Mageth

A bit late perhaps, but BGiC still has not supported his assertion "you need a solely material body solely defined by matter/energy, time, space (space-time) to feel pain", and thus has not explained why "resurrected" bodies can't feel pain.

winstonjen

edited by moderator

Mathetes

Maybe it is a bit late now, but it has been asserted in this thread that "Aramaic is a figurative language". What does that mean?

Is there a grammatological or linguistic definition of a "figurative language"?

Family Man

All languages are capable of expressing ideas in figurative terms. All languages are capable of expressing things in literal terms. The idea that Aramaic is a figurative language unlike other languages (including English) is pure BS.

Secular Pinoy

He must've found his assertion to be untenable, yet is too proud to retract it.

Family Man

When the man put the bumpersticker on his truck that said "Fish tremble when they hear my name", the meaning is immediately clear. How do we know it is figurative? Because fish don't tremble, and they wouldn't recognize the man's name. Figurative speech tends to be quite obvious.

Now to interpret this passage:

we need a "sophisticated" analysis, resulting in this rather contorted and questionable argument:


First, we can note that Matthew 10:28 directly contradicts the notion that bodies in hell will be non-physical. And, as others have noted, we don't know that our "souls" don't suffer from pain.

Second, we don't know if the claim that our bodies will be the same as Jesus is correct, making premise 6 very questionable. Nor do we know if Jesus was resurrected or if his body was immaterial calling in question premises 4 and 5. These are all unsupported assertions that rely on the accuracy of a very questionable document. I've never been one to believe everything I read.

Finally, we have to assume that the translators wouldn't have recognized the figurative nature of the passage and made it clear how it was figurative. We further have to assume that BGIC knows more than they do. I makes me wonder what other passages may not be what they appear to be.

So we have a choice of reading the passage as written, or accept BGIC's strange and questionable interpretations, knowing that he has a need for the passage to fit a particular viewpoint, especially considering that at least one passage directly contradicts his analysis, suggesting that his being a bit selective in his choice of quotations.

Yes, I'd run away too if I had to post such a weak argument. No wonder BGIC took so long to present his case. But I trust BGIC will be more careful about yelling "figurative" in the future.

CX

I can't speak for everyone, but the concept of hell is not particularly instrumental in or relevant to my nonbelief. Nor is my or other posters' nonbeleif relevant to this discussion. The point is what do the texts of the NT (and the OT for that matter) say about hell? SYmbolic language notwithstanding it is eminently clear that the message conveyed is that hell is a place of eternal torment. It is retribution for the unbelievers. It is not some wishy washy watered down new age liberal conception of seperation from god. That you evidently cannot accept such description because it is an affront to your sense of justice is not an argument against that interpretation. I'm sure we all know that Jesus most likely spoke Aramaic. In any event it's very unlikely he spoke greek. That being said the Greek of the NT is not translational in nature so evidently the gospel authors took what Jesus said and paraphrased it in Greek to maintain the original sense and idiomatic nature of the passages in question. Ergo they are not simply quoting Jesus but conveying his message to a greek speaking gentile audience. Your quibbling about Aramaic figurative speech is a complete red herring. The gospel authors are conveying a message. The message they are conveying is that hell as Jesus or as they themselves conceived of it is a place of punishment and eternal physical torment. It is perfectly in line with the culture and belief ofthe period in question. That it is offensive to modern sensiblities is totally irrelevant.

Mathetes

I tend to agree. But the concept of a "figurative language" seems a creative instrument for apologetics that I had never encounted before, and I wanted to see how far it could go.

Seems that the poster has given up, though.