Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jagella · 02-02-2005, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

The point is that there's even less reason to suppose he must be a Jew.

To settle this matter, I would like to know the identity of The Book of Mark’s author. We could then know whether he was a Jew or a gentile. Until then, I will assume he was a Jew.

Jagella

Chili · 02-02-2005, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jagella

Do you mean all Jews are the same? Are there no exceptions?

Jagella

Any Jew who writes a Gospel will have come thru that same eye of the needle and will write the same Gospel or none at all. There is nothing wrong with not writing your own Gospel but if you can't write your own you can't preach another or it will be another.

Amaleq13 · 02-03-2005, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jagella

Until then, I will assume he was a Jew.

You are, of course, free to make any assumptions you wish but there is a clear lack of substantiation for the one you prefer.

patchy · 02-03-2005, 06:20 PM

Interesting-- I wanted to see what my 10th-grader's world history book said about the topic, if anything. I don't put much faith in the textbooks in this country (*cough* Thanks, Texas *cough*) but can anyone critique the following entry?
----------
One of the people who did the most to spread Christianity was a Jew named Saul. Born in the town of Tarsus in Asia Minor, Saul converted to Christianity, took the name Paul, and became a Christian missionary. Paul carried on his work not only among Jews but among all peoples. He emphasized that Christianity is not just a sect of Judaism. For about two decades, starting in the mid-40's AD, he journeyed through the Mediterranean region, spreading the teachings of Jesus and founding Christian communities. According to tradition, while visiting Rome, Paul was put to death.
-------------

After following the debate to this point, I'm dubious that it's as clear-cut as this high school text makes it seem...but is it...close? Or, as I fear, is it just another case of misinformed pablum being fed to our kids?

Diogenes the Cynic · 02-03-2005, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patchy

Interesting-- I wanted to see what my 10th-grader's world history book said about the topic, if anything. I don't put much faith in the textbooks in this country (*cough* Thanks, Texas *cough*) but can anyone critique the following entry?
----------
One of the people who did the most to spread Christianity was a Jew named Saul. Born in the town of Tarsus in Asia Minor, Saul converted to Christianity, took the name Paul, and became a Christian missionary. Paul carried on his work not only among Jews but among all peoples. He emphasized that Christianity is not just a sect of Judaism. For about two decades, starting in the mid-40's AD, he journeyed through the Mediterranean region, spreading the teachings of Jesus and founding Christian communities. According to tradition, while visiting Rome, Paul was put to death.
-------------

After following the debate to this point, I'm dubious that it's as clear-cut as this high school text makes it seem...but is it...close? Or, as I fear, is it just another case of misinformed pablum being fed to our kids?

The NT doesn't say anything about Paul being executed but the rest more or less sums up the Pauline corpus +Acts. Paul himself doesn't verify everything in Acts, as far as his background and conversion, though.

Amaleq13 · 02-03-2005, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patchy

For about two decades, starting in the mid-40's AD, he journeyed through the Mediterranean region, spreading the teachings of Jesus and founding Christian communities.

The notion he was "spreading the teachings of Jesus" isn't supported by his letters. Even those who argue there are any "teachings of Jesus" in his letters can only point to a few examples. Paul spread a belief in the atoning sacrifice and resurrection of Christ. That Jesus actually preached this concept is extremely doubtful though the Gospel authors felt free to put it in his mouth.

Diogenes the Cynic · 02-03-2005, 08:39 PM

That's a good point about the distinction between Paul's Christological teachings and the actual teachings of "Jesus" (as articulated, for instance, in the Q sayings). Paul never actually quotes Jesus except for a single ritualistic (and possibly interpolated) reference to the eucharist.

Jagella · 02-05-2005, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

They also offered no argument as to why Gehenna should not be translated as "Valley of Hinnon." I doubt they even know the historical context. They've just decided to read their preconceptions into those passages without any attempt to examine them any more deeply.

In any xase, they haven't offered any kind of explanation as to why Gehenna should be read as hell.

I was fortunate to find a person that might fit your criteria of a “reputable Bible scholar.�? His name is “Richard Carrier,�? and he has studied ancient history and classical civilization and can read ancient Greek. I sent him an email to ask if he agrees with either one of us regarding the use of the word “Gehenna�? in the New Testament. This is what he has to say:

Quote:

Like hell, Gehenna originally meant a particular graveyard (just as Sheol meant
pit and hence the underground realm of graves in general), but by the
time of Jesus Gehenna and Sheol both came to mean what we now mean by
hell (see 1 Enoch 26-27 and 103:5-8).

(Emphasis added.)

As you can see, Carrier backs me up on what I’ve been saying all along: Gehenna’s meaning was changed by the New Testament writers to mean a place of damnation for unbelievers.

As for what Jews that may have not been Christians believed at that time, Carrier states:

Quote:

This change took place at some point after the Persian period of the
Jewish exile, when the Jews picked up a lot of beliefs from their
Persian neighbors--resurrection of the body, the Devil, and a flaming
hell being the three most significant new additions to Jewish religion
relevant to Christianity, all of which derive from Persian
Zoroastrianism.

Again, I tried to explain that the beliefs of the Jews were not monolithic, and that pagan beliefs affected these beliefs to a significant degree.

Jagella

Diogenes the Cynic · 02-05-2005, 08:46 AM

I would like to see Carrier's specific argument as to why Gehenna in the NT should be read as anything other than the Valley of Hinnon. A conclusion, by itself, tells me nothing. How do the Gehenna passages in Matthew differ from the ordinary Jewish conception of the Valley of Hinnon as a place of annihilation on judgement day? Does he base his conclusion entirely on Enoch?

I have to go to work today and will not be back at my computer until tonight but I may just email RC myself.

Sensei Meela · 02-05-2005, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jagella

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Carrier

Like hell, Gehenna originally meant a particular graveyard (just as Sheol meant pit and hence the underground realm of graves in general), but by the time of Jesus Gehenna and Sheol both came to mean what we now mean by hell (see 1 Enoch 26-27 and 103:5-8).

1 Enoch:

Quote:

Chapter 26
1Then I said, What means this blessed land, all these lofty trees, and the accursed valley between them?

2Then Uriel, one of the holy angels who were with me, replied, This valley is the accursed of the accursed for ever. Here shall be collected all who utter with their mouths unbecoming language against God, and speak harsh things of His glory. Here shall they be collected. Here shall be their territory.

3In the latter days an example of judgment shall be made of them in righteousness before the saints; while those who have received mercy shall for ever, all their days, bless God, the everlasting King.

4And at the period of judgment shall they bless Him for his mercy, as He has distributed it to them. Then I blessed God, addressing myself to Him, and making mention, as was meet, of His greatness.

Quote:

Chapter 27
1From there I proceeded towards the east to the middle of the mountain in the desert, the level surface only of which I perceived.

2It was full of trees of the seed alluded to; and water leaped down upon it.

3There appeared a cataract composed as of many cataracts both towards the west and towards the east. Upon one side were trees; upon the other water and dew.

Quote:

Chapter 103:
5But has it not been shown to them, that, when to the receptacle of the dead their souls shall be made to descend, their evil deeds shall become their greatest torment? Into darkness, into the snare, and into the flame, which shall burn to the great judgment, shall their spirits enter; and the great judgment shall take effect for ever and for ever.

6Woe to you; for to you there shall be no peace. Neither can you say to the righteous, and to the good who are alive, In the days of our trouble have we been afflicted; every manner of trouble have we seen, and many evil things have suffered.

7Our spirits have been consumed, lessened, and diminished.

8We have perished; nor has there been a possibility of help for us in word or in deed: we have found none, but have been tormented and destroyed.

I'm afraid I do not see how this contradicts the original meaning, purpose/conception of Gehenna or reflects the perversion of it by later Christians.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-03-2005, 06:20 PM	#144
patchy Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: America Posts: 1,377	Interesting-- I wanted to see what my 10th-grader's world history book said about the topic, if anything. I don't put much faith in the textbooks in this country (cough Thanks, Texas cough) but can anyone critique the following entry? ---------- One of the people who did the most to spread Christianity was a Jew named Saul. Born in the town of Tarsus in Asia Minor, Saul converted to Christianity, took the name Paul, and became a Christian missionary. Paul carried on his work not only among Jews but among all peoples. He emphasized that Christianity is not just a sect of Judaism. For about two decades, starting in the mid-40's AD, he journeyed through the Mediterranean region, spreading the teachings of Jesus and founding Christian communities. According to tradition, while visiting Rome, Paul was put to death. ------------- After following the debate to this point, I'm dubious that it's as clear-cut as this high school text makes it seem...but is it...close? Or, as I fear, is it just another case of misinformed pablum being fed to our kids?

02-03-2005, 08:39 PM	#147
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	That's a good point about the distinction between Paul's Christological teachings and the actual teachings of "Jesus" (as articulated, for instance, in the Q sayings). Paul never actually quotes Jesus except for a single ritualistic (and possibly interpolated) reference to the eucharist.

02-05-2005, 08:46 AM	#149
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	I would like to see Carrier's specific argument as to why Gehenna in the NT should be read as anything other than the Valley of Hinnon. A conclusion, by itself, tells me nothing. How do the Gehenna passages in Matthew differ from the ordinary Jewish conception of the Valley of Hinnon as a place of annihilation on judgement day? Does he base his conclusion entirely on Enoch? I have to go to work today and will not be back at my computer until tonight but I may just email RC myself.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.