The Black Vault Message Forums

Discover the Truth!        

Religion & Spirituality

Priest Says Hell Is An Invention Of The Church To Control P

Whether you believe in a higher power or not, this forum is dedicated to the topic of religion and spirituality. We live in a diverse world with different morals and ideas when it comes to our beliefs, so come in and share your thoughts.

Postby OraProNobis » Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:42 am

Paul distorted Jesus' teachings and was instrumental in the church's "deviation" from Jesus' teaching and practices. Paul spoiled the message of Jesus. Paul started the myth of the following example.
Original sin
Making the Jews the villains
Making Jesus divine
Jesus' death being seen as atonement for human sin
Making Jesus the Saviour


So are you saying it was Paul who wrote all the other gospels as well ? :think: or they were just made up by others?

I believe original sin was mentioned in the old testament as well as the prophecies of Jesus coming to earth to atone for all sin.

Paul did not make Jesus the Savior , it is Christ Himself who tells the apostles this...and through His death , resurrection and ascension into heaven, for which they were witnesses to, proves it to be true.

Why would Paul make the Jews the villains ? :? Paul himself was a Jew, as well as Jesus and all of the apostles.

I am not sure where you have obtained the information you base your accusations on, but I fear you are being mislead.

May we all be drawn to the REAL truth , especially those who sincerely seek it with an open heart.

I personally have read about many miracles and been witness to some , performed in the name of Jesus , and through the power of the Holy Spirit ,to have faith that God has answered my questions on the validity and truth of the Holy Trinity being the DIVINE truth.

God bless you Zolton, and may He show you His love, and draw you closer to His truth. May your guardian angel help in guiding you to that loving truth.
User avatar
OraProNobis
 
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 8:57 pm

Postby zoltan2 » Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:31 pm

OraProNobis wrote:
Paul distorted Jesus' teachings and was instrumental in the church's "deviation" from Jesus' teaching and practices. Paul spoiled the message of Jesus. Paul started the myth of the following example.
Original sin
Making the Jews the villains
Making Jesus divine
Jesus' death being seen as atonement for human sin
Making Jesus the Saviour


So are you saying it was Paul who wrote all the other gospels as well ? :think: or they were just made up by others?

I believe original sin was mentioned in the old testament as well as the prophecies of Jesus coming to earth to atone for all sin.

Paul did not make Jesus the Savior , it is Christ Himself who tells the apostles this...and through His death , resurrection and ascension into heaven, for which they were witnesses to, proves it to be true.

Why would Paul make the Jews the villains ? :? Paul himself was a Jew, as well as Jesus and all of the apostles.

I am not sure where you have obtained the information you base your accusations on, but I fear you are being mislead.

May we all be drawn to the REAL truth , especially those who sincerely seek it with an open heart.

I personally have read about many miracles and been witness to some , performed in the name of Jesus , and through the power of the Holy Spirit ,to have faith that God has answered my questions on the validity and truth of the Holy Trinity being the DIVINE truth.

God bless you Zolton, and may He show you His love, and draw you closer to His truth. May your guardian angel help in guiding you to that loving truth.



Christianity is a combination of Hellenistic Greek religious motifs with Jewish concepts. Paul is the real founder of Christianity

At the beginning of Christianity Jesus and Paul are regarded by Christians as the founder of their religion.
But Paul is regarded as the great interpreter of Jesus' mission, who explained, in a way that Jesus himself never did, how Jesus' life and death fitted into a cosmic scheme of salvation, stretching from the creation of Adam to the end of time.

Jesus never knew Paul and they never once met. The disciples who knew Jesus best, such as Peter, James and John, have left no writings behind them explaining how Jesus seemed to them or what they considered his mission to have been.

Paul claimed that his interpretations came by personal acquaintance with the resurrected Jesus, even though he had never met him during his lifetime through vision.

We know about Paul from his own letters and the book of Acts, which gives a full account of his life.

