Will Atheists & Polyheists burn in Hell according to Bible?

[Saint Frankenstein]

To the victors go the spoils, right?
So Christianity has blossomed into the largest religion in the world, thanks in part to a many number of Historical figures, not the least of which is Constantine. Does that size give validity to the Christian claim anymore so than Judaisms many years of existence give weight to it?

Just because Christianity is popular doesn't make it valid, right? And just because it claims to have a higher understanding of Jewish texts doesn't make it so, does it?
Why then is it allowed for Christianity to tell the actual writers of Talmud and Tanakh how to interpret their texts?

I don't recall making any claims on the basis of popularity, so I don't know what you're talking about.

While you can view them as having broken their covenant with god, what real authority do Christians have to make that claim, other than what they were taught about theology by the church fathers and the Pauline epistles?

And what authority do Jews have to make their claims about Christianity, aside from the interpretations of their rabbis? The scholarly view is that Rabbinic Judaism is actually younger than Christianity is and it just became the most popular form of it. So why do you uphold the claims of Jews over the claims of Christians? Have you studied the history of Judaism? Why do you accept the claims of Judaism at face value while dismissing those of Christianity? That's just anti-Christian prejudice.

The last part of your statement is absolutely right. And that's the whole point. Keep your traditions and your interpretations all you like. But don't try and tell others that their interpretation is flawed just because you don't like it.

Take your own advice and stop being hypocritical.

 

[Jainarayan]

I was referring to your ridiculous claim of cultural appropriation, paisan.

It's not cultural appropriation, nor did I claim it is, nor did I use the term. It's textual and scriptural misappropriation, misunderstanding and misuse of an ancient established scripture, and assigning new interpretations and meanings to it. It should be the commentaries of rabbinic scholars that are looked to for interpretations of the Tanakh, not popes, patriarchs and televangelists.

 

[Rick B]

True but one can also study the Vedas, the teaching of The Buddha, blavatsky's writing, the Tanakh, and more to get those universal truths, don't you think? IMO, the bible is not the only source of universal truths.

This statement is entirely nonsensical. If, as you say, all religions possess universal truths then why are those absolute truths so totally different in their teachings? For example the origin of the universe? Who Jesus was? The destination of mankind after death. Since you believe there is "no real concensus(sic) on wha(sic) hell is exactly. And I don't think there will ever be true concensus(sic)" and there is very, very little common ground within these religions, how can there be more than one source of "universal truth"? What is your final standard for saying "IMO, the bible is not the only source of universal truths."? There can be only one. For one who has read the Bible "in several versions and/or translations and also in the original Greek and Hebrew" and has "been studying the bible among other faiths and sacred books for about 3 decades, on a scholarly level the last 10", you know that the Bible makes universal truth claims. You should know that Scripture alone claims to be the only written revelation of the only true and living God. It claims that all others are false. It does not ask for a "consensus" of opinion. It demands full compliance to all its doctrines. For the Christian it is the final authority, the ultimate standard of truth, the supreme court of appeals. You've seen the assertions regarding death using the Bible to support their erroneous definitions. And yet with all of your study in the original languages you side with them on which you know, and on which I documented that "destroy" (in death) here (Matt.10:28 as well as Jn.3:15-16) is apollumi (ἀπόλλυμι) "The idea is not extinction but ruin, loss, not of being but of well-being". "The loss of well-being in the case of the unsaved hereafter" 3c Strong's Exhaustive Concordance see also TDNT-1:394, 67, BAGD-95a, THAYER-64c. As in-depth a student as you are it would be honest to state how the original Greek makes clear the meaning of the word "destroy" instead of willingly obfuscate for the purpose of perpetuating a false premise. You know full well that the Bible teaches a final place of blessing for the redeemed and a final place of punishment for the lost and yet you assert that the final destination of the lost (by whatever term used) was invented by Milton and Dante when Milton and Dante came some time later. This is disingenuous. There are really only two worldviews - Christian and non-Christian. The Christian rests his final authority on the written revelation of God in the Holy Scriptures. The non-Christian rests his final authority (can't be science for metaphysics cannot be observed) - well you yourself exhibited it when you chose to disregard God's revelation about "hell" when you said "have you ever worked in a maximum security prison? I have. I can think of no place more like hell than that". If you can't imagine it it cannot be true. You, and all non-Christians, make man the ultimate standard of what is true. So which is more "reasonable", every man believes what is right in his own eyes (subjective/relative truth) or God objectively reveals knowledge (justified true belief) generally in creation and in every man's conscience and specially in His written word?

