Adultery Diogenes?

[IzzyR]

*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic *
the concept of eternal Hell did not exist in first century Judaism (or now, for that matter).

Not so. The Mishnaic and Talmudic literature give belief in reward/punishment in the afterworld as being one of the main points of dispute between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. (The latter not accepting it, in keeping with their rejection of anything not mentioned explicitly in the Bible). These are pretty ancient sources, and I wonder what basis you might have for disagreeing with them.

Your “Gehenna” point is a bit misleading. It is very likely that the origin of the term Gehenim for the afterlife is from the valley you refer to, but it is a mistake to confuse the etymology of the term with the origin of the concept. Gehenim can be shown to be a pretty accepted term for Hell pretty close to the time you refer to, and if you want to claim that it meant something else when someone used it, you need to show some basis.

[RoundGuy]

Then you’re the one causing the rain, not God.

No. I simply made the request.

(And if it has nothing to do with logic, it’s invalid by definition.)

Invalid as to…what? Invalid as a religious belief? How so? I think we’re getting to the crux of the matter.

Without there being ways in which God can be said to exist and intervene, the claim is invalid.

How many times do I have to tell you? I prayed, God made it rain. That is how he exists, and intervenes, according to my hypothetical belief system.

Now, you keep saying this is falsifiable. Please falsify it.

No, you’ve told me what the intervention was. How did God accomplish the intervention?

He spoke, and it happened. Geez. Don’t you know anything about God?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

*Originally posted by IzzyR *
**Not so. The Mishnaic and Talmudic literature give belief in reward/punishment in the afterworld as being one of the main points of dispute between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. (The latter not accepting it, in keeping with their rejection of anything not mentioned explicitly in the Bible). These are pretty ancient sources, and I wonder what basis you might have for disagreeing with them.

Your “Gehenna” point is a bit misleading. It is very likely that the origin of the term Gehenim for the afterlife is from the valley you refer to, but it is a mistake to confuse the etymology of the term with the origin of the concept. Gehenim can be shown to be a pretty accepted term for Hell pretty close to the time you refer to, and if you want to claim that it meant something else when someone used it, you need to show some basis. **

The word used in the Gospels is not “Gehenim” but “Hinnon” as in the Valley of Hinnon.

There is some notion in ancient Judaism of a temporary period of punishment and reward in Sheol before the day of judgement, but no tradition of eternal punishment (other than simple annihilation) after the resurrection of the dead (which the Saduccees also didn’t believe in)…

The Valley of Hinnon was a site for the disposal of criminals. Being cast into Gehenna meant being discarded as a crimonal rather than being rewarded with eternal life.

Show me a 1st century Jewish cite or older that ever thought of the Valley of Hinnon as eternal Hell.

[IzzyR]

*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic *
The word used in the Gospels is not “Gehenim” but “Hinnon” as in the Valley of Hinnon.
…
The Valley of Hinnon was a site for the disposal of criminals. Being cast into Gehenna meant being discarded as a crimonal rather than being rewarded with eternal life.

It is my understanding that the term “gehenim” is thought to be derived from the “Gay ben Hennim” - meaning Valley of Hennim. (“Gay” means valley in Hebrew.)

ISTR that the Gay ben Hennim was a place where all sorts of sacrifices were burnt (I believe it is referred to in the Bible) and had a terrible reputation, hence it came to be used as a name for another unpleasant place.

There is some notion in ancient Judaism of a temporary period of punishment and reward in Sheol before the day of judgement, but no tradition of eternal punishment (other than simple annihilation) after the resurrection of the dead (which the Saduccees also didn’t believe in)…
…
Show me a 1st century Jewish cite or older that ever thought of the Valley of Hinnon as eternal Hell.

That seems to me to be a small distinction, and I wonder how you might have arrived at it. I mean, even later Jewish sources don’t say that every sinner is cast into Hell for eternity - only that some of the worst guys are. Since there is not a whole lot of discussion of the details of various afterlife scenarios in early literature, I wonder how someone might determine that such-and-such idea was adopted at such-and-such time. I suspect a whole lot of speculation based on the speculative notion that “this idea came from such-and such source, whose influence began to be felt at such-and-such time” etc. If this is the case, then these speculations should be heavily caveated and not asserted as facts. If this is not the case, then I repeat again my request for some actual basis.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

It is my understanding that the term “gehenim” is thought to be derived from the “Gay ben Hennim” - meaning Valley of Hennim. (“Gay” means valley in Hebrew.)

ISTR that the Gay ben Hennim was a place where all sorts of sacrifices were burnt (I believe it is referred to in the Bible) and had a terrible reputation, hence it came to be used as a name for another unpleasant place.

The Gospel of Matthew is written in Greek and it says [symbol]Innon[/symbol] or Hinnon (“Ge-Hinnon” or Gehenna = “Valley of Hinnon.”)

The Valley of Hinnon was believed to have been a site of human sacrifice in pre-Israelite times and accordingly was believed to be cursed by God. It was also a garbage dump and a disposal site for animal carcasses. Many fires burned perpetually in the valley as an attempt to destroy the carcasses and the garbage. As I said before, the bodies of some criminals were also tossed into the valley as a sort of extra punishment before the resurrection.
Gehenna began to acquire a metaphorical quality for death and punishment and is spoken of that way in the Talmud (which also explicitly says that the punishment will end on judgement day, after which the good will get eternal life and the bad will simply be annihilated). The punishment was not eternal, and the notion of any punishment at all is not universal in ancient Judaism as you mentioned before. There is no concept of Hell as a place of eternal torment in any written Jewish tradition and does not really even appear in Christianity until about the third century. New Testament references to Gehenna and Hades are now interpreted by Christians as references to Hell, and indeed are even translated that way in many Christian Bible. There is also a “lake of fire” in Revelation which is supposed to the final destination of satan and his demons but the NT actually doesn’t say anything about eternal Hell (as it is understood now) for sinners.

That seems to me to be a small distinction, and I wonder how you might have arrived at it. I mean, even later Jewish sources don’t say that every sinner is cast into Hell for eternity - only that some of the worst guys are. Since there is not a whole lot of discussion of the details of various afterlife scenarios in early literature, I wonder how someone might determine that such-and-such idea was adopted at such-and-such time. I suspect a whole lot of speculation based on the speculative notion that “this idea came from such-and such source, whose influence began to be felt at such-and-such time” etc. If this is the case, then these speculations should be heavily caveated and not asserted as facts. If this is not the case, then I repeat again my request for some actual basis.

The “eternal” part has a rather huge significance IMO. A punishment that ends is much different than a punishment which does not. (This conversation between badchad and I also has a history to it in which we have specifically disputed over whether or not Jesus ever espoused an eternal punishment for sinners. I was responding with a little bit of shorthand to Chad’s insinuation. Once again, I was not denying that Judaism had no concept of punishment at all but only that the punishment was eternal.

As for Hell got into Christianity, that’s not terribly clear and I wouldn’t presume to offer a definitive thesis. I can only state that we have no written tradition for eternal Hell until about the third century (in Christianity) and no such tradition in Judaism at any point.

Hell

[TVAA]

*Originally posted by RoundGuy *
**No. I simply made the request.

** And obviously that causes the rain. Right?

Invalid as to…what? Invalid as a religious belief? How so? I think we’re getting to the crux of the matter.

Logically invalid.

**How many times do I have to tell you? I prayed, God made it rain. That is how he exists, and intervenes, according to my hypothetical belief system.

** Yes, but what mechanism did He use to cause the rain? How did He hear your prayers? How did He carry out your request?

Saying “it just happens” is not a valid explanation; it can be applied to everything, but it clarifies nothing.

Now, you keep saying this is falsifiable. Please falsify it.

I already have. I’ve shown how specific assertations must be made about the nature of God’s existence and intervention; without them, the statement is meaningless.

**He spoke, and it happened. Geez. Don’t you know anything about God? **

Apparently not.

You’re quite familiar with the mindless pap so often spewed by the unthinking believer, aren’t you?