In fact, he is the hero of Acts, which was written by an admirer and follower of his, named, and this Luke who was also the author of the Gospel of that name. Luke was not an immediate apostle of Jesus during Jesus lifetime and he had never met Jesus

Immediate after Jesus' death the leader of the Jerusalem Church is Peter then Jesus' brother James. Yet in the Gospels, this James does not appear at all as having anything to do with Jesus' mission and his story.

And this to ensure and erase Jesus' brother dames (and his other brothers) from any significant role in the Gospel story.
A plan to denigrate the early leaders who had been in close contact with Jesus.

Those who were immediate close to Jesus regarded with great suspicion and dismay the Christological theories of Paul, flaunting his brand new visions in interpretation of the Jesus whom he had never met in the flesh.

From certain of Paul's letters, particularly Galatians, it seems that the friction was more serious than in the picture given in Acts.
What would Jesus think of Paul


Paul's doctrine of Jesus is a daring departure from Judaism.

Paul was advocating a doctrine that seemed more in common with pagan myths than with Judaism: that Jesus was a divine-human person who had descended to Earth from the heavens and experienced death for the express purpose of saving mankind.

The Jews found this doctrine new and shocking and played no role in Jewish scripture.

Paul said that not only this doctrine doctrine was new but added that that every line of the Jewish scripture was a foreshadowing of the Jesus-event as he understood it.

And those who understood the scripture in any other way were failing in comprehension of what Judaism had always been about.

Paul regarded much of the Old Testament as obsolete, superseded by the advent of Jesus.

So Paul was disconnecting himself with Judaism and the first Christian Jerusalem church headed and led by James (Peter was to weak and too unorganized ) and Paul was adhering to resurrected gods and Gnostic myths of heaven-descended redeemers that existed in the past.


Paul's writings and those of the Early Apostles, reveal how Greek motifs were given "a new twist" and adapted to the story of Christ. As more Gentile converts flooded into the Early Christian church, they brought with them Greek religious notions which were re-formatted into a Christian "Gospel".

The original Jewish element represented by James and Jesus himself , eventually was replaced by Paul's Gentile church.
Judaism could not tolerate the heretical Christian church which had embraced Greek religious notions.

Tied with the notions of a dispensation and millennium is the idea of a Judgement of the Dead and the punishment of the bad people.

The truth is that the Old Testament does not portray Hell or the Underworld (called Sheol in Hebrew) as a fiery place.
There is no mention of a Lake of Fire, or of individuals being bound and tormented (punishments) in the Underworld.

Paul and the early Christians of the gentile church of Paul apparently drew upon Greek myths about the Judgement, punishment and resurrection of the dead after a thousand years, as preserved in Plato's writings and many others.

Perhaps Early Christian notions about a narrow pathway to Heaven and a broad pathway to Hell (Matthew 7:13) is borrowing from the above Platonic notion of "a path" to the Isles of the Bless and "a path" to Tartarus (Hell)?

Early Christian notions about "the binding" with chains of Satan and his angels, hurling them into the bottomless abyss, was drawn upon Plato's motif of the wicked being bound and hurled into Tartarus, which is described as far removed from earth as is heaven (the lower-most portion of Hell reserved for punishments of the wicked). The incorrigible Titans were bound in chains, and kept in Tartarus in Hesiodic myths.

Paul was never a Pharisee rabbi but was tied in with the Sadducees, as a police officer under the authority of the High Priest, before converting to is belief in Jesus. Also he deliberately misrepresented his own biography in order to increase the effectiveness of missionary activities.


Jesus and his immediate followers were Pharisees. Jesus had no intention of founding a new religion.
Jesus regarded himself as the Messiah in the normal Jewish sense of the word meaning a human leader who would restore the Jewish monarchy, drive out the Roman invaders, set up an independent Jewish state, and inaugurate an era of peace, justice and prosperity (known as 'the kingdom of God,) for the whole world.

Jesus believed himself to be the one prophesied in the Hebrew Bible who would do all these things.
He was not a militarist and did not build up an army to fight the Romans.
He was not as militant and a fiercely Zealot like his brother James because he believed that God would perform a great miracle to break the power of Rome on the Mount of Olives, as prophesied in the book of Zechariah.