 

[pro4life]

Yes, The origins of a burning place of torment is pagan and has no place in the bible.

“The Greek word Hades is sometimes, but misleadingly, translated “hell” in English ..... In from:
Religion and Spirituality: Hell: Origins of an Idea

Anyone can google up hell and get at the truth.

"Hell" is neither a Hebrew or a Greek word (both Old and New Testaments were written in those languages), nor did it primarily indicate "a place of torment." Biblical translators actually derived it from a secular German word - spelled hel - meaning nothing more than concealed or covered. The concept of a demon regulated horror-house was indeed derived from that word, but it actually evolved from Teutonic mythology.
^^^^^from:
Merciful Truth : The Origin of Hell
I do believe the wrod hel was used by druids to scare hell outa illiterates. Probably hell came into use about 1300 years after the bible texts were writen.
Rev. Rob Bell in his book LOVE WINS goes into detail about why hell ain't there, shouldn't be in any Christian bible.

Jehovah witness believe that Jesus will come and wipe out everybody except them.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It's not cultural appropriation, nor did I claim it is, nor did I use the term. It's textual and scriptural misappropriation, misunderstanding and misuse of an ancient established scripture, and assigning new interpretations and meanings to it. It should be the commentaries of rabbinic scholars that are looked to for interpretations of the Tanakh, not popes, patriarchs and televangelists.

No, there is no misappropriation. Christianity started as a Jewish Messianic religious movement. The early Christians were all Jews who recognized Christ as the Messiah. Rabbinic Judaism emerged after Christianity had already begun. Rabbinic Judaism grew out of the Pharisee movement, which was just one of many Jewish sects during the Second Temple period and Rabbinic Judaism is just the most widespread version of Judaism and even that is divided into various sects and movements. Then there's also Karaite Judaism, which rejects the Oral Law (Talmud).

So stop acting like Judaism is monolithic and that Rabbinical Judaism necessarily represents the Israelite religion. It ain't necessarily so!

 

[JoStories]

It's beautiful seeing all parts of every different religion in the bible, from the Christian, to Judaism, to Islam, to Buddism, to science, to philosophy, to nature, to universe, to them all. Also in most other religious texts. Same morals and meanings behind them all. Sorry if I've left some out, there are hundreds of thousands.

Agreed. My library has quite a number of them. The Egyptian book of the dead, the Tibetan teachings, and tons more. Strangely enough, one of my all time favorites is Paulo Coelho's The Valkyries.

 

[JoStories]

This statement is entirely nonsensical. If, as you say, all religions possess universal truths then why are those absolute truths so totally different in their teachings? For example the origin of the universe? Who Jesus was? The destination of mankind after death. Since you believe there is "no real concensus(sic) on wha(sic) hell is exactly. And I don't think there will ever be true concensus(sic)" and there is very, very little common ground within these religions, how can there be more than one source of "universal truth"? What is your final standard for saying "IMO, the bible is not the only source of universal truths."? There can be only one. For one who has read the Bible "in several versions and/or translations and also in the original Greek and Hebrew" and has "been studying the bible among other faiths and sacred books for about 3 decades, on a scholarly level the last 10", you know that the Bible makes universal truth claims. You should know that Scripture alone claims to be the only written revelation of the only true and living God. It claims that all others are false. It does not ask for a "consensus" of opinion. It demands full compliance to all its doctrines. For the Christian it is the final authority, the ultimate standard of truth, the supreme court of appeals. You've seen the assertions regarding death using the Bible to support their erroneous definitions. And yet with all of your study in the original languages you side with them on which you know, and on which I documented that "destroy" (in death) here (Matt.10:28 as well as Jn.3:15-16) is apollumi (ἀπόλλυμι) "The idea is not extinction but ruin, loss, not of being but of well-being". "The loss of well-being in the case of the unsaved hereafter" 3c Strong's Exhaustive Concordance see also TDNT-1:394, 67, BAGD-95a, THAYER-64c. As in-depth a student as you are it would be honest to state how the original Greek makes clear the meaning of the word "destroy" instead of willingly obfuscate for the purpose of perpetuating a false premise. You know full well that the Bible teaches a final place of blessing for the redeemed and a final place of punishment for the lost and yet you assert that the final destination of the lost (by whatever term used) was invented by Milton and Dante when Milton and Dante came some time later. This is disingenuous. There are really only two worldviews - Christian and non-Christian. The Christian rests his final authority on the written revelation of God in the Holy Scriptures. The non-Christian rests his final authority (can't be science for metaphysics cannot be observed) - well you yourself exhibited it when you chose to disregard God's revelation about "hell" when you said "have you ever worked in a maximum security prison? I have. I can think of no place more like hell than that". If you can't imagine it it cannot be true. You, and all non-Christians, make man the ultimate standard of what is true. So which is more "reasonable", every man believes what is right in his own eyes (subjective/relative truth) or God objectively reveals knowledge (justified true belief) generally in creation and in every man's conscience and specially in His written word?

You are welcome to your opinion but I don't agree. And in fact, the truths found in all of the books do have many commonalities. The teachings of Christ were far from new. And many of the stories in the Bible have older roots, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh, the story of Horus and Osiris, etc. a nirvana type of place after death is also not new and many faiths, a goodly deal that predate the Bible have places like heaven after death. Why must there be only one source of truth? Are you willing to limit the ability of God? Why could God not make itself known to many cultures and faiths. I don't know that the Bible is the 'one true source'. I know there are many sources. The idea that there are only two world views; Chrisitian versus non-Christian lets me know that you have no interest in finding truth from any other place, even considering that maybe, just maybe, there are other world views out there that can have as much truth for the person involved in that faith. That statement alone insults all of the Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Hindu, pagan, and so on, posters on this board who are a part of those non-Christian faiths. I will leave aside the obviously insulting tone of your post and chalk it up to zealousness for your faith. However, don't think for one minute that we agree here. Because we clearly don't. I wish you peace on your journey.

 

[psychoslice]

Of course its all a stupid story, there is no hell, no fire, its all in your head, clear your head from all this superstation and you will be free.

 

[jonathan180iq]

One shouldn't live their lives ignorant to the fact that they didn't have the freewill to create themselves, the circumstances they've been placed in, the ability that they have, or the knowledge they possess while another is in much poorer and has worse circumstances. This wasn't freewill or ones choice, or what one has earned themselves. An ignorant and vain, selfish Hollywood star could be the polar opposite in their next life.

If people don't have freewill to create the states that their lives are in currently, then what good is the concept of reincarnation or recurring life-cycles? If someone achieves a higher level of living in this life, only to be randomly selected for who-knows-what in the next life, then what motivation is there to actually be good other than one's own desire to do so?

 

[jonathan180iq]

First of all, the concept of hell is never going to be objective as it's entirely allegorical.

Exactly.

Example; Santa Claus is delivering gifts each Christmas Eve. Millions if not billions of kids believe that but can anyone prove it? I guess the real question, at least for me, is why there is no real concensus on wha hell is exactly.

Yes. It would be quite easy to prove. The mythos of Santa Claus is a continually perpetuated lie that we adults engage in. Even though every single one of us know the truth, we keep it up. If we all suddenly stopped the game, and just sat through the night with our children, wishing really really hard for santa to come down the chimney, no one would receive any gifts. The Santa analogy is very easy to disprove. The same is true of every other religious belief, but no one likes to talk about that.

Anytime something is left up to the whims of subjectivity, there isn't going to be a consensus on it. There are 8 billion people in this world and, thus, 8 billion subjective realities; the concept of Hell is just one of them. Objectively, there is no such thing, other than what we invent behind the cranial wall.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I don't recall making any claims on the basis of popularity, so I don't know what you're talking about.

I never said that you did. I'm interjecting my own thought to explain the thought process. Read it again.

And what authority do Jews have to make their claims about Christianity, aside from the interpretations of their rabbis? The scholarly view is that Rabbinic Judaism is actually younger than Christianity is and it just became the most popular form of it. So why do you uphold the claims of Jews over the claims of Christians? Have you studied the history of Judaism? Why do you accept the claims of Judaism at face value while dismissing those of Christianity? That's just anti-Christian prejudice.

I didn't say that they did. I don't uphold the claims of the Jews of the Christians or vice versa. I'm asking why it happens in the first place. Change the name of the belief system, and the question is still valid.

Take your own advice and stop being hypocritical.

What is hypocritical? These belief systems are separate bastardizations of their original versions. What gives them, or any other religion, for that matter the authority or justification to criticize another?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I never said that you did. I'm interjecting my own thought to explain the thought process. Read it again.



I didn't say that they did. I don't uphold the claims of the Jews of the Christians or vice versa. I'm asking why it happens in the first place. Change the name of the belief system, and the question is still valid.


What is hypocritical? These belief systems are separate bastardizations of their original versions. What gives them, or any other religion, for that matter the authority or justification to criticize another?

Well, now you're changing the conversation completely. At least you're being fair, I guess. Lol.

 

[Rick B]

You are welcome to your opinion but I don't agree. And in fact, the truths found in all of the books do have many commonalities. The teachings of Christ were far from new. And many of the stories in the Bible have older roots, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh, the story of Horus and Osiris, etc. a nirvana type of place after death is also not new and many faiths, a goodly deal that predate the Bible have places like heaven after death. Why must there be only one source of truth? Are you willing to limit the ability of God? Why could God not make itself known to many cultures and faiths. I don't know that the Bible is the 'one true source'. I know there are many sources. The idea that there are only two world views; Chrisitian versus non-Christian lets me know that you have no interest in finding truth from any other place, even considering that maybe, just maybe, there are other world views out there that can have as much truth for the person involved in that faith. That statement alone insults all of the Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Hindu, pagan, and so on, posters on this board who are a part of those non-Christian faiths. I will leave aside the obviously insulting tone of your post and chalk it up to zealousness for your faith. However, don't think for one minute that we agree here. Because we clearly don't. I wish you peace on your journey.

Your statement, here, is misleading: "many of the stories in the Bible have older roots, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh". There is a cataclysmic flood referred to in this poem written ca 2100 BC. However the judgment of the flood in Noah's day began approximately 2348 BC so "the Epic of Gilgamesh" does not have "older roots". The story of Horus and Osiris? Really? Seriously? You studied this myth right? It has been thoroughly refuted as having any roots in actual fact. But I want to focus on your assertion: "The teachings of Christ were far from new." How you could be so familiar with the Biblical text as well as many other world religions and present this proposition is bewildering. Not only were His teachings new, His claims were absolutely unique. "The claims of Jesus were astonishing. They were shocking. They were beyond bold. They were really outrageous claims...Jesus said that he had come down from heaven, that he had eternally existed, that he had been sent into the world by the Father. He claimed to be the savior of the world and the only savior of the world. He claimed to be the determiner of everyone's eternal destiny. He claimed to be the source of everlasting life, and the only source. He claimed to be the only way to God. He claimed to have the right to be honored and worshiped on an equal basis with the eternal God. He claimed to be one with the Father. He claimed to have the power to give life and even to raise the dead. He claimed to be able to raise himself from the dead. He claimed to be the one of whom the Old Testament Scripture spoke and the one who was the main subject of the Old Testament. He claimed to be the supreme judge of all men who would one day judge them all at this return in glory. He claimed to be without sin. He claimed to have all authority in heaven and earth. He claimed to be able to forgive sins legitimately, to have both the power and the authority to do that. He claimed to rule over the Sabbath. He claimed to have the right to answer prayer. He claimed to be greater than the temple, greater than Jonah, greater than Solomon, greater than Jacob, greater than Abraham. He claimed to have been alive before Abraham even was born. He claimed to be the only source of soul sustenance, the only bread that could feed the soul. He claimed to be the light of the world. He claimed to be the resurrection and the life. He claimed to be the anointed one, the Christ, the Messiah, claimed to the be son of God. He claimed that he had the privilege and one day would enter into that privilege of being seated at the right hand of God to reign forever." Thank you John MacArthur
I challenge you to present valid comparisons from other religions to Jesus' claims.

You ask: "Why could God not make itself known to many cultures and faiths." It is best, when referring to the Christian God, that you represent Him as His followers do. With the personal pronouns. If one does not wish to refer to the personal God of Christianity but an impersonal "god" then the word "god" should should not be capitalized and then one can use "it" or "itself" to describe it. To answer your question - He did: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures."

One last remark. I stated that there are only two worldviews Christian and non-Christian. I need to further explain as believers and unbelievers. Unbelievers can be put into two classes - Atheists (who reject any God or gods. Although I would argue that Atheism is religious) and all non-Christian religions. There are two types of non-Christian religions. Paganism or Polytheism which has many gods but all are limited, none that are sovereign. All other religions are variations of an unbelieving worldview under religious colors. So you have the unbelieving worldview which teaches certain things about existence not referring to religion (Atheists). And unbelievers that explain existence through religion but they are all part of the same unbelieving worldview. Only Christianity has an absolute, personal God.

Finally, if there are any similarities among any of the non-Christian religions with Christianity it is because they have borrowed from its teachings. Not only that but even though Gentiles (all non-Jews) did not receive the 10 Commandments written in stone, all men have received God's moral law written in their hearts. The Code of Hammurabi is a fine example ca 1754 BC. The Ten Commandments ca 1446 BC. While, of course the are not even close to being identical moral laws were and are shown to be inscribed in our nature. "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them." Christian theism began when the personal God created a personal man and brought him into covenant with Himself. Man broke that covenant resulting in the downward spiral and suppression of revealed knowledge mentioned above. And which, of course, has been demonstrated in this discussion.

 

[Augustus]

Just discovered that in Muslim hell you become a giant to maximise the surface area available for burning [they don't quite agree how big though]:

"The molar of the kaafir or the eye-tooth of the kaafir, will be like Uhud [a mountain], and the thickness of his skin will be like a journey of three (days)". (Muslim)

"The kaafir's skin will be forty-two cubits thick [27 meters] and his molar will be like Uhud and the space he occupies will be as wide as the distance between Makkah
and Madinah." (Tirmidhi)

You also get a buffet [again they aren't quite sure of the dishes served]:

Az-Zaqqum: Allah says: "Verily the tree of Zaqqum will be the food of the sinful, like molten brass, it will boil in their insides, like the boiling of scalding water." (44:43-46). The Messenger of Allah (salAllahu `alaihi wa sallam) said: "If one drop from Az-Zaqqum were to land on this world, the people of earth and all their means of sustenance would be destroyed. So how must it be for the one who must eat it?" [Tirmidhi]

Al-Ghasleen and al-Ghassaaq [festering pus that oozes out of the skin of the people of Hell]. Allah (subhanu wa ta'ala) says: "So no friend has he here this Day, Nor has he any food except corruption [or filth] from the washing of wounds [al-Ghasleen], which none do eat but those in sin". (69:35-37)

 

[atpollard]

The idea of people burning in hell is post-Biblical. There are some places in the Bible where you can read that belief back onto the text and it almost seems to work, but it's not a belief that the authors of the Bible held. It developed over some time later, through oral myth.

This is not a challenge, just a question:
Wasn't there a lot written in one of the Apocryphal books on hell and torture and burning?
I was just under the impression that it was part of the Septuagint ... making it both available in the First Century common pool of thoughts and pre-Biblical.

[But it was just third hand information and I never bothered to read any of the Apocrypha ... so I am asking.]

 

[jonathan180iq]

However the judgment of the flood in Noah's day began approximately 2348 BC

You've stepped into a hole that most creationists are wise enough to avoid...

Now that you've dated the flood, you've opened the entire concept up for scrutiny, the least of which being that recorded Egyptian culture runs happily along through that time period without ever slowing down. The Pyramids at Giza, even, predate your "flood".

Ancient Egyptian Timeline - Menu

There's no geologic evidence for a flood of that scale, at all. None. Not even a little bit.

Also, please note that the absolute oldest reference to "Israel" in antiquity comes from 1200 BCE, as evidenced in the Merneptah Stele

Merneptah Stele - Merneptah Stele - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is no evidence to it prior to that period. Sumerian texts, on the other hand, are evidenced with actualy physical artifacts and have been dated as late as the 26th century BCE. Which, as math will tell you, is from a time period before the supposed Biblical flood of Noah. They prospered right up until their demise, around 2100 BCE. Again, there is evidence of them existing prior to and even after this supposed flood date. Directly after the end of the Sumerians, we see the Babylonian influence start it's expansion, around 1800 BCE. Please note that Israel, as mentioned, doesn't show up as being evidenced for another 600 years, and there's no physical link to their culture until 700-500 BCE, which is 1300 years after the Babylonian expansion... Coincidentally, this time period also matches the absolute oldest evidence for the Torah's existence, the Ketef Hinnom, from 600 BCE...

Ketef Hinnom - Ketef Hinnom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, archaeologically and historically, Judaism (and the root ideas behind your religious texts) developed sometime between 1200 - 600 BCE.

You can make all the claims that you want about the Bible giving an accurate Historical account of humanity, from the beginning of time to the present, or whatever. But it's simply an unsupported and unsubstantiated claim. It's nothing more than wishful thinking. To deny that Judaism and Christianity are simply evolutions of previous forms of earlier Mesopotamian religions is to lack even a basic understanding of history.

 

[JoStories]

KenB wrote: The story of Horus and Osiris? Really? Seriously? You studied this myth right? It has been thoroughly refuted as having any roots in actual fact.

I would suggest you read a book by Harper called the Pagan Christ. Not only is the story of Horus and his mother Isis, a clear precursor to the Biblical Christ, it was-- the story of Horus, called Christos. But let's compare some of the older myths that led to what you said next:

But I want to focus on your assertion: "The teachings of Christ were far from new." How you could be so familiar with the Biblical text as well as many other world religions and present this proposition is bewildering. Not only were His teachings new, His claims were absolutely unique. "The claims of Jesus were astonishing. They were shocking. They were beyond bold

Are you aware of a book called the Egyptian Book of the Dead? Let's compare some of the writings from that book to the assertions of your Bible.
"God is one and alone and none other is existence but Him"
"God is the one creator who made all things"
God is from the beginning ...He was when nothing else had being" (Harper, 2007)
Further on in that same book, as aforementioned, Harper states the Horus was considered the same as Jesus was later on in history. IOW, "the being that is both God and man". seems pretty clear to me. From the Vedas (Circa 3000 BCE) God is seen as a trinity. And "The Virtues" contained in the Rig Veda are clear parallels to the ten commandments. IE: Respect for the sanctity of life, Thou shalt not kill, etc.
Getting back to the Epic of Gilgamesh, it has clear parallels to many of the BIbles myths, such as the Garden of Eden, the flood, and the creation of Eve from Adam's rib. The tablets are set at about 2000 BCE, which is LONG before the NT. And the Torah has been roughly dated to about 1400 BCE. Consider that ALL of the NT is dated well after the turning of the centuries to CE.

