• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What is Hell?

outhouse

Atheistically

I understand how mean he was supposed to be.

so would it come down to an act of sedition or blasphemy???? to help determine what happened?

this would also help to understand Caiaphas actual involvement, following what we know Caiaphas would not have defended
 

Breathe

Hostis humani generis
so would it come down to an act of sedition or blasphemy???? to help determine what happened?

this would also help to understand Caiaphas actual involvement, following what we know Caiaphas would not have defended


I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you mean here. Is it possible for you to elaborate further for me?
 

outhouse

Atheistically
I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you mean here. Is it possible for you to elaborate further for me?
`
pilate would have not even blinked a eye at blashemy as it wasnt a roman crime

sedition on the other hand and pilate would have seen jesus as crossing the line

the actual crime would dictate the punishment
 
Last edited:

outhouse

Atheistically
He would have believed Jesus to have been against the state

here it is in context with what we think we know about Caiapfas

Caiaphas' legal position, therefore, was to establish that Jesus was guilty not only of blasphemy, but also of proclaiming himself the messiah, which was understood as the return of the Davidic king. This would have been an act of sedition and prompted Roman execution.

and in another section

Caiaphas and the other men charge him with blasphemy and order him beaten.


this is where i come up with

blasphemy = jewish beating or killing if deemed needed to jewish public outcry
sedition = roman death
 

bhaktajan

Active Member
Since:

I am an Orthodox Hindu Yogi, and I shall chime in:
a] The definition of God is He is both omnipresent & omnipotent.
b] The definition of God is He is expanding His own Personal Energy to creat & maintain the Cosmos ---yet without any loss of creative/omnipotent powers.
c] The definition of God is He is present in three ways:
---Brahman (The Void);
---Param-atma (The localised nucleus/Soul of all animate & Inanimate things);
---Bhagavan (The original First person who is unlimitedlt full in ALL-Opulences) {this would be a Persona Suprema ~Not an Inanimate object};

ergo,

Hell is "seperation from the Supreme personality of Godhead, Krishna".
The seperation allows for free-will to travel anywhere one "presumes" to go.

Since, the mystery of Life is: The search for & the return to the inter-personal reciprocal pastimes in the association of: the Supreme personality of Godhead, Krishna.

To substitute anything or anyone else for the above maxim is Hell. yes, there are degrees of hellaciousness. We are free to explore all the varied life-forms [each of the 8,400,000 species of life engage in the same 4-Acts: Eat/Sleep/Mate/Defend] ---yet, the Souls are seeking the Supreme Personality of Godhead who is unlimitedly full in all (personal) **Opulences. ---since time-immemorial, we souls-in-the-material-world are seeking out this Coolest: **Richest, strongest, most beautiful, most intelligent, most famous & the most renounced [these are the 6-Opulences that God the Original Transcendent Person alone possesses in unlimited quantity & is also the originating reservior of all such 'Personal' opulences].

Crawling, slithering, flying, swimming, buzzing creatures along with all races of Humans are extensions/plenary expansions of the Original Persona ---Mankind is the anthropomorphised creations of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krishna.

How do I know this about the first Father of All Creation?
Mother Veda said so ---she said it via her disciplic succession without deviating from the blatant Absolute Truth. --thus there is no room to speculate as to what is the absolute truth of such matters.

Bhaktajan
 

smokydot

Well-Known Member
well i will have to disagree after allot of historical work in the gospels history
Synoptic Gospels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
this is a very vague start but shows how the gospels were formed and early works copied from one to the other including unknow authors.
im looking for a timeline that will show you what happened before we had the canonical gospels in place
Wikipedia is not authoritative. It just depends on who posted what there.
 

smokydot

Well-Known Member
POCM > The Triumph of Christianity > after christ, scholarship

Well, the original gospels didn't name the authors. The "authors' " names were actually first stuck on the gospels by a Catholic priest, named Papias of Hieraopolis, maybe (people argue) in the mid-second century. And Papias said that of the four gospelers, only Matthew knew Jesus—yet Matthew copies extensively from Mark, who never met Jesus.
But Mark was a close associate of Peter, and in a position to learn it all.
sorry for the junk link i cant find my trusted sources but this statement isnt far off
most of the rest is not factual or accurate so im not to sure about the above statement
im still searching
 

smokydot

Well-Known Member
heres what i learned a few months ago about the history of the gospels
theres this dead jesus cat, people start telling storys about him for a good 10 years before these storys get written down in eschatological material and son of man material, maybe 10-15 ish years after the cat is smoked, written down by a unknown author known as Q, maybe theres a thomas version attached to this that pops up 25 ish years later. 5 years ish pass since Qs original work and Q's work gets a little more work done known as late strada codified Q. NOW the earliest work of unknown author called mark start showing up on the scene a good 37 years after historical jesus was smoked. later on luke copies a little Q and a little mark. Mat copies a little Q which later turns out in a augmented mark in the second century. Throw in a little sercet mark and carporcration mark and WE FINALY GET canonical mark in which the NT is based
IF historical jesus appears in palestines as a self taught traveling teacher who is hated becauses hes cocky to the local religious leaders. He tells everyone gods kingdom is coming and because he is a hotshot miracle worker and tells people by this, the kingdom is already here. deemed a revolutionary and killed for theatening the authority of current religious leaders.
Rather immature understanding of the NT.
 
I have asked myself this question many times.
What I used to think of Hell is a place of evil, a lack of love. A place where bad people go who are tortured for the rest of their lives.
After reading a few articles online and peoples point of view on Hell, I have mixed messages.
1) Is that Hell is not a place, it's when you live a bad life sinning, without remorse etc and then dieing as an atheist person believes.
2) Hell has been created after Heaven for a place for people who lived a life of sinning etc, except it's just a place without God, it didn't really describe Hell as a negative place.

It's hard to explain what I've read.

What is Hell really?
I have heard that Hell was an actual place that existed just outside of Jewrusalem that was probably active when Jesus walked the earth. During this time, famine and disease were rampant and dead bodies were piling up in the street. Most people did not have the resources to properly bury or cremate their dead so the dead were collected enmasse and brought to this place called Hell to be burned. There were so many bodies to be burned that the burning went on 24/7, which obviously leads to the concept of "eternal hellfire". Those who ended up in Hell were mainly the poor who died of disease. It was believed that those who contracted disease did so because they were evil. So we can easily conclude where the concept that "when evil people die they go to Hell and burn eternally" came from.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
I have heard that Hell was an actual place that existed just outside of Jewrusalem that was probably active when Jesus walked the earth. During this time, famine and disease were rampant and dead bodies were piling up in the street. Most people did not have the resources to properly bury or cremate their dead so the dead were collected enmasse and brought to this place called Hell to be burned. There were so many bodies to be burned that the burning went on 24/7, which obviously leads to the concept of "eternal hellfire". Those who ended up in Hell were mainly the poor who died of disease. It was believed that those who contracted disease did so because they were evil. So we can easily conclude where the concept that "when evil people die they go to Hell and burn eternally" came from.


this is my belief as well.

you can search Gehenna wiki and learn all about it. Or the valley of hinnom wiki
 

outhouse

Atheistically
What baffles me is how this superstition that manifested from this place called Hell has survived so long.


Its blind faith in my opinion, The belief in something with no evidence.

That and you cant prove a myth doesnt exist. In my opinion
 
Its blind faith in my opinion, The belief in something with no evidence.

That and you cant prove a myth doesnt exist. In my opinion
Perhaps, but sadly, I believe it was intentionally preserved as a means to control the masses. Even more sad is that it seems to have worked quite well.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
IMHO, you have to be sophomoric to buy that kind of reasoning.


Not at all, written religion was created to reign in the pagans with fear and terror of vengeful god. [control the masses] back then political and religion were hand in hand.

Christians adapted to the hebrew religion with a new attitude to appeal to more then judean's with the same god. it was no easy task converting pagans
 
Top