[RoundGuy]

You’re quite familiar with the mindless pap so often spewed by the unthinking believer, aren’t you?

All too.

Logically invalid.

Alright, my friend, let’s wrap this up.

The point of this exercise was to attempt to get you to understand my agreement with Diogenes that religious belief (“God Did It”) is not falsifiable.

You have attempted to show that it is falsifiable; through logic, even though religious belief is not logical; through scientific observation, although religious belief is not observable; and through empirical evidence even though “God Did It” is not even remotely based on anything empirical.

Religious belief can never be valid, logically. It is not a tangible, real thing. It exists only in the mind of the believer.

Religious belief is not logical, it is not rational, it is not observable, it is not empirical. It is not a scientific theory in which hypothesis can be induced, experiments performed, data observed, and conclusions reached. Religious belief is not science.

It cannot be falsified.

In short, Diogenes was correct, and you were incorrect. Case closed.

{Move along people … nothing more to see here}

[TVAA]

It most certainly can be falsified.

The problem is that many of those that have it don’t care that it can be falsified.

[IzzyR]

*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic *
Gehenna began to acquire a metaphorical quality for death and punishment and is spoken of that way in the Talmud (which also explicitly says that the punishment will end on judgement day, after which the good will get eternal life and the bad will simply be annihilated). The punishment was not eternal, and the notion of any punishment at all is not universal in ancient Judaism as you mentioned before. There is no concept of Hell as a place of eternal torment in any written Jewish tradition…

The “eternal” part has a rather huge significance IMO. A punishment that ends is much different than a punishment which does not…Once again, I was not denying that Judaism had no concept of punishment at all but only that the punishment was eternal…I can only state that we have no written tradition for eternal Hell until about the third century (in Christianity) and no such tradition in Judaism at any point.

Well I see at least that you’ve provided a cite. But it is incorrect.

The Tosefta (an adjunct to the Mishna and compiled at about the same time - end of the second century - consisting of material from the previous several centuries) in Tractate Sanhedrin, Chapter 13 is quite clear about the concept of eternal Hell (Gehenim). Though, as I mentioned in my previous post, it does not apply to everyone. The school of Shamai held that all “total sinners” remain in Hell forever. Another opinion applied this to certain specific types of sinners (heretics, people who cause the masses to sin, et al).

There is no room for legitimate disagreement on this point - any assertions to the contrary are pure and simple ignorance.

In general, much of what you see about Judaism in “scholarly” sources is ignorant nonsense.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

The Tosefta (an adjunct to the Mishna and compiled at about the same time - end of the second century…

The end of the second century is right about when I said that the idea of an eternal Hell began to seep in from the pagans.

The end of the second century is not the beginning of the first century. There is no evidence that eternal hell was any kind of common belief in first century Palestine (and one obscure reference does not make a tradition). There are far more references that deny any concept of eternal punishment (including the writings of Maimonides) than any that may suggest it (and it’s not entirely clear that even the Tosefta was not simply talking about eternal death rather than eternal torment-- in fact that’s a much more likely interpretation since the idea of eternal torment clashes with the majority of Jewish scholarship).

[IzzyR]

*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic *
The end of the second century is right about when I said that the idea of an eternal Hell began to seep in from the pagans.

The end of the second century is not the beginning of the first century. There is no evidence that eternal hell was any kind of common belief in first century Palestine

I am aware of the difference between the end of the second century and the beginning of the first century. The reason I can’t get you any references from the beginning of the first century is because there happens to have been nothing written at that time. The Tosefta and Mishna are as early as you go, and as I said, they cite the teachings of earlier people.

And what about you, Diogenes? What cites do you have from first century literature to demonstrate that belief in eternal punishment did not exist at the time?

(and one obscure reference does not make a tradition).

What makes this obscure? The fact that Diogenes, who is ignorant of any Jewish teachings, is unaware of it? It is not obscure at all - it is a classic source, and the specific cite is in the main place that deals with punishment after death, and is cited extensively by later scholars.

There are far more references that deny any concept of eternal punishment (including the writings of Maimonides) than any that may suggest it

OK, let’s see you direct me to one reference that denies any concept of eternal punishment.

