4:17-18, 2 Corinthians 5:1, Hebrews 7:24, 1 Peter 1:23, 1 Timothy 6:16, Galatians 6:8, John 6:58, John 10:20, 1 John 2:17, 1 Peter 5:10, Romans 2:7, Luke 1:33, Revelation 14:11, John 10:28, John 3:15, John 3:16, John 5:24, Ephesians 3:21, Romans 20:1, Romans 26:10.
.....In the NT “aion/aionios” are used to refer to things which are not eternal but are never defined/described as meaning a period of time less than eternal as in the following verses.

[1]1 Timothy 1:17.
(17) Now unto the King eternal, [αἰών/aion] immortal, [ ̓́αφθαρτος/aphthartos] invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever [αἰών/aion] and ever [αἰώνιος/aionios]. Amen.​

In this verse “aion” is paired with “immortal.” “Aion” cannot mean “age(s),” a finite period and be immortal at the same time. Thus “aion” by definition here means “eternal.”

[2]2 Corinthians 4:17-18
(17) For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] weight of glory;
(18) While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal;[πρόσκαιρος/proskairos] but the things which are not seen are eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios]​

In this passage “aionios” is contrasted with “for a moment,” vs. 4, and “temporal,” vs. 5. “Age(s)” a finite period, it is not the opposite of “for a moment”/”temporal/temporary.” “Eternal” is. See Robertson below. “Aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”

[3]2 Corinthians 5:1
(1)For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] in the heavens.​

In this verse “aionios house” is contrasted with “earthly house which is destroyed.” If an “aionios” house is at some time destroyed then it is no different than the earthly house. The aionios house is not destroyed, the opposite of “is destroyed.” Thus “aionios” by definition here means “eternal.” If the tabernacle in heaven is destroyed, it is no different than the earthly tabernacle.

[4]Hebrews 7:24 but because Jesus lives forever [αἰών/aion] he has a permanent [ἀπαράβατος/aparabatos] priesthood.​

In this verse “aion” is paired with “unchangeable.” If “aion” means “age(s),” Jesus cannot continue “for a finite period” and be “unchangeable” at the same time. Thus “aion” by definition here means “eternal.”

[5]1 Peter 1:23
(23) For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, [ ̓́αφθαρτος/aphthartos] through the living and enduring word of God.

1 Peter 1:25
(25) but the word of the Lord endures forever.[αἰών/aion] " And this is the word that was preached to you.​

In verse 23 “word of God” is paired with “incorruptible.” In verse 25 the word of God “endures εις τον αιωνα unto eternity. ” Thus by definition “aion” here means “eternity.”

[6]1 Timothy 6:16
(16) Who only hath immortality, [ ̓́αφθαρτος/aphthartos] dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting[αἰώνιος/aionios]​

In this verse “aionios” is paired with “immortality.” If “aionios” is only a finite period, God cannot be “immortal” and only exist for a finite period at the same time. Thus “aionios” by definition means “eternal.”

[7]Galatians 6:8
(8) For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption;[φθορά/fthora] but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. [αἰώνιος/aionios]​

In this verse “aionios” is contrasted with “corruption.” “Fleshly” people reap “corruption” but spiritual people reap “life aionios,” i.e. not “corruption.” “Age(s) is not opposite of “corruption.” Thus “aionios” by definition here means “eternal/everlasting.”

[8]John 6:58
(58) This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.[αἰώνιος/aionios]​

In this verse “aionios life” is contrasted with “death.” If “aionios” is only a finite period, a finite period is not opposite “death.” Thus “aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”

[9]John 10:28
(28) I give them eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] life, and they shall never [αἰών/aion] perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.​

Here “aionios” and “aion” are paired with “[not] snatch them out of my hand.” If “aion/aionios” means “age(s)” that is not the opposite of “[not] snatch them out of my hand’” “Aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”

[10]1 John 2:17
(17) The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever. [αἰών/aion]​

In this verse “aionios” is contrasted with “pass away” “aionios” cannot mean a finite period, A “finite period” is not opposite of “pass away.” Thus “aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”

[11]1 Peter 5:10
(10) And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal [αιωνιον/aionion] glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, [ολιγον/oligon] will himself restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast.​

In this verse “aionios” is contrasted with “little while” “aionios” cannot mean a finite period, A “finite period” is not opposite of “little while.” Thus by definition “aionios” here means “eternal.”

