Hell In The Old Testament
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-05-2013, 12:28 PM
RE: Hell In The Old Testament
If I can frame our discussion from a slightly different perspective...

I believe (informed by the Bible) that Hell is eternal punishment, but not infinite punishment. I can remember being uncomfortable in a sauna and wanting to leave or being at a dentist's and wanting a toothache relieved. These pains were not infinite in magnitude but stressful while they lasted.

Hell is eternal but not infinite in suffering. The conversation with the deceased while he was in discomfort in Luke 16 shows the lost man able to carry on a conversation. However, he thirsted and had regrets about where he was spending eternity and regrets about the choices he made.

My preference is not to look to a commentator like Augustine who lived centuries after Jesus Christ but to see what the scriptures have to say. The medieval church is from where many of us derive imagery that has lingered in the popular imagination, into films and books today, unfortunately.

Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-05-2013, 12:35 PM
RE: Hell In The Old Testament
That's lovely.
However it's already been more than pointed out to you, regardless of your (unsupported) opinions, that cultural historians KNOW the concept did not exist in ancient Israel, and even up as far as Saul of Tarsus, HE did not believe in immortality, except for the "saved". You can state a falsehood until you're blue in the face. It doesn't make it true, and you cannot try to re-write history and archeology.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
21-05-2013, 12:46 PM
RE: Hell In The Old Testament
(21-05-2013 12:28 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  If I can frame our discussion from a slightly different perspective...

I believe (informed by the Bible) that Hell is eternal punishment, but not infinite punishment. I can remember being uncomfortable in a sauna and wanting to leave or being at a dentist's and wanting a toothache relieved. These pains were not infinite in magnitude but stressful while they lasted.

Hell is eternal but not infinite in suffering. The conversation with the deceased while he was in discomfort in Luke 16 shows the lost man able to carry on a conversation. However, he thirsted and had regrets about where he was spending eternity and regrets about the choices he made.

My preference is not to look to a commentator like Augustine who lived centuries after Jesus Christ but to see what the scriptures have to say. The medieval church is from where many of us derive imagery that has lingered in the popular imagination, into films and books today, unfortunately.

Thank you.

That's all well and good, but it has nothing to do with the original question.

The fact of the matter is, there was no hell in the scriptures up until the first century AD.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheLastEnemy's post
21-05-2013, 02:14 PM
RE: Hell In The Old Testament
Quote:That's lovely.
However it's already been more than pointed out to you, regardless of your (unsupported) opinions, that cultural historians KNOW the concept did not exist in ancient Israel, and even up as far as Saul of Tarsus, HE did not believe in immortality, except for the "saved". You can state a falsehood until you're blue in the face. It doesn't make it true, and you cannot try to re-write history and archeology.

In my daily readings, what do you think I saw yesterday from 1 Chronicles 28?

"And you, my son Solomon, acknowledge the God of your father, and serve him with wholehearted devotion and with a willing mind, for the Lord searches every heart and understands every desire and every thought. If you seek him, he will be found by you; but if you forsake him, he will reject you forever."

To be rejected forever/eternally means that one cannot be in soul sleep or annihilated. To be annihilated means that one has paid one's sins for a limited time and has paid for sins via works instead of via grace/through Messiah Jesus.

Yes, I could cite ancient sources stating that Jewish people believed in Hell in earlier times before they added new doctrines and revisionist scholars. For now, I'll repeat that the scriptures are plain in both testaments on this matter.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-05-2013, 02:16 PM
RE: Hell In The Old Testament
Quote:That's all well and good, but it has nothing to do with the original question.

The fact of the matter is, there was no hell in the scriptures up until the first century AD.

Please see my earlier posts, including the one just prior to this one. There is Hell in the scriptures, in both testaments. I don't want to get into it with you about Sheol, Hell, the Lake of Fire, Gehenna, etc. It's not necessary to get into with you because you don't believe the scriptures are true, yes? No?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-05-2013, 07:15 PM (This post was last modified: 21-05-2013 09:02 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Hell In The Old Testament
(21-05-2013 02:14 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  If you seek him, he will be found by you; but if you forsake him, he will reject you forever."

To be rejected forever/eternally means that one cannot be in soul sleep or annihilated. To be annihilated means that one has paid one's sins for a limited time and has paid for sins via works instead of via grace/through Messiah Jesus.

Yes, I could cite ancient sources stating that Jewish people believed in Hell in earlier times before they added new doctrines and revisionist scholars. For now, I'll repeat that the scriptures are plain in both testaments on this matter.

No it does not. You cannot assert that, with out scholarly references. "Rejecting forever" (an individual) means his family and his nation rejected from the "special" (protection) from their political enemies. More Presentism. The idea of "individual rejection" in a culture dominated by family groups is unthinkable, just as "personal salvation" is. Not "unlimited existence for the individual". I linked you to DR. BB Scott's books, and have discussed it in my links, including the Resurrection one. You have refuted nothing. You haven't even tried.

(21-05-2013 02:14 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Please see my earlier posts, including the one just prior to this one. There is Hell in the scriptures, in both testaments. I don't want to get into it with you about Sheol, Hell, the Lake of Fire, Gehenna, etc. It's not necessary to get into with you because you don't believe the scriptures are true, yes? No?