He had no intention of being crucified in order to save mankind from eternal damnation by his sacrifice.
He never regarded himself as a divine being, and would have regarded such an idea as pagan and idolatrous.


The first followers of Jesus, under James and Peter, founded the Jerusalem Church after Jesus' death.

They were called the Nazarenes, and were indistinguishable from the Pharisees, but beleived that Jesus ressurected, and that Jesus was still the promised Messiah.
meaning anointed one to rule politically and religiously.

They thought that he had been brought back to life after his death on the cross, and would soon come back to complete his mission of overthrowing the Romans and setting up the Messianic kingdom.

Jesus had observed the Jewish religious law all his life and had never rebelled against it.

His sabbath cures were not against Pharisee law.

The Nazarenes did not regard themselves as belonging to a new religion; their religion was Judaism.
The Nazarenes became suspicious of Paul when they heard that he was preaching that Jesus was the founder of a new religion and that he had abrogated the Torah.

The Nazarenes ( the Jerusalem Church under James and Peter) broke irrevocably with Paul and disowned him because of his views..

In this new religion, the Torah was abrogated as having had only temporary validity.

The central myth of the new religion was that of an atoning death of a divine being. Belief in this sacrifice, and a mystical sharing of the death of the deity, formed the only path to salvation.

Paul derived this religion from Hellenistic sources, chiefly by a fusion of concepts taken from Gnosticism and concepts taken from the mystery religions.

The combination of these new views of his with elements derived from Judaism, particularly the incorporation of the Jewish scriptures reinterpreted to provide a new background of sacred history for the new myth Paul alone was responsible and the creator of this.

These views were not in Jesus intention and he would of been been amazed and shocked at the role assigned to him by Paul as a suffering God.

As the Ebionites claim that Paul had no Pharisaic background or training, was the son of Gentiles, converted to Judaism in Tarsus, came to Jerusalem when an adult, and attached himself to the High Priest as a henchman.

Disappointed in his hopes of advancement, he broke with the High Priest and sought fame by founding a new religion.

The Ebionites were the same group that had earlier been called the Nazarenes, who were led by James and Peter, who had known Jesus during his lifetime, and were in a far better position to know his Jesus aims than Paul, who met Jesus only in dreams and visions.

When Jesus drank wine and broke bread at the Last Supper, he was doing what a Jew does every time he performs the Kiddush ceremony before a Festival or Sabbath meal.

When Jesus began his prayer with "Our Father that art in heaven..." he was following the pattern of Pharisee prayers which still form part of the Jewish Daily Prayer Book.

The Epistles attributed to "Paul," never discuss a historical background of Jesus but deal exclusively with a spiritual being who was known to all gnostic sects for hundreds to thousands of years.


The first generation of Christians didn't see any need for a permanent written record of the sayings and stories of Jesus. Jesus' return and the restoration of the Kingdom of God on earth were imminent--why bother preserving stories if the world was about to end?

Stories were simply passed along orally, primarily as a means of preaching and convincing outsiders. But as the first generation began to die off and hopes for the Second Coming dimmed, there was a need to preserve Jesus' words and deeds for posterity.


Collections of stories about Jesus circulated in the early church, among them like The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Mary, and the Secret Book of John.
And they gave very different and in some cases conflicting accounts of the gospel and, most importantly, of Jesus' alleged resurrection.

The decision on which interpretation was "correct" was central to the future of the church.

The earliest writings in the New Testament are actually Paul's letters, which were written about AD 50-60, while the Gospels were not written until the period AD 70-110.

Paul theories were already before the writers of the Gospels gave and embellish their interpretations of Jesus' activities.


The Gospels are based on traditions and even written sources which go back to a time before the impact of Paul.
These early traditions and sources are not completely taken out in the final version.
They valuable views keys of what the story was like before Paulinist editors pulled it into final shape.

Rival interpretations, which at one time had been orthodox, opposed to Paul's very individual views, now became heretical and were crowded out of the final version of the writings adopted by the Pauline Church as the inspired canon of the New Testament.

