Artemius, you have some opinions. That’s fine. I think you need to realise that they are, in fact, opinions. Nothing more. You don’t appear to be any more or less ignorant than eilsel.
sigh
Infidel checking in:
If Jesus was God (or some part of God, for those who believe in the Trinity) he was immortal, by definition incapable of death. Therefore he did not die on the cross or anywhere else. The entire crucifiction was a fraud, a hoax intended to create awe and obedience in those left behind.
Or:
He really did die, in which case he is still dead. If this is what happened, then his giving himself into the hands of the Romans to be crucified constitutes a type of suicide, a sin (to believers). It was the act of a fanatic, willing to give up his own life so that his philosophy should survive. A lot of people in the Middle East are following his example today, although most of these are not Jews.
Since I don’t believe hell exists I am doubtful that a Jewish ascetic, immortal and still living after execution or mortal and made very dead by a Roman spear, went there on a rescue mission or for any other reason.
"…a type of suicide, a sin (to believers). "
Ummm, no it’ s not a sin to believers, to Catholics and maybe other religions, but not believers if you are defining such as BACs. The position on suicide with respect to BACs is that why would you want to when you have hope in Christ? He’s there for you and does help you so to feel that you have lost hope is almost like saying you never believed in Him to begin with. Altho, it’s a fine line, sometimes people who are BACs are just so distraught they react on impulse, something we shouldn’t do, but they don’t lose their salvation because they’ve committed suicide.
Priceguy,
<<Artemius, you have some opinions. That’s fine. I think you need to realise that they are,>>
That’s why I use IMHO. I didn’t use it after each and every sentence in my last post but I suppose I could for you in the future.
<<You don’t appear to be any more or less ignorant than eilsel.>>
Why, in your “opinion”, are Eilsel and I ignorant? Please, this should be enlightening.
Artemis-
All people are ignorant… so says Buddha.
Some people just show it like a Bat Signal in Gotham’s sky… so says me.
<<All people are ignorant… so says Buddha.>>
Only those who have not “awakened” or “so blind they cannot see”.
For those of the persuasion that Jesus was in hell for 3 days, how do you reconcile this with Jesus’ words to the thief right before he died?
Luke 23:43
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.
Yet one more divinely inspired error?
The Bible doesn’t say that Jesus went to Hell. I think that badchad has actually raised a fairly intriguing scriptural challenge to that tradition. I suppose it could be argued that Jesus is God, and therefore omnipresent and therefore in Hell and Heaven all the time, but that would render his “going to” Hell rather meaningless wouldn’t it?
Badchad: Excellent catch. If I were looking to justify and explain away contradictions, I could say two things: “Jesus, being God, is master of time (Dr. Who, eat your heart out), and thus could do both things sequentially in the same time period” (that one is a stretch even for the six-days with evidence of 12 billion years folks), or “Paradise to a Jew meant either Eden or Abraham’s Bosom, not Heaven.” (Closer, but no cigar.)
This deserves thinking on.
Just curious…where do you get the phrase “Abraham’s bosom” from? I’ve never heard the afterlife referred to like that in Judaism. Usually, it’s called Olam Ha-Ba (The World to Come).
The righteous go to *Gan Eden[/i[ (The Garden of Eden), and the wicked to GeHimmon or She’ol, usually used interchangibly, to be purified.
So I’ve heard all those terms…just not “Abraham’s Bosom”…is it used metaphorically somewhere? There is a phrase that’s sometimes used to refer to death…“Gathered in with his fathers”…maybe the two are related?
I just spend 10 minutes typing a post in response to Captain Amazing, only to have all but the last word vanish before I hit submit.
“Abraham’s Bosom” is the phrase used by Jesus to describe the place in the afterlife where Lazarus the beggar goes in a parable (Luke 16:19-31). According to the commentators, it was the accepted term in Jesus’s time for the destination of the righteous after death. I don’t know this for fact; I’m depending on what I thought were reliable sources.
But your pointing out Gan Eden as the destination of the righteous makes badchad’s question even more interesting, since Paradeisos, which literally means “enclosed garden,” would be a precise translation of Gan Eden.
In your first post in this thread, there is no IMHO and only one IMO, referring to disciples not getting the big picture. Fact is, your posts sound like you’re serving truths and facts, when you are serving beliefs and opinions.
I never said either of you were. You accused Eilsel of ignorance (regarding animal sacrifices); I pointed out that that was unfair. None of you, as far as I can tell, have shown signs of being more or less ignorant than the other.
RME
Just out of curiosity, how much of the modern concept of Hell is actually derived from the works of Milton and Dante (i.e. non-“canon”), as opposed to the Bible?
Most of it. “Hell” in the sense of a place of eternal punishment does not really exist in the Bible. The words that are translated as hell all refer either to Sheol, hades or Gehennon. Sheol (as discussed above by Poly) was a sort of underworld holding tank for the dead. On judgement day, the dead were to be resurrected and judged. The righteous would receive eternal life in a sort of restored eden on earth, the unrighteous would be annihilated in fire. There might be good and bad parts of DSheol but it wasn’t eternal.
Hades is obviously the Greek underworld and is sort of interchangeable with Sheol, especially when it appears in Greek texts.
Gehennon was the Valley of Hinnon southwest of Jerusalem. It was a dumping site for animal carcasses and garbage, and fires pretty much burned there all the time to try to destroy the rotting corpses and cut down on the stink. It was also a thought to have been a site of child sacrifice by the Canaanites in pre-Israel times and regarded as a God-forsaken place. The bodies of executed criminals were often dumped there too as a sort of further punishment.
Taken all together then, Gehennon was literally a fiery, stinking, God-forsaken pit, so it had its allegorical uses as the last place you wanted to go. On judgement day it could be said that the bad people would be cast into Gehennon for annihilation while the good people lived in the new paradise of Jerusalem. The idea of Hell as a permanent place of punishment came later from Greek influence and partially from the “lake of fire” description in Revelation which is supposed to be reserved for Satan and his posse.
Artemius wrote the following in response to an Eisel post:
<<Does anyone here besides me see how utterly ignorant the notion is of sacrificing animals in order to please a so-called god?>>
Priceguy wrote the following:
<<<I never said either of you were. You accused Eilsel of ignorance (regarding animal sacrifices); I pointed out that that was unfair. None of you, as far as I can tell, have shown signs of being more or less ignorant than the other.>>>
As you can see, I didn’t accuse Eilsel of ignorance, only the notion of animal sacrifices being ignorant. Eilsel isn’t ignorant anymore than you are.
And if you are saying neither of us are ignorant, than why even use the word?
Priceguy wrote:
<<<In your first post in this thread, there is no IMHO and only one IMO, referring to disciples not getting the big picture. Fact is, your posts sound like you’re serving truths and facts, when you are serving beliefs and opinions.>>>
Sheesh. Serving beliefs and opinions am I? Perhaps you should review the title of this thread. Perhaps you should relocate to a scientific forum where facts preside since beliefs and opinions are all you are going to get on this thread.
Because you did. I really can’t interpret your response to Eilsel any other way than the way I did.
It’s one thing to serve beliefs and opinions; that’s OK. You have to frame it right too. Read Polycarp’s post, directly preceding yours. It is written in the same style as yours, but he is writing facts about Jewish and Christian teachings. Then you write opinions and beliefs in factual style. That makes you sound dogmatic and inflexible, and since people that sound dogmatic usually are, I assumed you were and advised you not to be. That’s all I wanted to say; there’s no reason to be so upset.
On a different note: could you please use quote tags?
Before Milton & Dante, apocryphal Jewish & Christian writings from around 200s AD had some rather elaborate descriptions of Hell. I think the Talmud may have also- I recall reading some quotes about boiling pits of human waste, tho I may be in error.
Priceguy wrote:
<<It’s one thing to serve beliefs and opinions; that’s OK. You have to frame it right too. >>
Says who? You?
<<Read Polycarp’s post, directly preceding yours. It is written in the same style as yours, but he is writing facts about Jewish and Christian teachings. Then you write opinions and beliefs in factual style.>>
Whatever style I choose to write in is really none of your business. If you don’t like it, skip to the next post.
<<That makes you sound dogmatic and inflexible,>>
What business is it of yours? And why are you judging?
<<and since people that sound dogmatic usually are, I assumed you were and advised you not to be. >>
You know what they say about assuming. Why do you feel the need to be sanctimonius, make false assumptions, and put yourself in the position of advising people? You might consider some personal self-exploration.
<<That’s all I wanted to say; there’s no reason to be so upset.>>
Sheesh. You place way too much emphasis upon your self-importance.
<<On a different note: could you please use quote tags?>>
I kinda’ like my current method. Thanks.