I see you can't. You're not going to get far with that lazy response. There was no "hell" until Sheol, (the underworld), got translated as "Haedes".
(Memento mori ...") "remember man that thou art dust, and unto dust, thou shalt return".,

The phrase "believe the scriptures are true" is basically a meaningless simple-minded, childish question, and betrays a complete lack of knowledge of all the various forms of ancient literature. There are countless ways to interpret them and everyone, including believers ... as you well know ... disagree ALL THE TIME about the"meanings". So to say *they are true* obviously means countless different things. You fundie Americans NEED to take, find it, and prove it, "literally true", in order to say it's "true". To Americans, poetry, and allegory are despised as part of the general "nerds are the outcasts", anti-intellectual culture. To a non-scientific culture that employed allegory, mythology, (in Rudolph Bultmann's sense), hyperbole to be "literally true" as we think of it would be completely foreign. You constantly commit the fallacy of "Presentism", and slap your 21st Century (literal) meaning on ancient texts that meant often times something COMPLETELY different from the way we view it today through the lens of the disciplines of History, Biology, "accurate recording" Archaeology, and science,etc etc. American fundies can't stand the idea that maybe they were trying to teach a "truth" that was like the "truths" of the Greek Myths. So you'll have to define whet you mean.

It is important for the passing guests to understand just how FAR outside the mainstream this one is. (Bible codes and all that nonsense).
Here is a firmly entrenched Christian scholar who agrees with what I have been saying about the role of a prophet in Hebrew culture.
http://bible.org/users/bob-deffinbaugh
"It should be pointed out that less than 2% of Old Testament prophecy is messianic. Less than 5% specifically concerns the New Covenant age. And less than 1% concern events still future to us".
http://bible.org/seriespage/understandin...g-prophets

"The wicked, on the other hand, are 'cut off'; their souls perish."
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/...lity.shtml
"The Hebrew words later associated with the soul--nefesh, neshamah, ruah- in the Bible mean "breath" and sometimes (as in Genesis 2:7, nishmat hayim) refer to the animating spark of life. But there is no sense that this spark is an essential entity that exists independent of the body. The concept of immortality entered Judaism sometime between the first century BCE and the first century CE."
--- Dr. Allan Arkush, Associate Professor of Judaic Studies and History at SUNY, Binghamton
http://classes.maxwell.syr.edu/his301-00...aic_li.htm
http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/religi...64176.aspx


" “The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is ... nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture. … The belief in the immortality of the soul came to the Jews from contact with Greek thought and chiefly through the philosophy of Plato its principle exponent.”

The early Christian Fathers—Justin Martyr, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophulus, Irenaeus, and Polycrates—denied the conscious state of the dead, and the eternal misery of the wicked. However, many of the early theologians, including Origen, Tertullian, and Augustine, were closely associated with Platonism. The influences of pagan Platonic philosophy on Origen and Augustine are profound."
http://www.heraldmag.org/2011/11mj_3.htm

"The heavens are YHWH’s heavens,
but the earth he has given to human beings.
The dead do not praise YHWH,
nor do any that go down into silence."
(Psalm 115:16-17)

And, as King Hezekiah said when he thought he was going to die:
"I am consigned to the gates of Sheol,
for the rest of my years."
(Isaiah 38:10)

http://books.google.com/books?id=TffrTUy...re&f=false

http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view...1-0003.xml

Job 7:7-9
Remember that my life is a breath;
My eye will not again see good …
A cloud dissolves and it is gone;
So is one who descends to sheol;
He will not ascend.”

"It was not, however, until the Middle Ages, that we see the notion of resurrection becoming a popular topic of conversation and a cornerstone of belief – for both Christians and Jews – although there were clear differences in how, exactly, resurrection would work. Even within the Christian and Jewish worlds, beliefs were extremely fractured, to the point that it is quite difficult to generalize what the “medieval view” really was."
http://wanderinghebrew.com/2011/02/17/re...h-concept/

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
22-05-2013, 12:27 PM
RE: Hell In The Old Testament
Quote:No it does not. You cannot assert that, with out scholarly references. "Rejecting forever" (an individual) means his family and his nation rejected from the "special" (protection) from their political enemies. More Presentism. The idea of "individual rejection" in a culture dominated by family groups is unthinkable, just as "personal salvation" is. Not "unlimited existence for the individual". I linked you to DR. BB Scott's books, and have discussed it in my links, including the Resurrection one. You have refuted nothing. You haven't even tried.

1 Chronicles 28 is about David's instructions to Solomon to build a temple. I apologize for not sharing more from the chapter. The initial quote is prefaced in this manner:

"As for you, my son Solomon, know the God of your father, and serve Him with a loyal heart and with a willing mind; for the Lord searches all hearts and understands all the intent of the thoughts. If you seek Him, He will be found by you; but if you forsake Him, He will cast you off forever."

