Don’t forget emarkp. I think he does a great job explaining LDS.
That’s what I get for not previewing. That last post should have followed Poly’s.
Diogenes the Cynic:
quote:
badcahd posted:
Matthew 25:46
“And these shall go away into EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT: but the righteous into life eternal.”
The phrase “Eternal punishment” in its original Greek is kolasin aiwnion (kolasin aionion). “Kolasis” means punishment, penalty, correction. It does not mean torment or torture. The penalty was permanent annihilation. I would also point out that “aionios” which literally means “without end” also has a variety of idiomatic nuances. It is often used, for instance, to simply mean a lifetime, or as a generic term for a “long time.” Since eternal torture was not a concept Matthew would have been familiar with, and since all of the other gehenna references in Matthew pertain to destruction by fire rather than Dante’s Hell, i would imagine that this one does too. (unless you think that Matthew had psychic powers and knew that hell would become a Christian concept)
For Christ sake (parden the pun) Diogenes, would you listen to yourself. So when Matthew as quoted above says that the righteous go to life eternal, that means they go to life of a normal lifetime? What kind of sense would that make?
If your not careful Lee Strobel will be looking to interview you for his next book.
Fair enough, but it’s really the interpretation of punishment as torment that I object to. Do you think that Matthew (or Jesus, or whoever) had supernatural knowledge for how the concept of Hell would develop?
Diogenes the Cynic:
Fair enough, but it’s really the interpretation of punishment as torment that I object to.
Being cast into a lake of fire by any other name would burn just as bad.
Do you think that Matthew (or Jesus, or whoever) had supernatural knowledge for how the concept of Hell would develop?
Well no, I don’t think they did but Jesus at least was supposed to.
Only temporarily. Then you’re annihilated.
Well, I don’t believe that. The point is that from a purely historical (non-supernatural) standpoint, Jesus could not have been talking about Christian Hell because it hadn’t been invented yet. If you’re an empiricist then you can’t use the Gehenna quotations to prove that Jesus condemns people to eternal torment. To do so would show a belief in the supernatural.
Po-ly…Bad-chad…hello…
This is what I devote my entire MB life to trying to debunk…that we are not under law, but under grace. It’s absolutely incorrect theology. 
We approach the same issue two different ways. We are both literalists in the true sense of the word. But, you’re a very flexible literalist, and I go the other way. I believe that the answers to all these things are right there in scripture if it’s hermeneutized correctly (I know that is NOT a word).
What a field day Habs would have with ‘hermeneutized’…
Ok, so then Badchad wrote:
Which is a REALLY interesting concept. The lists Paul gave in Galatians 5 are, in his words, “works of the flesh.” Those who do works of the flesh to earn righteousness will fail, no matter whether that work is following the Law or not.
But…the things a christian does are not works of the flesh. His contrast is that the fruit of the Spirit - our works - are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness and self-control.
And sums it up by saying against such things there is no Law. Which is not the same as saying, “There’s no law against parking here!” … It means that the Law does not apply to the fruit of the Spirit - the Spirit transcends the Law (you have to read a bit more about the law as paidagogos for this to make total sense - the law is inferior to grace (see Hebrews and Galatians).
Now, admittedly, if that were all we had, it would be a weak argument and stealing a base logically. After all, who says that those who have the fruit of the Spirit can’t also be doing ‘works of the flesh’? And, it is not the ‘sinful action’ that is important - it is whether it is a work of the flesh or not.
This is why context matters. Because the whole thrust of Paul’s argument is to prove we are not under Law:
So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contraryy to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
And, adding in what Paul says about the same thing in Romans 8:
Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires, but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. You, however, are not controlled by the sinful nature, but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.
So a person with the Holy Spirit in him will not do the works of the flesh; he may sin, but he is still considered righteous by God because God’s Spirit lives in him. And, tying Paul’s theology together, we have the Spirit, so we are led by the Spirit. And if we are led by the Spirit we are not under law.
I don’t believe in free will, so I don’t know if there’s a need to start a new topic. Hehe.
No, you wouldn’t, because I do not have authority over you, and debating is not the same as teaching.
I like you.
MG
PS: Diogenes - Yeah, I’d say that Jesus had supernatural knowledge of the future conceptual development of hell. He was supernatural, after all, so it is not illogical for him to have supernatural knowledge, and since revelation comes by either Father, Son, or Spirit and they are all facets of the same God, I can’t see how you’d come to any other conclusion. Of course He knew.
Diogenes the Cynic:
Being cast into a lake of fire by any other name would burn just as bad.
Only temporarily. Then you’re annihilated.
I thought you had just conceeded the eternal/everlasting part of the punishment and were just debating whether punishment and torment were the same thing. They sound pretty close to me. Perhaps it’s a matter of perspective; I punish you, you torment me. Regardless neither of us would like it.
quote:
Well no, I don’t think they did but Jesus at least was supposed to.
Well, I don’t believe that. The point is that from a purely historical (non-supernatural) standpoint, Jesus could not have been talking about Christian Hell because it hadn’t been invented yet.
Could be he was inventing it. He was starting a new movement. Could also be from a purely historical standpoint all this stuff was just made up and Jesus never said any of it. Not even the stuff you like.
If you’re an empiricist then you can’t use the Gehenna quotations to prove that Jesus condemns people to eternal torment. To do so would show a belief in the supernatural
Well, I don’t speak greek, and don’t think it worth my time to learn so I’ll defer to the various translaters of the bible, divinely inspired or not. But for the purposes of this discussion Matthew 25:46 avoids your distinction and supports mine and mean girl’s point well enough.
I see, that makes sense and to be honest I was thinking this might be the case.
From a language standpoint, this is untrue. However, context can differ, just as it can in English (as you subsequently point out). So I would regard an attempt to summarily wash away any and all inconvenient statements in this manner as weaselly “handwaving”. But if you analyze case by case, you could sometimes make such an argument.
Diogenes, you may have overlooked my question. To repeat:
What is the basis for this (bizarre) assertion?
It’s “everlasting” only in the sense that the annhihilation was permanent. It was the “second death.” There would be no resurrection this time.
It’s very unlikely that he was inventing anything. Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi ministering to other Jews. I don’t believe he had any intention of starting a new religion. Everything he taught was based on solid Jewish teachings. Jesus almost certainly did not ever claim to be the son of God or the Messiah during his lifetime. Those were interpretations that came about after his death. Also, you still can’t get around the fact that Jesus used the word “Hinnon” not Hell. Why would he use a real place which fit in with traditional Jewish beliefs about the resurrection and judgement if he really meant something else?
Could it all be invented? Sure, but again, it’s unlikely. We have a basic core of sayings (about a quarter of what’s atrributed to Jesus in the gospels) which derive from multiple independent sources and which are consistent in their message and their rhetorical style. We can’t say with certainty that they are original to Jesus, but we can say with some confidence that they appear to derive from one person. It doesn’t really matter to me if Jesus said it or not. I’m not a Christian, so what do I care? BTW, when did I ever say I “liked” any of it? As a matter of fact, I do like some of it, but I also like some things from the Koran, the Tao Te Ching, The Upanishads, Shakespeare, Monty Python, The Beatles and any number of other things. Why do I have to know who said something to like what they said?
This really is a cop out, chad, I’m surprised at you. Well, I do know Greek (and it would be quite worth your time to learn it, I assure you. If you’re going to debate the meaning of Bible verses you should know what they say) and I have a Greek New Testament right here in front of me. I can look at the verses in question and see the word [symbol]Innon[/symbol] used repeatedly. I can look this word up in my hand, dandy lexicon and, voila, there it is “Hinnon” is the Valley of Hinnon. I can also call upon my own academic background in religion and religious history as well as many years of independent study in these areas to know what the Valley of Hinnon was and what it symbolized to the Jews of first century Palestine. Also, FYI, not every version of the Bible translates “Hinnon” as “Hell.” Many contemporary translations get it right now.
As for Matthew 25:46 “avoiding my distinction,” how do you figure that? Now you’re hanging your entire thesis for Jesus being a god of hellfire on a single phrase “eternal punishment” which had a distinctly different meaning in its linguistic and historical context than what you think it means. Maybe this tact would have some rhetorical effectiveness on fundamentalists or even some more moderate Christians, but I’m an agnostic. Occam’s razor says that if the Christian concept of Hell didn’t exist yet, then Jesus probably wasn’t referring to it.
IzzyR,
I’m sorry, I guess I missed your question when the pages changed. Well, I first heard about the destruction of the body preventing the resurrection in an Old testament class in college. I’m pretty sure I’ve also read it in some of Elie Wiesel’s writings but googling around now, I can’t really find any support for it (other than that orthodox Jews are opposed to cremation) so now I don’t know if that’s a real belief or not. Maybe it’s not a universal belief, I don’t know. Wiesel was a Hassidic Jew in his youth so maybe it was a more specific belief to Hassids or I may have just been flat out misinformed about it.
Izzy, it was never my intention to suggest that speakers of Semitic always used the love/hate dichotomy and its parallels where we’d use more nuanced phrases in English – but that it was far more common to do so, just as Spanish uses the reflexive far more often than we do. They have and willingly use the passive voice – but typically a Spanish speaker will describe something as “doing itself” (idiomatically) where we’d say “was done” – and it was my understanding that First Century users of Aramaic (as everyday language) and Hebrew (as the tongue of formal discourse, much as educated people in the Renaissance used Latin) tended to use the stark love/hate good/evil hot/cold dichotomy much more often, and quite often idiomatically. I’d welcome clarification on this point from anyone familiar with the situation, as I’m basing something rather important on this bit of information.
I don’t think there is any difference in Hasidic belief about such matters, so I suspect the latter. There have been quite a lot of Jews burned at stake and elsewhere over the years, and I’ve never heard of a notion that they might not be able to get resurrected.
Possible. I think it is more common in the Talmud. For example, a homiletic interpretation of a verse might go “don’t read it as saying X (the word as written) but as saying Y (some alternative spelling or pronunciation)”. The intention is not to deny the plain meaning (X), but to add an additional interpretation (Y). But I don’t know if it is a language thing as much as a style of Talmudic discourse. Even today, there are differences between the type of language you might use in a speech or literary work and what you might say in ordinary conversation, and differences between types of speeches or types of literary works as well. (In general, I would imagine that we are very hampered in studying ancient languages in that we don’t have much access to the language that ordinary people spoke or wrote).
Of course it is possible that the NT had a similar style. For that, you would have to be familiar with the NT.
Well, I do grasp that point clearly – but I feel that there is an underlying theme to what Jesus said that is easily abstractable from the rest of the material in the Bible and which does furnish a key to ethical living and to “the means of grace and the hope of glory.” I respect that YMDoesV, but I don’t see myself as being intellectually dishonest in looking honestly for that underlying theme and trying to live by it. And I don’t discount that there are places where Jesus says things that don’t “fit” the worldview that I’m comfortable with – and they press me to seek out more truth from Him.
However, that Jesus said something does not necessarily mean that He believed the literalness of it. In the parable of the rich man and the beggar, he was trying to focus on ethical behavior of the rich toward the poor, not on painting a picture of the afterlife. Granted, He made references to Adam – so does David B., who certainly doesn’t believe in the literal truth of Scripture. And that Luke uses the terms “sunset” and “sunrise” does not imply that he was divinely inspired to propound a terrestricentric cosmos, only that he used the traditional figurative terms just as you or I would. I see the references to Adam in much the same way. If you constructed an analogy in which you made reference to Lancelot, I wouldn’t assume from that that you believed that Le Morte d’Arthur was history, only that you needed to metaphorically refer to ideal knightly behavior, and picked Lancelot as a useful, commonly-shared image of that.