[12]Romans 2:7
(7) To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, [ἀφθαρσία/apftharsia] he will give eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] life.​

In this verse “aion” is paired with “immortality.” If “aion” is only a finite period, believers cannot seek for “a finite period,” and “immortality” at the same time. But they can seek for “eternal life” and “immortality” at the same time. Thus by definition “aion” here means “eternal.”

[13]Luke 1:33
(33) And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; [αιωνας/aionas] and of his kingdom there shall be no end.[τελος/τελος]​

In this verse “aionios” is paired with “without end.” “aionios” cannot be paired with “without end” if it means only “ages” a finite period. “Aionios” by definition here means eternal.

[14]Revelation 14:11
(11) And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever:[εις αιωνας αιωνων/eis aionas aionas] and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.​

In this verse “aionas aionon torment” is paired with “no rest day or night.” If “aionas, aionon” means “a finite period” at some time they would rest, “Aionas, aionon” by definition here means “forever and forever.”

[15]John 10:28
(28) And I give unto them eternal [αιωνιον] life; and they shall never [εις τον αιωνα] perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.​

In this verse “aionion” is paired with “[no man can] “pluck them out of my hand.” If “aionion” is only a finite period then at some time they could be plucked out. “Aionion” by definition here means eternal.

[16]John 3:15
(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal [αιωνιον] life. ​

In this verse “aionion” is paired with “shall not perish.” They could perish in a finite period, “aionion” by definition here means eternal.

[17]John 3:16
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting [αιωνιον] life.​

In this verse “aionion” is paired with “shall not perish.” They could perish in a finite period, “aionion” by definition here means eternal.

[18]John 5:24
(24) Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting [αἰώνιος] life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.​

In this verse “aionios” is paired with “shall not come into condemnation” and “passed from life unto death.” “Aionios” does not mean “a finite period,” by definition here it means “eternal.”

[19]Romans 5:21
(21) That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal [αἰώνιος] life by Jesus Christ our Lord.​

In this verse “aionios” is contrasted with death. “A finite period” is not opposite death, “eternal life” is. “Aionios” by definition here means ‘eternal.”

[20]Ephesians 3:21
(21) to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever [του αιωνος/tou aionios] and ever! [των αιωνων/ton aionion] Amen.​

In this verse “tou aionios ton aionion” is paired with “throughout all generations.” "Age(s)" a finite period cannot refer to "all generations."



​

 

[Sanoy]

The Targums were compiled AD but they didn't make stuff up they recorded the oral tradition which dates 100s of years BC. Why should I provide dates I haven't seen any dates for the "Hell is based on Greek mythology etc." Try actually reading my quotes from Jewish sources, scripture was provided.

I didn't quote the ECF. Your claim is irrelevant unless you can prove, vice assume, that any of their beliefs were based on Greek anything? I have provided evidence all you can do is assume. Why would Christians retain their faith through 100s of years of persecution, even facing death, for not bowing down to pagan deities, willingly incorporate pagan beliefs?

It's important because the Targums contain all sorts of new and baseless speculation. Hellenization began in the 4th century BC so there is your date to operate on.

I was the one who made the original statement to which you replied. So if you aren't talking about what I was talking about your point was irrelevant. I think any non Jew using the Greek language would naturally see things through a Greek perspective because they have no other perspective to see it from.

 

[Der Alte]

Why don't you use Genesis 1:1 for support of ECT?
Because if I reply back with something like, "Um, that has nothing to do with ECT vs Annihilationism," you could just respond by saying that I am using your, "I'm right and you're wrong!" argument, and automatically be right.
You really ought to use Genesis 1:1. I'm telling you. You will never be stopped.

Huh?

 

[Jordan Henshaw]

Huh?

If you're going to use a verse like Matthew 26:24 to support ECT, you might as well use Numbers 3:27 as well.

They are equally relevant to the conversation.

 

[Der Alte]

It's important because the Targums contain all sorts of new and baseless speculation. Hellenization began in the 4th century BC so there is your date.
I was the one who made the original statement to which you replied. So if you aren't talking about what I was talking about your point was irrelevant. I think any non Jew using the Greek language would naturally see things through a Greek perspective because they have no other perspective to see it from.

Once again unsupported opinion. FYI, I did not quote the Targums which OBTW date to the time of Ezra, I quoted the Talmud.

