Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 01-19-2008, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Is it true that the modern concept of hell is a much later invention? If so, what evidence supports such a position?

My working definition of hell includes
the torture of the upper classes.

The history of this practice might indeed be imagined in the texts
of Tacitus, however the very reality of this is not described until
Ammianus Marcellinus' account of the lese-majesty trials
(literally against the majesty of the christian emperor) of the
mid-fourth century.

When a person was accused of treason, that person was stripped
of citizenship and then could be legally tortured as a non-citizen.
See the Theodosian Code 9.5 dated to 314 CE [Clyde Pharr, p.230]
for those readers interested in a dated legal reference more
commensurate with Constantine, the first "Christian" emperor.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

spamandham · 01-19-2008, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Early Christians probably believed it to be literal. If there is no good reason to believe that it was figurative (we don't know that Jesus ever explicitly said that hell was figurative), and the religious leader would have interest in it being perceived as literal (the fear), then I would err on the side of literal.

Ok. That seems fair enough.

Solitary Man · 01-19-2008, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

a) is this a reference to '2nd death'? I don't see that as anything like the modern concept of hell which seems to be a place of eternal conscious torment

I'm busy compiling all the references to "hell" in Matthew. In the meantime, what about the Lazarus story in Luke?

Quote:

b) do you know what layer of Matthew is this in? the pastoral layer, or something earlier? :huh:

Much of it comes from Mark, in particular the whole "if thine hand/foot/eye offends thee" is Markan. The Capernaum passage is Q. What do you mean by "pastoral layer" in particular? I'm of the opinion that although Matthew used sources, there was only one primary redactor (and perhaps later editors, but not redactors in the technical sense).

angelo · 01-20-2008, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

Didn't Jesus go to hell while he was dead for the three days ?
I seem to have read that somewhere.

That would be Matthew 12:40 and Ephesians 4:9. The phrase used was "heart of the earth" or "lower parts of the earth," which could mean any of the hells, or maybe just the tomb. Matthew 12:40 is probably an interpolation, not original to Jesus.

There is very little that is original to Jesus according to the Jesus Seminar. Around 85%, the figure that was agreed on was not sayings of Jesus at all. But additions to the story by early christians.

angelo · 01-20-2008, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It's the authors who make Jesus teach. I am not aware that Jesus could have taught anyone, when the authors appear to have fabricated him after the death of Tiberius.

That is an explanation that seems simple on the surface, but it becomes very elaborate when you try to explain how the authors got so many details of Jewish culture correct. A simpler explanation is that Jesus was a cult leader in Israel whose cult lived on and migrated after Jesus' execution.

Ockam's Razor comes to the rescue once again. Shave away all the improbable, you are left with the probable. That is that the myth ''may'' be built on some wild eyed rabbi who went around preaching that the world was about to end, and telling people to repent of their sins if they wanted to be saved by God. We still have such nutters in the world today. The Jews of that time were looking for a redeemer to rescue them from the Roman yoke, and any charasmatic preacher would at least be listened to by the masses.
When people lose all hope, they will believe most anything that may hint at redemption.

mountainman · 01-20-2008, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

When people lose all hope, they will believe most anything that may hint at redemption.

That's why when Constantine enforced the prohibition of
the traditional pagan sacrifice, the people lost all old hope,
and that's when Constantine published the Bible, and
offered it as an alternative, by military supremacy.

Nobody had any other choice
other than to accept it.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

spamandham · 01-20-2008, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

I'm busy compiling all the references to "hell" in Matthew. In the meantime, what about the Lazarus story in Luke?

I think others have already made a reasonable case that something similar to the modern concept of hell did exist in th eearly church.

angelo · 01-21-2008, 03:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

I'm busy compiling all the references to "hell" in Matthew. In the meantime, what about the Lazarus story in Luke?

I think others have already made a reasonable case that something similar to the modern concept of hell did exist in th eearly church.

It's been decades since I read the bible. But is Matthew's gospel the first reference to 'hell'? Isn't there a mention in Mark as well?

Solitary Man · 01-21-2008, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

I think others have already made a reasonable case that something similar to the modern concept of hell did exist in th eearly church.

It's been decades since I read the bible. But is Matthew's gospel the first reference to 'hell'? Isn't there a mention in Mark as well?

If you would have read my post, I quite plainly said that some of the references in Matthew come from Mark.

angelo · 01-22-2008, 05:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

It's been decades since I read the bible. But is Matthew's gospel the first reference to 'hell'? Isn't there a mention in Mark as well?

If you would have read my post, I quite plainly said that some of the references in Matthew come from Mark.

That's what I thought. Matthew more than likely had Mark in front of him when he composed his gospel.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.