Re: I just learnt something new

>but if Jewish thought was as he says, they would have read the apocalyptic language of hell as descriptive of its experience, not of it's physical nature.

I think that's pretty accurate as far as I know. Hell's not really viewed as a deliberate punishment, or even a place, in Judaism, but more of a passive condition akin to being away from God. It ties into their "washable" view of the soul. Hell is kind of like having dirty clothes on. Sin being the dirt. The uncleanliness detracts from your closeness to God, but you can always wash your clothes off whenever. That's in contrast the more permanent condition resulting from final judgement one finds in Christianity.

The Jewish view is pretty varied, and that's just one take. There are lots of others. I think some Jews also believe in a sort of purgatory, too. But for a religion as old as it is, Hell is not particularly well defined in Judaism, which is kind of surprising to me.

It's a pretty big topic in general, and Hell often comes as a subset of an underworld, which is a much more encompassing concept. For instance, the Egyptians had an underworld, but that was just where your heart was tested after death. Pass the test, and you get to live as Egyptian the rest of eternity. Fail the test, and you are eradicated from existence. So they had an underworld, and a Heaven of sorts, but not a Hell.

Mesopotamia was sort of the flip of that. When you died, you went to Kur, their dark underworld. But everyone went there, good, bad, whatever, so it wasn't punitive or punishment; it just was. And for them, it's all there was. No Heaven to be found. All stick, and no carrot.

The Greeks added in a punitive aspect. Hades was the underworld, and Tartarus was the bad side of the tracks in Hades. The place where people were sent specifically to be punished. So it's possible that our fire-and-brimstone view of Hell comes from the Greek tradition, and not the Jewish tradition. In fact, I don't think the word Hell appears anywhere in the entire OT. It could be that the punitive idea came with the influx of Greeks following Alexander taking over the known world in about 300 BCE. That's pretty recent as far as idea-swapping goes.

CUintulsa®

Hall of Famer [24477]

TigerPulse: 100%

Posts: 13968

Joined: 7/3/01

Mar 26, 2024, 12:28 PM

> It's two very different challenges as far as teaching.
Hm. Maybe that is why letters like Galatians are very basic, while Romans is theological. I had thought of it as chronological. The letters are arranged in the NT from longest to shortest, by author. When read in chronological order however, a growing theology is evident. However, you are pointing out that one can arrange them by audience and see the same progression, so I am now thinking this is what determines the tone. I mean, Paul was plenty smart and informed, in both the Law and Grace, from Thessalonians on.

I'm sure you've heard this, but one thing that did change was Paul's view of himself. In early letters he 'humbly' referred to himself as the least of the apostles. Then he said he was least of all believers. Finally, he tells Timothy he is the chief of sinners. We all go through that, I think. He was probably more fun over coffee near the end.

> ... and Satan, at his right side, to accuse him.
Ha. Yes. I imagine God rolling his eyes, thinking, "Somebody remind me, please, why am I allowing this?" Satan's access to that forum is short lived. And as you know, he is known as 'the accuser'. It's what he does. "I shouted out, who shot ..." There are so many such scenes that could be put into humorous reenactment. Below I refer to a TV series on Prime titled "Good Omens". Highly recommend. The authors are not believers (as best I can tell) but they even handedly tell the story, so it is both biblical and funny. Aziraphale is a fussy angel assigned to earth from 'the beginning', and Crowley is a worldly sophisticate demon with the same assignment. It takes place in the current day, over a short period of time, but we are given glimpses of their relationship during past human events: wars, the Flood etc. Very funny, and thought provoking. In one scene, Noah is herding the animals into the ark. Aziraphale is as perplexed as Crowley is incredulous, as they stand a mile off, watching. Aziraphale has this squint as he watches, like, "I do not get this. At all."
Crowley: "What?? A flood? Everywhere?"
"Apparently so."
"He's going to kill a bunch of babies!"
A slight head nod.
"Everybody! All over the world!!"
"I dont think he's mad at the Chinese, so maybe not."

A unicorn bounds away from the line, heads across the field to the tree line. Crowley: "Well, there goes that."

They both come to enjoy their gig here, so they end up working together to keep the end from coming. At the end, as I said below, we see that they had two different purposes.

But yes, I agree that Judaism is the most legalistic of all, and by extension Christianity also, in the sense that we know that is the reason for the Messiah. The legalism, imo, is intended to reveal the irreparably broken relationship and its eternal consequences. The Law is a mirror, and facing it we see two images, ourselves and the One holding it. We have become not like Him, eternity not habitable by both. Something has to reconcile the two. Is how I see it.

Message was edited by: CUintulsa®

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

I just learnt something new