• Tinidril@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    Tell us you haven’t read the Bible without telling us you haven’t read the Bible.

    Just in case you think that’s all OT, Eternal torture was a NT invention. At least when OT God ordered you tortured and killed, that was the end of it.

    • CeeBee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I have read the Bible. In extreme detail, many times. “Hell” isn’t a biblical teaching. It wasn’t even a concept to the ancient Jews and Israelites. It’s not OT or NT.

      Show me something that directly supports a literal eternal torture from the Bible. And parables from Jesus aren’t supporting scriptures, because of their very nature being parables, which are figurative stories to convey a lesson or point for teaching.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        . It wasn’t even a concept to the ancient Jews and Israelites. It’s not OT or NT.

        First off it was. Secondly the Romans had a concept of it and Christianity is basically paganism with a Jewish accent.

        which are figurative stories to convey a lesson or point for teaching.

        Oh, if it is to convey a message then why did Jesus say this?

        Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them."

        Let me repeat the moneyshot because I think you will ignore it

        lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them."

        Jesus is very very clear here that he speaks in parables so people who are not worthy won’t understand and won’t be able to repent or even stop what they are doing wrong.

      • Tinidril@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        It isn’t a command, since humans don’t have that ability. Hell is described by Jesus in Luke 16. Humans being human, all sorts of temperal tortures have been justified as doing the victim a favor by potentially saving them from eternal torture, but I don’t think that is explicit in the text.

        As an aside, over half of Christians (Catholics and Eastern Orthodox primarily) consider the teachings of the church to be the primary root of the faith, not “sola scriptura” as came in with protestantism. All sorts of religiously justified torture arose on both sides of that divide though.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It makes more sense. The Bible has contradictions, sometimes within the same book. Matthew for example can’t seem to decide who the dad is. If you go sola scriptura you are basically stuck squaring the circle. If you have a Pope they can issue an official version that overrides everything. That’s why you see all those weird Bible literalists groups are prots.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I really don’t know what to say. You can read the gospels and see Jesus threatening people who refuse to kiss the ring with hell. You can see Paul doing the same. Do what I say or die and go to hell. Forsake your own family for me or die and go to hell. Hail me as king or die and go to hell. Bankrupt yourself and depend fully on God (with me as proxy) or go to hell There are even verses where the man argues that the mystical components of the universe must and do bend to his will. Claiming to rule the Sabbath would be on the level of a modern human claiming to boss gravity around. But not content with that we have stories of him beating the devil and arguing with God

            How is this not threatening people? How is this not assuming authority over people? Literally telling people to abandon their children and follow him is not authority seeking?

              • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I am alright. I already got Paul condemning a couple to die for not giving him enough money right after he gave a list of people who annoyed him and said that they were going to hell.

                No wonder that religion causes so many problems. All the founders are just these petty awful bitter people.

        • CeeBee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Hell is not in the Bible.

          The words often translated as hell are She’ol and Ge’henna.

          She’ol is translated 31 times as hell, 31 times as grave, and 3 times as pit in the King James version.

          The word itself is derived from sha’al which means “ask” or “request” because “the grave is always asking for more”. Implying that death is always waiting. (Death in this context being the state of death, not “Death” the horseman, which itself is figurative).

          She’ol is not a specific grave, but rather the “common grave of mankind”. It refers to the state of being dead. As in “everyone goes 6ft under”.

          It doesn’t refer to a “place of hell” and sure as hell (heh) doesn’t refer to a place of torture.

          Ge’henna is a short form for “Valley of Hinnom”. It was a place outside of Jerusalem where Kings Ahaz and Manasseh engaged in idolatrous worship which included child sacrifices. Those Kings and their followers were executed and had their bodies dumped in that valley, left to rot and not buried, so that carrion eaters would desecrate their bodies and deprived from an honourable burial. And then the place was turned into a garbage dump to further dishonour them.

          Jeremiah 7:31 - “They have built the high places of Toʹpheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinʹnom, in order to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, something that I had not commanded and that had never even come into my heart.”

          So saying someone went to Ge’henna was akin to saying someone displeased God so badly that they will not be honoured by Him and he finds their actions “detestable”.

          Nothing to do with a place of torture.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            This is all opinion and if you read writers who natively spoke these languages and were much closer to the dates when it was written they disagree with you. There are descriptions of hell in the Talmud, I trust Rabbis to know more about Judaic beliefs of the time they are living in vs someone 20 centuries later who is not even Jewish.

            People know what they believe and just because you can take a word and find it’s entomology doesn’t mean you know how the word was used or the ideas it represented. When I say Dartmouth to you do you think “mouth of the Dart river” or do you think of the famous school there? Does your answer change if someone of a different religion from you 20 centuries later argues that “really what they meant to say is”?

            • CeeBee@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              This is all opinion and if you read writers who natively spoke these languages and were much closer to the dates when it was written they disagree with you.

              It’s not opinion. It’s based on historical studies and historical linguistics. This is not something I came up with out of thin air. It’s been studied and verified by experts from around the world.

              Even the Wikipedia page about She’ol states “Within the Hebrew Bible, there are few – often brief and nondescript – mentions of Sheol, seemingly describing it as a place where both the righteous and the unrighteous dead go, regardless of their moral choices in life.”

              That’s something Jesus said about birth the righteous and unrighteous. It’s the figurative “place” where everyone goes when they enter the state of death.

              The site myjewishlearning.com says of hell in the Talmud:

              “there is generally no concept of judgment or reward and punishment attached to it. In fact, the more pessimistic books of the Bible, such as Ecclesiastes and Job, insist that all of the dead go down to Sheol, whether good or evil, rich or poor, slave or free man”

              People know what they believe and just because you can take a word and find it’s entomology doesn’t mean you know how the word was used or the ideas it represented.

              That’s partially true. But there are many many supporting scriptures, old manuscripts like the Septuagint, the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as other historical texts that do not support the notion of eternal torture, hell, or an “evil” afterlife.

              • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                And now you are goalpost moving. Sheol is not geheniham and never was. There is about 800 years of thought you are condensing into a single time period, a time period that we know there were arguments about this. At the supposed time of Jesus there were at least three versions of the afterlife floating around. What you are doing now is making those three into one and pull stuff from 800 years prior and saying that is part of it as well. Do you agree with every single idea people had in 1223 AD?

                Yes you are right about one thing but what you are right about doesn’t matter. The 8th century BC Jews didn’t really have a concept of judgement in the afterlife. That however tells us nothing about 1st century Jews.

                • CeeBee@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’m not moving the goalpost at all. The discussion is about the definition of the word that in some English translations is rendered “hell”.

                  The discussion about She’ol and Ge’henna is that it’s those words translated into “hell”.

                  So to discuss what “hell” is, the original meaning of those words need to be considered.

                  • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Yes and the original 1st century meaning to those early Christians you are quoting it meant a very bad place you burn forever in. It doesn’t matter that 8 centuries prior the word didn’t even exist.

                    I gave you a specific example, Dartmouth, before and you are not acknowledging it. A word means what it means when it is spoken, the entymology is interesting but not the definition the word has forever.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Weird how the author of City of God and one of the most famous Christian thinkers of all time completely disagreed. You got to love a flexible moral system, it allows anyone to claim to be the True Scotsmen authentic deal and condemn as heretics everyone else.

            Augustine was wrong about Christianity, St. Paul was wrong abojt Christianity, Jesus was wrong about Christianity, every single Christian thinker was wrong about Christianity except one random on Lemmy.

              • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I can look it up tonight if you really want but basically Augustine argued that you are allowed to go after heretics as long as you do it for love of their souls. If they couldn’t be convinced of their “errors” by talking you were allowed to use violence since burning in hell is so much worse.

                As I said it is pretty amazing how every single person can just declare themselves the true Christian whenever they want.

            • CeeBee@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Well, the reality is that most people who call themselves Christian are wrong about many things, but not everything.

              Augustine subscribed to the Just War theory, which flies in the face of loving your neighbour as well as your enemy, and “Nor will they learn war anymore” (Isaiah 2:4)

              That being said Augustine wasn’t wrong about everything. The Bible is a thick book, and people back then didn’t have the resources that exist today. I can look up any word or topic within the Bible directly or from additional resources in mere seconds, whereas anyone from even 50 years ago had to scan through pages manually.

              • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                How lucky we are to have the single True Christian in our midst.

                Honestly, do you even know the Biblical languages? Could I give you a random sentence in Hebrew or konic Greek and you can translate it? How about Aramaic? Because take a guess which one of us in this conversation can. Before my deconversion I was planning to be a Biblical Scholar. Fortunately I saw the light in time.

                • CeeBee@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Ah, so then you know that the commonly accepted Trinity doctrine isn’t supported by the Bible, and John 1:1 isn’t the evidence that it’s usually presented as. Because the first “God” is the·osʹ which is preceded by ton which is a definite article (ie, the God). And Koine Greek did not have an indefinite article. So if predicate noun isn’t preceded by a definite article, then it’s an implied indefinite (ie, a god). And in fact many translations render the indefinite the·osʹ as either “divine” or “godlike”, because without the definite article, those are equally valid ways of writing that verse.

                  • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Sigh. A yes or no would have sufficed. You don’t need to know Greek to know the Trinity was made up later. You can just look at the arguments made two centuries later.

                    While you are at it John 1:1 is just a retrocon. The OT contains the sentence “let us create the world” which comes from the older views of the Hebrews that there were more than one god. It is also there to pick a side in an argument that St. Paul hinted at; when did Jesus become important. He of course viewed it at the Easter miracle, Mark author puts it at baptism, Matthew and Luke authors put it at conception, and the last gospel finishes the trend and makes it prior to conception. A common trend of religion, to one up itself as time goes on. Also a big borrowing from the cultures around them that loved dying and rising God myths.

                    Now instead of copying and pasting a Wikipedia quote why don’t you answer the question? I hand you a randomly selected book from the Bible in its original, can you read it yes or no? If the answer is no you might not want to lecture others on translation issues.