(and it’s not entirely clear that even the Tosefta was not simply talking about eternal death rather than eternal torment-- in fact that’s a much more likely interpretation since the idea of eternal torment clashes with the majority of Jewish scholarship).

As mentioned above, the concept of eternal torment does not clash with any Jewish scholarship.

And where do you come off even talking about what “is not entirely clear” about this Tosefta? Have you ever seen this Tosefta? Do you read and understand Hebrew? On what basis have you decided that it is not entirely clear? I have seen this Tosefta and it is extremely clear. I hope you’ll pardon my saying so - but even if you don’t - this seems like monumental fatheaded arrogance on your part.

[badchad]

Diogenes the Cynic:

[quote]
Jesus never espoused any notion that belief had anything to do with going to Heaven*

Ok, this is without even trying:

John 3: 15-17
That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

…and he didn’t believe in Hell either, the concept of eternal Hell did not exist in first century Judaism (or now, for that matter). Hell got into Christianity by way of the gentiles, not through Jesus and not through any Jewish tradition. I know we’ve been over this before (Jesus talked about Gehenna, not Hell) but I think it bears repeating.

I know we have been here before and at that time I quoted Jesus saying this:

Matthew 25:46
“And these shall go away into EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT: but the righteous into life eternal.”

I think you responded by saying that your Greek dictionary translated “punishment” into “punishment” and that “everlasting” translated into “without end.” Sorry if I missed the distinction. :dubious:

Also, I’m not in a position to evaluate whether what IZZYR says is correct but it sure sounds good.

The only way Jesus could have known about Hell was if he had some kind of supernatural vision of the future and I know you don’t believe in that.

Or he could have heard it some place before, which seems like what IZZYR is saying or he could have thought it up on his own. Either of which would better explain my Matthew 25:46 quote and others mentioning wailing and gnashing of teeth better than you death in a garbage dump hypothesis.

And what’s you point with this anyway? That Jesus is a nice guy and does not torture the unbelievers forever but rather just exterminates billions of them in a benevolent Adolph Hitler sort of way?

So let me put this all a different way: I am 99% sure that some of the sayings in the gospel were said by a single person who was not one of the authors of the gospels. How does that sound?

Unimpressive, IMO. So perhaps a good portion of the other 75 percent of the stuff that you don’t think was of that single author were reasonably accurate quotations of this Jesus fellow, maybe that Q guy got it all wrong. Maybe some of the authors had multiple personalities, who knows. Take out divine inspiration and you have a lot of mush. Leave it in and you have to accept some pretty uncomfortable theological positions.

You’re making an assumption that both denominations share some common belief that the Bible is the infallible word of God and that it needs no further elicidation.

In this case I assume that just the teachings of Jesus are the infallible word of god, because if you ask out favorite Episcopalian what he follows he will tell you it’s the teachings of Jesus rather than the bible.

That is not the case. It doesn’t matter what the Bible seems to “plainly say” if you’re reading it without the guidance of the Holy Spirit (in the case of the Episcopals) or to make a case for my Martian interpretation let’s say the Bible is actually written in a special code that only certain chosen prophets can understand.

At which point I would ask our Episcopal representatives to use their holy spirit to explain why their loving god would write in secret code so that folks I don’t get to go to heaven. When they fail to respond I assume (reasonably, IMO) that it is because they don’t have a better understanding at all and struggle over such questions a great deal more than I do.

I am one of those prophets and I have been gifted by the Invisible Pink Unicorn with the ability to read and understand the true words of the Scripture not the phony stuff written to fool the hoi polloi. I am now here to tell you that the Bible says quite clearly that Jesus was a Martian from Mars.

I know what you and JerseyDiamond think the Bible says but you’re reading it wrong. You don’t have the vision to see the true text.

Is my scenario any more irrational than Jersey’s assertions? I may be full of shit but can you prove I’m full of shit?

I can’t prove that you assertion is untrue anymore than I can prove that the sun will rise tomorrow. However, I think that the reasonable assumption would be that you are so full of fecal matter that your eyes are turning brown. And yes I think it reasonable to assume that Jersey’s assertions as to what Jesus taught are less irrational to yours or the Episcopalians in that I think Jersey’s claim to being guided by the holy spirit is just as strong as anyone else’s making that part a deadlock, broken by the fact that I can read English myself. The principle of parsimony helps too.

[badchad]

Sorry this one should have better coding.
Diogenes the Cynic:

Jesus never espoused any notion that belief had anything to do with going to Heaven

Ok, this is without even trying:

John 3: 15-17
That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

…and he didn’t believe in Hell either, the concept of eternal Hell did not exist in first century Judaism (or now, for that matter). Hell got into Christianity by way of the gentiles, not through Jesus and not through any Jewish tradition. I know we’ve been over this before (Jesus talked about Gehenna, not Hell) but I think it bears repeating.

I know we have been here before and at that time I quoted Jesus saying this:

Matthew 25:46
“And these shall go away into EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT: but the righteous into life eternal.”

I think you responded by saying that your Greek dictionary translated “punishment” into “punishment” and that “everlasting” translated into “without end.” Sorry if I missed the distinction. :dubious:

Also, I’m not in a position to evaluate whether what IZZYR says is correct but it sure sounds good.

The only way Jesus could have known about Hell was if he had some kind of supernatural vision of the future and I know you don’t believe in that.

Or he could have heard it some place before, which seems like what IZZYR is saying or he could have thought it up on his own. Either of which would better explain my Matthew 25:46 quote and others mentioning wailing and gnashing of teeth better than you death in a garbage dump hypothesis.

And what’s you point with this anyway? That Jesus is a nice guy and does not torture the unbelievers forever but rather just exterminates billions of them in a benevolent Adolph Hitler sort of way?

So let me put this all a different way: I am 99% sure that some of the sayings in the gospel were said by a single person who was not one of the authors of the gospels. How does that sound?

Unimpressive, IMO. So perhaps a good portion of the other 75 percent of the stuff that you don’t think was of that single author were reasonably accurate quotations of this Jesus fellow, maybe that Q guy got it all wrong. Maybe some of the authors had multiple personalities, who knows. Take out divine inspiration and you have a lot of mush. Leave it in and you have to accept some pretty uncomfortable theological positions.

You’re making an assumption that both denominations share some common belief that the Bible is the infallible word of God and that it needs no further elicidation.

In this case I assume that just the teachings of Jesus are the infallible word of god, because if you ask out favorite Episcopalian what he follows he will tell you it’s the teachings of Jesus rather than the bible.

That is not the case. It doesn’t matter what the Bible seems to “plainly say” if you’re reading it without the guidance of the Holy Spirit (in the case of the Episcopals) or to make a case for my Martian interpretation let’s say the Bible is actually written in a special code that only certain chosen prophets can understand.

At which point I would ask our Episcopal representatives to use their holy spirit to explain why their loving god would write in secret code so that folks I don’t get to go to heaven. When they fail to respond I assume (reasonably, IMO) that it is because they don’t have a better understanding at all and struggle over such questions a great deal more than I do.

I am one of those prophets and I have been gifted by the Invisible Pink Unicorn with the ability to read and understand the true words of the Scripture not the phony stuff written to fool the hoi polloi. I am now here to tell you that the Bible says quite clearly that Jesus was a Martian from Mars.

I know what you and JerseyDiamond think the Bible says but you’re reading it wrong. You don’t have the vision to see the true text.

Is my scenario any more irrational than Jersey’s assertions? I may be full of shit but can you prove I’m full of shit?

I can’t prove that you assertion is untrue anymore than I can prove that the sun will rise tomorrow. However, I think that the reasonable assumption would be that you are so full of fecal matter that your eyes are turning brown. And yes I think it reasonable to assume that Jersey’s assertions as to what Jesus taught are less irrational to yours or the Episcopalians in that I think Jersey’s claim to being guided by the holy spirit is just as strong as anyone else’s making that part a deadlock, broken by the fact that I can read English myself. The principle of parsimony helps too.