Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife

I'm tired of encountering your onslaught of copy/pasted verses from scripture, all of which express my very beliefs and do not contradict my universalist beliefs in the slightest.
I'm OK with anyone's tiredness with the Bible.
No Bible, no basis for dispute.
If the Bible didn't exist, we'd have no way of knowing what God did for us through Jesus Christ.
So, if you're really looking to dismiss me, you can.
i wasn't looking for your permission to be right.

Let's concentrate on one verse. I Tim 4:10 Explain it:

"He is the Savior of all men, especially those who believe."
And?
Explain revelation 20:14-15, and 21:8.

Rev 20:14-15 WEB 14 Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 If anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire.

Rev 21:8 WEB But for the cowardly, unbelieving, sinners, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their part is in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

If all men are saved, then why are they going to spend their eternity in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur for all eternity?

Why did Jesus say

Mat 7:13-14 WEB 13 “Enter in by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter in by it. 14 How narrow is the gate and the way is restricted that leads to life! There are few who find it.

Luk 13:24 WEB “Strive to enter in by the narrow door, for many, I tell you, will seek to enter in and will not be able.

why does he say- strive to enter in by the narrow door?

why would he make such statements if all men are saved?

why would John be told

Rev 14:9-11 WEB 9 Another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a great voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is prepared unmixed in the cup of his anger. He will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 The smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever. They have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.

are you saying that the angel lied to John?

yeah. I can indeed appreciate your being tired of encountering all the truth from the bible.

no bible, no truth, no truth, no argument that there is an eternal conscious torment because of people who refuse to turn to YHVH from their sin and place their trust in Jesus.
 
I'm OK with anyone's tiredness with the Bible.
No Bible, no basis for dispute.
If the Bible didn't exist, we'd have no way of knowing what God did for us through Jesus Christ.
So, if you're really looking to dismiss me, you can.
i wasn't looking for your permission to be right.

To whom is this addressed? Where have I dismissed the Bible? I am an ultra--fundie. The Bible is my heavenly food.


And what? I asked you to explain it.

Explain revelation 20:14-15, and 21:8.

Rev 20:14-15 WEB 14 Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 If anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire.

Rev 21:8 WEB But for the cowardly, unbelieving, sinners, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their part is in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

If all men are saved, then why are they going to spend their eternity in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur for all eternity?

They're not. Doesn't even say they will.

Why did Jesus say

Mat 7:13-14 WEB 13 “Enter in by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter in by it. 14 How narrow is the gate and the way is restricted that leads to life! There are few who find it.

Luk 13:24 WEB “Strive to enter in by the narrow door, for many, I tell you, will seek to enter in and will not be able.

Why did He say it? Because it's true.

why does he say- strive to enter in by the narrow door?

Because the door is narrow.

why would he make such statements if all men are saved?

Because the door to the Kingdom is narrow. Most will not make it in.

why would John be told

Rev 14:9-11 WEB 9 Another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a great voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is prepared unmixed in the cup of his anger. He will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 The smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever. They have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.

are you saying that the angel lied to John?

No, the angels told the truth. Your translators are lying to YOU.

yeah. I can indeed appreciate your being tired of encountering all the truth from the bible.

I never tire of the truth from the Bible.

What I am tired of is you once again ignoring I Timothy 4:10. Was Paul mistaken or was he lying when he said that "Jesus is the Savior of ALL men?"
 
To whom is this addressed? Where have I dismissed the Bible? I am an ultra--fundie. The Bible is my heavenly food.



And what? I asked you to explain it.



They're not. Doesn't even say they will.



Why did He say it? Because it's true.



Because the door is narrow.



Because the door to the Kingdom is narrow. Most will not make it in.



No, the angels told the truth. Your translators are lying to YOU.



I never tire of the truth from the Bible.

What I am tired of is you once again ignoring I Timothy 4:10. Was Paul mistaken or was he lying when he said that "Jesus is the Savior of ALL men?"
I have a novel idea.
You tell me what I'm allowed to believe about 1 Timothy 4:10.

And further tell me how much of the bible I have to ignore to hold the view you're sanctioning.

Then, please provide all the references which you believe give credence to your view.
 
God won't be around to torture anyone.
I thought he was everywhere.

If God casts people into fire to suffer for eternity, then walks away, knowing that that will happen, is that morally different to being there to watch? It is evil either way. It was worse than the very worse humans have done all totalled.

you'll be torturing yourself. He won't be around to torture you.
No, Steve, I will not.

If I have a choice, I will choose not to. If I have no choice, then God is morally culpable.

Oh, it's punishment.
Right. Punishment at the hands of God. Hence, torture.

Why do you insist on whitewashing it? Be honest with yourself and call it what it is.

And it'll be punishment you deserve.
You'll deserve it because you repeatedly refused to give your life to Jesus so he could save you from your sin and the consequences thereof!
How do you rationalise refusing Jesus with deserving to suffer for eternity? What of all the people who died before Jesus did? Or lived in areas that did not hear the message until after they died, such as the indigenous population of America until relative recently. Why do they deserve to suffer for eternity (and if they do not, why do they get a free pass, when others do not)?

Is God's ego really so fragile?

It is interesting to contrast human justice and God's so-called justice. Mankind sees things like rape and slavery as wrong, and deserving punishment, but considers freedom of religion to be a basic right.

God's so-called justice is to ignore slavery, rape, etc. and just punish you for not having the right religion.
 
I have a novel idea.
You tell me what I'm allowed to believe about 1 Timothy 4:10.

Allowed? I don't understand. Allowed by whom?

And further tell me how much of the bible I have to ignore to hold the view you're sanctioning.

None of it. Not only should you not ADD a jot or tittle, but neither should you SUBTRACT a jot or tittle.

Now back to my question about I Timothy 4:10. Do you concur with Paul that Jesus is "the Savior of all men?" Please answer this time. You have now ignored the question three times.
 
I thought he was everywhere.
God is omnipresent.

God would see them being tormented if that were the truth of the matter (conscious eternal torment). Paul told the philosophers on Mars Hill in Athens that "In Him [God] we live and move and have our being". Acts 17:28
 
I thought he was everywhere.
Please... read the Bible.
The description given to us by Jesus, is that it's prepared for the devil and his angels.
The devil wants nothing to do with God. So God prepared a place totally self-sustaining, where God is NOT.
I explained that in my thread-

Thread 'What's your eternity going to be like?' https://forums.carm.org/threads/whats-your-eternity-going-to-be-like.14229/

You can gripe that it's too long to read, but, it's detailed to answer this very question.


If God casts people into fire to suffer for eternity, then walks away, knowing that that will happen, is that morally different to being there to watch?
Those who go there deliberately chose to tell God they want nothing to do with God.
so why would he force you to be with him, or be in his presence?
someone else describes it as follows.
if you love someone and they don't love you, do you force them to feign loving you?
do you make them live in your house?
It is evil either way. It was worse than the very worse humans have done all totalled.
So, you actually want to ne a slave, and live in a place, and a manner you have repeatedly stated you loathe, and despise?

No, Steve, I will not.
there have it.
What's it going to be?
Paradise
Or
Torment?

If I have a choice, I will choose not to.
Then choose Jesus!
If I have no choice, then God is morally culpable.
Nope. You will have made your choice before you die.
Once your final choice is made at death, all other choices are made.
The old adage of- I didn't sign up for this- is done!
Regardless of what we think, if we made a choice, whatever results follow from the choice, we "signed up for."

Right. Punishment at the hands of God. Hence, torture.
Don't like the idea?
Then turn to YHVH from your sin and place your trust in Jesus.
you'll be immediately adopted by him as a child, and given all the rights, privileges and responsibilities pertaining thereto!

Why do you insist on whitewashing it?
I'm not. You're making it what it's not!
Be honest with yourself and call it what it is.
I have and am!
You're the one who needs to make it other than what it actually is.
How do you rationalise refusing Jesus with deserving to suffer for eternity?
John 3:16-21.
1 Corinthians 1:18-29
Revelation 21:8
Luke 13:1-5
Luke 16:19-31
It's a pretty comprehensive list.

What of all the people who died before Jesus did?
If they were righteous in God's eyes, they went to Abraham’s bosom.

Or lived in areas that did not hear the message until after they died, such as the indigenous population of America until relative recently. Why do they deserve to suffer for eternity (and if they do not, why do they get a free pass, when others do not)?
This is described in Romans 2.
Is God's ego really so fragile?
Nope. Why is yours, that you keep trying to figure out how to make him unjust and unrighteous like humans?

It is interesting to contrast human justice and God's so-called justice.
It is.
Looking back through history, I see nothing that is remotely close to God's justice.
Mankind sees things like rape and slavery as wrong, and deserving punishment, but considers freedom of religion to be a basic right.
That would explain why humans practice rape and slavery so prolifically, and are so proud of their ability to justify rape, murder, slavery, etc.... by their religion.

You really should look more closely at the violence committed by humans, throughout history. Especially atheist governments over the past 100 years.
God's so-called justice is to ignore slavery, rape, etc. and just punish you for not having the right religion.
No he didn't.
You obviously need him to have.
 
Yep
I don't understand. Allowed by whom?
Why, you!
I've repeatedly explained what I see in the Bible, you've repeatedly stated that I'm wrong, and then complained about being tired of my using the bible.

None of it. Not only should you not ADD a jot or tittle, but neither should you SUBTRACT a jot or tittle.

Now back to my question about I Timothy 4:10. Do you concur with Paul that Jesus is "the Savior of all men?" Please answer this time. You have now ignored the question three times.
He is the Savior of all men.
It's clear that you have rejected my description and bible verses showing that not all people are saved.

Revelation 14, 20:14-15, 21:8

Rev 14:9-12 WEB 9 Another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a great voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is prepared unmixed in the cup of his anger. He will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 The smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever. They have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name. 12 Here is the perseverance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.”
 
God for him. Most Christians seem perfectly happy to believe their God is punishing billions by inflicting severe pain on them (they object if it is called "torture", but no objection to him actually doing it).
That's too broad a generalization to extend to most Christians, although that may be a more accurate portrayal of most Christians on CARM.
 
That's too broad a generalization to extend to most Christians, although that may be a more accurate portrayal of most Christians on CARM.
There are several million followers of Jesus who hold the premise of an eternity of separation from God, being biblical.

The article that Stiggy posted the other day mentioned that it's Christian orthodoxy and has been for a long time....
 
OK.
Why?
Are you aware that biblical Christianity is not a philosophy?
It’s a hybrid of apocalyptic judaism and Hellenized Greek philosophy. Christianity’s only claim to originality is the framework of a God sacrificing for us as opposed to the other way around. But this blood sacrifice, and the sacraments involving flesh and blood that evolved from it, place it squarely in the category of cult.
 
Just finished chapter one. My observations:

It’s notable to me that the narratives found in the early church canon of heaven and hell found in the Apocalypse of Peter, the Passion of Perpetua, and the Acts of Thomas attempt to do something that no Christian with the current canon can do - describe the afterlife first hand and not via parable. It endorses for me, especially given these narratives didn't survive the canon, the idea that the early church was looking at all the problems people might have with belief and attempt to invent narratives to answer them. It seemed to be an era of creative license for many Christian authors. Narratives that many Christians of the time never questioned.
Why are you adding the apocalypse of Peter, the Passion of Perpetua, and the Acts of Thomas into the early church cannon?
I'm surprised you are giving more credence to these books than the accepted books of the NT. If I had a dream like Perpetua, wrote about the dream on CARM and then was martyred, would you believe it like you as you do Perpetua's "first-hand" account?

Ehrman's interpretation on pg 13 that "...early Christians appear to have believed the literal truth of such grisly descriptions of what is to come", I found uncalled for since he did not support it nor did he give any opposing viewpoints to this from early church writings outside of the NT canon. These examples of heaven and hell surely cannot be the only accounts written by the early church and especially the early church fathers (ECFs). I would put more stock in what the ECF's wrote on the subject but I don't see them referenced in the Table of Contents.

The accounts of heaven and hell that Ehrman presented in this chapter may have been an attempt to explain the afterlife with an abundance of creative license by "some" Christian authors but I disagree that it was unquestioned. If many Christians agreed, those books would have been included to the canon of scripture.
Also of note: I strongly disagree, as Bart claims on the final page of the chapter, that Jesus did not teach about hell. There are many mentions of being thrown into the pit that metaphorically might just mean being tossed on the garbage heap of Gehenna where fire would engulf you, no eternal punishment.
I'll leave Ehrman's comment on pg 16 for him to explain later in the book.
But that doesn't address Matt 25 where the sheep are separated from the goats and the final verse of the chapter clearly states,

"46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

I forgot how Bart reconciled those words of Jesus with his declaration that Jesus didn’t teach it. Maybe he didn’t. We’ll see.
I’ve heard the annihilists just say death is eternal and not with god. But that’s not the point. Bart said Jesus didn’t teach about Hell.
Looking forward to it.
 
It’s a hybrid of apocalyptic judaism and Hellenized Greek philosophy.
Hellenized greek philosophy.
ok.
please elaborate, and the correlate the greek philosophy to the biblical narrative, so I can see the connection you believe exists.
Christianity’s only claim to originality is the framework of a God sacrificing for us as opposed to the other way around.
Christianity’s only claim to originality is that its entire basis originates in biblical Judaism, and before.
But this blood sacrifice, and the sacraments involving flesh and blood that evolved from it, place it squarely in the category of cult.
So, you're calling biblical Judaism a cult too?
 
@5wize and @The Pixie

I don't find any of the accounts of the afterlife in this chapter believable or scriptural.
I'll just comment on Ehrman's interpretation on pages 15-16. " Here then are four visions of the afterlife, each unique but all tending toward the same end of guiding people's lives in the here and now by confronting them with what awaits them in the hereafter. Eternal glory or torment hangs in the balance. Christian readers at the time would not have taken these tales to be pure fictions but would have accepted that they were rooted in the realities of the world to come."

I don't agree with his assessment. I even think calling them metaphorical is a huge stretch and being beyond charitable. Pure fiction would be more likely as opposed to realities of the world to come.


Luke 16:22 The poor man died and was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was being tormented, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side.24 He called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in agony in these flames.’

I have read that this is not a parable because it uses a name, Lazarus. Here is an example of two people who died who ended up in two different places based on what they did in their lives. Jesus could have easily gone on in-depth about the after life but he didn't. I'm very skeptical about explicit examples of what is to come exceeds what Jesus taught or what the authors of the NT wrote.

As for people being guided by the accounts of Thomas or Perpetua of the after life, I think Ehrman is exaggerating and being an alarmist.
 
Why are you adding the apocalypse of Peter, the Passion of Perpetua, and the Acts of Thomas into the early church cannon?
I misspoke. I should have said *extra-canonical*.
I'm surprised you are giving more credence to these books than the accepted books of the NT.
If I had a dream like Perpetua, wrote about the dream on CARM and then was martyred, would you believe it like you as you do Perpetua's "first-hand" account?
I’m not giving them any credence at all. The purpose of introducing these books is just to familiarize us with the types of narratives that circulated the early church.
Ehrman's interpretation on pg 13 that "...early Christians appear to have believed the literal truth of such grisly descriptions of what is to come", I found uncalled for since he did not support it nor did he give any opposing viewpoints to this from early church writings outside of the NT canon.
The treatments of these texts, how they were preserved and found, displays at least a limited veneration of them at the time by certain sects of Christianity.
These examples of heaven and hell surely cannot be the only accounts written by the early church and especially the early church fathers (ECFs). I would put more stock in what the ECF's wrote on the subject but I don't see them referenced in the Table of Contents.
It is clear that the ECFs were already hovering around the current 27 books as canonical - not these. Ehrman is more interested in what the ideas and concepts that were floating around in the EC to see if we can see parallels in Jesus’s teachings. There will be plenty of canonical discussion coming up.
The accounts of heaven and hell that Ehrman presented in this chapter may have been an attempt to explain the afterlife with an abundance of creative license by "some" Christian authors but I disagree that it was unquestioned.
It was obviously questioned as they did not make the canon.
If many Christians agreed, those books would have been included to the canon of scripture.
Agreed. I never meant to imply that I or the ECFs who codified the final canon agreed with them. Jesus however did reflect some of the sentiments found in them... (punishment - AoP, the way is narrow - PoP)
I'll leave Ehrman's comment on pg 16 for him to explain later in the book.

Looking forward to it.
 
Back
Top