Struggling Christian Needs Advice

[Guest ruanddu]

Hello,

 

I am a struggling Christian of 27 years. Ever since I can remember, I have wrestled with numerous things in the Bible and what they really mean. The two areas that really confuse me are the issues of Hell and Election (Calvinism).

 

The issue of Hell is perplexing because there are so many explanations by different groups of Christians as to what Hell really is. Some feel that it's up to you if you want to go to Hell or not, (Arminian view or free choice), some say you have to be elected by God to be in a special circle from birth to escape Hell (Calvinism) and lastly there are those who say God will accept at judgement day (Universalists).

 

I tend to lean on the Universalist view as the only view that represents a truly loving God. I can't fathom how any human would WANT to be separated from a authentically loving God for all eternity. Why is that when you die that supposedly God gives you no more chances to choose eternal life with Him or in Hell. What kind of Father would not pull you out of the fire, so to speak.

 

I can vaguely understand the Arminian view of Hell in that you have free choice where you want to spend eternity. However, like I said earlier, it seems so hard to rationalize that if God is really who He says He is in the Bible, (a Loving Father) why would we ever choose Hell in the awesomeness of His presence? Our life here is so confusing. God is hidden. The truth is veiled from our traditional upbringing a lot of times. How can everyone really know and understand a God so confusing and hidden? Won't His sheer greatness persuade us on judgement day?

 

The view I detest the most is Calvanism. I spoke with a good friend yesterday who is a staunch Calvinist. We spoke in great detail about what it really means to be a Calvanist. He kept emphasizing that we are all truly depraved and wicked in God's eyes. All of us, according to him, deserve Hell from birth. We are all "tainted". He used the story of Jesus on the cross when He says "God why have you forsaken me" when God looked away in contempt for the sin Jesus was bearing. My friend related this us as humans that God can't bear to look at or accept us as we are. Essentially we are scum that don't deserve His love. That's why Jesus had to come die a horrible death, to appease God. So confusing, as God and Jesus are supposed to be the same! Why would God appease himself with sacrificing Himself! How does that act make some of us who call out Jesus' name righteous all the sudden?

 

My friend also embraces the Calvinist view that God only elected some people to go to heaven and not others from the start of human kind. I asked him how can this be loving!? He said it doesn't matter in that God can do whatever He wants. He supposedly choose these people as they were the ones that could best glorify Him. That makes no sense to me. It actually makes God out to be completely selfish and crazy. My friend also said that God owes us nothing as we are all just terrible sinners not worthy of His love and that God actually hates sinners. I always thought it was hate the sin but not the sinner? But according to my Calvinist friend, if you aren't elected and saved, God hates you because you are wicked sinner. How can this view sit right with anyone?!? My friend justifies all this by the fact that Adam and Eve ruined it for all mankind that followed....Wow, what a loving and just Father, huh?

 

So, my questions to you are: how do you view the topic of Hell? Especially the Calvinist view of we all "deserve" it?

 

Thanks for your time.

[par4dcourse]

I can't speak for everyone, but most here don't believe in any part or portion of the bible (the wholly babble I like to say.) I'll go as far as to say the the babble is the reason most of us left xianity.

There's a good discussion on hell going on now at http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=28441.

Another thread you might want to read is The Phases of Deconversion: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=21830

Welcome, btw. I hope you find what you're looking for. Questioning the meme is a good start.

[florduh]

Welcome to the site!

 

Take a look around here. You'll find your questions addressed in a variety of ways.

 

I've done quite a bit of Bible study, and my conclusion is you can interpret it any way you want, because it is so self-contradictory. There are thousands of Protestant denominations alone, so obviously there is no "correct" or "true" reading of the book. Personally, I don't find any of it useful.

[Deva]

Welcome to the site ruanddu. I was in the same spot you are about 12 years ago. I was investigating Calvinism and reading the "Institutes of the Christian Religion". It its own twisted way, it makes a perverse kind of sense when a Calvanist is talking about Gods "soverignety". Basically God's excuse is that he is in charge and can do whatever he wants with his creation. The problem with that, as we both know all too well, is that love goes right out the window.

[BobbyCole]

You want advice. Run as far away as possible from anyone involved in any religious lifestyle, including relatives. It's all delusional.