The Jewish Messiah originally meant a divinely appointed king; David, Cyrus the Great, and Alexander the Great[1] are examples of such. Later, especially after the failure of Bar Kokhba's revolt, the figure of the messiah was one who would deliver the Jews from oppression and usher in a new world.

* Simon (ca. 4 BC), a former slave of Herod the Great who rebelled.
* Athronges (ca. 3 BC)
* Judas of Galilee (?), son of Hezekiah/Ezekias, a member of the Zealots faction who led a bloody revolt against a Roman census in AD 6. (JA18)
* Jesus of Nazareth (ca. 4 BC - AD 30-?), a wandering prophet and teacher who was crucified by the Romans; Jews who believed him to be the Messiah were the first Christians, also known as Jewish Christians.
* Theudas (? - 46), who attempted a short-lived revolt against the Romans before being slain. (JA20.5.1)
* "Egyptian Prophet", c.55, (an allusion to Moses[citation needed]), with 30,000 unarmed
User avatar
zoltan2
 
Posts: 513
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 5:33 am

Postby OraProNobis » Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:59 pm

Quote from Zorton
At the beginning of Christianity Jesus and Paul are regarded by Christians as the founder of their religion.


As far as my understanding , Christians at the beginning of Christianity were followers of Jesus and His apostles, and much of that was because of His many miracles as well as His great teaching, as well as the great signs that happened after His death on the cross, such as the temple cloth being torn in two. These first Christians had no idea who Paul was, and some most likely died by his hand.

I will not get into a debate about your sources Zorton , and I know that there are others who have far more knowledge and understanding on the history of the bible and its writings than I. It all boils down to which sources you trust, and as always with the Holy words of God, there is the deceiver who wishes to twist things , and to take away from the truth of salvation for mankind through Jesus. That is what the antichrist is truly about. Stealing souls away from the truth and redemption of our salvation through Jesus Christ.

In time we will all find out where the truth lays .

May the merciful love of Jesus be with us all.
User avatar
OraProNobis
 
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 8:57 pm

Postby zoltan2 » Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:15 am

OraProNobis wrote:Quote from Zorton
At the beginning of Christianity Jesus and Paul are regarded by Christians as the founder of their religion.


As far as my understanding , Christians at the beginning of Christianity were followers of Jesus and His apostles, and much of that was because of His many miracles as well as His great teaching, as well as the great signs that happened after His death on the cross, such as the temple cloth being torn in two. These first Christians had no idea who Paul was, and some most likely died by his hand.

I will not get into a debate about your sources Zorton , and I know that there are others who have far more knowledge and understanding on the history of the bible and its writings than I. It all boils down to which sources you trust, and as always with the Holy words of God, there is the deceiver who wishes to twist things , and to take away from the truth of salvation for mankind through Jesus. That is what the antichrist is truly about. Stealing souls away from the truth and redemption of our salvation through Jesus Christ.

In time we will all find out where the truth lays .

May the merciful love of Jesus be with us all.


You are right the first Jewish Christians were the apostles Mary and disciples and followers of Jesus who formed the First Apostolic Jerusalem Church headed by Peter.

However the first Christians called Nazarenes knew who Paul was. Because between 31 ad and 33 ad Paul none as Saul then was persecuting the first Jewish Christians and had the Apostle Stephan stoned to death and the first Jewish Christian Martyr..

Between 31 AD to 34 AD

The apostles, led by the apostle Peter formed the first Apostolic Jerusalem church in 31 Ad. The apostles, Mary and other disciples and converts were the first Jewish Christians called the Nazarenes. They attended Jewish temple and worshiped Moses and Jesus . They were the first Jewish Christians.

Between 34 AD to 50 AD

Paul still named Saul at the time had a so called vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus. Blind and later recovered Paul becomes a Nazarene member of the Apostolic Jerusalem Church. During that period he starts his missions with Barnabas.

Between 50 AD to 66 AD

James the brother of Jesus becomes the leader of the Apostolic Church. There is a big strife between James head and the Apostolic Jerusalem Church with Paul's contrary views of and about Jesus. Paul wants to be a bishop of the Apostolic Church of Jerusalem and he is denied of it by the Church and by James.

Please remember that Paul never met Jesus beside a vision with a condemnation reproach of him when he was persecuting the Christians.

On the other hand the Apostles, James, Mary and close disciples had live beside Jesus while Paul never met Jesus once in flesh and blood.
Between 50 AD to 66 AD

Paul rebels from the Apostolic Jerusalem Church and decide between this period to start and founds his type Christianity with his epistles which are probably the first Christians writings. Paul's views on Jesus are not the views of the Apolitical Jerusalem Church nor the apostles and the closer followers of Jesus who had lived talked and walked with Jesus day in and day out.


Between 66 AD to 70 AD

The Jewish war with the Romans starts, Jerusalem is gutted, the temple destroyed, as well as the Apostolic Jerusalem Church of the Nazarenes ( Which are the First Jewish Christians ).

67 AD Paul his killed.

Very Important that :

Prior to Paul’s death that that is prior to 67 AD there are no Gospels yet written. The Apostles and first Christians never read the gospels nor the first testament because it did not exist.


Between 70 AD to 75 AD

The first Gospel by Mark is written in Rome. However this is not written by the Apostle Marc.
Mark, not an apostle himself, [b]was an associate of the apostle Paul for a short time[/b].
It's generally assumed to have been the first gospel written, coming in right before Matthew. This Mark never met or waked with Jesus. It is based on Paul's view who interned never met Jesus or walked with Jesus too who had died nearly 40 years before.
Also it was written way after the death of Paul


Between 80 AD to 85 AD

The Gospel of Matthew is written not by the Apostle Matthew traditionally held to be the tax collector mentioned in Matthew 9:9, sometimes referred to as Levi. This Gospel of Matthew does not name its author.

The Christian bishop, Papias of Hierapolis 100–140 AD, in a passage with several ambiguous phrases, wrote: "Matthew collected the sayings of or about Jesus in the Hebrew language while each one was interpreted or translated them as best he could.



However, Matthew borrows heavily from the Gospel of Mark. It's hard to believe someone who was in close contact with Jesus would have had to rely on secondary sources.
Since this gospel has the most quotations from the Old Testament, sometimes going to ridiculous lengths to try to show that Jesus was the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, it's assumed that Matthew was written for a Jewish audience. There is suspicion that it might have been originally written in Hebrew, although only Greek texts have ever been found. Scholars differ on the composition date, but most agree on roughly 65 - 70 AD with a few placing at as late as 100 - 134 AD.

85 AD to 90 AD

Luke writes the third Gospel in Antioch Asia Minor and is not by the apostle Luke. Also it is written about more that 20 years after Paul's death and 50 years after Jesus' death.

Luke was a Greco-Syrian physician who lived in the Greek city of Antioch in ancient Syria. He never met Jesus. Luke was a Greco-Syrian physician. He never belonged to the Apostolic Jerusalem Church. He had become a disciple of Paul and adhere to Paul’s view on Jesus Christ and later followed Paul until his death.

Luke was in fact the author of the Gospel bearing his name and also the Acts of the Apostles. While he does exclude himself from those who were eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry, he repeatedly uses the word "we" in describing the Pauline missions in Acts of the Apostles.

[b]One has to remember that you had two Christian Churches The Apostolic Jerusalem Church ( The Nazarenes headed by the brother of James versus Pauline Church headed by Paul[/b]
The composition of the writings, as well as the range of vocabulary used, indicate that the author was an educated man. Luke died at age 84 in Boeotia.

110 AD to 140 AD

The Gospel of John is not written by the Apostle John. The Gospel's authorship is anonymous and well written more than 70 years of Jesus death.

The two Epistles of Peter both claim to have been written by the apostle Peter, both addressed themselves to the same church and both claim to have been sent at approximately the same time.

