Hell, what is it

by Anony Mous 20 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Disillusioned JW
    Disillusioned JW

    Anony Mous, I was shocked when I read your comment of "There was no refuse dump that continuously burned, there is no literary, biblical or archeological reference to such place, and a place like that would leave quite a footprint you’d think." I thought there was really was such a dump existing for centuries before 30 CE. I thought such ever since I read the idea in WT literature and thought it was a historical fact. Your comment is very educational and revelation (of naturalistic kind) to me.

    Anony Mous and anyone else, does that mean that when Jesus (according to the NT Bible) spoke of Gehenna he meant it is a place of eternal conscious torment instead of the annihilation?

    Anony Mous, due to your post, I now think the WT used the tradition of a refuse dump that continuously burned in which already dead evil people were tossed into, in order to defend the WT's idea of Gehenna being a place of annihilation instead of eternal conscious torment.

  • Disillusioned JW
    Disillusioned JW

    Vanderhoven7, does your idea of resurrection of Christians to life in heaven include the idea the human soul of those Christians completely ceased to be, and was later recreated by God as a spirit soul (much like the the WT says happens to the 144,000)? What about your idea of people from pre-Christian becoming resurrected? In your mind do their human souls completely cease to exist and later become recreated/cloned? Or, do their human souls become dormant (such as asleep) and later become revived. Do you believe that Christian go to heaven immediately after their human bodies die (or starting after 70 CE, right after die), or do you believe they go heaven at a future time in a rapture when Christ (according to the Bible) comes to execute judgment at around the time of Armageddon, or do you believe they go heaven at some other time?

  • Vanderhoven7
    Vanderhoven7

    @ DJW

    My book, "Eternal Torment-Image and Reality" available on Amazon.com, does not deal with the state of the dead or the resurrection. It focuses only on scripture related to temporary and especially eternal torment of the wicked.

    My personal view is that the righteous and unrighteous, pre and post crucifiction, are asleep and therefore are not totally extinguished. At the judgment, all will be awakened, some to life and immortality and some to judgment during the millennium period.

    I see Lazarus and the Rich Man as a parody of Pharisaic beliefs, in which the Pharisees end up in the very hell they used to control the common people.

    Hope that helps.

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    Vanderhoven.... First, writing a book has always been an ambition of mine but life had always gotten in the way, so good on you for accomplishing that. My earlier comment was prefaced by saying, "Jewish notions of death were hardly uniform", and perhaps I should have expanded upon that.

    Yes what we seem to know about the Sadducee movement was a denial of a meaningful afterlife (or resurrection), while apparently still accepting the idea of shades existing in Sheol/Hades. That's quite natural as they did not recognize works like Daniel and Enoch.

    The Pharisee movement seemed to be more in line with the larger Jewish world in accepting the intertestamental doctrine of resurrection. The Essenes likewise believed in immortal soul that would be rewarded.

    The Gospels depict Jesus as pretty much quoting works of this late period, like Enoch and Daniel, in comments about the resurrection, in his rich man parable as well as his Gehenna warning. Jude directly quotes Enoch. Revelation carries this same concept quite clearly. A straightforward reading of the NT leads to the conclusion that Christians had fully embraced the concept of an afterlife reward or punishment in darkness and fire. The immediacy of that outcome seems to have varied in specifics, but the overall concept was pretty consistent.

    In this more progressive age this doctrine has become a bit of an albatross and as a result it's become more popular to argue for it not being a Biblical idea. To do that usually they draw from OT texts written by earlier writers before the doctrine of resurrection was (possibly) adopted from the Zoroastrians, as if this proves later Jews did not believe it.

    Next, they have to dismiss passages in the NT that clearly express this thought, usually by labeling them as metaphor or symbolism, or in the case of the rich man parable, declare since it was a parable it wasn't a reflection of beliefs. As if that somehow makes sense.

    I respect anyone who rejects the concept as barbaric and vengeful but am perplexed by those who dismiss the doctrine while clinging to the writings that teach it.

  • Vanderhoven7
    Vanderhoven7

    @ PeacefulPete

    As you know I accept the Bible as the word of God. I deal with every passage in both the Old and New Testament in my book that relates to temporary and final punishment of the wicked. You mentioned Lazarus and the Rich Man so I am attaching a video I published recently on that account.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y-p9Ol_Shs&t=776s

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    You have a nice manner and voice.

    I think you have read into the shrewd manager story. The characters are explained to be "people of this world" not God and his worshipers. The parallel of those characters in the story to Christians was simply to stress using your riches to gain favor with God like the shrewd manager in a 'worldly' way gained favor with potential employers. The shrewd way he went about it was respected by his 'worldly' master because that's the unethical characterization of "people of this world" being made. He has depicted people of this world as selfish but wisely considering the future.

    As far as the Rich man parable, if you are right and the writer of Luke wanted readers to grasp that it was all a clever twist of the prevailing beliefs of the afterlife, then he was just too clever.

  • careful
  • dropoffyourkeylee
    dropoffyourkeylee

    Hell, damned if I know

  • Anony Mous
    Anony Mous

    @disillusioned: Gehenna he meant it is a place of eternal conscious torment instead of the annihilation

    I think it depends on the context. In the context of Matthew 5:29-30 I think he’s talking that it is better to cut your own arm/eye etc than go down to the literal place of Ben-Hinnom, where according to Jewish lore, people did worship other gods like Baal. Ben-Hinnom was according to some contemporary texts inhabited by a large number of “foreigners” in that day that likely practiced foreign religions, likely because of poverty prostituted themselves etc.

    Baal, Molech and other nearby that still believed in Proto-Yahweh in that day were often demonized by Jews as having child sacrifices (propaganda not supported by any archeological evidence) but they also seemed to have “fun” practices like temple prostitution and alcohol.

    Whenever Jesus is translated to hell, he refers to Gehenna or the valley of Ben-Hinnom as a literal place, which likely means he sees it as a place where you get to do “immoral things” and separate yourself from the Jewish god. Basically Jesus is saying it is better to mutilate yourself than “go down to the hood” and have fun with “those people” and everyone knew what he meant.

    There are only a few places where Jesus refers to Sheol/Hades both for Lazarus and the Rich Man parable and the resurrection and which is a place commonly accepted as darkness/silence after death (a pre-heaven)

    I personally think hell gets more of the Orthodox Jewish context of a place where you go practice another religion without (the single unified) God. That is still the closest you get to a Jewish concept of what Christians describe as hell today, you go do bad things and then you are tormented by the consequences and your conscience. Orthodox Jews don’t believe in eternal torment, even go as far as saying they don’t know what happens after death, therefore we need to do our best now. I think that is what Jesus in context of a Jewish teacher would have taught. The Hellenistic views of hell as a literal place of torment only come later as Christianity starting as a Jewish sect integrates more and more teachings from Greek and Romans.

  • Phizzy
    Phizzy

    P.P said "Next, they have to dismiss passages in the NT that clearly express this thought, usually by labeling them as metaphor or symbolism, or in the case of the rich man parable, declare since it was a parable it wasn't a reflection of beliefs. As if that somehow makes sense."

    In the case of the JW/WT use of these excuses, it is particularly hypocritical, this Lazarus story is a parable, but the "Faithfull Slave story" just happens to be literal ?

    P.P also said "I respect anyone who rejects the concept as barbaric and vengeful but am perplexed by those who dismiss the doctrine while clinging to the writings that teach it." Well said Pete ! this especially applies to JW's, and many others, who take the Bible as all being the "word of god" from Gen. to Rev. And read it very LITERALLY in instances where it suits them, or as showing "belief" when mere metaphor COULD be argued.The "mental gymnastics" they have to go through to excuse the inconsistencies, contradictions and downright disgusting bits in the Bible, is as good to watch as Olympics quality Gymnastics !

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit