David Bentley Hart on Hell

[Servus]

I guess my point is that since we know that Joseph wasn’t the Lord’s biological father, the fact that he is called his father can’t be taken as “proof” that he must be.

I disagree. Matthew 1:1-16 giving the geneology of Jesus from Abraham to Joseph is very clear evidence that Joseph was the father of Jesus.

"And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ" Matthew 1:16.

 

[Der Alte]

I am well aware of the variety of uses. If you want to tell God he was wrong about Abram and Lot then go ahead. There are other examples right in the Bible. Your teaching about precedence and context is outside of the Bible.

Languages, all languages, have grammar rules. Koine Greek existed long before the NT was written.
The disciples did not invent a new "holy," Biblical language to write the NT. They wrote in the common, every day koine Greek that all other Greek speakers understood so new Christians in Corinth, Ephesus etc. could readily understand what was written . OBTW "koine" means common.
I started learning to speak Greek the year of Sputnik 1 in Germany. I formally studied both Biblical languages at the graduate level about 2 decades after that.
I know lots of folks desperately want to hang on to their assumptions/presuppositions but without established grammar rules languages would be just so much noise.
Not just adelphos but all words, the rule is the primary definition takes precedence unless context indicates otherwise. In Greek, as in English, words are sometimes used figuratively.

 

[Valletta]

Languages, all languages, have grammar rules. Koine Greek existed long before the NT was written.
The disciples did not invent a new "holy," Biblical language to write the NT. They wrote in the common, every day koine Greek that all other Greek speakers understood so new Christians in Corinth, Ephesus etc. could readily understand what was written . OBTW "koine" means common.
I started learning to speak Greek the year of Sputnik 1 in Germany. I formally studied both Biblical languages at the graduate level about 2 decades after that.
I know lots of folks desperately want to hang on to their assumptions/presuppositions but without established grammar rules languages would be just so much noise.
Not just adelphos but all words, the rule is the primary definition takes precedence unless context indicates otherwise. In Greek, as in English, words are sometimes used figuratively.

I suppose there are folks like that. So many people wish to use their own understanding of modern English today in order to interpret English from the King James Bible. The Apostles taught from the Greek Septuagint, that's why the Catholic Church used it--about two thirds of the OT references in the NT are from the Koine Greek Septuagint.

 

[Der Alte]

I suppose there are folks like that. So many people wish to use their own understanding of modern English today in order to interpret English from the King James Bible. The Apostles taught from the Greek Septuagint, that's why the Catholic Church used it--about two thirds of the OT references in the NT are from the Koine Greek Septuagint.

I don't rely on the the KJV I read both Greek and Hebrew and I have grammars and lexicons for both languages.
I also have the 1917 Jewish Publication Society [JPS] translation of the OT and the Eastern Greek Orthodox [EOB] translation of the NT.
Greek has been the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church for 2000+ years who better than the school of native Greek speaking scholars who translated the EOB know the correct meaning of Greek words?

 

[a-lily-of-peace]

I disagree. Matthew 1:1-16 giving the geneology of Jesus from Abraham to Joseph is very clear evidence that Joseph was the father of Jesus.

"And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ" Matthew 1:16.

You don’t believe that since Joseph is called Jesus’ father that he must be his biological father though right?

 

[Valletta]

You don’t believe that since Joseph is called Jesus’ father that he must be his biological father though right?

Let's say there are a number of fathers named Joe who have a daughter Tracy, does it logically follow that for a given Joe that Joe MUST be Tracy's biological father? Do we HAVE to declare Joe is Tracy's biological father? We simply don't have enough information to make such a conclusion. Even if the primary usage of the word "father" is for a biological father, it does not follow that non-biological fathers must all be declared biological fathers.

 

[Servus]

Languages, all languages, have grammar rules. Koine Greek existed long before the NT was written.
The disciples did not invent a new "holy," Biblical language to write the NT. They wrote in the common, every day koine Greek that all other Greek speakers understood so new Christians in Corinth, Ephesus etc. could readily understand what was written . OBTW "koine" means common.
I started learning to speak Greek the year of Sputnik 1 in Germany. I formally studied both Biblical languages at the graduate level about 2 decades after that.
I know lots of folks desperately want to hang on to their assumptions/presuppositions but without established grammar rules languages would be just so much noise.
Not just adelphos but all words, the rule is the primary definition takes precedence unless context indicates otherwise. In Greek, as in English, words are sometimes used figuratively.

That's the other part. How words and sayings were used and understood back in the time and location. The classic example of that is saying "it's raining cats and dogs and I have a frog in my throat". A sentence that makes no sense, yet in my time and location, it makes perfect sense.

 

[Servus]

You don’t believe that since Joseph is called Jesus’ father that he must be his biological father though right?

I misread what you wrote. I thought you said there's no proof that Joseph was Jesus' legal father, when you said not proof of being Jesus' biological father.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

[

"We think" he disagrees with Jesus regarding Gehenna in Matthew 5:22, 18:8, 9, 25:41; Mark 9:43, 48; Luke 12:5, where the fire is not quenched and never goes out.

Don't see any er tension between your infernalist dogma and your footer verse quote from Jer 9:24 there, Clare?

This is what the LORD says:

"Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom or the strong man boast of his strength or the rich man boast of his riches,
but let him who boasts boast in this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight,"
delcares the LORD.

'I the Lord delight in kindness, justice and righteousness, so roast them forever in burning tarpits. Bwahaha.'

Such perfect accord with scripture, reason and experience. Do you delight in the idea of eternal torture of the many? Consider it as kind, just and righteous for a deity to hideously torture a creature for not loving that deity? Do you own any pets, Clare?

Also, I'm guessing you don't read the quoted verse too often as you've not picked up the misspelling of 'declares'.

 

[Saint Steven]

Do you own any pets... ?

Oh my. That's such an interesting analogy. Thanks. - lol

Do those who defend eternal conscious torment BBQ their pets when they misbehave? Sounds more like Moloch than our heavenly Father.

 

[Clare73]

Don't see any er tension between your infernalist dogma and your footer verse quote from Jer 9:24 there, Clare?

Absolutely not. . .I agree with God regarding his justice. . .I didn't create it. . .I don't own it. . .I don't get to make the rules. . .and I don't get to run it.

This is what the LORD says:

"Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom or the strong man boast of his strength or the rich man boast of his riches,
but let him who boasts boast in this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD,

who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight,"
delcares the LORD.
'I the Lord delight in kindness, justice and righteousness, so roast them forever in burning tarpits. Bwahaha.'

All are compatible. . .and that's what justice is.

Such perfect accord with scripture, reason and experience.
Do you delight in the idea of eternal torture of the many?

Not my job to do that.

Consider it as kind, just and righteous for a deity to hideously torture a creature for not loving that deity?

Not my call to make.

Do you own any pets, Clare?

Are you thinking of comparing non-rational, amoral, instinctual, non-spiritual beings to rational, moral, intellectual, spiritual beings?

I know a false analogy when I see one.

Also, I'm guessing you don't read the quoted verse too often as
you've not picked up the misspelling of 'declares'.

You're not very intelligent if you don't know more than one way to spell a word.

 

[Der Alte]

Don't see any er tension between your infernalist dogma and your footer verse quote from Jer 9:24 there, Clare?
This is what the LORD says:
"Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom or the strong man boast of his strength or the rich man boast of his riches,
but let him who boasts boast in this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight,"
delcares the LORD.
'I the Lord delight in kindness, justice and righteousness, so roast them forever in burning tarpits. Bwahaha.'
Such perfect accord with scripture, reason and experience. Do you delight in the idea of eternal torture of the many? Consider it as kind, just and righteous for a deity to hideously torture a creature for not loving that deity? Do you own any pets, Clare?
Also, I'm guessing you don't read the quoted verse too often as you've not picked up the misspelling of 'declares'.

I don't know if I have asked you this but I know I have asked other UR-ites this question when they say things like, "I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight," delcares [sic] the LORD."
First note there is a condition/qualification "for in these I delight". Since there is a condition/qualification the obverse is "in the opposite I do not delight."
Was God displaying His delight when He destroyed all the world; men, women, children, infants, young old, except for Noah and his family?
Was God displaying His delight when He destroyed all the people in Sodom, Gomorrah and the cities of the plains; men, women, infants, young, old?
Was God displaying His delight when He commanded Israel to go into Canaan and destroy all the people; men, women, infants, young, old?

 

[JSRG]

We're still left with Jesus' own use of Gehenna (the perpetually burning city dump south of Jerusalem) in Matthew 5:22, 18:8, 9, 25:41; Mark 9:43, 48; Luke 12:5, where the fire is not quenched and never goes out.
.

From what I have read, the first actual mention of Gehenna being "the perpetually burning city dump south of Jerusalem" comes from the 12th/13th century Rabbi David Kimhi. If this is true, and someone may correct me if I am wrong, then it seems highly unlikely that a first century text would have been alluding to this idea of Gehenna.

 

[Saint Steven]

From what I have read, the first actual mention of Gehenna being "the perpetually burning city dump south of Jerusalem" comes from the 12th/13th century Rabbi David Kimhi. If this is true, and someone may correct me if I am wrong, then it seems highly unlikely that a first century text would have been alluding to this idea of Gehenna.