Other uses of the word forever in that chapter, "the Lord God of Israel chose me above all the house of my father to be king over Israel forever, for He has chosen Judah to be the ruler... have chosen him to be My son, and I will be his Father. 7 Moreover I will establish his kingdom forever... be careful to seek out all the commandments of the Lord your God, that you may possess this good land, and leave it as an inheritance for your children after you forever... "

Each quote has to do with a father speaking to his chosen son. In that light, would you say this chapter represents presentism? And do you have a commentary or scholarly work you can link to here that demonstrate presentism in this chapter? Thanks.

**

Again, I don't want to get into the Sheol-Gehenna-Hades-Lake of Fire four-way distinctions with you because it leads to excesses. Some of the statements you made above are not true.

By "you don't believe the scriptures are true", I of course mean, "as a freethinker, you don't believe in Heaven or Hell, so why should we debate the timing of the revelation of Hell in the scriptures". But if the Bible is true (authoritative in doctrine), then if it mentions Hell even once, we should be concerned and more cautious than Obi-Wan Kenobi when visiting Mos Eisley spaceport.

Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2013, 01:04 PM
RE: Hell In The Old Testament
(22-05-2013 12:27 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Other uses of the word forever in that chapter, "the Lord God of Israel chose me above all the house of my father to be king over Israel forever, for He has chosen Judah to be the ruler... have chosen him to be My son, and I will be his Father. 7 Moreover I will establish his kingdom forever... be careful to seek out all the commandments of the Lord your God, that you may possess this good land, and leave it as an inheritance for your children after you forever... "

Each quote has to do with a father speaking to his chosen son. In that light, would you say this chapter represents presentism? And do you have a commentary or scholarly work you can link to here that demonstrate presentism in this chapter? Thanks.
**

Exactlty. You don't know what "Presentism" even IS in this context. He chose JUDAH .... a FAMILY, a CLAN, a TRIBE, NOT AN INDIVIDUAL ... it's NOT about "personal" salvation.

(22-05-2013 12:27 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Again, I don't want to get into the Sheol-Gehenna-Hades-Lake of Fire four-way distinctions with you because it leads to excesses. Some of the statements you made above are not true.

Unacceptable. Prove it, with SCHOLARLY REFERENCES.

By "you don't believe the scriptures are true", I of course mean, "as a freethinker, you don't believe in Heaven or Hell, so why should we debate the timing of the revelation of Hell in the scriptures". But if the Bible is true (authoritative in doctrine), then if it mentions Hell even once, we should be concerned and more cautious than Obi-Wan Kenobi when visiting Mos Eisley spaceport.

Thank you.
[/quote]

Just as I thought and stated above.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2013, 02:40 PM
RE: Hell In The Old Testament
Quote:Exactlty. You don't know what "Presentism" even IS in this context. He chose JUDAH .... a FAMILY, a CLAN, a TRIBE, NOT AN INDIVIDUAL ... it's NOT about "personal" salvation.

I hear you. David is stating Solomon's titular right as an individual within the chosen tribe of Judah. Maybe this will help. God chose Noah, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc. Nor was I stating that 1 Chronicles 28 was about personal salvation. It was about personal condemnation... "forever".

Quote:Unacceptable. Prove it, with SCHOLARLY REFERENCES.

Perhaps you can define scholarly references. I have my scholars and you have yours, but it seems I'm disallowed from quoting scripture without quoting commentary from scholarly sources. Yet Paul was a Rabbinical scholar, Daniel and his friends served in a royal court, the Bible quotes scribes, lawyers and rabbis, etc.

Is there another book you think we should treat in the same manner, where it is utterly unacceptable to merely quote the author(s) and say, "This is what I think they mean" or "It is plain what they mean" without citing references to commentaries? The road we're going down means believing everybody and everything has a ghost writer of some kind, right? I don't get it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2013, 03:08 PM
RE: Hell In The Old Testament
(22-05-2013 02:40 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Exactlty. You don't know what "Presentism" even IS in this context. He chose JUDAH .... a FAMILY, a CLAN, a TRIBE, NOT AN INDIVIDUAL ... it's NOT about "personal" salvation.

I hear you. David is stating Solomon's titular right as an individual within the chosen tribe of Judah. Maybe this will help. God chose Noah, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc. Nor was I stating that 1 Chronicles 28 was about personal salvation. It was about personal condemnation... "forever".

Quote:Unacceptable. Prove it, with SCHOLARLY REFERENCES.

Perhaps you can define scholarly references. I have my scholars and you have yours, but it seems I'm disallowed from quoting scripture without quoting commentary from scholarly sources. Yet Paul was a Rabbinical scholar, Daniel and his friends served in a royal court, the Bible quotes scribes, lawyers and rabbis, etc.

Is there another book you think we should treat in the same manner, where it is utterly unacceptable to merely quote the author(s) and say, "This is what I think they mean" or "It is plain what they mean" without citing references to commentaries? The road we're going down means believing everybody and everything has a ghost writer of some kind, right? I don't get it.

You mean Saul of Tarsus? That Paul wasn't a rabbinical scholar, he was poseur, who offered bastardized versions of judaism to further his own agenda.

Apologies if you meant a different "Paul".


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: