Again, you're already going into semantics while deliberately avoiding the point you were originally trying to make, which is that non Christians aren't punished in the afterlife for not believing in Jesus. It's nonsense and you know it.
Those are not semantics, they are 2 words in the scriptures that mean seperate things, so when you're refering to hell, which one are you refering to ... That matters.
Unquenchable fire is a direct quote from Matthew, when you say he's "obviously" not talking about hell. It's the very definition of arguing semantics, and it's a waste of my time as well as yours.
No it isn't, the point of unquenchable fire is that it's absolute destruction, and it's clear when you see what happens to the dead in other scriptures.
So unquenchable fire is an agricultural reference, destruction was some other reference, and none of it is for punishing people who don't believe in your God? I repeat the fact you aren't a Christian and that there is no debate to be had on this subject because that's really all there is to say. I gave references to unquenchable fire, and you made some lame connection to agriculture. Obviously you're going to act in the same way no matter what references are given to you. It's a delusional way of debating.
Yes i'ts agricultural, read the passage, it's about seperating the chaff from the wheat. Unquenchable fire doesn't refer to eternal punishment, when something is burned up as it is in this PARABLE (keep that in mind), it's destroyed, that's references to gehennah which is used to talk about eternal destruction.
Nicely cherrypicked, however proving that the bible contradicts itself doesn't help your point. It's just more evidence that it was written by mere man.
It doesn't contradict itself, it's perfectly clear, sin is paid for in death, there is no post death punishment, nor does the bible teach that, you havn't shown that it does.
Only if you cherrypick in the right way. Like how at different points in the Bible God claims he is a "God of war" and then a "God of peace". I suppose you're going to tell me that balances out so he's a God of "potentially violent peace"?
.... No ... Want to stick to the subject? Want to actually pay attention to the points?
Again semantics with regards to fulfilling or upholding, though the fact is he did neither. Fulfilling the old law would have meant stoning adulterers, which he didn't have the balls for. Clearly you aren't claiming that you live by the laws of the whole bible, as that would be absurd and highly illegal.
No it's not semantics, if something is fullfilled, it's purpose is accomplished, it's done, that's why the christian church didn't keep the mosaic law, because Christ had fulfilled it.
... Are you a Christian? Have you done any biblical study at all? I mean this stuff about the mosaic law is basic elementary stuff.