What The Hell Did He Say?
Throughout these discussions a persistent question has been raised; how can anyone be blind to the obvious scriptural supports for the doctrine of Hell? It has even been pointed out that Jesus himself talks very clearly of a definite place called Hell.
Since both the scriptures and the Messiah are Jewish, it may help if we understand a little bit more of how the Jews have historically considered this idea of an afterlife, particularly one made up of eternal punishment. Here are just a few references that may easily be found on the internet;
While rabbinic Judaism subscribed to a notion of life after death and resurrection, it tolerated a great deal of speculation concerning the particulars, as well as a wide range of views concerning how this would all come to pass. Much less was said about punishment, and the concept of hell was never extensively developed in Judaism. Its origins are in a specific site, the Valley of Gehinnom (from Gei Ben hinnom) a valley that was the site of a heathen cult whose rituals included burning children (see the description in II Kings 23:10 and Jeremiah 7:31). The Talmud paints a graphic and frightening picture of what happens in Gehinnom, but overall it receives only modest attention:
Wrongdoers of Israel who sin with their body, and wrongdoers of the gentiles who sin with their body, go to Gehinnom and are punished there for 12 months. After 12 months, their body is consumed and their soul is burned and the wind scatters them under the soles of the feet of the righteous. [Rosh Hashanah 17a]
In contrast to the opinion expressed above, Rabbi Akiba argued that punishment is not eternal; it is limited to one year: So, too, the Talmud affirms that the judgment of the wicked in Gehinnom shall endure only 12 months [Babylonian Talmud, tractate Eduyot 2:10]. Eventually Rabbi Akiba’s view was adopted. Jewish Ideas and Ideals
The Torah, therefore, might have been silent about afterlife out of a desire to ensure that Judaism not evolve in the direction of the death obsessed Egyptian religion. Throughout history, those religions that have assigned a significant role to afterlife have often permitted other religious values to become distorted. For example, belief in the afterlife motivated the men of the Spanish Inquisition to torture innocent human beings; they believed it was morally desirable to torture people for a few days in this world until they accepted Christ, and thereby save them from the eternal torments of hell. Jewish Virtual Library
Only the very righteous go directly to Gan Eden (Heaven). The average person descends to a place of punishment and/or purification, generally referred to as Gehinnom (guh-hee-NOHM) (in Yiddish, Gehenna), but sometimes as She’ol or by other names. According to one mystical view, every sin we commit creates an angel of destruction (a demon), and after we die we are punished by the very demons that we created. Some views see Gehinnom as one of severe punishment, a bit like the Christian Hell of fire and brimstone. Other sources merely see it as a time when we can see the actions of our lives objectively, see the harm that we have done and the opportunities we missed, and experience remorse for our actions. The period of time in Gehinnom does not exceed 12 months, and then ascends to take his place on Olam Ha-Ba.
Only the utterly wicked do not ascend at the end of this period; their souls are punished for the entire 12 months. Sources differ on what happens at the end of those 12 months: some say that the wicked soul is utterly destroyed and ceases to exist while others say that the soul continues to exist in a state of consciousness of remorse. Judaism 101
There were about 24 different Jewish religious/political groups during the time of Christ. The three main movements were:
….the Pharisees embraced much of the recently introduced Greek Pagan theology. They believed in resurrection and an associated system of rewards and punishment after death. They did not expect justice to be achieved on earth.
….the Sadducees believed that God would reward the righteous and punish the wicked during their lifetime on earth.
….the Essenes…taught that the soul separated from the body and was resurrected to eternal life.Religious Tolerance
Now, of course none of this effectively refutes the doctrine of eternal punishment nor the popular notions of Hell. But there is strong evidence to suggest that there was no true Jewish consensus on an afterlife during the time of Jesus’ ministry. The evidence also suggests (to me) that Jesus, speaking as a first century Jew and not a 21st century Christian, likely never intended for speculations about hell and damnation to become so critical for people of faith.

May 9, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Very interesting read, though not entirely surprising that hell developed later on. The story of Satan being a fallen angel isn’t really biblical either.
http://www.QuestioCunctus.com
May 9, 2008 at 8:13 pm
There is a lot of emphasis here put on the fact that Jesus was a Jew.
Christian , you’ve read stuff based on that, so maybe you can give me some clarity.
it doesn’t seem like Jesus came as a Jew to be a Jew. It seems that to fulfill prophecy He had to be one. But, I don’t see Him being a Jew as essential as Him being God’s Son and the sacrifice for our sins. So, If He came as God’s Son, should we think that His message about hell or anything else would be less about Jewish tradition and thought and more about God’s plan which was for all, not just Jew? I mean God isn’t Jewish, right? So who’s to say that the Jewish view of hell is not God’s?
May 9, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Gods chosen people were Jewish, Jesus came to spread his message to them and to any other sinners who would listen. I think the point of his post is more to do with the mythology of hell as we imagine it today being one that developed under hands besides his and those that knew him personally.
May 9, 2008 at 9:20 pm
for Prez, I understand that.
My point is, I am not sure we can say what Hell is or isn’t based on Jewish religion. When Jesus spoke to people, He spoke to them in their own context.
Is it possible that this hell really cannot be defined by gentile or jew.
May 9, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Welcome, Prez. I hope to start a discussion on the history of Satan, but am hesitant to open up that can of worms. I’ll check out what you have to say about him on your site.
“So, If He came as God’s Son, should we think that His message about hell or anything else would be less about Jewish tradition and thought and more about God’s plan which was for all, not just Jew?”
Brent, I think that makes sense, but I don’t think we can dismiss his cultural and religious ethnicity that easily. He may have been the Son of God but his ministry was still centered within the framework of first century Jewish Palestine and, according to the scriptures, he at first ministered only to the Jews. It’s often said how Jesus, being Jewish, took the Torah and the Prophets very seriously. If there was no widespread Jewish tradition of Hell in place why would we have to assume that Jesus created such a precise one? (If it really is that precise, anyway.) God’s plan did not begin with the incarnation, the Jewish people already had an understanding of redemption and punishment that (according to Jewish tradition) does not include a consensus of opinion on the after life.
On the other hand, some of the other cultures that the Jews encountered, as well as those that encountered later Christian generations, had these well defined concepts. It looks as if these concepts may have worked their way into, or at least influenced, our theologies.
May 10, 2008 at 12:39 am
I think I only make a small tangent reference to the Satan thing on my blog and it was a while ago; but do feel free to poke around.
May 10, 2008 at 2:43 am
I don’t want to dismiss his culture necessarily, but when you look at his 3 focused years of ministry, I don’t believe his focus was Jews, but instead everyone at that point. His early years were definitely focused on his culture.
I think all religions, Jewish included have some sort of opinion of the after life. I think most likely that God’s view of it is nothing like we can actually come to an understanding on.
I definitely think as you said that other cultures have formed our theologies as to what hell is. I think your right there and I think also I wold agree that our walk of faith should not be dependent on “a consensus of opinion on the after life”
The “now” life is what I think is most important.
just thinking…as usual…
May 10, 2008 at 8:36 am
“I think most likely that God’s view of it is nothing like we can actually come to an understanding on.”
Well put. I think that the prevailing Church wisdom about hell is precisely that; a futile attempt at understanding this concept and then insisting that others share in this same view. Often to the detriment of the Good News.
Brent, when you think do you screw up your brow and knuckle your forehead like Winnie the Pooh? That’s how I visualize it.
May 10, 2008 at 3:44 pm
You calling me a pig?
May 10, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Pig! Pig? Winnie the Pooh was a bear, you knucklehead. Hey! Knucklehead - now I get it!
May 11, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Hahaha!!!
May 11, 2008 at 7:13 pm
I think most of our concepts of hell come from Dante, not the New Testament.
An orthodox Jew told me that they do not believe in hell (which makes sense, because the OT is silent on hell).
A course I took, OT theology made many parallels with Egyptian pyramid texts and the Christian concepts of hell, as well as the Egyptian Book of the Dead.
Modern evangelicals who push conversion prayers come remarkably close to what the prof in the course called “magic words” for the initiated to speak in order not to fry in the afterlife.
logio, etc.
May 11, 2008 at 7:55 pm
I read somewhere that one of the reasons the early Jewish theology did not concentrate more on the afterlife was that their long time captors, the Egyptians, were obsessed with it.
May 11, 2008 at 10:29 pm
They weren’t really slaves though, they were mercenary who had been downgraded to public works with the lack of war.
May 11, 2008 at 11:33 pm
OK, I see the emoticon but I think you are hinting at something that may be based upon fact. Can you enlighten us please? Sounds interesting.
May 12, 2008 at 12:50 am
Was a show on History channel “Bible Battles” it was a take on the old testament events from the understanding of a ex-military officer. Thats were the mercenary idea is from, though archaeologists are rather certain the pyramids weren’t built by slave labor. Show was kinda bland but they’d give little bits were tactics used in the bible were recalled by leaders and reused in later battles.
May 12, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Once again we are letting our physical intellect confuse our spiritual understanding. There is definitely a place known to Christians as Hell that is as much a spiritual place than Heaven, and no mater what we might call it, it doesn’t mater if we take a fire and brimstone approach to visualize it, or see it as a prison where we will be punished for all eternity, it is, spiritually speaking, the separation of mankind from his Creator, God. What its’ physical reality is doesn’t really mater.
Consider the fact that there are two deaths referenced in the Bible where the first death comes after we have either chosen to accept Christ and be reborn of the Spirit, and contemplate our repentance, or we choose to not accept Christ and live without His guidance until our physical death.
The second death is where we become accountable for our choices and is either a permanent spiritual relationship with God, or a total spiritual separation from Him. As Christians we believe Jesus holds the keys and is mankind’s only way of escaping the second death. This is our choice. If we choose not to accept and follow this path to God then our only other choice is that which exists other than God, if anything.
May 12, 2008 at 2:45 pm
It comes down to whether you believe that God, who was capable of creating the intricate balance of the universe, subtle beauty of a snowflake and the vast complexity of the human body, is capable of overseeing the writing, compilation and translation of His Word in the form of a book… or not.
If you don’t believe that than you view similarities in other religions as proof that the Bible is largely of human influence and bias and is a compilation of great moral lessons copied from ancient traditions.
If you do believe that than you view similarities in other religions as proof that God speaks through His creation (as Scripture says).. even the rocks cry out. Thus, other religions and ancient traditions are just interpreting the Truths found in Creation without knowledge of the author.
May 12, 2008 at 3:47 pm
It comes down to whether you believe that God…s capable of overseeing the writing, compilation and translation of His Word in the form of a book… or not.
Sure. And of course God would be more than capable. But how do you explain the various interpretations and takes on translation that have been presented throughout history for something that we give God sole credit for composing? Are Arminians and Calvinists both correct? The Roman church as well as protestants? Or is it not a matter of being ‘right’? That sounds dangerously close to postmodernism.
I don’t see how you can deny human influence upon scriptures. Even if you subscribe to the idea that the Bible is essentially God’s precise dictation to man, certainly the human element has been very influential. Humans have brought different perspectives to scriptural interpretation and even determining what qualifies as inspired scripture, not least those men who decided upon the canon. Were all of the early church fathers spirit led? At some point it was decided to close the door on doctrinal and dogmatic debate, well after the original scriptures had been written - who decided this for all of us? (Of course that only lasted about 1300 years). Luther said Sola Sriptura but what he really meant was the solely approved (his) interpretation of scripture. And all the Baptists, Methodists, Congregationalists, Adventists, Pentacostals, Mennonites etc. seem to hear God saying different things.
May 12, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Interpretation and translation are two entirely different things. I’ve been pretty clear how I feel about interpretation. Arminianism and Calvinism (as well as Catholocism) are all interpretations…
Now translation and compilation (cannon)… In the same way that you or I or anyone cannot cause someone to be saved (or not) against the will of the Holy Spirit, I believe that no one can translate (different from interpret) or compile Gods Truth against His will.
Just imagine for a moment if that is actually ‘true’. What does that mean about what God is saying to us? Read the King James, the NIV and The Message together and what message do you get? If you really ponder that, it’s pretty cool. (we regularly use 2 or 3 [sometimes 4] different translations in church every week for that very reason). You have to dump all your baggage and read with an clean slate. It’s really quite amazing…
… add in all the idea that ‘ancient traditions’ and mythologies with the perspective that perhaps they were just perceptive of God speaking through His Creation without really knowing who He was… man, it get’s wild…
May 12, 2008 at 4:33 pm
I agree with you completely. So then how is it that on this particular subject (hell) we see things so differently?
May 12, 2008 at 4:40 pm
There is definitely a place known to Christians as Hell that is as much a spiritual place than Heaven
Net, not this Christian. I hope you don’t consider that a litmus test.
That there is a ill fate for those who choose other than God I would not deny. What it specifically is when cannot know. That being said, this fate is obviously of our own choosing and perhaps our making. (Why not - what we make on this earth without his input usually is quite hellish) That God would design a chamber of horrors to torture those who would deny him goes against what God has taken such time and effort to teach us. You may not see Hell in this way (you might) but many do.
May 12, 2008 at 5:24 pm
How can humanity be judged for an eternity for a lack of one decision over a span of 70 or 80 years?
No one is questioning God’s ability to give a book–but here is a problem for the historical/grammatical/direct inspiration view: Read other ancient literature, ie Plato, Aristotle, or Homer. You will find many sayings and concepts that predate Scripture text, especially Paul’s letters. So what we arrive at is a twist–either Paul and Peter borrowed from those other writers, were inspired to write the same words–or the worst possibility for many Christians–equal inspiration.
For example, read a couple of Plato’s dialectics, then read Job. You may come away seeing Job as a similar dialectic. Then read Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethic before reading Galatians or Peter’s epistles. You will see many parallels.
May 12, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Baggage.
Logio,
Well, that plays exactly into what I’m saying. Gods Creation speaks His truth (even to those who don’t recognize Him). Re-read my comment, you’ll see I address this very question.
May 13, 2008 at 6:13 am
Christian,
Can you please explain the reference to hell in this passage?
I’m not trying to be argumentative, I am just confused by your disbelief in a place of punishment being spoken of by Christ in the Bible.
Luke 16:19-31
19″There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22″The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
25″But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’
27″He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
29″Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
30″ ‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
31″He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ “
May 13, 2008 at 9:21 am
Buddy; your baggage or mine?
Net; I think that in that example hell (Hades in the Greek) is allegorical. But nevertheless, I think Jesus’ point in that parable was to condemn the rich and uncharitable, not illustrate a fate that was already becoming part of a folk tradition with his listeners.
May 13, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Yes
May 13, 2008 at 2:15 pm
What I hear you saying, is that because of the many different translations and interpretations, the abundant use of symbolism and its’ allegorical license, the Bible is a book that should no longer be considered to be a reliable aid in man’s search for spiritual understanding. Let’s say a more liberal Unity Church approach. Is this right?
Though all of the parables of Jesus are allegorical, that doesn’t make every word also an allegory. Of course hell is an allegory to our different speculations of the afterlife, but can we not trust Jesus when he also refers to it as a spiritual reality? Again what I am saying here is that no mater what you call the place of separation from God it is still not a place, or even an existence, you would want to visit or spend eternity in. Even for a short while.
I believe that Jesus would not use a reference to a place that did not exist in some form or another and then claim to be the Truth. By-the-way, I believe the point of the parable I referred to is in the last line: He said to him, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.”
If I am off base on this it is only that I am really confused as to what it is you truly believe about the afterlife. Can you please elaborate?
May 13, 2008 at 5:51 pm
You miss the obvious, Buddy. Why not check out some higher criticism, such as by Wellhausen or von Rad? You may not agre with them but they present some air-tight arguments.
May 14, 2008 at 11:47 am
Buddy: Gotcha. Agreed.
Net: Net in no way do I think that “the Bible is a book that should no longer be considered to be a reliable aid in man’s search for spiritual understanding”. It has been very instrumental in this man’s search, and in fact it is where my spiritual world view is grounded. Perhaps it is as Buddy has suggested, that both you and I disagree on some aspects of the scriptural message because of our ‘baggage’ - the perspective that our own personal lives have brought to our take on them. Even so, I don’t think that the Bible is the ONLY aid in spiritual formation.
“I believe that Jesus would not use a reference to a place that did not exist in some form or another and then claim to be the Truth”
But in other parables (and this was a parable as well) he uses poetic license and we do not question his veracity. Metaphor and allegory do not hide the truth, more often their use reveals it. I think we can agree that part of what Jesus is saying is that the consequences of choosing something other than what God has willed for us is very undesirable.
I have no ideas concerning the afterlife. I do believe that there will be one and trust that it will be good beyond our imaginations and that it is available to us through God’s grace and mercy as demonstrated on the Cross. I also believe that God could allow someone to refuse this gift. What happens to them and who would do that and why is beyond any meaningful speculation on my part.
May 14, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Golly gee, I’s gess I’s not as edumcated and ‘bservent as Mr Logio…
Your kidding right? Did you forget the smiley? While I’m at it, I’ll consult Gunkel, Tertullian, Winebrenner, CS Lewis, Al Gore and George Carlin… let’s see how much baggage this donkey can carry…
May 14, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Chris, I think we are not so far out of agreement as we think. The problem we are having is with language. If perhaps we do not use the word hell or any other word to describe a place of an afterlife separate from God, and look at the spiritual meaning rather than the physical, we will find our mutual ground of agreement.
Here is how I see it: God is spirit. Christ is spirit. We have a spirit that is connected to God through Christ and the Holy Spirit. God therefore, is in a spiritual space of existence, and we are currently in a physical space. After death those who accept the Way of Jesus are joined with God the Father in His spiritual space, those who do not are judged and either separated from God or not, according to his will and Jesus’ intervention for those the Father has given Him. What happens to those in separation is really beyond our understanding although there are some possible outcomes mentioned in various scriptures. Unfortunately they are, as you say, subject to interpretation. No mater in what teaching or where we search for an answer in the physical we are not to know for sure until we leave the physical world through death and pass onto either the spiritual plane some refer to as Heaven or the one they call hell or nothingness or whatever you want to believe. It is what it will be.
This is why I said that hell is as much a spiritual place as Heaven is. Heaven being that spiritual place where God is, and hell being that spiritual place where God is not. If it turns out that there is no such place then it doesn’t matter one-way or the other. But if there is, I don’t want to be found there. I’m not going to put God in a box and say he would never create a place of punishment. My personal belief is that after the judgment of Christ, Satan and his peeps will be tossed into the “Lake-of-Fire” (whatever that is) and those not judged acceptable by Jesus will be eternally separated from God. The rest of God’s human creation will continue in His plan.
May 14, 2008 at 8:23 pm
I Tagged you with a simple meme
http://ricbooth.wordpress.com/2008/05/14/tagged-by-love/
enjoy.
May 14, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Hey Buddy, instead of being insulting, why not check out something for yourself? If you have so much confidence in the historical accuracy of the Bible, then you would be glad to read something that challenges such a certain belief.
Your ridicule only proves you can be sarcastic, it certainly does not prove inspiration of Scripture.
BTW, C. S. Lewis believed the OT to be “inspired myth.” In other words, he did not take the creation week literally, as few do (outside of the creation science people).
May 14, 2008 at 8:52 pm
To Netprophet:
Are you a member of Unity?
May 14, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Logio,
I am not. What is it in what I said that would make you think that?
May 14, 2008 at 10:36 pm
No ridicule intended, just keeping things light.
Why do you assume I have no knowledge extra-biblical analysis? And where in any of my comments do I support or reject the idea of historical accuracy?… it’s not even part of my thought process in this thread.
May 14, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Net - I am quite cool with your belief here. Just so long as you are cool with mine then there should be no need for iodine and bandages.
Hey Bruce, I think you drew first. No need to get our theological shorts in a bunch.
Ric - you will pay, dearly. Thanks.
What’s Unity?
May 14, 2008 at 10:48 pm
To Net–Saying God is “Pure Spirit” is certainly accurate–however, saying the Son is Pure spirit contradicts the Scriptural principle that Jesus rose and ascended in the same body in which He was born.
Unity denies the incarnation based on the doctrine of Docetism, which according to H. Wayne House, Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine, was based on Gnosticism. Some say that Gnostics reject the material as being evil, therefore Jesus could not have taken a real flesh human body.
(Phew!) The modern Unity movement, if I am not mistaken, also takes this position. So, to say Jesus, God the Son, is pure spirit is to deny the incarnation (as Unity teaches).
Okay, Buddy. Historical accuracy is the bedrock of some (not all) arguments in favor of inspiration. You said:
“It comes down to whether you believe that God, who was capable of creating the intricate balance of the universe, subtle beauty of a snowflake and the vast complexity of the human body, is capable of overseeing the writing, compilation and translation of His Word in the form of a book… or not. ”
If a person believes the former, then somewhere the Bible has to be believed as being at least somewhat historically accurate.
May 14, 2008 at 10:52 pm
I never quite understood the attraction that Gnosticism has for some people. Why would matter be evil? Are they somehow equating energy with goodness or God? I think that makes sense but the living physical body is certainly full of energy. It’s not a stone.
May 14, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Christian… and I went and bought all those medical supplies for nothing.
To Logio…Yes I do believe Jesus is now, but hasn’t always been, pure Spirit. I don’t believe he ascended in the same body he was born in, but that’s something that doesn’t really mater to me one way or the other. He took on a new spiritual body at the Transfiguration but He still ascended in Spirit, as will his followers. At least that’s what I think.
As Unity’s co-founder writes in relationship to this particular thread is something I don’t totally agree with either but some of his points, I feel are right-on.
Charles Fillmore said in his teachings,
“The word hell is not translated with clearness sufficient to represent the various meanings of the word in the original language. There are three words from which “hell” is derived: Sheol, “the unseen state”; Hades, “the unseen world”; and Gehenna, “Valley of Hinnom.” These are used in various relations, nearly all of them allegorical. In a sermon Archdeacon Farrar said: “There would be the proper teaching about hell if we calmly and deliberately erased from our English Bibles the three words, ‘damnation,’ ‘hell,’ and ‘everlasting.’ I say–unhesitatingly I say, claiming the fullest right to speak with the authority of knowledge–that not one of those words ought to stand any longer in our English Bible, for, in our present acceptation of them, they are simply mistranslations.” This corroborates the metaphysical interpretation of Scripture, and sustains the truth that hell is a figure of speech that represents a corrective state of mind. When error has reached its limit, the retroactive law asserts itself, and judgment, being part of that law, brings the penalty upon the transgressor. This penalty is not punishment, but discipline, and if the transgressor is truly repentant and obedient, he is forgiven in Truth.”
May 14, 2008 at 11:43 pm
I like what Farrar said. I can buy that.
Musn’t Jesus be spirit now? Or perhaps both? He certainly cannot be just a physical being, no matter where he is sitting.
I am reading a book right now and one line stood out. In this book (a fiction) God is speaking and says; ” I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment; devouring you from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish; it’s my joy to cure it.”
May 14, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Okay, netprophet, if Jesus was pure spirit, while on earth, how did Thomas place his hands in the wounds?
If you’re a Unity follower, why don’t you just say so? Am I breaching some committment you have not to admit it? You have a right to believe what you will.
To Christian–I differ with those who say something like “The Church rejected Gnosticism.” The church–particularly those who believe sex is wrong–married gnosticism. For example, I read a letter from (let’s say) a church father and his betrothed. She has decided sex was evil, and had joined (let’s say) the order of perpetual virginity. The church father was extolling the ahem, virtue of such a decision. I would argue that such orders, which still exist, border in gnosticism because they condemn sex.
Evangelicals don’t get off any easier. All of the anti-dating rage of the past 10 years borders on the same, as do many other aspects of church.
Yes, in the historic church, not just groups like Unity, gnosticism is alive and well.
May 15, 2008 at 12:04 am
I mean a church father to his betroathed. I believe the belief is Manacheaism (which was Augustine’s first foray into Christianity, which he later soundly condemns).
Please don’t take it personally, ntproph. I’m just curious.
To Christian–if you press some of your co-workers who attend some more lively churches–they also border on gnosticism (wearing white robes, claiming things in the spirit, etc.) in the services, but the obsession with the flesh is an antithesis.
May 15, 2008 at 12:06 am
i SHOULD SAY IF YOU ASK SOME OF YOUR CO-WORKERS. Again, they have the right to believe whatever they want, but the dichotomy between the lively Sunday services and some actions is prounounced.