 

[Sanoy]

Once again unsupported opinion. FYI, I did not quote the Targums which OBTW date to the time of Ezra, I quoted the Talmud.

Bit dramatic but okay. Replace the word Targum, with Talmud and continue.

Read Gittin 57a if you doubt me.

 

[Der Alte]

If you're going to use a verse like Matthew 26:24 to support ECT, you might as well use Numbers 3:27 as well.
They are equally relevant to the conversation.

In Matthew 26:24 Jesus refers to a fate worse than death.

John Gill Commentary on the Bible.
Matthew 26:24
but woe unto that man by whom the son of man is betrayed; for God's decrees concerning this matter, and the predictions in the Bible founded on them, did not in the least excuse, or extenuate the blackness of his crime; who did what he did, of his own free will, and wicked heart, voluntarily, and to satisfy his own lusts:
it had been good for that man if he had not been born. This is a Rabbinical phrase, frequently, used in one form or another; sometimes thus; as it is said (f) of such that speak false and lying words, and regard not the glory of their Creator, דלא ייתון לעלמא טב לון, it would have been better for them they had never come into the world; and so of any other, notorious sinner, it is at other times said (g), טב ליה דלא אברי, or (h), נוח לו שלא נברא, "it would have been better for him if he had not been created"; signifying, that it is better to have no being at all, than to be punished with everlasting destruction; and which was the dreadful case of Judas, who fell by his transgression, and went to his own place.
(f) Zohar in Gen. fol. 41. 1. Vid. Misn. Chagiga, c. 2. sect. 1. T. Bab Chagiga, fol. 16. 1. (g) Zohar in Gen. fol, 46. 4. & in Exod. fol. 1. 4. & 36. 3. & 62. 3. & 66. 3. & 105. 4. & 106. 1. (h) T. Hieros. Sabbat, fol. 3. 2. T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 17. 1. & Erubin, fol. 13. 2. Midrash Kobelet, fol. 79. 1.
​

 

[Der Alte]

Bit dramatic but okay. Replace the word Targum, with Talmud and continue.
Read Gittin 57a if you doubt me.

A few isolated comments does not equate to "all sorts of new and baseless speculation." And that does not negate Jewish interpretation of specific verses.

 

[Jordan Henshaw]

"it would have been better for him if he had not been created"; signifying, that it is better to have no being at all, than to be punished with everlasting destruction; and which was the dreadful case of Judas, who fell by his transgression, and went to his own place.

Actually, signifying that it is better to have no being at, than to be the terrible, terrible person who betrayed Jesus and hung himself, only to be resurrected to be dealt everlasting destruction via eternal fire.

We can disagree whether or not everlasting destruction means "forever in the process of being destroyed," or "destruction that will be everlasting in result," and whether eternal fire is "fire that will never go out," or "fire that is eternal in result," but Matthew 26:24 is no more useful than Numbers 3:27 for determining which view of Hell is correct.

 

[Der Alte]

Actually, signifying that it is better to have no being at, than to be the terrible, terrible person who betrayed Jesus and hung himself, only to be resurrected to be dealt everlasting destruction via eternal fire.
We can disagree whether or not everlasting destruction means "forever in the process of being destroyed," or "destruction that will be everlasting in result," and whether eternal fire is "fire that will never go out," or "fire that is eternal in result," but Matthew 26:24 is no more useful than Numbers 3:27 for determining which view of Hell is correct.

Too bad for your argument Matt 25:46 was not the only verse I cited Jesus speaking on the fate of the unrighteous. To say nothing of the verses in Rev. I know how people who have been indoctrinated with UR or annihilationism for x number of years interpret Matt 25:46. The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection. They knew that everyone died old, young, male, female old, young even infants. No punishment involved. How would they have understood "aionon kolasis?"
.....Here are some of the Jewish beliefs.Ÿ–— If you look real close you might see the scripture on which the Jews based these beliefs

