Do you believe that Jesus is instructing every Christian that's ever committed the sin of lust to gouge out their eyes? Yes or no?
Absolutely not. But perhaps he MAY be seeing that if you cannot control yourself and repent, perhaps........
If your answer is no, then you're NOT taking his words literally. You can't have it both ways. If you're not being consistent about taking his words literally, then your argument is self defeating! I agree with you that Jesus was speaking in a metaphorical sense here (because that's how he spoke). There is no logic to saying that he was being figurative here, but literal later on in the same sentence. The entire passage is figurative!
I can justify the claim just fine, because we have references from old that refer to an actual place of burning, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls.
You're not following me. Those references are metaphorical references based on an already existing, literal place. There are references to the existence of the Valley of Hinnom that predate any references to Gehenna as hellfire. Those references are contained in the Hebrew bible (chronologically the FIRST in the DSS).
It is you who can't accept the possibility that it was a literal reference and that I must somehow prove it was literal,
That is correct. Because there is no evidence to support the idea that Gehenna started off as a concept of hellfire.
as if metaphorical is the default position.
It is the default position so long as there is a literal position that predates the metaphorical one.
Your argument is akin to saying that December 25th, "Christmas" originated as a Christian holiday to celebrate the birth of Christ, when in reality it was a pagan holiday that was absorbed into Christianity by the Romans. There is no date in the bible that refers to the birth of Christ or any related celebration. Yet Christians around the world have been celebrating Christmas for the last thousand years. So based on the fact that it is an "old" idea, it was always understood that Jesus was literally born on December 25th.
What you mean to say is "Justify it in a way which I will accept".
You haven't justified it in any capacity. Your statements are factually incorrect and therefore completely without merit. Something is not "true" just because you say it is. The Valley of Hinnom as a physical location was addressed in scripture that predates any reference to Gehenna as hellfire. It's as simple as that! Saying that Gehenna as hellfire existed as a concept BEFORE the literal location is an opinion that cannot be reconciled by the facts.
Rather, it is you who must justify that Gehenna and the Lake of Fire are two different places.
That's a non-sequitur. The burden of proof is always on the one making the claim. You claim that they are the same, therefore YOU must provide evidence that they are. I don't have to prove a negative. There is no biblical reference to the location of the lake of fire. We don't even know if it represents a literal "lake" or whether it's a symbolic expression (like nearly everything else in Revelation). It's completely undefined, except as the second death. In the metaphorical sense, sure Gehenna could represent the Lake of Fire. It makes sense since they both deal with "fire" and the wicked. But since the Lake of Fire represents destruction, not torment, then all references to Gehenna as an afterlife are metaphorical (until proven otherwise).
Just because you don't accept Enoch and 2 Esdras as a valid Scriptural book doesn't mean the idea didn't exist at the time, or that it wasn't "official".
It doesn't matter whether I accept them or not, what matters is whether the references to Gehenna as hellfire predate the references to the Valley of Hinnom as a literal location. And that answer is NO, regardless of what scripture (or non-scripture) you're getting the information from.
There are plenty of scholars who do believe that it was reference to an actual hell,
I'm sure there are. But just as their are many scholars that believe in the false Trinity doctrine, the fact that some people believe in things that contradict scriptural accounts does not make them correct.
and these recent attempts to say it wasn't is pure revisionist claptrap that found a nice home with Liberals.
That's not a recent attempt. That was the original position. The idea of it being associated with hell was a later adoption. And the idea that it was not a metaphorical reference but a literal one was an even later bastardization. That is what the "revisionists" have done.
The notion that it was purely metaphorical seems to be a much later development. You can't just assume it was purely metaphorical with the textual evidence in play as if its the default position!
It's not an assumption, it's a fact. Once again, the Valley of Hinnom predates any references to Gehenna as hellfire. That means that it is metaphorical, not literal. And if you are going to take such references literally, then you must take the entire passage literally. You must also believe that Jesus is instructing you to gouge your eyes out to save you from hell, otherwise it is a hypocritical (pick and choose) stance.
So I have to prove that it wasn't metaphorical, but you don't have to prove that it wasn't?
You don't HAVE TO do anything. But in order for your argument to have any factual merit, it would behoove you to do so. The scriptural evidence (as well as the chronology of scripture) would seem to suggest that your interpretation of Gehenna as a literal hellfire is false. My interpretation require no further proof beyond that.
Yeah....Just because you see no evidence of it doesn't mean anything. It's your opinion all the same. Perhaps you're forgetting that. Just like it's your opinion that the literal reference to Samuel's Summoned Soul was REALLY a demon in disguise, right?
Correct. That is my opinion. But there are no fact that contradict my opinion. The bible says that the dead know nothing and have no further reward. It also says that Satan is the ruler of this world and that the whole world lies in his power. Therefore, because I accept the truth of these statements, it's very clear to me what actually happened when Samuel "summoned" Saul. As long as multiple interpretations can exist, I will always go with the one that makes the most sense, and ends up being the most consistent with scripture (without contradicting it). I do not default to the traditionalist interpretation just because other people have believed something for so long. There is no literal hellfire where souls will be tormented for eternity. I know this because the idea contradicts scripture in too many ways. I also know it because the idea is inconsistent with the nature of God. It is illogical to conclude that an all-loving, all-merciful God would create such a place for beings that he supposedly loves. That doesn't make any sense, and if something doesn't make sense, then IT'S NOT TRUE! And I find it quite sad that people choose to denigrate God in this fashion. It's one of the reasons why so many people turn away from God and his message of salvation in my opinion. If there is one thing the bible is consistent on, it's that people are ultimately foolish, manipulative and ignorant. And a many of them will always teach false doctrines, and inspire many followers.
I didn't say it didn't refer to it as a literal place.
No, but you did say that it didn't refer to a literal place until AFTER it was interpreted as hellfire for dead souls. Allow me to quote you: "
I'm assuming that the fact that Gen Hinnom was regarded as an actual fiery hell very early on and only later registered as a Valley of burning after the 1200s or so in tthe Talmud means nothing"
I'm saying that it just so happens to have the same name as the place referred to in extra biblical literature, which you have no grounds to reject.
I'm not rejecting it. I'm saying that this fact is not relevant. It doesn't prove that the concept of Gehenna as hellfire predates the existence of the Valley of Hinnom, it doesn't prove that the Hebrews considered Gehenna to be a literal hellfire afterlife, and it doesn't prove that Gehenna is the Lake of Fire in anyway other than as a metaphorical reference. Whether they are biblical references or extra-biblical references makes no difference in this regard. They still do not support the interpretation of Gehenna being anything other than symbolism with respect to hell.
This would be akin to someone thinking that "Hell's Kitchen" was a place where Food was made for the denizens of hell.
No it wouldn't. Because everyone understands that the name Hell's Kitchen is a metaphorical reference to the fact that "hellish" things happened there in the opinion of the quotables. Your argument is akin to saying that Hell's Kitchen (despite being a literal place that is associated in a metaphorical sense with hell), is actually where food is prepared for the dead souls in hell. :areyoucra
You're completely denying the possibility that the place was simply named after their idea of Hell.
I'm denying it because there is no evidence to support that hypothesis. On the contrary, the chronology of scriptural references seems to suggest the opposite! The idea of hell was inspired by the literal Gehenna, not vice-versa!
