infidelguy

lol.. I think you miss the entire point of the essay.

Chili

How could I without reading it?

Sheshbazzar

Here you are wrongly projecting the far later theological conceptions of "hell" that arose out of the influences of Zoroastrianism, Hellenistic mythology, and Islam on that form of religion that evolved over ages into the medieval Christian conceptions of "hell" that now provide the current popular conception of "hell".
There is no evidence within the OT text that the writers ever associated "hell" with fire, brimstone (sulfer), and torment, these are all later theological developments and conceptions. To the ancient writers Sheol, "hell" (sic) was simply the underground grave or "pit" where ALL of the dead were asleep, without any thought or interaction with the living.
It was only the mythology (and practices) of foreigners that eventually popularized a "hell" populated by living dead, demons, and fiery torture, (a reflection of the forms of conduct that they themselves had became so engaged in)
The interrogative is most appropriate; Not pressing the point at this time, but large sections of the Scriptures cannot be taken literally nor understood in any "very LITERAL and straightforward" sense, as even seemingly mundane stories are rife with symbolism, allegory, and concealed allusions, to read the text only in a superficial and LITERAL sense is to miss 99% of what the writers intended, you may assert what ever you will but that alone does not make your assertions valid.

Sarpedon

I was not talking about the old testament. I was talking about the new testament. And yes, fire is mentioned in the new testament. "They will cast into the lake of fire, where the worm never dies, etc etc." The fact that the old testament afterlife is different merely supports my argument: that the two testaments are not based on fact: only the opinion of the time. The notion of the afterlife in the old testament, similar to that of the Babylonians and other nearby people, show a static place, a place of waiting, and inactivity. The new testament account rejects this, and imagines an entirely different fate, on which the medieval conceptions were based. One group of people believed one thing, and recorded it in their scripture; later people believed something different in their scripture. The first belief was not disproven, merely superceded by a different one. Again, my point that scripture is merely the record of baseless beliefs at particular time periods is supported.

Again with the 'oh you can't take that literally' bit. How do you tell which scriptures are to be taken literally and which are to be taken figuratively? I earlier discussed how jesus made it clear when he was talking figuratively and when he was talking literally. You are saying that large parts of scriptures that appear to have been meant to be taken literally are in fact to be taken figuratively. Again, how do you tell? The Modus Operendi of Christians is that any part of the bible that has been disproven or is simply too ludicrous to be believed is figurative, while any other part is to be taken literally. Do you have a different method? How do you tell that the bit about jesus dying for your sins isn't figurative? or that part about god creating the earth? Or that bit about the afterlife and heaven?

Sheshbazzar

Your first entry into this thread was at post #7, and the contents of the previous 6 posts dealt principally with the cosmological views expressed within the writings of the OT, with Steven Carr, Saurion, and Chili making many references to Genesis and other OT writings, and also yourself in your first paragraph asked "Why was god worried about the tower of Babel?" no distinction or limitation was evident within your post nor within any of the preceding that the subject was limited only to the New Testament, If you were not "talking about the old testament" in this thread, then you were not following it, and are talking about a different subject than the other posters here.
The Saviour qualified the interpretation of His sayings regarding heaven and earth with the admonition "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." As was written, "To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isa. 8:20) One so well acquainted with the words of that prophet would not demand an interpretation of His sayings or doctrine that would set those words at naught.

Sarpedon

Since the concept of Hell does not, as you point out, exist in the old testement, one must of course go by the new testament to discuss it. The image of Heaven, however is consistant between the two, that is, a place just above the earth, separated therefrom by a solid dome and a layer of water. I am following the argument, using both the old and the new testament, and showing how the concept of the cosmos, while people claim that it is unchanging, actually does change as people's beliefs change. And the bible is a literal description of people's beliefs at the time it was written. This thesis is quite relevant to the discussion, no matter which testament is being discussed. And your objections have nothing to do with my thesis, but seem merely to be trying to sidetrack the debate into some kind of apologist 'figurative vs literal' track. And, I may point out that neither you nor any other religious person has explained how to tell the difference between literal and figurative parts of the bible.

Sheshbazzar

Your initial response in post #7 of this thread quoted from the above post (#3) by CJD the "ancients texts" and the "ancients" to which he was referring were the Old Testament texts, and the "ancients" the writers of those texts, as was indicated by his reference to the Genesis 1, thus your reply that he was "wrongly projecting modern ideas into primitive people", the only "primitive people" to which this could rightly refer would be those under consideration in context, the "ancients" who penned Genesis 1, thus your post implying that these "ancient" and "primitive peoples" could see that, Whereas in truth these "ancients" and "primitive people" to which the post was referring held no such concept. Then you reply to me; If true then it was you inappropriately projecting modern ideas into primitive people.
Quite the contrary, The concept of Sheol does exist in the Old Testament, with more than sufficient texts to understand their beliefs concerning it. I find no need to "go by the New Testament to discuss it," nor any need to impose later theological misconceptions borrowed from paganistic sources upon the ancients.

judge

Actually the NT appears to mention sheol as a place of the afterlife.

In Luke 16:23 the rich man is in sheol.
But this place of the afterlife is not the same as ghenna.
In Luke 12:5 we have reference to ghenna. So it cannot be the same as sheol.

So where does this idea of ghenna come from?
It may well be from the OT.

Craig A Evans see this in Which Old Testament text did Jesus prefer and quote from?

Where he writes



The idea of eternal conscious punishment was a later interpretaion it seems.

Chris Weimer

I'm sorry to inform you that Craig Evans is wrong. You might want to actually try reading the OT sometimes. Try Joshua 15.8 for one (in Hebrew, no less). Since I am at the library at the moment, I'll give you a fuller list of Gehenna using Bible Works (you really ought to try doing the work yourself sometime).

judge

Chris it might help if you were clearer as to exactly where Craig Evans is wrong. Is there a specific statement of his (in context) that is wrong?

The claim was made that hell does not exist in the OT IIRC.

Gehenna where the worm dieth not is clearly referenced in the targum of Isaiah.
This is the same image used in the NT.

So as I said, it may well be that this NT image is taken from the targum of Isaiah. We don't know for sure but it may be.