You ask: "Why could God not make itself known to many cultures and faiths." It is best, when referring to the Christian God, that you represent Him as His followers do. With the personal pronouns. If one does not wish to refer to the personal God of Christianity but an impersonal "god" then the word "god" should should not be capitalized and then one can use "it" or "itself" to describe it.

You, sir, do not dictate how I refer to God, as I know that concept. And that is as far as I am willing to go with this. I typically do not read diatribes of that length as I have no time for it.

 

[JoStories]

You've stepped into a hole that most creationists are wise enough to avoid...

Now that you've dated the flood, you've opened the entire concept up for scrutiny, the least of which being that recorded Egyptian culture runs happily along through that time period without ever slowing down. The Pyramids at Giza, even, predate your "flood".

Ancient Egyptian Timeline - Menu

There's no geologic evidence for a flood of that scale, at all. None. Not even a little bit.

Also, please note that the absolute oldest reference to "Israel" in antiquity comes from 1200 BCE, as evidenced in the Merneptah Stele

Merneptah Stele - Merneptah Stele - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is no evidence to it prior to that period. Sumerian texts, on the other hand, are evidenced with actualy physical artifacts and have been dated as late as the 26th century BCE. Which, as math will tell you, is from a time period before the supposed Biblical flood of Noah. They prospered right up until their demise, around 2100 BCE. Again, there is evidence of them existing prior to and even after this supposed flood date. Directly after the end of the Sumerians, we see the Babylonian influence start it's expansion, around 1800 BCE. Please note that Israel, as mentioned, doesn't show up as being evidenced for another 600 years, and there's no physical link to their culture until 700-500 BCE, which is 1300 years after the Babylonian expansion... Coincidentally, this time period also matches the absolute oldest evidence for the Torah's existence, the Ketef Hinnom, from 600 BCE...

Ketef Hinnom - Ketef Hinnom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, archaeologically and historically, Judaism (and the root ideas behind your religious texts) developed sometime between 1200 - 600 BCE.

You can make all the claims that you want about the Bible giving an accurate Historical account of humanity, from the beginning of time to the present, or whatever. But it's simply an unsupported and unsubstantiated claim. It's nothing more than wishful thinking. To deny that Judaism and Christianity are simply evolutions of previous forms of earlier Mesopotamian religions is to lack even a basic understanding of history.

Thank you Jonathan. I just posted a rather lenthy reply to Ken regarding this whole topic. I cannot fathom someone denying the obvious faiths and myths that formed the Bible as having clear and irrefutable sources.

 

[Vishvavajra]

This is not a challenge, just a question:
Wasn't there a lot written in one of the Apocryphal books on hell and torture and burning?
I was just under the impression that it was part of the Septuagint ... making it both available in the First Century common pool of thoughts and pre-Biblical.

[But it was just third hand information and I never bothered to read any of the Apocrypha ... so I am asking.]

Depends what you mean by "apocrypha" and also what you mean by "hell." I don't think it's there in the deuterocanonical works, which is what most Protestants mean when they say "apocrypha" (i.e. "the stuff traditional Christians accepted as part of the Bible but we don't"). It's there in non-canonical works that postdate the NT, such as the Apocalypse of Peter, which is a 2nd century text that some considered holy scripture but that didn't end up in the Bible.

In some earlier non-canonical works you have the idea of Gehenna, which appears in the Gospels as well, since the Gospel authors were familiar with that strain of thought in their day and referred to it frequently. For example, in Enoch there is the idea that Shamyaza, Azazel, and the other rogue angels will be imprisoned underground until the day of judgement, at which point they will be cast into a pit of fire to be destroyed. There's no mention in that part of its being used as a punishment for mortals, who are going to be perfected post-Flood. Nor is it some kind of eternal torture; the assumption is that burning something (or someone) destroys them utterly.

The metaphor at work is that "Gehenna" refers to a place where refuse was burned (i.e. in order to get rid of it). So Jesus is often depicted as talking about this and that being thrown into the fires of Gehenna, as one might deal with garbage. Unfortunately, translators have been pretty terrible about rendering Gehenna as hell, which is very misleading. They also render Hades as hell, which is not a term that is used interchangeably with Gehenna, as it refers to the typical Mediterranean underworld where the dead of all sorts dwell. However, early Christians used this concept in creative ways, since "death" was for them a term of some mystical significance, not just a way of referring to the cessations of physiological processes.

If you're looking for anything resembling the view of hell that many Christians have in mind today, I don't think you're going to find it prior to the 2nd century. And even then it's in the form of apocalyptic literature and therefore definitely not meant to be taken at face value. What I guess happened is that medieval people got to be so stubbornly literal-minded that they took both the kingdom of heaven and its counterpart hell to be literal places apart from this world. Then they imagined that the whole point of religion was getting to one of those places after the death of the body. Very alien concept from the point of view of 1st century Jews like Jesus & co.

 

[Vishvavajra]

You can believe whatever you like but why would Jesus suggest in his parable that people are tormented in hell instead of destroyed like you suggest in the first place? Why are there multiple verses that threaten that the wicked will endure eternal punishment? Isn't that a VERY odd way to say someone will be destroyed, killed, erased, annihilated? ... There is a verse that compares hell to a furnace and clearly states the people thrown there will weep and gnash their teeth. There is another verse about hell, contributed to jesus I believe, were he says something about the worm will never die, basically saying in poetic fashion that those condemned to hell will endure it forever. ... Its great that you don't want to believe in or worship a god that would torture people but the god described in the bible is a god that wouldn't think twice about torturing people. The god of the bible isn't a nice guy, sorry.

Well, there are a lot of assumptions that go into those readings, and those assumptions aren't necessarily correct, even if they've got the weight of centuries behind them. After all, Christianity is basically about how most people can indeed be wrong most of the time. And it's not as if Christians are magically immune to that.

The references to the fires that never stop burning don't actually say that the trash being burned in Gehenna never stops feeling it. Those are two separate issues. Nor is the reference to the furnace and the gnashing of teeth a reference to hell as Christians would later imagine it.

I could probably address all of those examples if I had a lot more time on my hands, but instead I'll cut through it all and ask a more pertinent question: are we meant to understand that it's God who is causing those torments, or are the torments understood to be the normal state of existence for those who are lost in delusion?

I ask because people often make that mistake with regard to Buddhist myths about hell, thinking that they represent a threat of punishment after death. But really they're meant to resonate with people's experience of the hardship of life when one feels alone and helpless, when the pain seems to have no end in sight. Buddhism doesn't need to threaten people because it assumes that people will already understand that the average person's life is fraught with pain and sorrow. It says, "here is how things are now, but there is a better way."

What does that have to do with early Christian thought? Well, it's not really so different. If you don't think that weeping and gnashing of teeth is a typical Hellenistic way of looking at life as it is, then you haven't read enough Greek literature. Pessimism was pretty much the rule. There was no need for threats, since life was already hell for most people, and they didn't imagine it would get any better after death. Possibly worse. What the early Christians are selling is an idea that the world is in fact a perfected paradise as foretold in the Messianic prophecies, but people don't see it because they first have to transform themselves. And if they don't, then they won't ever see it, and the cycles of pain and suffering will just go on and on forever. That's not God inflicting punishment on people; it's people continuing to perceive reality in a way that makes the world equivalent to hell. But as the parable of the prodigal son points out, it's never too late to come around.

A lot of the confusion comes from assuming that "death" (and subsequent "resurrection") refers strictly to the cessation of physiological processes. That reading doesn't hold up if you actually look at how the NT authors use those words, often with respect to living people. They're metaphors for a mystery that they couldn't express directly because of the limitations of the language. Focusing on death and the afterlife is a gross distortion of the early Christian message, one that has unfortunately plagued mainstream Christianity for a very long time.