1 Peter
[b]The author is unlikely to have been the apostle Peter. The cultured Greek of the epistle makes it perhaps the most literary composition in the NT. The apostle Peter probably knew some Greek, but 1 Peter does not look like the product of an unlettered (Acts 4:13) Galilean fisherman.[/b]

It employs a sophisticated vocabulary and its author appears to have some command of the techniques of Hellenistic rhetoric. We should have expected the Galilean Peter to have been more familiar with Aramaic
I Peter contains no evidence at all of familiarity with the earthly Jesus, his life, his teaching, and his death, but makes reference only in a general way to the sufferings of Christ.

It is scarcely conceivable that Peter would neither have sought to strengthen his authority by referring to his personal connections with Jesus nor have referred to the example of Jesus in some way.

Based on his command of the Greek language and his familiarity with the Greek Septuagint , the author of 1 Peter may have been a Jew of the Hellenistic Diaspora.

2 Peter
More people have challenged 2 Peter as "authentic" than any other book of the New Testament.

However none of the early Fathers definitely quoted 2 Peter and it was not even mentioned in the second century.
Also 2 Peter has a different style of writing than 1 Peter, but the same literary style as Jude. Most of 2 Peter and Jude are parallel, and 15 of 25 verses in Jude actually appear in 2 Peter. So the author of 2 Peter is most probably not the same person as the author of 1 Peter, but may be the same as the author of Jude.

I am not here to deceive but let me remind you that I took and studied many religious courses on Christianity and its history on an elective program in University.
Also I was catholic served mass, studied Catholic catechism later on turned protestant then when to Sunday school.

The truth is that Salvation is a concept of Paul and of his doctrines. It is not in the concept of the First Christian Jerusalem Apostolic Church.

And again there is not Anti Christ meaning against the Messiah.
Anti in the Greek term means

The Literal Meaning of "Antichrist"

As used in the Bible, the term combines the Greek word, "anti", with the title commonly given to Jesus. The main meaning of this word is, "instead of" or, "in place of".

"Antichrist", therefore means, literally, "someone who stands instead of, or in place of, the Christ while the word Christ in Greek translates into Messiah.

Many Christians churches and especially the Catholic church are not following the original Apostolic Jerusalem Church and Jesus teachings.
They are basically following Paul's twisted conception of who Jesus was.

User avatar
zoltan2
 
Posts: 513
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 5:33 am

Postby frrostedman » Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:29 pm

How did this get turned into a bash St. Paul thread?

I thought it was about hell, which Jesus said more about than anyone in the entire New Testament. Try to stay on topic. Though now that I notice the familiar lengthy and ad nauseum rants, the obvious obsessive-compulsive nature of your posts, the various copy-paste jobs, and the enlarged and bolded text; I suspect you are about the 3rd or 4th incarnation of someone we've seen before; someone who is incapable of staying on topic.
"But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about Jesus being a great teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." C.S. Lewis
User avatar
frrostedman
 
Posts: 3645
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 7:01 pm

Postby Halfabo » Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:10 pm

Many Christians churches and especially the Catholic church are not following the original Apostolic Jerusalem Church and Jesus teachings.
They are basically following Paul's twisted conception of who Jesus was.


And since you have no clue who Jesus was, is, you really don't know what your talking about. Oh, about the large and colorful fonts, they do not impress anyone. All it does is to serve as a warning that people are about to trudge through another boring cut and paste post. You really have no substance at all. All you have been posting is the same old tired and boring stupidity that has been posted a thousand times before. You really should try to get a life.
Halfabo
 
Posts: 633
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby Guest » Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:32 pm

Zoltan, I have no problem discussing or debating the similarities of Christianity and Paganism. However, if you want to be taken seriously here, you need to link sources and then perhaps give your own points for debate/discussion about the source material provided. Even without source material/links, your own points would benefit the debate/discussion far more than any copy/paste will do. It would also do wonders for your credibility as a poster here at the BV. We don't all agree here but at least we know where one another stand. Mutual respect may be a foreign concept for some but it is healthy and vital in a community such as the BV. I don't agree with everything every poster here says but I appreciate their honest opinions and ability to maintain civility while debating these issues, well mostly civil. :lol:
Guest
 