May 15, 2008 at 5:45 am
For logiopath,
Wow! What more can I say than NO! I am not a liar nor am I a member of the Unity Church, and I do not agree with very much of their philosophical interpretations of the Bible. Like I asked before, where did you get that impression? I have read some of Fillmore’s writings but I have studied many other writers from C.S. Lewis, George McDonald, John Wenham, James White, The Biblical Apocrypha, The Deuterocanonical books and a bunch more, and reading any of those writings doesn’t make me a member of their group of believers or change what I know to be truth. But it does make me think and in some ways their ideas hold some truths I may have not considered. A lot of the time I can’t even imagine where they come up with some of the crap they write about.
YOU WROTE: “If Jesus was pure spirit, while on earth, how did Thomas place his hands in the wounds?”
Do you even read other peoples entire comments before you comment on what they wrote? Where did I ever say that Jesus was pure spirit while on earth? As far as the spiritual body of Jesus is concerned, as I said, it doesn’t matter to me because I don’t need to put my fingers in His wounds. I’ll no it’s Him because I will here His voice. And besides, it is a question I don’t believe has an answer we can hold as true any more than the answer to “What is Hell?”
I am busy trying to work out my own salvation and learn as much about what my life means to God, and what He would like me to do with it while I am in the flesh, to worry about man made doctrines and covenants. Oops, now I bet you’ll think I’m a Mormon?
May 15, 2008 at 8:32 am
Logi… you’ve become quite the s$!t stirrer… That’s usually my job.
Did you read that somewhere, or did one of your professors tell you that?
I’m not denying that the Bible contains historical accuracies, however, my argument for the divine inspiration (I like orchestration better) of scripture has noting to do with anything contianed within. Simply:
- God is the Creator of everything (OK arguably gleaned from the Bible)
- He is capable of unfathomable wonders and complexity
- He is capable of orchestrating and overseeing the creation of a collection of His Word
- His Truth has existed in His Creation since the begininng of time (without beign written down) so it is no wonder that other cultures and civilizations picked up on it and adopted it without giving him proper credit. (possibly the impeus for Him deciding to write it down..??)
May 15, 2008 at 9:11 am
“so it is no wonder that other cultures and civilizations picked up on it and adopted it without giving him proper credit”
CS Lewis talks about this in an essay he did on the “Corn King”, which I think can be found in the collection “Miracles” .
Logio: Do you really think all that anti-sexual baggage that has been carried for so long is due to Augustine’s Manacheaism or to a backlash of his prior hedonistic lifestyle? And perhaps that same backlash is what fuels the anti-physical fervor in some people.
May 15, 2008 at 4:22 pm
To Net Prophet: I’m just curious as to you reasoning for saying Jesus
“took on a new spiritual body at the Transfiguration but He still ascended in Spirit, as will his followers. At least that’s what I think.”
If his body was “spiritual,” was He an illusion? What do you mean by that?
I don’t care if you are whatever–I’m just probing, based on line of reasoning you wrote.
If you say it does not matter, then is it a conviction or a just something else? If you’re not certain of Jesus’ form, how will you know His voice?
Buddy–If the Bible is to be believed, then it must have some historical accuracy. If it is inspired by God, and God gave specific instructions to the writers, then it is logical to say the content is accurate.
The historical/grammatical argument, coupled with the doctrine of inspiration is the foundation of modern evangelical/fundementalism. You may say it doesn’t matter, etc., but the arguments you have made on this site, as I have read them for the past year, certainly seem to hold this view. And lay off the profs–those poor stiffs have to work 20 hour weeks, 32 weeks a year!
May 15, 2008 at 5:05 pm
At the risk of sounding like a dolt - I seem to be out of the loop of understanding with Buddy and Bruce’s argument here. What exactly is it that you two are in disagreement about?
Meanwhile, I have to go to me night job and left my lap top power cord at school so I hopes I have something to look forward to tomorry. (gleefully rubbing my hands together)
May 15, 2008 at 7:03 pm
1. You don’t have to risk much to sound like a dolt.
2. Read the posts, Chris.
3. Why won’t you accept my writing?
(Yes, I’m still bitching about it, a year later)
May 15, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Logiopath,
My current belief is that at the transfiguration, Christ temporarily took on a spiritual body similar to that of Mosses after he came down form viewing the burning bush. I say temporarily because he did not stay in this state of brightness, as others have labeled as being a type of metamorphosis. I figure this is a spiritual state of some kind but I might be wrong. (No conviction here)
The Ascension of Christ on the other hand is where I believe Christ was in a spiritual body that Mary M and the Apostles did not at first recognize as being Jesus. This upon reaching Heaven became the same Spiritual body that He left with, and when He returns He will again return to the body He ascended in, according to the angels that spoke to the Apostles after he departed. I know that there are many different ideas as to the correctness of question of His spiritual being, and that is the reason why I don’t claim any truth in the matter and that is why it doesn’t matter to me. Okay?
Just understand that when I say “my beliefs” I mean what I have accepted for the day but some are subject to change. Only Jesus and Him crucified and risen, are written on my heart. All else I’m working on understanding.
Enough said?
May 15, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Never.
May 16, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Read the posts? I’ve read the pertinent comments and would still like a little clarification. Is Buddy arguing that the Bible will stand apart from history? Are you saying that the Bible cannot be understood without an understanding history? Or that history has shaded how we take the Bible?
And now I have to go to work again and still in the dark.
May 16, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Logi has been trying to pigeon-hole me and through sheer logic and intellect I’ve shut him down and that makes him a bit testy…
Actually the whole ‘history’ thing is a complete rabbit hole diverting attention away from the core of what I’m actually trying to say. I’ve never brought historical accuracy into this conversation and quite frankly I’m not sure what it’s doing here….
May 16, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Look, Buddy, you continually bring historical accuracy into the mix. Whether you want to admit it or not, the docrine of inspiration you are claiming, presupposes the Scriptures to be historically accurate.
You wrote “It comes down to whether you believe that God, who was capable of creating the intricate balance of the universe, subtle beauty of a snowflake and the vast complexity of the human body, is capable of overseeing the writing, compilation and translation of His Word in the form of a book… or not.”
If you believe God is capable, wouldn’t God ensure that what was written down was historically accurate?
I am not trying to prove anything other than to take the ideas you wrote yourself, filter it through my personal knowledge, and try and decipher what you are saying–in other words, I am reading between the lines.
Chris,
All I am trying to do is make a simple point about the Scripture. In general, protestants believed the OT and NT until about 1850. Writers such as Wellausen began to question traditional beliefs about the accuracy of Scripture. The question boils down to one point–either the Bible is one perfectly fitting piece of the puzzle o history, or it is not. If it is not, then Christians ought to have the honesty to say “No!” Or at least to admit that if a separate history exists apart from Scripture.
The problem I had myself, and have finally had the courage to let go, was the fear of non-biblical sources of information about the ancient and medieval worlds.
For example, for years I feared Greek Mythology and Dante because I thought that reading these texts would shake my faith. I shunned archaeaology because I also feared anything over 10,000 years old would mean Genesis wasn’t true–all the while in my heart never really fully accepting what I heard from preachers.
May 16, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Okay, now back to the hell thing.
Writers of the Jewish Scriptures said almost nothing about hell.
Most of what modern Christians believe comes from Dante.
May 16, 2008 at 6:54 pm
There-in lies the problem. I claim no doctrine. I claim anti-doctrine.
Thats the exact problem I am speaking about. Often when one reads between the lines be it on a blog or in Scripture, they miss what’s contained within the lines… or worse misinterpret what’s in the lines.
That’s the pity of it all isn’t it….? It seems both you and I, Logio, see this as a problem. While you see perhaps compromising a bit in your view of Scripture (aka humanizing, rationalizing) to solve it, I see the potential for ancient writings, archeology, mythology to potentially all be in harmony with the Truth.
May 17, 2008 at 9:17 am
Hmm. Maybe we agree more than I thought.
May 17, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Now wouldn’t that be something….?
May 17, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Stranger things can happen
May 18, 2008 at 9:22 am
I’ve been reading Dante’s Inferno. I reached the chapter on suicide–Dante calls suicide victims “Harpies.”
I remember a heated argument about those who commit suicide, with some of my fellow-students at a college belonging to the AG. I wish I would have known Dante at the time.
Also, I wonder if Dante would consider televangelists to be guilty of Simony (robbing the church).