Most likely that Rabbi David Kimhi was a whistle-blower. The Gehenna/garbage dump connection was a coverup by those who gave us a Damnationist biased Bible translation.

 

[Clare73]

From what I have read, the first actual mention of Gehenna being "the perpetually burning city dump south of Jerusalem" comes from the 12th/13th century Rabbi David Kimhi. If this is true, and someone may correct me if I am wrong, then it seems highly unlikely that a first century text would have been alluding to this idea of Gehenna.

The first mention of my great grandfather's murder by my great grandmother was from my mother, who had the written confession of my great grandmother which was not public knowledge.

Translate: just because it is was supposedly discovered much later doesn't mean it is was not true at the time.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Absolutely not. . .I agree with God regarding his justice. . .I didn't create it. . .I don't own it. . .I don't get to make the rules. . .and I don't get to run it.

So you do agree that it's okay to torture defenceless animals for no better reason than they dared resist your will. And quite happy to sacrifice reason at the altar of modern western literalism. Why is it that you have so much trouble with the carazy idea that ppl 2,000 years ago from the Hebrew tradition might have interpreted these passages a little differently to you?

Not my job to do that.

Lol, whose job is it then? God takes no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked, but really enjoys torturing them in the name of justice...? It's so untenable Clare, whether from scripture, reason or experience.

Are you thinking of comparing non-rational, amoral, instinctual, non-spiritual beings to rational, moral, intellectual, spiritual beings?

I know a false analogy when I see one.

No, I'm wondering if you object to torturing small animals. And I've seen animals with more character and smarts than some humans.

You're not very intelligent if you don't know more than one way to spell a word.

Some ppl lol. 'Delcares'? Gonna stick with it? Really?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Was God displaying His delight when He destroyed all the people in Sodom, Gomorrah and the cities of the plains; men, women, infants, young, old?
Was God displaying His delight when He commanded Israel to go into Canaan and destroy all the people; men, women, infants, young, old?

No, it is axiomatic der Alte that God takes no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked. He never revels in violence and bloodshed. In fact, the destruction is only ever instrumental, as a means to an end, which is salvation and restoration.

Now, we might under extreme circumstances take delight in the prospect of bashing the brains of Babylonian babies against the brickwork, but that can only be for God, who says 'Vengeance is mine'.

And His ultimate revenge? To produce a contrite heart in the enemy, a full and free confession of faith.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Oh my. That's such an interesting analogy. Thanks. - lol

Do those who defend eternal conscious torment BBQ their pets when they misbehave? Sounds more like Moloch than our heavenly Father.

Well if God torments his critters for misbehaving, why not, I say, and why not indeed? Dock a tail here, boil a bunny there, roast a rooster if it don't crow right...

That's how we bring the Kingdom to earth, God's justice meted out with delight. When do we get started?

 

[Clare73]

So you do agree that it's okay to torture defenceless animals for no better reason than they dared resist your will. And quite happy to sacrifice reason at the altar of modern western literalism. Why is it that you have so much trouble with the carazy idea that
ppl 2,000 years ago from the Hebrew tradition might have interpreted these passages a little differently to you?

I am most pleased with God's Word written in the languages written.

I am most pleased accepting and believing the God-breathed (theo-pnuestos) Holy Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16).

I am most pleased with God's ways, wisdom and thinking as presented in the Judeo-Christian Holy Scriptures.

I am more than pleased with all that God is, does, says, thinks, commands, provides, promises, causes, etc., etc. etc.

Lol, whose job is it then? God takes no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked, but really enjoys torturing them in the name of justice...? It's so untenable Clare, whether from scripture, reason or experience.
No, I'm wondering if you object to torturing small animals. And I've seen animals with more character and smarts than some humans.
Some ppl lol.

'Delcares'? Gonna stick with it? Really?

I kinda' like it.
.

 

[JSRG]

The first mention of my great grandfather's murder by my great grandmother was from my mother, who had the written confession of my great grandmother which was not public knowledge.

Translate: just because it is was supposedly discovered much later doesn't mean it is was not true at the time.

That's still a far, far shorter time period than 1000+ years. Even worse, you are referring to what was, as you said, not public knowledge. If Gehenna was a garbage dump, that would have hardly been private knowledge!

Which is more likely:
1) Gehenna was publicly known to be a garbage dump, but no one, in any surviving writing, ever thought to mention this fact anywhere for over a thousand years.
OR
2) David Kimhi simply made an error long after the fact and other people uncritically repeated it.

Again, perhaps I am wrong about Kimhi being the first one to make this assertion. If someone can point to an earlier instance, I would be happy to admit my error here. But if he was the first, then that would put so much doubt on the idea that it should be discarded.