Diogenes the Cynic

I have found that Young's is not as literal as it pretends to be. It does shade it's translations towards a theological agenda.

I covered those passages in the other thread. The Matthew passage comes down to how you want to interpret the word, kolasis, which does mean "punishment," but means it in the sense of a legal sentence.

The passage from Mark says aionion hamartenos. "eternal sin."

You can see some more versions of Mk. 3:29 here from the Blue Letter Bible which translate it as such (others still mistranslate it as "damnation" or "condemnation").

Amaleq13

So the "eternal" refers to the finality rather than the duration?

So the "eternal" refers to the fact that this will always be a sin?

Diogenes the Cynic

Yes. You could read it as "eternal judgement" or even "eternal death."
"Always" in an informal, conditional sense. Kind of like if a football coach were to say "Until we start picking up those blitzes we're always going to lose."

It doesn't mean that because you fail to pick up one blitz that you can never, ever win.

Jesus is basically saying, "as long as you blaspheme th Holy Spirit you'll aways be in a state of sin/error/imperfection."

Dharma

I heard that was actually a mistranslation, and that it was a translation for the word "eon"...and it's "ONLY" torment for 2000 years..
:Cheeky:

Chris Weimer

Aionion does NOT mean eternal.

http://neonostalgia.com/bible/forums/viewtopic.php?t=76

Jagella

For anybody here who wishes to read some interesting information online about what we’ve been talking about here regarding the Jews and what they believed in the first century, you may wish to visit:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/aft_bibl3.htm

And for those of you who won’t accept any evidence that does not conform with your dogmas, don’t bother!

Here’s some highlights:

Twenty four Jewish groups in first century Palestine? Apparently, we need to be careful when we talk about what the “Jews� believed. Which group of Jews?

Ah. So some Christians that were also Jews at this time did not believe in hell! And Paul of Tarsus was one of them. I was not aware of this fact.

Nevertheless, some Christians did believe in the eternal torture chamber that Christianity has blessed all of our minds with.

So we can see that the Pharisees did believe in a punishment for sinners after death, although this belief was no doubt different in some ways than the hell invented by Christians.

Just like I’ve been explaining all along, the New Testament does indeed describe an everlasting torture chamber for sinners like any Sunday school student knows.

The above passage is another obvious reference to the Christian’s hallowed everlasting torture chamber, but this passage only describes these torments for those people who take the “mark of the beast.�

In summary, we need to be careful not to oversimplify religious beliefs. Making statements like: “None of the first century Jews believed in hell� is broad brushing and almost certainly wrong.

Jagella

Diogenes the Cynic

In this case we don't much have to be careful because none of them believed in Hell.
NO Jews believed in Hell. That's what I've been telling you.
Incorrect. Relifious Tolerance got this wrong. All it's alluding to is the same Gehenna references which I've already debunked as having anything to do with eternal hell.
I already said that some Jews believed in a temporary punishment in Sheol. It was not eternal, though.
Sorry. No it doesn't. Citing an erroneous source does not make you right. I've explained in both threads now that the passage does not say "eternal damnation" (and the KJV is a LOUSY translation, btw) it says "eternal SIN." There is a huge difference.

Is there any passage left that I haven't already explained in context multiple times? Does Religious Tolerance offer any support for its arguments?

One thing you should know about that site is that its articles are written by the adherents of the given religions. Whoever wrote this stuff about Hell in the NT was a Christian writing about a modern Christian interpretation of those verses, not doing a historical or linguistic critical analysis of the text. There is nothing in the Gospels which refers to a Christian Hell.

Revelation is a highly allegorical 2nd century apocalypse which envision a lake of fire for "Satan and his demons." Revelations is so late, and so off the charts crazy that it can hardly be consulted as a source of information about concrete early Christian doctrine.
What examples have you shown of 1st century Jews bekieving in Hell? The only one you mentioned was Paul and you admitted that Paul didn't believe in hell.

This isn't a matter of "oversimplification" it's a matter of anachronistic history. It's not an oversimplification to say that no 1st century Jew believed in eternal hell for the same reason it's not an oversimplification to say that none of them had a cell phone, Neither one had been invented yet.

Amaleq13

IMO, this is entirely unwarranted. There is no reason to characterize opposing opinions as "dogma". Let's try to conduct a rational discussion of the evidence rather than take opposing views personally, OK?

Despite the fact that this statement seems to agree with Diogenes' position, that this website asserts it does not make it a fact. Arguments based on specific evidence produce conclusions that are either convincing or not according to individual judgment.

This is true of the assertions you find there which seem to favor either position. That the author of the article accepts what has been argued as a mistranslation does not establish the point.

I agree that the passage from Revelation, as it is translated, certainly appears to correspond to the modern Christian conception of hell.

Just to clarify, are you claiming that Jesus preached this sort of hell?

Are you claiming that the first Christians (ie pre-Paul) preached this sort of hell?

Or do you identify the authorship of the Gospels as the point of origin for this notion?

Sensei Meela

Oh come now; that was uncalled for.

No, 'we' won't just accept any old evidence thrown our way. And in regards to the 'evidence' you bring from religious tolerance...
Indeed; the careful reader might have surmised as much, and probably caught some of the qualifying remarks such as: [emphasis added]
Indeed; "live and learn," as has been said.

And this is where this 'evidence' really begins to unravel.
Sure; but was Mark one of them? The expansion of this point elaborates:
[emphasis added]

Let's break it down a bit:
1) The author of gMark does not specify the form of eternal damnation
2) The author of the religioustolerance summary [one BA Robinson, credentials unknown] claims that Mark describes Hell as a place of eternal torment and torture. No reference is given, though one is lead to believe that it is in the passage following this claim [Mark 9:43-48]
3) Same author presumes that the fire tortures those unfortunate enough to be eternally damned
4) The passage -- presumably -- cited in support of (2 and 3) harkens to Isa 66:22-24 Nowhere in either the Mark or Isaiah passages does the subject of torment present itself; indeed, the Isa passage explicitly states that it is their carcases (Hebrew) -- their dead bodies -- that will forever burn, infested with worms forever.
False. Let's cut out the disparaging remarks, too, shall we?
Agreed to the former half; to the latter -- that much is not clear.

Diogenes the Cynic

For the record, I also agree that the passage from Revelation is the closest thing to a modern conception of hell in the NT.

However, Revelation also says that a giant beast from the sea with multiple heads and horns is going to rise out of the sea with a whore on his back. Would it be reasonable to assume that this was a literal article of Christian faith at the time?

Revelation is an exteremely complex, allegorical work, not a journalistic or lucid statement of literal doctrine.

It also has no bearing on what is meant by Gehenna in the Gospels or by a hypothetical HJ.