|
Post by Josh on Jan 17, 2010 21:40:49 GMT -8
So, my question, yeshuafreak, is:
An allegory for what?
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jan 18, 2010 12:22:05 GMT -8
That involves a string of topics-- is there a resurrection, what is the nature of god, etc-- because these all influence what I think hell is. When i get done answering the questions on those topics, i will answer this one so that I can reference to the other threads concerning the other topics rather than repeating my beliefs.
-john
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 18, 2010 13:21:45 GMT -8
OK.
BTW, do you mean allegory or metaphor?
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jan 22, 2010 20:05:34 GMT -8
I don't know... i forgot the difference between the two. I will put it this way:
I don't believe hell is a "place" (even in the spiritual sense) one's soul goes after death.
-john
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 22, 2010 21:51:07 GMT -8
An allegory is a symbolic story that doesn't stand alone apart from the elements in the real world which it symoblizes.
For instance, Pilgrim's Progress. The story itself doesn't have intrinsic realism- with characters such as Christian, Worldly Wise Man, and towns such as Vanity Fair, it only makes sense insofar as it symoblizes spiritual truths from the real world.
A story like Lord of the Rings, on the other hand, is not an allegory, though it does employ more subtle symbolism and provides metaphors applicable to real life.
Anyway, back to the topic- do you think that when the authors of Scripture wrote about hell (or heaven) they did not intend their readers to understand them as literal places of existence after the judgment?
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jan 24, 2010 13:16:31 GMT -8
Sometimes. There are writers who I think genuinely believed in a place of torment for the unrighteous. But I do not think- even if you believe in scriptural infallibility- that means that is true.
Even a person who believes in infallibility doctrine does not believe that what the author intended to write that is infallible, but what was actually written. And therefore, we can interpret hell according to the revelation given to us.
That might be a little confusing. Disregard it if it is.
Anyway, people in the OT did not believe in Satan as we do now, so you have to bring ijn the doctrine of "progressive revelation." What if the progressive revelation for hell was: literal place of torment--> state of tormented mind?
-John
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 24, 2010 17:08:21 GMT -8
Most of the discussion in the Bible about hell comes from Jesus, and even if one accepts your point that what some writers of Scripture mean literally need not be taken literally, if one holds Jesus to be the "exact representation of the Father", it seems that in His case at least his intentions would match the inspired meaning.
If hell is to be seen as a state of mind, then a couple follow up questions:
1) What does that make of heaven, or more specifically the Resurrection? 2) Is this "state of mind" before or after death?
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jan 28, 2010 14:51:56 GMT -8
the gospels were not written by jesus. I know you know this, but you understand my point in saying this, i think.
also a state of mind
an internal resurrection, not a bodily one.
when we die, we die. After death there is no mind to have a state.
-John
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 28, 2010 20:59:29 GMT -8
So, if heaven and hell to you are merely current states of mind, my next question would be naturally be why are heaven and hell almost always spoken of in Scripture as both future and after death? It would have been easy for Jesus to clarify this if that wasn't what he intended.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jan 29, 2010 7:49:34 GMT -8
a few answers:
progressive revelation
that isnt what jesus said but what the writers understood
scripture is not infallible
etc.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 29, 2010 14:17:04 GMT -8
Progressive revelation builds and doesn't contradict previous revelation.
There is no reason to suppose that we shouldn't attribute Jesus words on hell to him, and very good reason to indicate they are reliable records. I can't imagine how something so clear could be as misunderstood by the authors of the New Testament (every one of them) as you purport.
You're arguing that Jesus spoke originally of a figurative heaven and hell which exist in people's minds in the here-and-now and that his followers misunderstood and projected these states into the eschatological future. But you might notice that the NT writers actually do include the thought that the kingdoms and experience of heaven (and probably hell) exist both now and into eternity. Thus they do have a very nuanced view on the subject and didn't just change Jesus view from the here-and-now to the future. I think this is a good indication that Jesus did teach them that heaven and hell do exist both now and in the afterlife.
Do you think that Jesus didn't teach that there was an afterlife at all? I think that's impossible to defend.
Furthermore, how do you determine what Jesus said or didn't seeing as how our only source access to Jesus is through those Gospel writers? Do you just pick and choose the things that happen to agree with your existent theological viewpoint?
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jan 30, 2010 9:23:43 GMT -8
these are possible answers. not necessarily what i beleive. you are asking counterarguments and i am giving them to you- i am not giving my own arguments. remember when i told you i would do that?
this is my belief: i honestly think he did not. i dont think he was worried about the afterlife as much as the gospels or our minds make him. he was probably very much like the buddha in that his mission was not to teach about the afterlife, but how to live in THIS one.
well there are other sources to what jesus did- the gnostic gospels, the apocryphal gospels, etc. Some of them are just as reliable as the canonical gospels, too.
But no I do not do the picking and choosing. I am not a textual critic or anything close. But i can read about other people who do and say "hey that sounds very right and they have adequete enough evidence." for me to say this takes a lot, but if they do than you better bet your two cents they offered quite a lot of evidence.
my theological viewpoint does not depend on the bible either. i use other texts, reason, science, among other things. I do not need the bible to say or not say it is true for it to be true. but i understand the bible alot more than other things, so i put my knowledge in biblical terms or i process my knowledge through biblical nomenclature. that does not mean it comes from the bible.
-john
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 30, 2010 13:14:10 GMT -8
Again, this has nothing to do with whether you believe the Bible to be inspired- this has to do with the fact that the NT books are the earliest historical records for anything we can even say or know about Jesus. Which ones?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 30, 2010 13:26:09 GMT -8
You have no evidence for this supposition that Jesus didn't teach about the afterlife and a mountain of evidence against it.
Find me one serious historical Jesus scholar who believes this!
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jan 30, 2010 13:33:18 GMT -8
I DONT SEE WHY THIS MATTERS!!!
if i dont believe in hell, so what?! that doesnt mean i am going to it! I believe in Yeshua and that he died for my sins however different that phrase means to me than the rest of christianity. the only requirement is faith (and the actions that reflect that faith naturally) and i have both.
-john
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 30, 2010 14:49:35 GMT -8
It matters because the truth always matters! It is always better to dig and sift for the best acquisition of knowledge and jettison what is false. Seriously, are you just going to believe this merely because you want to? For more on why I think it does matter what meanings you're pouring into words like "faith" "Jesus dying for your sins", you can see my response to your last post here: aletheia.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=reliable&action=display&thread=2676&page=1
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jan 30, 2010 17:20:08 GMT -8
no. but i dont see what christianity has to do with it.
|
|