Postby zoltan2 » Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:21 am

Rykuss wrote:Zoltan, I have no problem discussing or debating the similarities of Christianity and Paganism. However, if you want to be taken seriously here, you need to link sources and then perhaps give your own points for debate/discussion about the source material provided. Even without source material/links, your own points would benefit the debate/discussion far more than any copy/paste will do. It would also do wonders for your credibility as a poster here at the BV. We don't all agree here but at least we know where one another stand. Mutual respect may be a foreign concept for some but it is healthy and vital in a community such as the BV. I don't agree with everything every poster here says but I appreciate their honest opinions and ability to maintain civility while debating these issues, well mostly civil. :lol:


I am not writing a thesis here on religion for a PHD where I have to post all my resources.
I have posted many references you tubes etc priory on this.
After much reading in books ,research on the internet and knowlgedge from my old university religious classes, these are my opinions as well as others.
Its up to you guys to do your own research and question what I say if you want to do it in a civil matter.
It seems that most of you cannot phantom that there are truths out of the box.
These truths rock your foundation of your beliefs and that scares the sh.....................t out of you and very hard to digest.
Scholars and historians do not have this type of paranoia and are not brainwashed into religious beliefs that cannot be shaken.
Thank God that they are there.
The internet is a tool of fantastic proportion in knowledge and data base. Everything is there.
Go out and find it
User avatar
zoltan2
 
Posts: 513
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 5:33 am

Postby frrostedman » Tue Feb 28, 2012 8:35 pm

From Unseen Realities: Heaven, Hell, Angels, and Demons:

    I suppose there is no topic in Christian theology more difficult to deal with, particularly on an emotional level, than the doctrine of hell. In fact, the doctrine has become so controversial in the modern era that it is almost never addressed.

    We seem to be allergic to any serious discussion of the doctrine of hell. In fact, there has probably never been a time in the history of the church when more people have challenged this doctrine than in our own day. Liberal theologians, of course, completely dismiss it as part of the mythological worldview of primitive people, a concept unworthy of the love of God and of Jesus. Others, even within the professing evangelical camp, have created quite a stir by suggesting the doctrine of annihilationism, which says that the ultimate judgment of the sinner is not ongoing, eternal punishment in a place called hell, but simply the annihilation of the person’s existence, and that the great punishment, the great loss, that accompanies annihilation is the loss of the happiness promised to those who will live eternally in heaven. So we have moved away from looking very seriously at the concept of hell.

    Whenever I enter into discussions about the doctrine of hell, people ask, “R.C., do you believe that the New Testament portrait of hell is to be interpreted literally?” I usually respond by saying, “No, I don’t interpret those images literally,” and people typically respond with a sigh of relief.

    If we take the New Testament’s descriptions of hell as symbolic language, we have to remember the function of symbols. The assumption is that there’s always more to the reality than what is indicated by the symbol, which makes me think that, instead of taking comfort that these images of the New Testament may indeed be symbolic, we should be worrying that the reality toward which these symbols point is more ghastly than the symbols.

    —R.C. Sproul


Kind of an interesting twist. Sproul readily admits that the biblical descriptions of hell are symbolic; yet we shouldn't take comfort in that. Instead we should shudder to imagine what the symbols point to, since symbols are often less intense and severe than the reality they are used to describe.
"But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about Jesus being a great teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." C.S. Lewis
User avatar
frrostedman
 
Posts: 3645
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 7:01 pm

Postby at1with0 » Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:23 am

If the descriptions of hell are to be taken as metaphor, what does that say for the doctrine of heaven?
"it is easy to grow crazy"
User avatar
at1with0
 
Posts: 9176
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: the coproduct of the amalgam of all structures

PreviousNext

Return to Religion & Spirituality

cron
  • View new posts
  • View unanswered posts
  • Who is online
  • In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 10 minutes)
  • Most users ever online was 292 on Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:19 pm
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest