Loving God = Eternal Torture?

[sojourner]

I appreciate your views. They do not offer any logical explanation that will satisfy my issues concerning the murderous and wrathful petulance of god. The scriptures were written and redacted over the centuries (many times) in order to form a particular society of cultural/religious norms. They are not static and not the pure word of god, but of human kind. As a grad student in religious philosophy, I had the pleasure to learn the importance of viewing all religious narratives
critically. One of the outcomes concerning this manner of thinking is that I don't put much stock in any of them, in terms of modern day relevancy or even spirituality. I just can't.

I love god, just not the one I've been indoctrinated to be terrified of.

I think you're conflating some kind of "eternal damnation" thing with the fact that, for the ancient Hebrews, there was no afterlife. So, whatever vindication God meted out had to be done in this lifetime -- hence the "murderous petulance of God." Justice had to be immediate.

 

[sojourner]

Terror and wrath are a means of force. The promise of death, damnation and the eradication of entire populations, is most definitely a kind terrifying force. Psalms 137:9 "Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." What do you call this, gentle cajoling? Friendly advice?

Most certainly they are. And this is present as a balance to the terror and wrath almost consistently shown to the Hebrews by occupying forces. It was their way of "fighting back" and has nothing to do with any kind of broader world view, eschatology, or cosmology.

 

[Kolibri]

I think it's a mistake to try to reconcile the Gentile concept of "soul" with the Hebrew nephesh; they just don't reconcile well. Each must be held gently apart from the other.

I agree with you here. ne'phesh and the Greek term psy-khe' should be treated separately from Platonic philosophies. Kept in a closed circuit of the 66 books, the soul can be defined in only 3 ways. (1) people, (2) animals, and (3) the life that person or animal possesses. And when it is not used animorphically by Jehovah, it is always connected with that which is material, tangible, visible, and mortal.

 

[sojourner]

then perhaps you have a different point in mind? "Until all things have taken placed"/"till all be fulfilled" is the defining clause here, no?

From the NRSV (Easily one of the most accurate translations): For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter,[a] not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Why torture the text to say what it doesn't say? It says that until heaven and earth pass away that not one bit of the law will disappear.

These same "ten thousands of saints" or "holy myriads" were also spoken of at De 33:2, Da 7:10, and Zec 14:5. Vindicated martyrs, really?

Absolutely. In the second century BCE, Antiochus Epiphanes ransacked Jerusalem, killing women, babies -- anyone who was circumcised or who circumcised their children. The Hebrews were ordered, under pain of death, to stop being Hebrews by religion. Those who clung to the Hebrew religion were martyred. It is these martyrs to whom the biblical writers refer when speaking of those whom God raises from the dead. The writers have God raise these people from the dead in order to solve the problem that righteous people (those who steadfastly adhered to the Covenent) were killed. Because they were righteous and kept their end of the Covenant, God also keeps God's end of the Covenant by vindicating them from death.

 

[sojourner]

I agree with you here. ne'phesh and the Greek term psy-khe' should be treated separately from Platonic philosophies. Kept in a closed circuit of the 66 books, the soul can be defined in only 3 ways. (1) people, (2) animals, and (3) the life that person or animal possesses. And when it is not used animorphically by Jehovah, it is always connected with that which is material, tangible, visible, and mortal.

Problem is that NT thought and theology is very much steeped in Platonic thought. You can't separate Plato from the NT and then twist NT theology to "fit" OT theology.

 

[Kolibri]

From the NRSV (Easily one of the most accurate translations): For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter,[a] not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Why torture the text to say what it doesn't say? It says that until heaven and earth pass away that not one bit of the law will disappear.

why do you drop "until all is accomplished?" does this not mean anything?

Absolutely. In the second century BCE, Antiochus Epiphanes ransacked Jerusalem, killing women, babies -- anyone who was circumcised or who circumcised their children. The Hebrews were ordered, under pain of death, to stop being Hebrews by religion. Those who clung to the Hebrew religion were martyred. It is these martyrs to whom the biblical writers refer when speaking of those whom God raises from the dead. The writers have God raise these people from the dead in order to solve the problem that righteous people (those who steadfastly adhered to the Covenent) were killed. Because they were righteous and kept their end of the Covenant, God also keeps God's end of the Covenant by vindicating them from death.

"And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he acme with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them" - De 33:2 (KJV)

This was, like Enoch before the Deluge, way before Antiochus Epiphanes' day. These martyrs you speak of did not even exist yet.

 

[Kolibri]

Problem is that NT thought and theology is very much steeped in Platonic thought. You can't separate Plato from the NT and then twist NT theology to "fit" OT theology.

you can't if they are two different Gods but as one God, the concepts must stay the same till explicitly modified...such as the transition from natural Jews to spiritual Jews.

 

[sojourner]

why do you drop "until all is accomplished?" does this not mean anything?

Ok. I see where you're going now. I think we're in agreement on this point.

This was, like Enoch before the Deluge, way before Antiochus Epiphanes' day. These martyrs you speak of did not even exist yet.

Right, I understand that. What I'm saying is, though, that this "agenda" could have been written into accounts that actually happened much earlier, but were written down later on.

 

[sojourner]

you can't if they are two different Gods but as one God, the concepts must stay the same till explicitly modified...such as the transition from natural Jews to spiritual Jews.

In Paul's letters (which predate any of the gospels), we see Paul "trying on" Gentile thought, weaving it in with his Judaic mind set. It is the same God, being expressed through two different fields of thought. My cautionary statement is to not try to reconcile the two so neatly. you kind of have to let them stand on their own, as two sides of the same coin, in a sense. Don't compromise the two by forcing each to fit some nonexistent-but-hoped-for mold. It's like these pointless exercises trying to reconcile obviously contradictory material between the gospels. Each gospel must be allowed to stand on its own merits, telling its own story.

 

[Kolibri]

In Paul's letters (which predate any of the gospels), we see Paul "trying on" Gentile thought, weaving it in with his Judaic mind set. It is the same God, being expressed through two different fields of thought. My cautionary statement is to not try to reconcile the two so neatly. you kind of have to let them stand on their own, as two sides of the same coin, in a sense. Don't compromise the two by forcing each to fit some nonexistent-but-hoped-for mold. It's like these pointless exercises trying to reconcile obviously contradictory material between the gospels. Each gospel must be allowed to stand on its own merits, telling its own story.

I do believe it is backwards to try to fit Jewish thought into the Christian mode. If anything it is the Christian thought that needs to be rooted in Jewish thought, unless the transitions are explicitly laid out for us. So I see our disagreement to be two-fold.

1. That Paul had any connection to philosophy as he spoke out against it at Colossians 2:8.
2. The authenticity of the books and who wrote them as well as when.

 

[sojourner]

I do believe it is backwards to try to fit Jewish thought into the Christian mode. If anything it is the Christian thought that needs to be rooted in Jewish thought, unless the transitions are explicitly laid out for us. So I see our disagreement to be two-fold.

1. That Paul had any connection to philosophy as he spoke out against it at Colossians 2:8.
2. The authenticity of the books and who wrote them as well as when.

1) Paul didn't write Colossians.
2) The authenticity of the books lies in their acceptance by the church. We simply don't know who wrote any of the OT, the gospels, and some of the letters, because the works are not signed. Paul wrote some of the letters, and John of Patmos wrote Revelation. We do have some approximate dates, for example, 1 Thess. was written 48-50. Galatians around 50. Mark just post-70. Matthew and Luke sometime between 80 and 95. John 90 to just after 100.

It's also backwards to try to fit Christian thought into the Judaic mode. Christian thought isn't particularly rooted in Judaic thought.

 

[truthofscripture]

Uh huh. Yeeeah. That may be your position, but it's certainly not the opinion of anything approaching orthodox.

It is, however, what the scriptures say. I don't adhere to any religion, I adhere to the written word of God.

 

[Me Myself]

It is, however, what the scriptures say. I don't adhere to any religion, I adhere to the written word of God.

to your limited and human interpretation of it.

 

[Kolibri]

1) Paul didn't write Colossians.
2) The authenticity of the books lies in their acceptance by the church. We simply don't know who wrote any of the OT, the gospels, and some of the letters, because the works are not signed. Paul wrote some of the letters, and John of Patmos wrote Revelation. We do have some approximate dates, for example, 1 Thess. was written 48-50. Galatians around 50. Mark just post-70. Matthew and Luke sometime between 80 and 95. John 90 to just after 100.

It's also backwards to try to fit Christian thought into the Judaic mode. Christian thought isn't particularly rooted in Judaic thought.

1) This letter is signed. Though I am guessing your stance is it was not really Paul but an imposter.
"Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through God's will, and Timothy our brother, to the holy ones and faithful brothers in union with Christ at Co-los'sae: May you have undeserved kindness and peace from God our Father." - Col 1:1,2

2) Our accepted dates and proofs of authenticity are obviously coming from different sources.

 

[sojourner]

This letter is signed. Though I am guessing your stance is it was not really Paul but an imposter.

The letter really doesn't fit with Paul's style. It's what's called pseudopigrypha -- written by someone in someone else's name.

Our accepted dates and proofs of authenticity are obviously coming from different sources.

Mine come from accepted, peer-reviewed scholarship.

 

[truthofscripture]

to your limited and human interpretation of it.

Since I do not interpret scripture, as God said interpretion belongs only to Him, then your postulation isn't correct at all.

 

[sojourner]

Since I do not interpret scripture, as God said interpretion belongs only to Him, then your postulation isn't correct at all.

Do you read the scripture? If you do, you're interpreting it in several ways. It's simply dishonest to claim that you don't interpret scripture. Even if you're just "reading it off the page and taking it at face value," you're still interpreting it, because any choice you make as to how it is to be read and understood is, by definition, interpretation.

 

[evenpath]

Do you read the scripture? If you do, you're interpreting it in several ways. It's simply dishonest to claim that you don't interpret scripture. Even if you're just "reading it off the page and taking it at face value," you're still interpreting it, because any choice you make as to how it is to be read and understood is, by definition, interpretation.

One word sums it up…hermeneutics.

 

[truthofscripture]

Do you read the scripture? If you do, you're interpreting it in several ways. It's simply dishonest to claim that you don't interpret scripture. Even if you're just "reading it off the page and taking it at face value," you're still interpreting it, because any choice you make as to how it is to be read and understood is, by definition, interpretation.

I have read 38 versions of the English translations of the scriptures, and compared all of them to all available original texts existent. I have compared each scripture to each other scripture to discern it's meaning and ensure it's harmony with the entire Bible, and have not interpreted anything. The scriptures do not mean what God intended if we interpret them. Interpreting them is nothing more than taking a guess as to their meaning. I do not guess at their meaning, I find out what the intended meaning actually is.

 

[truthofscripture]

One word sums it up…hermeneutics.

In the meaning of explaining, yes. In the meaning of interpreting, most certainly not.