It's been around 2000 years with many divisions and sects so I don't think you can give a single definition. Early Christians didn't agree on the divinity of Jesus. Hell wasn't christian doctrine until 400CE. Some Christians believe heaven is on earth itself and you'll be resurrected on earth, in your original body, when that times comes.
"So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous and throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
The idea of Hell most popular is the “eternal conscious torment” view, which gives us the “don’t be bad or you’ll burn in Hell forever” perspective. That’s fairly new, and several other interpretations are just as biblical as it, if not more. Your quote for instance doesn’t explain what happens after the weeping and gnashing of teeth, some believe you become reunited with the Lord, others believe you are eliminated from existence.
"And the one who was seated on the throne said, “See, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this, for these words are trustworthy and true.” Then he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give water as a gift from the spring of the water of life. Those who conquer will inherit these things, and I will be their God and they will be my children. But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, the murderers, the fornicators, the sorcerers, the idolaters, and all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”"
~ Revelations 21:5-8
Combined with the story of the steward who owed more than he could ever pay (Matthew 18:32-35) and Christ's words in Luke 12:10 "Everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but the one who blasphemes against the holy Spirit will not be forgiven." I'd have a very hard time reconciling anything other than "Hell is real and you can go there forever" as having a biblical basis.
other reply got auto-dead for some reason? leaving out the link this time.
The passage from revelation again says nothing of eternity, the word death is rather absolute - the case would be much stronger if it finished “… which is where they suffer without end”.
As for the parable, the passage states that his imprisonment was “until he could repay his debts”. This suggests he may be able to repay them eventually, at which point he’ll be free. It could be interpreted that after an appropriate amount of time spent experiencing the punishment of fire, perhaps until the balance is settled for whatever your transgressions were, you will no longer being in the fire.
Blasphemy against the Spirit is an interesting case, I could see potentially that one class of transgressors being sentenced to eternal punishment. Alternatively, it could be saying that one who blasphemed against the Spirit has had their heart hardened so much that they will never seek forgiveness, and therefor will never get it. Their end isn’t specified here.
In all this I’m not saying that the “eternal conscious torment” perspective is wrong, just that there are other interpretations which are just as based.
If you have the time, I highly recommend the “Three Views of Hell” lecture series^, which goes into far more detail than I could manage here, including going through every verse in the Bible which speaks of anything related to what we now consider “Hell”.
^search “the narrow path” for the three views of hell lecture.
Not to argue, but just to drop some opinions for info sake. Early Christians largely did agree about the divinity of Jesus (it's in the gospels at least). Hell isn't really an Orthodox doctrine at all. The concept of Sheol/Hades predates the NT, and the modern idea of "hell" is more of a recent Western invention.
When you have 1000 people yelling their own version of truth, the only truth, chance of one of them being actually right is next to zero. Religious folks don't like this type of reasoning, often better without any reasoning at all.
I think folks should have stopped with Zoroastrianism, all the monotheistic rest is just layer of sects upon sects upon sects, all coming from roughly same geographical area and all preaching basically the same copy paste with some tiny differences then blown out of proportions by fanatic zealots, completely misunderstanding or ignoring the same basic message within.
Look at discussion here - many folks have their own version of reality re this topic, normally set up how they like it, sometimes not that much compatible with each other. A question - do you feel like this reality, universe and all we anyhow experience, is somehow conforming to our wishful expectations and arranges itself to match that so the expectations get confirmed? I call this semi-rational discussion - smart folks politely discussing utter irrational bollocks. I get where the need for spiritual comes from - we are still roughly the same as those early tribes that believed in long lost religions. I just didn't get that hole filled via traditional indoctrination by others, a wonderful gift to a child and maybe the best - a self-determination with respect for his choices. Cousin had the same upbringing, ended up as protestant priest and now has a nice family with 3 kids. Self-determination.
But religion is literal opium for the masses. And opium is highly addictive, especially when served since very early childhood continuously. I see it my wife, she tried to shed it, and failed, its burned too deep into personality. She settled somewhere in the middle compared to rather fanatical upbringing.
I disagree on Zoroastrianism, mostly because it sets up a metaphysic where the universe is a perpetual struggle between lightness and darkness (i.e. good and evil). You might associate that concept with many (admittedly popular) Christian sects but it isn't the only interpretation available.
It is totally possible to conceive of a monotheism that isn't based on this kind of eternal conflict.
