Is hell fair?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is more evidence for the historical life of Jesus than most 2000 year old guys. The only way you can claim otherwise is by dismissing 5 independent historians and four written accounts (just because they were included in the canon).

Are you counting Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as four of the historians? I hope not, since three of those books show strong signs of being different versions of the same source material.

Who's your fifth? Josephus?

And then you can also explain why there was no uproar about these books that were written less than a few generations after this supposed man's death about someone that never even existed. Or why none of these historians were countered for including some mythical figure in their records.

In the case of the Testimonium Flavianum at least, I think the reason why there was no uproar against it was because the mythical parts were an insertion that happened centuries later.

And even in the Bible, you can see that early Christian views were treated as heretical. Why do you think Paul was imprisoned?

Also, look at who the early converts were: generally speaking, the Gospel was rejected by the Jewish societies that were "supposed" to recognize Jesus as their Messiah. The message really took hold among Greek gentiles who had no prior knowledge that would have conflicted with what they were hearing, and no other account of first-century Judean goings-on to use for comparison.

 

[Gaddock]

Which is a bunch of crap, any God that makes a place like hell or the Lake of Fire or what every you wan to call it and then lets people "make themselves" go there to burn forever is not a God that should people Warship at all.

I think this view is correct.
The view we here from some Christian quarters is that:

a)We have a choice over whether to obey god or not
b) We choose to behave in a way that god deems is wrong
Therefore
c) It is our fault we go to hell not gods.

This arguement basically says that it is entirely the wrongdoers fault that they are subject to the horendous torment of hell. It is of course completely wrong. Even if we accept for the sake of this arguement that Gods law as believed by Christians is correct and that breaking it is therefore wrong and deserving of punishment, that does not mean God is cleared of responsibility for the degree or seriousness of that punishment. A part of any concept of Justice is the notion of Proportionality - the punishment should to some extent fit the crime.

So with that in mind lets take an analogy.

A child is in a class at school - the school rule is no talking in class which is set by the teacher for good reason - to allow both the girl and others to learn without distraction.

The child knows the rule and breaks it.

The teacher chooses to punish the child by dipping her head into a pan of boiling water.

No one would accept this punishment as just. The girl has done wrong and is deserving of some punishment, but this does not mean that the teacher can do anything they like to the child - that any punishment goes. What the teacher has done here is ridiculously extreme and totally out of proportion to the 'crime'.The teacher would be held accountable for this evil and extreme punishment and would be imprisoned.

Similairly if God sentences people to eternal torment it is his responsiblity for the severity and extremeness of this punishment. Simply arguing that we have done wrong does not mean that that can justify any retribution for that transgression.

Regards

Gaddock

 

[crystalonyx]

There is more evidence for the historical life of Jesus than most 2000 year old guys. The only way you can claim otherwise is by dismissing 5 independent historians and four written accounts (just because they were included in the canon). And then you can also explain why there was no uproar about these books that were written less than a few generations after this supposed man's death about someone that never even existed. Or why none of these historians were countered for including some mythical figure in their records.

This is simply poppycock. there is much historical evidence of the various rulers of that time, and even of minor events that happened in Jerusalem, but NONE about the supposed Jesus by historians that lived during his supposed life. the only works you can point to are the gospels, obvious works of fiction, written MUCH later by unknown authors, all except John essentially based off the text of whoever wrote Mark.

 

[kmkemp]

Are you counting Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as four of the historians? I hope not, since three of those books show strong signs of being different versions of the same source material.

No... they would be the four written accounts. And what would bring you to the conclusion that they are different versions of the same source?

edit: I guess the historian references would also qualify as "written accounts", but I thought that by separating them into obvious numbers that I could avoid confusion. Sorry.

Who's your fifth? Josephus?

Josephus is one of the five that I've seen quoted. Josephus is the only one that didn't refer to Jesus as Christ, I think.

In the case of the Testimonium Flavianum at least, I think the reason why there was no uproar against it was because the mythical parts were an insertion that happened centuries later.

We are talking about the historical Jesus, not his deity.
The Bible is a historically reliable document and there is no reason to think that the centerpiece of the NT was a fabrication that no one at the time seemed to pick up on.

And even in the Bible, you can see that early Christian views were treated as heretical. Why do you think Paul was imprisoned?

Also, look at who the early converts were: generally speaking, the Gospel was rejected by the Jewish societies that were "supposed" to recognize Jesus as their Messiah. The message really took hold among Greek gentiles who had no prior knowledge that would have conflicted with what they were hearing, and no other account of first-century Judean goings-on to use for comparison.

I would think it naive to think that Gentiles did not know what the Jews thought out Jesus' subject matter. The Gentiles that were preached to were usually side by side with Jews or at least in the same area living with them. It's not like they were some religious sect on the other side of the world. Besides all of that, I don't know what source you are judging by when you say that more Gentiles accepted Jesus' message than Jews. I can't think of any evidence offhand for that.

 

[kmkemp]

This is simply poppycock. there is much historical evidence of the various rulers of that time, and even of minor events that happened in Jerusalem, but NONE about the supposed Jesus by historians that lived during his supposed life. the only works you can point to are the gospels, obvious works of fiction, written MUCH later by unknown authors, all except John essentially based off the text of whoever wrote Mark.

Perhaps you could start your research at wikipedia? I don't see why it is necessary that the historians record the life of Christ during his lifetime, since he was not a prominent figure to your average secular historian until the movement that followed his death gained a following.

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Francine]

Perhaps you could start your research at wikipedia? I don't see why it is necessary that the historians record the life of Christ during his lifetime, since he was not a prominent figure to your average secular historian until the movement that followed his death gained a following.

Why can't the gospels be taken as history? When you come to believe in Christ, does it automatically turn you into a liar? Wouldn't people be more careful to get the facts right, if they knew their eternal destiny could be affected if they did not preach the truth?

 

[crystalonyx]

Perhaps you could start your research at wikipedia? I don't see why it is necessary that the historians record the life of Christ during his lifetime, since he was not a prominent figure to your average secular historian until the movement that followed his death gained a following.

The typical copout, a man does all kinds of miracles, raises the dead , turns water into wine, etc.e tc. yet no historian takes note. However, they do write volumes about other minor happenings in Jersualem. This does not seem odd to you?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No... they would be the four written accounts. And what would bring you to the conclusion that they are different versions of the same source?

I said that three of them were: it looks like the general scholarly consensus is that Matthew, Mark and Luke all came from the original source material.

And academic opinions aside, the fact that they're word-for-word the same in many locations is a bit of a dead giveaway, isn't it?

Josephus is one of the five that I've seen quoted. Josephus is the only one that didn't refer to Jesus as Christ, I think.

There's that one mention in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews of "brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James". From what I can gather, the passage is considered generally authentic, though "who was called Christ" might be a later addition.

I'm not sure how conclusively this points to the truth of the Jesus who features in the Gospels, though. Later in the very same paragraph, Josephus refers to Jesus as "the son of Damneus, high priest." The same book also mentions the following other Jesuses (Jesi?):

- Jesus, the High Priest
- Jesus, the son of Gamaliel and the successor of Jesus
- Jesus, son of Josadek

Now... I note a few things:

- it seems that Jesus was a common name in ancient Judea.
- this event that Josephus describes apparently happened in AD 62 (since they're placed after the death of Festus, just as Albinus takes his place as Procurator of Judea. It seems like the consensus is that Josephus wrote Antiquities of the Jews around AD 93-94. When was the crucifixion supposed to have occured? ~ AD 30-32? Assuming the passage, including the reference to Jesus as Christ, is authentic, at best, Josephus is relying on oral transmission of key details over at least one generation; at worst, Josephus is relying on decades of rumour.

I don't think that the possibility that the "Jesus" in question only refers to "a" Jesus and not "the" Jesus should be dismissed out-of-hand.

We are talking about the historical Jesus, not his deity.
The Bible is a historically reliable document and there is no reason to think that the centerpiece of the NT was a fabrication that no one at the time seemed to pick up on.

I don't think that anyone's suggesting that great care wasn't taken with the Bible, but I do think it's worth acknowledging that virtually every person who played a part in its creation and early distribution had an agenda.

I would think it naive to think that Gentiles did not know what the Jews thought out Jesus' subject matter. The Gentiles that were preached to were usually side by side with Jews or at least in the same area living with them. It's not like they were some religious sect on the other side of the world.

I guess "belief" probably would have been a better term than "knowledge". I suppose it's possible that Greek Gentiles might have known a bit of the Jewish religion (though I wonder how much they actually would know), but I think they'd be much less likely to care that this person being proclaimed as the Christ, i.e. as the Messiah, didn't actually match the Jewish messianic prophecies, and would be less likely to care about other aspects of Christianity that still are differences between the two religions.

Besides all of that, I don't know what source you are judging by when you say that more Gentiles accepted Jesus' message than Jews. I can't think of any evidence offhand for that.

Well, the Epistles paint a fairly clear picture, I think. Look at where Paul's churches were established: mainly in the Greek islands, with Pagan converts. In Acts, most of Paul's encounters with Jews on his missionary journeys are described as confrontational.

As far as I can tell from the Bible, Paul's minstry, which was directed at the Gentiles, flourished and grew. The ministry of the other Apostles directed at the Jews stumbled and met with fierce resistance. Do you get a different impression?

 

[YmirGF]

I am a tiny bit confused why exactly these three things are even related in your mind.

Let's take it from the top, shall we?

Why can't the gospels be taken as history?

Call me silly, but I would suggest that there is insufficient supporting evidence in too many aspects of the Bible, to consider it an acceptable history book. Heck, it's not even an especially well written novel for pity sakes.

When you come to believe in Christ, does it automatically turn you into a liar?

It is somewhat sinister to accept the idea that merely believing in Christ magically translates ones word into truth. That is the road to arrogance, in my humble opinion. Logic dictates that it would have no effect whatsoever.

Wouldn't people be more careful to get the facts right, if they knew their eternal destiny could be affected if they did not preach the truth?

In theory, but it doesn't seem to stop people who are infected by religious thought. Perhaps you could explain why worship is even reasonable? Perhaps you could exlain WHY a god, worthy of being called a god would WANT to be worshipped?

Aside from this, belief in Hell is fair only if you accept the idea that such a belief could, in fact, be quite wrong. I also see the concept as being infinitly flawed, but hey, that's just me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Let's take it from the top, shall we?
Call me silly, but I would suggest that there is insufficient supporting evidence in too many aspects of the Bible, to consider it an acceptable history book. Heck, it's not even an especially well written novel for pity sakes.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with using the Bible as a source of historical evidence as long as it's treated with caution. As long as we remember that it was written, protected and disseminated by people with a very definite, very strong agenda*, it can be a useful source of information... but, like I said, it should be treated with caution.



* including such things as "to proclaim Jesus as Christ, Son of God and Saviour of Mankind" - this does not pose a problem if the Bible is all true, but to conclude that the Bible is true based on the Bible alone is putting the cart before the horse, IMO.

 

[Gaddock]

This topic seems to have gone off hell onto the bible in general. Wouldn't the present discussion fit better on the 'literal and infallable word of God' thread?

Regards

Gaddock

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This topic seems to have gone off hell onto the bible in general. Wouldn't the present discussion fit better on the 'literal and infallable word of God' thread?

Yes, I think you're right. I got wrapped up in the discussion myself and didn't even notice when things took a sharp turn there.

Back closer to the original topic, if life is a carnival, then maybe Hell is a fair.

And I think that would make Heaven a bazaar.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

This topic seems to have gone off hell onto the bible in general. Wouldn't the present discussion fit better on the 'literal and infallable word of God' thread?

Regards

Gaddock

:bunny:

 

[kmkemp]

Why can't the gospels be taken as history? When you come to believe in Christ, does it automatically turn you into a liar? Wouldn't people be more careful to get the facts right, if they knew their eternal destiny could be affected if they did not preach the truth?

On the contrary, I already listed them as well.

 

[kmkemp]

The typical copout, a man does all kinds of miracles, raises the dead , turns water into wine, etc.e tc. yet no historian takes note. However, they do write volumes about other minor happenings in Jersualem. This does not seem odd to you?

I would be interested to see your sources for this. Nonetheless, history has been lost over the ages so a lack of evidence written during Jesus' extremely short ministry is not really much to go on here. There could have been counts of historians that recorded his miracles that we simply haven't found or have since been destroyed. But what we do have is what is important here and you are completely ignoring it.

 

[kmkemp]

I said that three of them were: it looks like the general scholarly consensus is that Matthew, Mark and Luke all came from the original source material.

At least two of the gospels were written by eye-witnesses to Jesus and the other was told to the writer by an eye-witness. Even if they had looked at a source document to put together the story, how does that discredit their testimony in any way? If I am writing about an event that I eye-witnessed even ten years ago, I might very well read an article about it so that I make sure that I include important details that I might otherwise leave out. Nonetheless, I would love to see your sources since I've never considered it more than a "theory" lacking much evidence.

And academic opinions aside, the fact that they're word-for-word the same in many locations is a bit of a dead giveaway, isn't it?

Examples? And what of the many supposed "discrepancies" between the gospels? Would that have happened if they were simply copying each other?

There's that one mention in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews of "brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James". From what I can gather, the passage is considered generally authentic, though "who was called Christ" might be a later addition.

Of course it "might be". After all, that would greatly eliminate the other possible Jesus'es. What evidence is there for that other than convenience, though?

I'm not sure how conclusively this points to the truth of the Jesus who features in the Gospels, though. Later in the very same paragraph, Josephus refers to Jesus as "the son of Damneus, high priest." The same book also mentions the following other Jesuses (Jesi?):

- Jesus, the High Priest
- Jesus, the son of Gamaliel and the successor of Jesus
- Jesus, son of Josadek

Now... I note a few things:

- it seems that Jesus was a common name in ancient Judea.
- this event that Josephus describes apparently happened in AD 62 (since they're placed after the death of Festus, just as Albinus takes his place as Procurator of Judea. It seems like the consensus is that Josephus wrote Antiquities of the Jews around AD 93-94. When was the crucifixion supposed to have occured? ~ AD 30-32? Assuming the passage, including the reference to Jesus as Christ, is authentic, at best, Josephus is relying on oral transmission of key details over at least one generation; at worst, Josephus is relying on decades of rumour.

I don't think that the possibility that the "Jesus" in question only refers to "a" Jesus and not "the" Jesus should be dismissed out-of-hand.

Nor do I. There are other sources to consider, but I still think it is unlikely that the reference in question was not about Jesus Christ.

I don't think that anyone's suggesting that great care wasn't taken with the Bible, but I do think it's worth acknowledging that virtually every person who played a part in its creation and early distribution had an agenda.

Everyone has an agenda. If someone were to change the contents of the Declaration of Independence today, though, there would be an uproar and it would not go unnoticed. While not quite a perfect analogy, the same would surely have happened if the Gospel accounts had been tampered with (on a smaller scale since its distribution wasn't as wide).

I guess "belief" probably would have been a better term than "knowledge". I suppose it's possible that Greek Gentiles might have known a bit of the Jewish religion (though I wonder how much they actually would know), but I think they'd be much less likely to care that this person being proclaimed as the Christ, i.e. as the Messiah, didn't actually match the Jewish messianic prophecies, and would be less likely to care about other aspects of Christianity that still are differences between the two religions.

Jesus constantly quoted from the Old Testament, so it would be hard for any adherent to Jesus' teachings to be wholly ignorant of Jewish tradition.

Well, the Epistles paint a fairly clear picture, I think. Look at where Paul's churches were established: mainly in the Greek islands, with Pagan converts. In Acts, most of Paul's encounters with Jews on his missionary journeys are described as confrontational.

As far as I can tell from the Bible, Paul's minstry, which was directed at the Gentiles, flourished and grew. The ministry of the other Apostles directed at the Jews stumbled and met with fierce resistance. Do you get a different impression?

Well, I wouldn't bank on it. Remember that the term Christian began to be used in Acts. The term Jew would only refer to those Jews that did not become Christian (who would surely be hostile) after that point.

 

[DarkSun]

Hell doesn't exist. If it did, it would contradict with that fact that God is love. Irrespective of what a person may have done, in no way is it compassionate to condemn a person to eternal suffering. When God walked among us, he taught us to forgive "not seven times, but seventy-seven times" (Matt 18:22), and to "love your neighbour as yourself" (Matt 19:19).

God is not a hypocrite. Therefore, Hell does not exist.

The main writings which speak of Hell were heavily influenced by human-kind, and may not have been directed by God Himself. The Gospels which did speak of hell were written for an audience whom the author wanted to convert. Man-kind wanted control through fear. Not God. This applies to all other New Testament books which do the same, as well as the Old Testament. When juxtaposed with the other texts of the Gospels, it becomes blatantly clear that Hell was not God's true message.

And yes, I do realise that several people will be annoyed that I've said that the Bible was influenced by men. I understand why. But personally, I believe that all writings have to be read from the context in which they were written. The gnostics may not have existed if the Bible's authors were of the same mind throughout. Just read Leviticus and compare it to Matthew if you want to see what I mean.

Sorry....

^_^'''

 

[kmkemp]

A good read on ancient scholarship that I came across.

James Patrick Holding: Dates and authorship of the Gospels

 

[reformed christian]

Hell is fair. God determines what is fair because he is perfectly fair. Those in Hell are only getting what their sin deserves. Although it is difficult for us to comprehend, a sin against an infinite God deserves an infinite punishment. We think it is not fair because we don't understand how perfectly righteous and holy God is. Hell is fair and it is what we all deserve. For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

 

[DarkSun]

"Hell is fair. God determines what is fair because he is perfectly fair. Those in Hell are only getting what their sin deserves. Although it is difficult for us to comprehend, a sin against an infinite God deserves an infinite punishment. We think it is not fair because we don't understand how perfectly righteous and holy God is. Hell is fair and it is what we all deserve. For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."

Just because we fall short of perfection doesn't mean that anyone deserves eternal pain. If that was the plan, then God wouldn't have us tainted at birth to begin with.

And I'm going to have to disagree further. What you've described is a spiteful God who punishes those who have done wrong against Him. Of course it's hard to conprehend. Nonsense usually is. God is perfect, just and compassionate. He would not condemn a single soul to eternal hell fire. The very idea of doing so is a contradiction of ideals, and as you've so aptly skimmed across, makes no sense.

_____________________________________________

Also, I just thought I'd make a point from nowhere.

I disagree somewhat to the belief that Christian faith alone is what earns a person Grace.

Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Taoists and Atheists alike, can all be good people.
Are those who have never heard of the Christian God, fated to burn forever?

"Know therefore that the LORD your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commands." (Deuteronomy 7:9)

Those that follow follow the Ten Commandments, the Beatitudes, and Jesus' Word, could safely be said to have lived up to this text. God is with those who live through compassion.

Anyway, that's my two cents.