 

The fact that the majority of people on the planet still believe in some form of religion and live their lives accordingly is proof positive that the human race/brain hasn't matured in thousands of years.

[GraphicsGuy]

how do you view the topic of Hell?

 

I think it's designed to scare people into doing what the church tells them to do.

 

Especially the Calvinist view of we all "deserve" it?

 

Here's a question. Do YOU think everyone "deserves" it?

 

Would you send your worst enemy to hell for eternity (forever and ever and ever)?

 

If YOU wouldn't do that then why would a supposedly enlightened being that is the essence of love and goodness?

[Trike]

My view of hell?

 

God had to kill himself to appease himself so that he wouldn't have to roast us, (his beloved creation), alive for all eternity. He loves us more than we can comprehend but, if we don't love him back, he will send us to hell forever and ever.

 

See how much sense that makes?

[deb]

Welcome! I'm just a few months ahead of you dealing with the same struggle you describe. I believe I can say that it's getting easier the further I get along. This site has been a tremendous help. Hope you can find encouragement and friendship here as I have.

 

Deb

[pitchu]

This thread is being moved to "General Theological Issues."

[Antlerman]

So, my questions to you are: how do you view the topic of Hell? Especially the Calvinist view of we all "deserve" it?

 

Thanks for your time.

Well I'd say you're off to a really good start. You're listening to what your heart and conscience tells you. Now it's a matter of finding ways of looking at the world that support and encourage what is in you that you're listening to. Theologies are the contrivances of men trying to make all the disparate little pieces of the Bible one big cohesive truth. That's their first and last problem. They start with the belief it was delivered to man whole from a god, and therefore everything in it must be able to fit into a big picture truth.

 

And off they go, weaving and stitching until they make a pattern that looks a lot like their views of the world in their culture in their time, and they then hand the cloth down to their children and their children's children, and their children, and so forth with all of them focusing on the cloth that was weaved as the thing to look to, the truth as it were, instead of realizing that each of the disparate little pieces never were intended to be weaved together; that what those are were expressions of individuals and groups using the language of mythical symbols of their day to talk about themselves to themselves, to talk about their interpretations of events, their feelings, their hopes, their aspirations, their angers, etc of their social situations, etc.

 

All these bits and pieces don't fit together. Theology, Calvinism and all, is the worship of church doctrines, and in so doing they don't look in to the human heart. They fear themselves, they fear finding themselves rudderless and so look to create answers that they can then latch themselves to so they can avoid the harder work of the inner road. They look for answers in doctrines and theologies, and this whole idea was the creation of bishops of the 2nd and 3rd centuries who began these weaving of a cloth in the canonization of a book they called the New Testament. And all this goes to explain how you can talk to another human being who can somehow tell themselves that eternal torture is consistent with the idea of a loving God. Who exactly is it that they are believing in? Who exactly informs their hearts? John Calvin? The canon of the bishops?

 

You're on a good road. Welcome to the site.

[Guest kcdad]

Hello,

 

I am a struggling Christian of 27 years. Ever since I can remember, I have wrestled with numerous things in the Bible and what they really mean. The two areas that really confuse me are the issues of Hell and Election (Calvinism).

 

So, my questions to you are: how do you view the topic of Hell? Especially the Calvinist view of we all "deserve" it?

 

Look... read the teachings of Jesus and everywhere you see the word hell, look it up and see what the Greek word used was... moist often it is Gehenna... the 1st century equivalent of "the boogieman". A real garbage dump outside of Jerusalem where the trash was tossed. (I suspect Jewish mothers told their children :If you don't behave it's into Gehenna with you!") Think of it as a metaphor representing shame, loneliness and guilt. Every time you read "Hades"... remember that Hades was a Greek mythological PERSON, not a place, and this word doesn't make any sense in it's context. (Remember that the teachings of Jesus were in ARAMAIC, not Greek.)

 

As far as election goes, Calvin struggled with a social order that required no supervision, no enforcement. He created this auditing system where as a person could never know what God had planned for them, (although an all knowing God must already KNOW what will occur- a logical fallacy, by the way) but could only suspect that God's blessings are bestowed upon those God cares for, His elect, and God's wrath is displayed towards those God is angry with... another fallacy... as clearly the record of The Old Testament is that the reason Israel is chastised so badly by God is BECAUSE He loves them so. So by creating this "merit system"; the richer, the smarter and healthier you were the more God loved you, it encouraged (wow, , a better word would be coerced) people into striving to "succeed" in being proven to be one of God's elect. As Max Weber pointed out in his brilliant analysis of Calvin, it is exactly these ideals that created Capitalism and The Protestant Work Ethic.

 

Calvin was a knucklehead. Forget him. He has brought nothing to the table worth consuming.

[Neon Genesis]

There are bible verses that support the idea of predestination such as Ephesians 1:4-6

4just as (K)He chose us in Him before (L)the foundation of the world, that we would be (M)holy and blameless before Him (N)In love

 

5He (O)predestined us to (P)adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, (Q)according to the kind intention of His will,

 

6®to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in (S)the Beloved.

I believe there's also a bible verse where it says God already decided he hated Esau before he was even born. But as Florduh pointed out earlier in the thread, there are thousands of different ways to interept the scriptures because the bible is a collection of ancient mythology written over time by various different authors with different agendas in mind, rather than a unifying divinely inspired and perfect collection of historical facts. Without any non-biblical evidence as to what the life of Jesus was like and what teachings he approved of in real life, the bible can be twisted around to support any theology because the scriptures are all written so vaguely and contradictory. As for my thoughts on hell, it was the doctrine of hell that caused me to start doubting my faith in God in the first place. I couldn't understand how a supposedly loving God would allow something as horrible as hell to exist. The argument from free will didn't make any sense to me as it's not actually supported by scripture since as far as I'm aware, the bible never says we have free will and that's just an excuse that xtians made up to make them feel better about a doctrine that they know deep down is immoral. Saying God allows hell to exist to give us free will is like a kidnapper who puts a gun to your head and threatens you to do what he says or die, but then tells you that if you disobey him and die, then it was your fault for not choosing to follow his orders. I think this quote by Robert Ingersoll sums up my thoughts about hell.

If there is a God who will damn his children forever, I would rather go to hell than to go to heaven and keep the society of such an infamous tyrant. I make my choice now. I despise that doctrine. It has covered the cheeks of this world with tears. It has polluted the hearts of children, and poisoned the imaginations of men.... What right have you, sir, Mr. clergyman, you, minister of the gospel to stand at the portals of the tomb, at the vestibule of eternity, and fill the future with horror and with fear? I do not believe this doctrine, neither do you. If you did, you could not sleep one moment. Any man who believes it, and has within his breast a decent, throbbing heart, will go insane. A man who believes that doctrine and does not go insane has the heart of a snake and the conscience of a hyena.

[buffettphan]

Welcome! I think you're already on the right track. You're beginning to see the "buybull" for what it is. My advice: Don't let your family or any other xtians guilt you back into the fold. If their beliefs and dogma are so weak as to crumble under questioning and logic, then what does that say about the beliefs? Also, don't waste too much time going from fundamentalism into liberal xtianity. Yes, it may be a good transition phase, but a delusion is still a delusion. I also recommend you read Sam Harris' Letters to a Christian Nation. It's less than a hundred pages but speaks volumes. Also, the testimonials and posts of ex-xtians here on this website will show you what great company you're in! Infidels.org is another good resource. I sincerely hope you rid yourself of the mindfu(k of religion.

[mwc]

Every time you read "Hades"... remember that Hades was a Greek mythological PERSON, not a place, and this word doesn't make any sense in it's context. (Remember that the teachings of Jesus were in ARAMAIC, not Greek.)

Hades was both the place and the ruler of that place.

 

You find me any teachings of this "jesus" you speak of and I'll read them. Much less in Aramaic (good luck with this).

 

mwc

[Guest kcdad]

Every time you read "Hades"... remember that Hades was a Greek mythological PERSON, not a place, and this word doesn't make any sense in it's context. (Remember that the teachings of Jesus were in ARAMAIC, not Greek.)

Hades was both the place and the ruler of that place.

 

You find me any teachings of this "jesus" you speak of and I'll read them. Much less in Aramaic (good luck with this).

