Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Are you paying attention? My response did not have to refer anything to do with English translations. This is the post I was replying to.
"I don't care what word is used, just as long as it conveys the correct description, meaning and image of what's behind [sic]talked about. Most people are going to see flames and pitchforks when the see the world hell or hades."According to my 3 ignored sources the words used by the Jewish Encyclopedia refer to a place of eternal fiery punishment which the Jews called "sheol" and "Ge Hinnom" written respectively in the 225 BC LXX and the NT as "hades" and "Gehenna."
Au contraire mon frere. Patrick Swayze in "Road House" had a line I appropriated, "I always play nice until it is time to not play nice and the other party always decides when that is.
His Jewish authorities don't have anything to do with what the JEWS believed millenia before either. The influence of the Scribes and Sadducces on his Jewish thinking sources were Hellenized long before. Correct Jewish thinking was being corrupted for 400 years since GOD QUIT SPEAKING through His prophets. Scribes and Sadducces weren't even mentioned in the OT.
The word Hell is rarely used - an eternity separated from God is frightening enough. The emphasis is on making Jesus the Lord of your life & walking in that. When you see a rock obstacle while bicycling, your eyes tend to focus on the path around it. Focusing on the rock is counter-productive and neurotic.Thanks.
As the seeker in this discussion, I want to know what you mean when you say "separated from God"? Does that mean burning in hell?
(seems like you are soft-pedaling, or sugar-coating the issue)
Saint Steven said: ↑
Okay, that's a bit vague. (understandably)
Let's try a bit of role playing. (if you are game)
I'll be the seeker, you be the counselor.
What can you tell me about eternity, and my readiness to meet my maker?
Let's say I have no background in religion whatsoever. I was not raised in the church, but want to know about it. I have a friend that is a Christian, who invited me to church.
Much better than mine. Sorry I've missed so much of your input. My 'winner' star was added after reading.This is my response to it: Der Alte's three sources
I found nothing insulting in the post you are quoting.Are these three references the only sources in existence regarding what Jews in Israel, before and during the time of Jesus, believed about hell?
All of the references here (except for the ones in blue) are not readily identifiable. So an extrabiblical hodgepodge of snippets from so far unknown sources wrapped around Isaiah 14:9-10, Isaiah 33:11 and the apocryphal Enoch and Judith.
If this hasn't been refuted, probably the main reason for that is because it's mostly jumbled snippets from several indefinable sources in a format that's difficult to read.
That's all well known by those familiar with the subject.
Okay, who came up with that part and when?
Since this refers to the followers of Jesus, it was obviously written either during the three years of Jesus' ministry or more likely after. So it wouldn't have been anything Jesus was referencing when he talked about Gehenna or anything the Jews would be all that familiar with when Jesus was teaching since it would have been so new.
So in conclusion:
Source 1 is pretty much indefinable.
Source 2 is the well known Biblical history of the valley of Hinnom with an attached conclusion from an undefined undated source.
Source 3 seems most likely a distorted view by Jews who rejected Jesus, written after his ministry.
I found nothing insulting in the post you are quoting.
I quoted ONLY 3 sources and I fully identified and linked to them.
What you decided "was likely distorted" was the Talmud fully identified in my quote. Your presumed opinion is wrong and irrelevant.
Your opinion of the 3 sources is irrelevant. They were all written/compiled by Jewish scholars.
Any references within the quotes can be fully identified in the full quotes at the provided link.
If you wish to challenge this post bring some credible scholarship to the forum your opinion is meaningless and irrelevant.
Wrong again. You tried to tell me what the scripture I quoted "really means" without providing any evidence to support your claim. IOW just "You're wrong and I'm right. Am too. Nuh huh." I said it was nonsense and you were twisting scripture. You were saying basically the same thing by trying to contradict me with zero evidence.Okay, this time I went on a fishing expedition. I searched for the first time I wrote "universalism" which took me to this thread: David Bentley Hart on Hell
In that thread it appears we were both playing nice until post #264:
So there you have it. You drew first blood as they say. Perhaps I should save this for future events when you say something like "I virtually always play real nice until someone accuses me....". (post #3450 of this thread).
Wrong again. You tried to tell me what the scripture I quoted "really means" without providing any evidence to support your claim. IOW just "You're wrong and I'm right. Am too. Nuh huh." I said it was nonsense and you were twisting scripture. You were saying basically the same thing by trying to contradict me with zero evidence.
What exactly do you think was rude or insulting on his part? That he gave an opinion of what you were doing?
Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed response on this. I appreciate it.The word Hell is rarely used - an eternity separated from God is frightening enough. The emphasis is on making Jesus the Lord of your life & walking in that. When you see a rock obstacle while bicycling, your eyes tend to focus on the path around it. Focusing on the rock is counter-productive and neurotic.
Jesus primarily elaborated on Hell when talking to the self-righteous religious leaders (Sons of Hell) - there is a place for it.
IGNORE = peace.
Yup. Enough is enough.Okay now I'm promising to utilize.
Food laws aren't about nutrition.
One of the major pushbacks on "hell" in the N.T. "It was copied from Dante's Inferno" and other such nonsense.
Even if true, which I doubt, that is the lexical etymological fallacy. What a word might have meant on another continent, 100s of years ago is largely irrelevant. The only people I have ever found who propagate this are members of certain religious groups on forums like this.
Even in English words have changed meaning over time. "Cool" and "heavy" come to mind. These words are often are used where they have nothing to do with temperature or weight.
When we see/hear the word "truck" nobody thinks about "vegetables" the original meaning.
I see that much of the fussing and feuding has been cleaned up by the moderators.I did not call you or call anyone else "Son of Hell." But I apologize to you on behalf of the person who did.
There has been a bug introduced in this thread of people flaunting their resumes, even though others with greater resumes have not done this. But putting people down and flaunting resumes is not appealing from a follower of Christ:
Mat 23:12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
Sorry that I just noticed this, but you have done exactly what I chose not to do in the post to which you were responding. What I posted were two sources that simply address universalism in its historical context and a balanced manner. You have responded - which is certainly your prerogative - with the website of a professor who is one of the leading modern apologists for universalism. In a "battle of biblical scholars," his position would be a distinctly minority one.Here's a nice offering by Christian Philosopher, Keith DeRose, at Yale.
https://campuspress.yale.edu/keithderose/1129-2/
I see that much of the fussing and feuding has been cleaned up by the moderators.
However, I disagree that credentials are irrelevant.
This does relate to a point I made earlier: On forums such as this, posters are anonymous and everyone is entitled to an opinion, no matter how uniformed or irrational it may be. When sophisticated and technical issues are discussed, this results in informed opinions being buried beneath nonsense and posing. There is a reason I don't stand in the middle of Walmart and scream "Hey, what does everyone think about the Kalam cosmological argument?"
If someone actually has academic credentials or at least can discuss scholarly authorities in an informed manner, I think it's helpful to know this. The woods are full of "Bible scholars" who are little more than self-educated internet cranks. They are certainly entitled to voice their opinions - that's how internet forums work - but it is helpful to know if someone actually knows what he or she is talking about.
By the same token, if someone affirmatively calls me "ignorant," I reserve the right to establish my credentials.
Resume flaunting? Lacking humility? Self-exaltation? It depends on the context. Any objective observer of this thread or forums such as this will have to admit: Those whom we characterize as flaunting their resumes, lacking in humility, exalting themselves, using highfalutin language, etc., always "just happen" to be those who disagree with us on the substance of the issue. The correlation is pretty much a perfect 1:1.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?