Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hell is a strong Orthodox Christian Dogma, but are there any reasons to doubt it as a place of everlasting torture? Well, maybe…
The oldest Gospel we have is Mark. The Sinai Bible version of Mark is the oldest copy that we have which dates to about 380 AD or 350 years after Jesus’ death and about 50 years after the first meeting of the Counsel of Nicene. We have no originals of any Biblical texts, just copies of copies.
I use Sinai Mark as the standard Gospel to look for all potential truths about Jesus and the “Gospel”. Matthew and Luke have verbatim copies of Mark in them and were written much later and are greatly embellished with respect to Mark. The Gospel of John was written even later than these and seems radically different in both style, content and doctrine. BTW, Sinai Mark ends at verse 16:8. There is no Great Commission or Great Condemnation.
The verses in Mark 9:43-48 seem to describe “hell” as a place of Eternal Torture but verses 44, 46 and 48 (“where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched”) are NOT in the Sinai Bible! They were later copied directly from part of Isaiah 66:24 and added. Some scholars think Isaiah 66 refers to the New Heaven and New Earth of Revelation 21. Unfortunately, Isaiah 66:24 is describing a future time and place after the enemies of God have been destroyed and the bodies of the DEAD are being consumed by worms and huge cremation fires.
Notice that neither the verses in Mark nor the verses in Isaiah describe zombies screaming in agony – they are dead bodies! The “unextinguished fire” in Mark 9:43 was a contemporary description of Gehenna as its fires were typically burning all the time. Gehenna was a loathsome place and it was an extreme dishonor to have your dead body thrown there instead of receiving a proper Jewish burial.
Jews in Jesus’ day did not believe in “hell” or a place of endless torture nor do they believe in it today. Jesus was the first person to refer to God as His Heavenly Father. Orthodoxy wants you to believe He was also the inventor of the concept of eternal torture, ET.
I simply don’t believe that Jesus invented ET and I think Sinai Mark is at least one “smoking gun” that the Dogma of Hell was the clever invention of the RCC and also the primary reason to Canonize the Book of Revelation. Why? Fear and Control of the unwashed masses and the perpetuation of the Priesthood.
Grace & Peace, John
Since Sinaiatic Mark is just a copy why put so much emphasis on this piece of documentation. All other copies are just as relevant even if they are post dated from this (believing that this is the oldest copy of any book of the NT) text.
If we look at the Semetic origins of Matthew for instance (Also see here):
[CENTER][CENTER]Semitic origins of the Book of Matthew[/CENTER]
[CENTER]By: Jeff A. Benner[/CENTER][/CENTER]
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
[CENTER][CENTER]Historical Quotations[/CENTER][/CENTER]
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
[CENTER]Papias (150-170 CE) - Matthew composed the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each translated as he was able.
[/CENTER]
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
[CENTER]Ireneus (170 CE) - Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.
[/CENTER]
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
[CENTER]Origen (210 CE) - The first [Gospel] is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an apoltle of Jesus Christ who having published it for the Jewish believers, wrote it in Hebrew.
[/CENTER]
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
[CENTER]Eusebius (315 CE) - Matthew also, having first proclaimed the Gospel in Hebrew, when on the point of going also to the other nations, committed it to writing in his native tongue, and thus supplied the want of his presence to them by his writings.
[/CENTER]
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
[CENTER]Epiphanius (370 CE) - They [The Nazarenes] have the Gospel according to Matthew quite complete in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still preserved among them as it was first written, in Hebrew letters.
[/CENTER]
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
[CENTER]Jerome ( 382 CE) - Matthew, who is also Levi, and from a tax collectore came to be an Apostle first of all evangelists composed a Gospel of Christ in Judea in the Hebrew language and letters, for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed, who translated it into Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian cityof Borea to copy it. In which is to be remarked that, wherever the evangelist.... makes use of the testimonies of the Old Scripture, he does not follow the authority of the seventy translators, but that of the Hebrew
[/CENTER]
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
[CENTER]Isho'dad (850 CE) - His [Matthew's] book was in existence in Caesarea of Palestine, and everyone acknowledges that he wrote it with his hands in Hebrew.
[/CENTER]
Benner does a good job of compiling the above quotes.
Do you think that over the course of time these men who studied the original Hebrew text of the book of Matthew would note that a latter copy was in error? Even the above reference to the 70 does not say that the 70 was miss quoted or in error, but just that the Hebrew original was prefered.
So by reason alone we cannot hold to the Siniatic book of Mark alone as a sole authority over the scriptures of the NT. We must stand in the confidence that the NT was kept intact and unaltered by the sheer number of people that were looking at it, quoting it and using it as scripture. Since scripture wasn't determined by the nicean council, but what scripture was being used was listed.
Therefore the theology of Hell was not an after creation, but was part of the very fabric of the teachings of Jesus Christ and of the early Church.
The exclusivity statement, allegedly made by Jesus, occurs only once and in The Gospel of John which was written generations after Mark and is radically different in it’s theological impact. To me, it looks like it was written to sure up three important Dogmas of the RCC: 1) Jesus was God-in-the-Flesh (not just God’s Anointed), 2) the Trinity and 3) Jesus was the only way to God.
The verse in question is John 14:6. It is a direct response to Thomas’ question about knowing “the way”. Thomas asks in John 14:5, “how can we (disciples) know the way”. If Jesus is answering Thomas’ question specifically, then it is possible that Jesus is talking about the Disciples themselves. In context, Jesus is comforting Peter, after telling him that he (Peter) would deny Him (Jesus) three times (end of Chapter 13). It seems odd that Jesus would make such a profound, World-Wide, Dogma creating statement such as this in a consoling and intimate setting. In addition, nothing like this statement occurs in the three synoptic Gospels.
Now, in contrast and focusing again on the oldest Gospel, Mark, we find these verses in Mark 9:38-41.
“And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he follows not us: and we forbad him, because he followed not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part. For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because you belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.
Look at how ecumenical this teaching is!
But what does the phrase “in my name” mean. In Jewish culture, and to mostly the same extent today, the phrase means “by authority vested in one’s moral character and practice, or in a legal writ or standard. Also “in my name” is essentially the same as “for my sake” or “in deference to me” or “out of respect to me” or “to honor me”.
Now look at what Paul writes in Romans 2:14-15. Paul says that when the Gentiles do good, it’s because “… the work of the law written in their (gentile) hearts…” I wonder who does this writing? It is God’s Spirit!
Jesus said He always did the work of God (our Father) and always pointed to God. How can we dismiss good works that honor God as per Jesus, no matter where they come from or who does them? I don’t think we can!
So, is it a stretch to say that all good deeds are God inspired? No, I think they are! The fundamental meaning of the word “good” is “God-like”. So if you accept that all goodness honors Jesus and therefore our Father, how can Christians claim that they have the market cornered on all truth and goodness?
I can’t, I don’t and I won’t.
I think the Church’s mission should be Welfare, Counseling and Spiritual growth or maturity – not a Militaristic “Conquer the World” mind set, which has destroyed indigenous cultures (much of it harmless) and caused millions of deaths of mostly innocent people. Religious education should be voluntary.
But, that’s just me. If none of this makes any sense to you, so be it. We can agree to disagree. If it does, well, I guess that means you are not a Christian (like me?).
Finally, I put forth this Topic on a Religion and Philosophy Thread – not a Christian Thread in the hopes that a different, if not liberal, view of Evangelism might be viable. I was trying to address the issues that have been so divisive and damaging to the Christian Faith over the millennia and the primary reasons why so many have rejected it and are continuing to do so.
Many Christians view this falling away as a fulfillment of prophecy and even a badge of honor.
Since Sinaiatic Mark is just a copy why put so much emphasis on this piece of documentation.
Because they are older, discovered in the last 150 years and are so different in what they don’t contain. For example, Today’s Gospel of Luke has almost 10,000 more words than the Sinai Bible version of Luke. What happened to those originals? The RCC destroyed them so they could add or subtract what they needed to support their Dogmas.
I know of the Great Commission, but I prefer to work on salary.
Look...all that reference to "where their worm dieth not and the flame is never quenched"....that is a reference to Gehenna. The concept of hell did not/does not exist in the Old Testament. Sheol does not equal hell. It is the grave...literally the grave. Like sheol, Gehenna also does not equate to hell. The first time Jesus spoke of Gehenna was in the Sermon on the Mount, where he warned that calling someone a fool could place them in Gehenna. Jesus, as you know, spoke in parables. When mentioning Gehenna to his audience of the day, they certainly did not attribute a place of eternal damnation to it. Rather, they knew Gehenna to be the garbage dump of Jerusalem...where the worm does not die and the fire is never quenched. Jesus warned the Jews many times of impending destruction, both nationally and individually. The listening Jews understood the symbolism Jesus used with Gehenna. Twelve times Gehenna is mentioned in the New Testament. Remember, in addition to being the garbage dump for the Jews of the day, it also meant a place of burning. Gehenna was also a place where rebellious Jews had been slaughtered before and would be again if they didn't repent. This all had to do with earthly judgments from G-d...not some eternal torment. Translators of Greek texts into the Latin Vulgate turned Gehenna into hell, which of course, supported Roman theology.
Now you can dispute this all you want, but it doesn't change the historical veracity of it.
Last edited by Fullback32; 06-10-2009 at 01:23 PM..
Because they are older, discovered in the last 150 years and are so different in what they don’t contain. For example, Today’s Gospel of Luke has almost 10,000 more words than the Sinai Bible version of Luke. What happened to those originals? The RCC destroyed them so they could add or subtract what they needed to support their Dogmas.
The bible did not evolve and change over time. So your theory of older being more true is invalid. We are not seeing the evolution of the bible fossilized in time with each copy.
The bible did not evolve and change over time. So your theory of older being more true is invalid. We are not seeing the evolution of the bible fossilized in time with each copy.
Oh, I think the Bible very much did evolve over time!
Quote:
The RCC never destroyed them. This is absurd.
OK, where did the originals go? Why didn't God protect them if they were so important and perfect? The RCC has a proven track record of sanitizing writings and people who cross it. There were no checks and balances. They were "under the gun", so to speak, and were following the command of the Roman Government. They had absolute power over the very definition of Orthodoxy.
An altogether disagreeable scenario when pursuing the truth, methinks.
Yep...there's absolutely no question about that. You'll never convince him of it despite all the historical data and physical proof out there though.
I know and it’s ok. I can agree to disagree.
Dude! “32” is OJ’s number! Hope you are not wearing a Jersey that he’s looking for! But he wasn’t a Full Back. If you are Jim Brown’s “32” you should be safe!
Dude! “32” is OJ’s number! Hope you are not wearing a Jersey that he’s looking for! But he wasn’t a Full Back. If you are Jim Brown’s “32” you should be safe!
G&P,John
Nah, that is in honor of Walt Garrison...my favorite Dallas Cowboy of all time.
It's ok to disagree. Wouldn't life be boring if we all thought alike? What would we talk about?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hope you are not wearing a Jersey that he’s looking for! But he wasn’t a Full Back.
If you are Jim Brown’s “32” you should be safe!