 

mwc

 

ACTUALLY.... The place was The Underworld or The Realm of Hades (The House of Bob). I understand the confusion. It could read like The Realm of Hell or The House of Bad People.

 

What? You don't like The Gospels according to Thomas, Mark, Matthew or Luke? You think they are all made up? Made up from what or where?

[mwc]

ACTUALLY.... The place was The Underworld or The Realm of Hades (The House of Bob). I understand the confusion. It could read like The Realm of Hell or The House of Bad People.

ACTUALLY...since I'm too lazy to pull out my books on Greek religion I'll just steal from wikipedia...

 

Hades (from Greek ᾍδης, Hadēs, originally Ἅιδης, Haidēs or Άΐδης, Aidēs, probably from Proto-Indo-European *n̥-wid- 'unseen'[1]) refers both to the ancient Greek underworld, the abode of Hades, and to the god of the underworld. Hades in Homer referred just to the god; the genitive ᾍδου, Haidou, was an elision to denote locality: "[the house/dominion] of Hades".

Eventually, the nominative, too, came to designate the abode of the dead.

 

What? You don't like The Gospels according to Thomas, Mark, Matthew or Luke? You think they are all made up? Made up from what or where?

Again. If you can show me some actual Aramaic teachings of this "jesus" you speak of I would more than happy to read them. You're pointing me to nothing more than a Greek phantom.

 

mwc

[Antlerman]

ACTUALLY.... The place was The Underworld or The Realm of Hades (The House of Bob). I understand the confusion. It could read like The Realm of Hell or The House of Bad People.

ACTUALLY...since I'm too lazy to pull out my books on Greek religion I'll just steal from wikipedia...

 

Hades (from Greek ᾍδης, Hadēs, originally Ἅιδης, Haidēs or Άΐδης, Aidēs, probably from Proto-Indo-European *n̥-wid- 'unseen'[1]) refers both to the ancient Greek underworld, the abode of Hades, and to the god of the underworld. Hades in Homer referred just to the god; the genitive ᾍδου, Haidou, was an elision to denote locality: "[the house/dominion] of Hades".

Eventually, the nominative, too, came to designate the abode of the dead.

 

What? You don't like The Gospels according to Thomas, Mark, Matthew or Luke? You think they are all made up? Made up from what or where?

Again. If you can show me some actual Aramaic teachings of this "jesus" you speak of I would more than happy to read them. You're pointing me to nothing more than a Greek phantom.

 

mwc

This is actually somewhat non sequitur. The arguments for Aramaic primacy don't rest in extant texts. They are like anything else, looking at the bits and pieces which suggest a conclusion. Same thing with evidence for evolution. Wouldn't you say? To refer to Wiki as well on this subject:

Aramaic Source Criticism

 

Source-critical Aramaic primacists research first-century Aramaic, culture, and psychology to reconstruct the New Testament sources in dialects contemporary to its authors. Prominent figures that side with this view are Matthew Black, Bruce Chilton, Maurice Casey, Geza Vermes, Frank Zimmermann, and Steven Caruso (AramaicNT.org). Aramaic Primacists who follow this approach generally believe that the Peshitta and Peshitta-Critical approaches are pseudoscience as they are often theologically motivated rather than based upon verifiable textual evidence. Most who ascribe to Aramaic Source Criticism are primarily published through journals or academic presses.

 

Criticism

 

Mainstream and modern scholars have generally had a strong agreement that the New Testament was written in Greek.

They acknowledge that many individual sayings of Jesus as found in the Gospels are translations from oral Aramaic, but hold that the Gospels' text in its current form was composed in Greek, and so were the other New Testament writings.

Scholars of all stripes have had to acknowledge the presence in the Gospel of Mark of scattered, but only occasional, Aramaic expressions

, transliterated and then translated

. An example of how mainstream scholars have dealt with Aramaic influences within an overall view of the Gospels' original Greek-language development may be found in Martin Hengel's recent synthesis of studies of the linguistic situation in Palestine during the time of Jesus and the Gospels:

 

Since non-literary, simple Greek knowledge or competency in multiple languages was relatively widespread in Jewish Palestine including Galilee, and a Greek-speaking community had already developed in Jerusalem shortly after Easter, one can assume that this linguistic transformation [from "the Aramaic native language of Jesus" to "the Greek Gospels"] began very early. ... [M]issionaries, above all 'Hellenists' driven out of Jerusalem, soon preached their message in the Greek language. We find them in Damascus as early as AD 32 or 33. A certain percentage of Jesus' earliest followers were presumably bilingual and could therefore report, at least in simple Greek, what had been heard and seen. This probably applies to Cephas/Peter, Andrew, Philip or John. Mark, too, who was better educated in Jerusalem than the Galilean fishermen, belonged to this milieu. The great number of phonetically correct Aramaisms and his knowledge of the conditions in Jewish Palestine compel us to assume a Palestinian Jewish-Christian author. Also, the author's Aramaic native language is still discernible in the Marcan style.[7]

 

Papias provides a very early, but difficult, source for the idea that the canonical Gospels were either based on some non-Greek written sources, or (in the case of Matthew) possibly "composed" in a non-Greek language. The relevant fragments of Papias' lost work An Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord (Logiōn kuriakōn exēgēsis, c. 110-140) are preserved in quotations by Eusebius. In one fragment, Papias cites an older source who says, "When Mark was the interpreter [hermēneutēs, possibly "translator"] of Peter, he wrote down accurately everything that he recalled of the Lord's words and deeds." Papias' surviving comment about Matthew is more tantalizing, but equally cryptic: "And so Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew tongue, and each one interpreted [hērmēneusen, possibly "translated"] them to the best of his ability."[8] A similar claim comes out more clearly in a text by Irenaeus, but this testimony is later than (and probably based on) Papias.

 

These accounts, even if they do imply non-Greek originals (which is not clear), have been doubted, in part with an argument that the literary quality of the Greek of these books indicates that the Greek would be the original. This argument extends to the other books where the Church Fathers accepted Greek as the original without debate. The Greek New Testament's general agreement with the Septuagint is also counted as evidence by Greek Primacists. However, the Aramaic texts of the New Testament reference Aramaic versions of the Old Testament.

 

Furthermore, the possibility that the Jewish community was more of a polyglot in nature is often overlooked by both Aramaic-supporting and Koine-supporting scholars. It is possible that Aramaic and Koine (and even Latin) versions of the books and oral teachings of the New Testament were circulating contemporaneously, similar to the situation in present day Orthodox Jewish communities, where popular, newly written, religious works in Rabbinical Hebrew are promptly translated into English and Yiddish.

Although, I should point out... I'm somewhat unsure as to how the poster of the original topic finds value in these more academic arguements we've now detoured onto. It's interesting to be sure, but how much all this speaks to the heart of what his/her concerns were, I'm not sure... Hell, I suppose it's that we actually care to explore this stuff as to it's true heart, as opposed to just accepting it all without question. Don't you suppose?

[Guest kcdad]

ACTUALLY.... The place was The Underworld or The Realm of Hades (The House of Bob). I understand the confusion. It could read like The Realm of Hell or The House of Bad People.

ACTUALLY...since I'm too lazy to pull out my books on Greek religion I'll just steal from wikipedia...

 

Hades (from Greek ᾍδης, Hadēs, originally Ἅιδης, Haidēs or Άΐδης, Aidēs, probably from Proto-Indo-European *n̥-wid- 'unseen'[1]) refers both to the ancient Greek underworld, the abode of Hades, and to the god of the underworld. Hades in Homer referred just to the god; the genitive ᾍδου, Haidou, was an elision to denote locality: "[the house/dominion] of Hades".

Eventually, the nominative, too, came to designate the abode of the dead.

 

What? You don't like The Gospels according to Thomas, Mark, Matthew or Luke? You think they are all made up? Made up from what or where?

Again. If you can show me some actual Aramaic teachings of this "jesus" you speak of I would more than happy to read them. You're pointing me to nothing more than a Greek phantom.

 

mwc

This is actually somewhat non sequitur. The arguments for Aramaic primacy don't rest in extant texts. They are like anything else, looking at the bits and pieces which suggest a conclusion. Same thing with evidence for evolution. Wouldn't you say? To refer to Wiki as well on this subject:

Aramaic Source Criticism

 

Source-critical Aramaic primacists research first-century Aramaic, culture, and psychology to reconstruct the New Testament sources in dialects contemporary to its authors. Prominent figures that side with this view are Matthew Black, Bruce Chilton, Maurice Casey, Geza Vermes, Frank Zimmermann, and Steven Caruso (AramaicNT.org). Aramaic Primacists who follow this approach generally believe that the Peshitta and Peshitta-Critical approaches are pseudoscience as they are often theologically motivated rather than based upon verifiable textual evidence. Most who ascribe to Aramaic Source Criticism are primarily published through journals or academic presses.

 

Criticism

 

Mainstream and modern scholars have generally had a strong agreement that the New Testament was written in Greek.

They acknowledge that many individual sayings of Jesus as found in the Gospels are translations from oral Aramaic, but hold that the Gospels' text in its current form was composed in Greek, and so were the other New Testament writings.

Scholars of all stripes have had to acknowledge the presence in the Gospel of Mark of scattered, but only occasional, Aramaic expressions

, transliterated and then translated

. An example of how mainstream scholars have dealt with Aramaic influences within an overall view of the Gospels' original Greek-language development may be found in Martin Hengel's recent synthesis of studies of the linguistic situation in Palestine during the time of Jesus and the Gospels:

 

Since non-literary, simple Greek knowledge or competency in multiple languages was relatively widespread in Jewish Palestine including Galilee, and a Greek-speaking community had already developed in Jerusalem shortly after Easter, one can assume that this linguistic transformation [from "the Aramaic native language of Jesus" to "the Greek Gospels"] began very early. ... [M]issionaries, above all 'Hellenists' driven out of Jerusalem, soon preached their message in the Greek language. We find them in Damascus as early as AD 32 or 33. A certain percentage of Jesus' earliest followers were presumably bilingual and could therefore report, at least in simple Greek, what had been heard and seen. This probably applies to Cephas/Peter, Andrew, Philip or John. Mark, too, who was better educated in Jerusalem than the Galilean fishermen, belonged to this milieu. The great number of phonetically correct Aramaisms and his knowledge of the conditions in Jewish Palestine compel us to assume a Palestinian Jewish-Christian author. Also, the author's Aramaic native language is still discernible in the Marcan style.[7]

 

Papias provides a very early, but difficult, source for the idea that the canonical Gospels were either based on some non-Greek written sources, or (in the case of Matthew) possibly "composed" in a non-Greek language. The relevant fragments of Papias' lost work An Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord (Logiōn kuriakōn exēgēsis, c. 110-140) are preserved in quotations by Eusebius. In one fragment, Papias cites an older source who says, "When Mark was the interpreter [hermēneutēs, possibly "translator"] of Peter, he wrote down accurately everything that he recalled of the Lord's words and deeds." Papias' surviving comment about Matthew is more tantalizing, but equally cryptic: "And so Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew tongue, and each one interpreted [hērmēneusen, possibly "translated"] them to the best of his ability."[8] A similar claim comes out more clearly in a text by Irenaeus, but this testimony is later than (and probably based on) Papias.

 

These accounts, even if they do imply non-Greek originals (which is not clear), have been doubted, in part with an argument that the literary quality of the Greek of these books indicates that the Greek would be the original. This argument extends to the other books where the Church Fathers accepted Greek as the original without debate. The Greek New Testament's general agreement with the Septuagint is also counted as evidence by Greek Primacists. However, the Aramaic texts of the New Testament reference Aramaic versions of the Old Testament.

 

Furthermore, the possibility that the Jewish community was more of a polyglot in nature is often overlooked by both Aramaic-supporting and Koine-supporting scholars. It is possible that Aramaic and Koine (and even Latin) versions of the books and oral teachings of the New Testament were circulating contemporaneously, similar to the situation in present day Orthodox Jewish communities, where popular, newly written, religious works in Rabbinical Hebrew are promptly translated into English and Yiddish.

Although, I should point out... I'm somewhat unsure as to how the poster of the original topic finds value in these more academic arguements we've now detoured onto. It's interesting to be sure, but how much all this speaks to the heart of what his/her concerns were, I'm not sure... Hell, I suppose it's that we actually care to explore this stuff as to it's true heart, as opposed to just accepting it all without question. Don't you suppose?

1) The key to understanding "HADES" is the word EVENTUALLY. It eventually came to mean the abode of the god Hades. Just like Bob's house came to be known as The House of BOB.

 

2) The clue that reveals the Aramaic origins of the Teachings and why it is important to understand the idioms and slang of Aramaic is that often the Greek gives way to a specific word or phrase quoted in Aramaic. "Raca" and "Abba" and "Eloi Eloi lama sebakthani" (... whatever) ... all in Aramaic. These were important enough to the Greek translators to leave them in their native tongue... unless you want to think Jesus was babbling in multiple languages...

[Guest kcdad]

I'm somewhat unsure as to how the poster of the original topic finds value in these more academic arguements we've now detoured onto. It's interesting to be sure, but how much all this speaks to the heart of what his/her concerns were, I'm not sure... Hell, I suppose it's that we actually care to explore this stuff as to it's true heart, as opposed to just accepting it all without question. Don't you suppose?

 

 

It is difficult to be afraid of something you understand. It is much easier to be afraid of something that is mysterious and confusing.

 

Now lets move on and destroy Jean Calvin.

[mwc]

1) The key to understanding "HADES" is the word EVENTUALLY. It eventually came to mean the abode of the god Hades. Just like Bob's house came to be known as The House of BOB.

Exactly. So define it. If "eventually" comes before the time line in your argument (first century CE as I understand it) then Hades could be used for both (the ruler and the domain). Your point becomes moot. You're the one that claimed otherwise.

 

2) The clue that reveals the Aramaic origins of the Teachings and why it is important to understand the idioms and slang of Aramaic is that often the Greek gives way to a specific word or phrase quoted in Aramaic. "Raca" and "Abba" and "Eloi Eloi lama sebakthani" (... whatever) ... all in Aramaic. These were important enough to the Greek translators to leave them in their native tongue... unless you want to think Jesus was babbling in multiple languages...

Oh, I don't think "jesus" was babbling in any language. But that is beside the point. What you want me to accept is that these "nuggets" are the real words of this "jesus" simply because. That's it. Because. No reason other than that. We can discount this part of the story or that part of the story but this, this is really the real deal, well, because. Hmmm. Compelling. But no. And you know, if all you have is "Fool," "Daddy," and "My power why have you forsaken me" as the real teachings of "jesus" that just had to be preserved in the original Aramaic form at all cost then I'm not too impressed anyhow. Nope. The "jesus" you know is quite Greek.

 

mwc

[Antlerman]

Oh, I don't think "jesus" was babbling in any language. But that is beside the point. What you want me to accept is that these "nuggets" are the real words of this "jesus" simply because.

<snip>

The "jesus" you know is quite Greek.

So you're saying that if there was a real Jesus who lived and taught in Galilee, the he would not have spoken in Aramaic? That that's not what they spoke there? Or what are you saying?

 

In looking at what I posted above explaining the views of scholars who argue for Aramaic Primacy, I'd say that those are lists of reasons that go well beyond "just because". Why do you believe otherwise? Just because? I'm interested in hearing you reasons for dismissing Aramaic.

[Guest kcdad]

1) The key to understanding "HADES" is the word EVENTUALLY. It eventually came to mean the abode of the god Hades. Just like Bob's house came to be known as The House of BOB.

Exactly. So define it. If "eventually" comes before the time line in your argument (first century CE as I understand it) then Hades could be used for both (the ruler and the domain). Your point becomes moot. You're the one that claimed otherwise.

 

2) The clue that reveals the Aramaic origins of the Teachings and why it is important to understand the idioms and slang of Aramaic is that often the Greek gives way to a specific word or phrase quoted in Aramaic. "Raca" and "Abba" and "Eloi Eloi lama sebakthani" (... whatever) ... all in Aramaic. These were important enough to the Greek translators to leave them in their native tongue... unless you want to think Jesus was babbling in multiple languages...

Oh, I don't think "jesus" was babbling in any language. But that is beside the point. What you want me to accept is that these "nuggets" are the real words of this "jesus" simply because. That's it. Because. No reason other than that. We can discount this part of the story or that part of the story but this, this is really the real deal, well, because. Hmmm. Compelling. But no. And you know, if all you have is "Fool," "Daddy," and "My power why have you forsaken me" as the real teachings of "jesus" that just had to be preserved in the original Aramaic form at all cost then I'm not too impressed anyhow. Nope. The "jesus" you know is quite Greek.

 

mwc

 

My point was that the Aramaic words are indications that he probably spoke in Aramaic and in these cases, the authors didn't want to translate his specific words. The other sayings are repeated (in translation) enough that if they aren't his words, he certainly was associated with those teachings. Neither Thomas nor Mark are too late to have been written by contemporaries, and Matthew and Luke are probably compilations of the teachings of Jesus' followers, either in Turkey or Jerusalem and the East.

 

And if you want to dismiss "jesus" as Greek, that's fine. I am only using that name as convention dictates. I prefer his real name, Y'shua, anyway. It is rather ironic that the church insists on using Greek and Romanized names instead of his Aramaic or Jewish one... which of course, Anglicizes as Joshua.

[agnosticator]

ruanddu,

 

How do I view hell?

 

The real question is what does the bible say hell is. It was the new testament's differing views of hell-hades, gehenna, tartarus, and sheol-that helped dissolve my faith.

 

The invention of "sin" and "salvation" are directly related to the punishment of "hell" in whatever version it takes:

Sin led to punishment, which in turn, introduced salvation. These doctrines are the brass tacks of christianity. Elected or not, it doesn't matter. The whole scheme is a setup.

[PiracyOfTheHead]

1) The key to understanding "HADES" is the word EVENTUALLY. It eventually came to mean the abode of the god Hades. Just like Bob's house came to be known as The House of BOB.

Exactly. So define it. If "eventually" comes before the time line in your argument (first century CE as I understand it) then Hades could be used for both (the ruler and the domain). Your point becomes moot. You're the one that claimed otherwise.

 

2) The clue that reveals the Aramaic origins of the Teachings and why it is important to understand the idioms and slang of Aramaic is that often the Greek gives way to a specific word or phrase quoted in Aramaic. "Raca" and "Abba" and "Eloi Eloi lama sebakthani" (... whatever) ... all in Aramaic. These were important enough to the Greek translators to leave them in their native tongue... unless you want to think Jesus was babbling in multiple languages...

Oh, I don't think "jesus" was babbling in any language. But that is beside the point. What you want me to accept is that these "nuggets" are the real words of this "jesus" simply because. That's it. Because. No reason other than that. We can discount this part of the story or that part of the story but this, this is really the real deal, well, because. Hmmm. Compelling. But no. And you know, if all you have is "Fool," "Daddy," and "My power why have you forsaken me" as the real teachings of "jesus" that just had to be preserved in the original Aramaic form at all cost then I'm not too impressed anyhow. Nope. The "jesus" you know is quite Greek.

 

mwc

 

My point was that the Aramaic words are indications that he probably spoke in Aramaic and in these cases, the authors didn't want to translate his specific words. The other sayings are repeated (in translation) enough that if they aren't his words, he certainly was associated with those teachings. Neither Thomas nor Mark are too late to have been written by contemporaries, and Matthew and Luke are probably compilations of the teachings of Jesus' followers, either in Turkey or Jerusalem and the East.

 

And if you want to dismiss "jesus" as Greek, that's fine. I am only using that name as convention dictates. I prefer his real name, Y'shua, anyway. It is rather ironic that the church insists on using Greek and Romanized names instead of his Aramaic or Jewish one... which of course, Anglicizes as Joshua.

 

Iesou probably knew multiple languages, if not fluently then conversationally, he i am sure spoke a little Aramaic just as much as a Southern California WASP Surfer Dood can order his lunch in spanish and in the evening order his beer and dime-bag in espanol as well.

 

But then again I have reason to believe "Jesus" is actually the Egyptian Horus, sure there were people named Jesus all around the area, I just dont think the one from the NT is anything but a compilation of stories taken from pagan mytholgy and mystery schools.

 

Gosh...hes such an enigma.

[Guest kcdad]

But then again I have reason to believe "Jesus" is actually the Egyptian Horus, sure there were people named Jesus all around the area, I just dont think the one from the NT is anything but a compilation of stories taken from pagan mytholgy and mystery schools.

 

Gosh...hes such an enigma.

 

Ok, I'll bite. What reason?