<>the heretics, etc., and Jeroboam, Nebat's son, hell shall pass away, but they shall not pass away" (R. H. 17a; comp. Shab. 33b).—
Ÿ<>All that descend into Gehenna shall come up again, with the exception of three classes of men: those who have committed adultery, or shamed their neighbors, or vilified them (B. M. 58b).
Ÿ<>… heretics and the Roman oppressors go to Gehenna, and the same fate awaits the Persians, the oppressors of the Babylonian Jews (Ber. 8b).
Ÿ<>When Nebuchadnezzar descended into hell, [ שׁאול/Sheol] all its inhabitants were afraid that he was coming to rule over them (Shab. 149a; comp. Isa. xiv. 9-10).
<>ŸThe Book of Enoch also says that it is chiefly the heathen who are to be cast into the fiery pool on the Day of Judgment (x. 6, xci. 9, et al). "The Lord, the Almighty, will punish them on the Day of Judgment by putting fire and worms into their flesh, so that they cry out with pain unto all eternity"(Judith xvi. 17).
<>ŸThe sinners in Gehenna will be filled with pain when God puts back the souls into the dead bodies on the Day of Judgment, according to Isa. xxxiii. 11 (Sanh. 108b).​

Why would Jesus teach "eternal punishment" to people who believed that God put "fire and worms into their flesh, so that they cry out with pain unto all eternity?" Why didn't Jesus teach that everyone would be saved no matter what or that the unrighteous would be annihilated?

 

[Jordan Henshaw]

Why would Jesus teach "eternal punishment" to people who believed that God put "fire and worms into their flesh, so that they cry out with pain unto all eternity?"

He didn't. He was referencing a prophecy on the same subject in Isaiah.

"The worm dieth not" is a poetic motif. It only supports ECT if you've been wearing ECT glasses your entire life. When you take those glasses off, it becomes clear that it is imagery. It becomes clear that maggots aren't immortal. It becomes clear that it's not talking about immortal maggots eating people's unlimited supply of flesh in a lake of burning sulfur for trillions of years. It becomes clear that it is talking about regular maggots eating carcasses on a battlefield. It becomes clear that it is a poetic motif.

I already dealt with the other irrelevant passages you used.

Would you like to discuss the two verses you brought up that actually seem to support ECT?

 

[ClementofA]

Wrong! See above. If a person is killed by an atomic bomb their atoms might be dispersed but then they are not "from the presence" anything.

Thank you for your kindness in replying. However a life (human, plant or animal) can be destroyed "from the presence" of an atom bomb. Just as such can be destroyed "from the presence" of the Lord. As your Webster's definition stated: "-protection from the sun", i.e. from the sun's destructive power. Without "protection from the sun" it will destroy, said destruction coming "from the sun", i.e. "from the presence" of the sun.

Furthermore the word aionion in 2 Thess.1:9 does not mean eternal & can be translated eonian or lasting & refer to a finite period of time:

Eternity in the Bible by Gerry Beauchemin

 

[ClementofA]

I have proved you wrong, from scripture, several times.

​

My comment was regarding Rev.20:10. Your reply did not address any words used in that verse, so what relevance does it have to the mistranslation "forever & ever" in Revelation 20:10?

12 points re forever and ever being finite:

For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER:
​

 

[ClementofA]

What you may/may not say about anything is irrelevant.

​

Already addressed earlier in this thread & also at:

What Does Aionios Mean? (part 2, It is wrong to define aionios based on aion)

how do people who believe in eternal torture in fire

24The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, 25with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,

 

[ClementofA]

In Matthew 26:24 Jesus refers to a fate worse than death.

John Gill Commentary on the Bible.
Matthew 26:24
​

Already addressed here:

judas mk 14 21

Early church opposition to endless hell

 

[Der Alte]

He didn't. He was referencing a prophecy on the same subject in Isaiah.

Sorry saying "nuh uh" does not prove anything.

"The worm dieth not" is a poetic motif. It only supports ECT if you've been wearing ECT glasses your entire life. When you take those glasses off, it becomes clear that it is imagery. It becomes clear that maggots aren't immortal. It becomes clear that it's not talking about immortal maggots eating people's unlimited supply of flesh in a lake of burning sulfur for trillions of years. It becomes clear that it is talking about regular maggots eating carcasses on a battlefield. It becomes clear that it is a poetic motif.

Thank you for your unsupported opinion about "poetic motif""imagery""maggots" etc. Here is documented Jewish belief.

"The Lord, the Almighty, will punish them on the Day of Judgment by putting fire and worms into their flesh, so that they cry out with pain unto all eternity"(Judith xvi. 17).​

That is evidence vice assumption/presupposition. I don't see anything about "poetic motif""imagery""maggots"

I already dealt with the other irrelevant passages you used.

Opinion, assumptions, presupposition is not dealing with anything.

Would you like to discuss the two verses you brought up that actually seem to support ECT?

Say what you think then I'll dismantle it.

 

[Der Alte]

Already addressed earlier in this thread & also at:

Already addressed here:
judas mk 14 21

Quoting yourself and anonymous blogs is not addressing anything.

 

[Butch5]

Had you bothered to actually read my post you would have seen the OT scripture on which the Jews based their belief in hell. I provide evidence, you just keep repeating the same unsupported claims.

Of course they believer in hell. However, a place of eternal conscious torment is different. You see you quote the Jewish encyclopedia and the Talmud. However, the Bible tells us that the Sadducees didn't believe in Angels or demons. The also didn't believe in the resurrection. Back to the OP the Bible teaches annihilation. I'll ask again, how does what the Jews believed about hell address the OP? That would be like me saying the early Christians believed xyz. It doesn't prove that the Bible teaches

[quoteI don't quote commentaries. I quoted from the Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica and the Talmud. The only credible record of ancient Jewish beliefs and practices that I am aware of.[/quote]

How credible we don't know.

Similarity does not prove derivation! As I have shown from Jewish sources according to the Jews the OT does describe a place of eternal fiery punishment for the unrighteous and they called it both Ge-hinnom and sheol.

Proverbs 23:14
(14) Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell. [שְׁאוֹל/sheol]​

If שְׁאוֹל/sheol means grave. Spanking a child will not save him from the grave. Saying something is out-of-context does not make it so.
When Jesus taught about,

• “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:” Matthew 25:41
• "these shall go away into eternal punishment, Matthew 25:46"
• "the fire of hell where the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die, Mark 9:43-48"
• "cast into a fiery furnace where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth,” Matthew 13:42, Matthew 13:50
• “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matthew 18:6
• “And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Matthew 7:23
• “woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born. ” Matthew 26:24​

These teachings were like the existing Jewish view of eternal hell, In Matt. 18:6, 26:24, see above, Jesus teaches that there is a fate worse than death or nonexistence. A fate worse than death is also mentioned in Heb 10:28-31.

Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.​

Jesus is quoted as using the word death 17 times in the gospels, if He wanted to say eternal death in Matt 25:46, that is what He would have said but He didn’t, He said “eternal punishment.” The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, they knew that everybody died; rich, poor, young, old, good, bad, men, women, children, infants and knew that it had nothing to do with punishment and was permanent. When Jesus taught “eternal punishment” they would not have understood it as death, it would have meant something worse to them.
…..[/QUOTE]
Again with the fallacy. You don't know how they would have understood it. But You're just making the same argument. Let's suppose for argument sake that what you claim about the Jews is correct. It still doesn't prove what the Bible teaches. Jesus chastised the Jewish leadership for not understanding the Scriptures. Saying that because the Jews believed in ETC that proves that the Bible teaches it isn't proof. The Jews were just as apt to misunderstand the Scriptures as Christians are. Think about it, they missed the Messiah because they didn't understand the Scriptures.

 

[Der Alte]

Of course they believer in hell. However, a place of eternal conscious torment is different. You see you quote the Jewish encyclopedia and the Talmud. However, the Bible tells us that the Sadducees didn't believe in Angels or demons. The also didn't believe in the resurrection. Back to the OP the Bible teaches annihilation. I'll ask again, how does what the Jews believed about hell address the OP? That would be like me saying the early Christians believed xyz. It doesn't prove that the Bible teaches.

Wrong again. I wasn't addressing the OP was I? Why not go back to my post and read what I was responding to.
'

Again with the fallacy. You don't know how they would have understood it. But You're just making the same argument. Let's suppose for argument sake that what you claim about the Jews is correct. It still doesn't prove what the Bible teaches. Jesus chastised the Jewish leadership for not understanding the Scriptures. Saying that because the Jews believed in ETC that proves that the Bible teaches it isn't proof. The Jews were just as apt to misunderstand the Scriptures as Christians are. Think about it, they missed the Messiah because they didn't understand the Scriptures.

You are correct Jesus criticized the Jewish leadership for not understanding the scriptures. So why would He permit the Jews to teach about hell when according to you it is unscriptural, it does not exist? I did not say "because the Jews believed in ETC that proves that the Bible teaches it" It really does help to actually read a post before trying to respond to it.