Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife

[Caroljeen]

@5wize

The preface of his book certainly has drawn me into wanting to read it. Ehrman gives a layout of the entire book but left his final conclusion rather murky- pages xix-xxi.
His timeline:
1. Oldest sources of the Hebrew Bible do not talk about life after death but simply the state of death in their grave or in a mysterious entity called Sheol.
2. The Hebrews struggled with the destruction of their nation (by Assyria and Babylon?). How could God allow his own chosen people to be wiped out by a foreign, pagan power?
3. 6th BCE- Hebrew prophets- proclaim the nation of Israel that had been destroyed would be restored to life by God, not a resurrection of people who have died. (I'm looking forward to this part. I don't recall resurrection imagery in the Bible for the nation of Israel's comeback but I wouldn't be surprised if it is there.)
4. Near the end of the OT period- some Jewish thinkers believe this future resurrection is for individuals not the nation and appeal to the God's just character. A resurrection of the dead with a day of judgment.
5. Jesus of Nazareth-inherited this view and forcefully claimed it. "Those who did God's will would be rewarded at the end, raised from the dead to live forever in a glorious kingdom here on earth. Those opposed to God would be punished by being annihilated out of existence. For Jesus this was to happen very soon. Evil had taken control of this world and was wreaking havoc in it... But God would soon intervene to overthrow these forces of evil and establish his kingdom here on earth.
6. After Jesus' death his disciples transformed Jesus' teaching (because Jesus didn't come back when they expected him to) judgment for each person at death. Believers would be taken to heaven as they await the return to their bodies at the future resurrection (maybe he means a transformed spiritual body,1 Cor 15:42-57) and those opposed to God would be punished. Once thought to be annihilation but changed to eternal torment since God is eternal. Eternity will show forth God's glorious judgments: paradise for the saints and pain for the sinners. Heaven and hell were born.

I'm sure his book will elaborate on all of these claims.

His summary: "The ideas of the afterlife that so many billions of people in our world have inherited emerged over a long period of time as people struggled with how this world can be fair and how God or the gods can be just. Death itself cannot be the end of the story. Surely all people will receive what they deserve. But this is not what people always thought. It was a view that Jews and Christians came up with over a long period of time as they tried to explain the injustice of this world and the ultimate triumph of good over evil."

I should be able to get through a chapter a week.
I don't have a problem if you want to bow out for any or no reason. I'll post something at the end of each chapter.

 

[5wize]

@5wize

The preface of his book certainly has drawn me into wanting to read it. Ehrman gives a layout of the entire book but left his final conclusion rather murky- pages xix-xxi.
His timeline:
1. Oldest sources of the Hebrew Bible do not talk about life after death but simply the state of death in their grave or in a mysterious entity called Sheol.
2. The Hebrews struggled with the destruction of their nation (by Assyria and Babylon?). How could God allow his own chosen people to be wiped out by a foreign, pagan power?
3. 6th BCE- Hebrew prophets- proclaim the nation of Israel that had been destroyed would be restored to life by God, not a resurrection of people who have died. (I'm looking forward to this part. I don't recall resurrection imagery in the Bible for the nation of Israel's comeback but I wouldn't be surprised if it is there.)
4. Near the end of the OT period- some Jewish thinkers believe this future resurrection is for individuals not the nation and appeal to the God's just character. A resurrection of the dead with a day of judgment.
5. Jesus of Nazareth-inherited this view and forcefully claimed it. "Those who did God's will would be rewarded at the end, raised from the dead to live forever in a glorious kingdom here on earth. Those opposed to God would be punished by being annihilated out of existence. For Jesus this was to happen very soon. Evil had taken control of this world and was wreaking havoc in it... But God would soon intervene to overthrow these forces of evil and establish his kingdom here on earth.
6. After Jesus' death his disciples transformed Jesus' teaching (because Jesus didn't come back when they expected him to) judgment for each person at death. Believers would be taken to heaven as they await the return to their bodies at the future resurrection (maybe he means a transformed spiritual body,1 Cor 15:42-57) and those opposed to God would be punished. Once thought to be annihilation but changed to eternal torment since God is eternal. Eternity will show forth God's glorious judgments: paradise for the saints and pain for the sinners. Heaven and hell were born.

I'm sure his book will elaborate on all of these claims.

His summary: "The ideas of the afterlife that so many billions of people in our world have inherited emerged over a long period of time as people struggled with how this world can be fair and how God or the gods can be just. Death itself cannot be the end of the story. Surely all people will receive what they deserve. But this is not what people always thought. It was a view that Jews and Christians came up with over a long period of time as they tried to explain the injustice of this world and the ultimate triumph of good over evil."

I should be able to get through a chapter a week.
I don't have a problem if you want to bow out for any or no reason. I'll post something at the end of each chapter.

Bow out!!!! No way. This is good the stuff Caroljeen. The ironic thing about this is is that this is the basis of what we both believe... but we ended up in different places.

This will certainly not threaten what you concluded for yourself, but you will be better able to understand the conclusion I came to with this background in place.

I’ll be posting as well and will keep your pace.

 

[Caroljeen]

Bow out!!!! No way. This is good the stuff Caroljeen. The ironic thing about this is is that this is the basis of what we both believe... but we ended up in different places.

This will certainly not threaten what you concluded for yourself, but you will be better able to understand the conclusion I came to with this background in place.

I think it will also. I didn't know where to begin when I read what you would write to me in response because you would pack so much into one paragraph, I couldn't unpack it. Imo, it was completely speculative, much like the stuff Pixie comes up with, and without support to back it up. Thank you for showing your support in the other thread. That is what started this thread.

I’ll be posting as well and will keep your pace.

I had some disagreements as I read the preface but not worth elaborating on. I'm curious about the history he will present and not so much about how he will interpret it as he has already laid out his view, imo.

My favorite preacher/teacher and writer on the Bible is Greg Boyd. Boyd and Ehrman were at Princeton at the same time and were affected differently by the experience. (FYI-I have never been an "evangelical".)

Why Christ, not Scripture, is Our Ultimate Foundation - Greg Boyd - ReKnew

In a previous blog I argued that all our theological reflection must not only be Christ-centered, it must, most specifically, be cross-centered. I now want to begin to unpack some of the most important implications of adopting a cross-centered theological perspective. My ultimate goal is to show...

reknew.org

Scripture: A Shaky Foundation for Why We Believe​

Evangelicals typically ground the credibility of their faith on the inspiration of the Bible. If they were to become convinced that the Bible was not inspired, their faith would crumble. I think this posture is as unwise as it is unnecessary. I want it to be clear at the start that I fully embrace Scripture as the “God-breathed” (theopneustos) Word of God (2 Tim. 3:16), and I believe that, if properly defined, it is “infallible.” I also believe that Scripture should be the foundation of what we believe. But I think it’s very mistaken to make Scripture the foundation of why we believe.[1]

If the reason you believe is anchored in your confidence that Scripture is “God-breathed,” then your faith can’t help but be threatened every time you encounter a discrepancy, an archeological problem, or a persuasive historical-critical argument that a portion of the biblical narrative may not be historically accurate. Your faith may also be threatened every time you encounter material that is hard to accept as “God-breathed” — the genocidal portrait of Yahweh I discussed in my previous blog, for example. When biblical inspiration is made this important, people are forced to go to extreme and sometimes even silly lengths to explain each and every one of the “encyclopedia” of “difficulties” one finds in Scripture (I’m alluding Gleason Archer’s apologetic book, New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties).

As has happened to so many others, throughout my seminary training this foundation became increasingly shaky and eventually collapsed. I know a number of former-evangelicals who completely lost their faith when they experienced this. One is Bart Ehrman, who I’m sure many of you recognize as one of Christianity’s most well-known contemporary critics. He and I were in the doctoral program at Princeton Seminary at the same time, and we fell through our crumbling Scriptural foundation at roughly the same time and for many of the same reasons. But while Bart gradually fell into agnosticism, I fell onto a different and much more firm foundation. I fell into Christ.

 

[5wize]

I think it will also. I didn't know where to begin when I read what you would write to me in response because you would pack so much into one paragraph, I couldn't unpack it. Imo, it was completely speculative, much like the stuff Pixie comes up with, and without support to back it up. Thank you for showing your support in the other thread. That is what started this thread.

I had some disagreements as I read the preface but not worth elaborating on. I'm curious about the history he will present and not so much about how he will interpret it as he has already laid out his view, imo.

My favorite preacher/teacher and writer on the Bible is Greg Boyd. Boyd and Ehrman were at Princeton at the same time and were affected differently by the experience. (FYI-I have never been an "evangelical".)

Why Christ, not Scripture, is Our Ultimate Foundation - Greg Boyd - ReKnew

In a previous blog I argued that all our theological reflection must not only be Christ-centered, it must, most specifically, be cross-centered. I now want to begin to unpack some of the most important implications of adopting a cross-centered theological perspective. My ultimate goal is to show...

reknew.org

Scripture: A Shaky Foundation for Why We Believe​

Evangelicals typically ground the credibility of their faith on the inspiration of the Bible. If they were to become convinced that the Bible was not inspired, their faith would crumble. I think this posture is as unwise as it is unnecessary. I want it to be clear at the start that I fully embrace Scripture as the “God-breathed” (theopneustos) Word of God (2 Tim. 3:16), and I believe that, if properly defined, it is “infallible.” I also believe that Scripture should be the foundation of what we believe. But I think it’s very mistaken to make Scripture the foundation of why we believe.[1]

If the reason you believe is anchored in your confidence that Scripture is “God-breathed,” then your faith can’t help but be threatened every time you encounter a discrepancy, an archeological problem, or a persuasive historical-critical argument that a portion of the biblical narrative may not be historically accurate. Your faith may also be threatened every time you encounter material that is hard to accept as “God-breathed” — the genocidal portrait of Yahweh I discussed in my previous blog, for example. When biblical inspiration is made this important, people are forced to go to extreme and sometimes even silly lengths to explain each and every one of the “encyclopedia” of “difficulties” one finds in Scripture (I’m alluding Gleason Archer’s apologetic book, New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties).

As has happened to so many others, throughout my seminary training this foundation became increasingly shaky and eventually collapsed. I know a number of former-evangelicals who completely lost their faith when they experienced this. One is Bart Ehrman, who I’m sure many of you recognize as one of Christianity’s most well-known contemporary critics. He and I were in the doctoral program at Princeton Seminary at the same time, and we fell through our crumbling Scriptural foundation at roughly the same time and for many of the same reasons. But while Bart gradually fell into agnosticism, I fell onto a different and much more firm foundation. I fell into Christ.

I am very interested in how Greg Boyd rebuilt his crumbled scriptural foundation. Does he have a book that outlines that process he went through that I can reciprocate reading and add to this?

 

[Caroljeen]

I am very interested in how Greg Boyd rebuilt his crumbled scriptural foundation. Does he have a book that outlines that process he went through that I can reciprocate reading and add to this?

He has written many books. His newest book, Inspired Imperfection: How the Bible's Problems Enhance its Divine Authority, is what you are looking for. You can probably find articles on his blog, ReKnew, if you search for 'inspired imperfection' or 'bible problems' or 'bible contradictions.'

I read half way through the book, then put it down. I restarted reading it again from the beginning. He starts the book with his spiritual and educational journey.

 

[The Pixie]

I also bought this (on Kindle) at 5wise's recommendation, and am about half way through. I found the first couple of chapters on Greek and Roman beliefs less interesting than the latter chapters, though they do lay the groundwork. Looking forward to the discussion.

 

[Caroljeen]

I am very interested in how Greg Boyd rebuilt his crumbled scriptural foundation. Does he have a book that outlines that process he went through that I can reciprocate reading and add to this?

I put Boyd's book down after his chapter on Barth which was a little over my head. I suggest reading through his blog and/or searching the internet before buying his book.

 

[Caroljeen]

Here are a couple places that Boyd shares his Christian testimony. I personally believe that having experiences of the supernatural makes it difficult for a person to deny the existence of God.

Greg's Story - Greg Boyd - ReKnew

Greg Boyd’s Testimony and Spiritual Pilgrimage from Roberta Winter Institute on Vimeo. We thought you might be interested in hearing Greg’s testimony that he shared when he spoke recently at the Roberta Winter Institute. Enjoy!

reknew.org

Spiritual Journey - Greg Boyd - ReKnew

Over the years I’ve given bits and pieces of my testimony about how I came to Christ in sermons and books, but I’ve never woven all these pieces together into a single narrative. Many have asked me to do this, and so what follows is an account of the spiritual journey I went through in…

reknew.org

 

[5wize]

I also bought this (on Kindle) at 5wise's recommendation, and am about half way through. I found the first couple of chapters on Greek and Roman beliefs less interesting than the latter chapters, though they do lay the groundwork. Looking forward to the discussion.

I agreed with that sentiment when I read those first few chapters. Then I found book after book attempting to explain early Christianity, especially MacCullough’s, I ran into it over and over again. After time, squinting, and stepping back, it started to jell in me that late Judaism and Early Christianity was internally a Hellenized set of concepts within a historical Judeo-Christian experience. The internal guts migrated from the ancient Hebrew War multi-God of the Canaanite conquest to the hellenized view of Plato’s agape and many many other Hellenized themes such as Hades and purification through trial like Hercules. Paul himself, the Johnny Appleseed of early Christianity was a Hellenized Jew, and he wasn’t preaching to the poor enclaves of the Levant. He was in the Hellenized world preaching to a Hellenized population looking to “ become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.” - 1 Corinthians 9:22

 

[Caroljeen]

I agreed with that sentiment when I read those first few chapters. Then I found book after book attempting to explain early Christianity, especially MacCullough’s, I ran into it over and over again. After time, squinting, and stepping back, it started to jell in me that late Judaism and Early Christianity was internally a Hellenized set of concepts within a historical Judeo-Christian experience. The internal guts migrated from the ancient Hebrew War multi-God of the Canaanite conquest to the hellenized view of Plato’s agape and many many other Hellenized themes such as Hades and purification through trial like Hercules. Paul himself, the Johnny Appleseed of early Christianity was a Hellenized Jew, and he wasn’t preaching to the poor enclaves of the Levant. He was in the Hellenized world preaching to a Hellenized population looking to “ become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.” - 1 Corinthians 9:22

There you go, stirring another hodge- podge stew of varying degrees of speculation. It's fun trying to figure out the roots of a religion without taking into account the teachings of those who laid the foundation (apostles and prophets) in the first place. You start out with the presupposition that Christianity is a lie and then search for reasons that might prove your hypothesis. That's not very scientific.

 

[Torin]

There you go, stirring another hodge- podge stew of varying degrees of speculation. It's fun trying to figure out the roots of a religion without taking into account the teachings of those who laid the foundation (apostles and prophets) in the first place. You start out with the presupposition that Christianity is a lie and then search for reasons that might prove your hypothesis. That's not very scientific.

What do you think a scientific approach to history would be?

 

[5wize]

There you go, stirring another hodge- podge stew of varying degrees of speculation. It's fun trying to figure out the roots of a religion without taking into account the teachings of those who laid the foundation (apostles and prophets) in the first place. You start out with the presupposition that Christianity is a lie and then search for reasons that might prove your hypothesis. That's not very scientific.

I only claimed there are strategic lies in the bible as the canon formed, and that I don’t trust the punchline as a result.
All cultures form a whole from the sum of its many disparate parts over time, and as I eluded to before, the Levant was ripe for cultural cross pollination as a result of it being on the strategic land path between the Balkans, Rome, Greece, the near east, and Egypt. The northern kingdom fell quickly as a result of that. The southern kingdom, Judea, held out longer as that path of conquest traveled to the north of them. But they had time to think about what was coming, and started to solidify a nationalistic rhetoric to stiffen the resolve of its people. That rhetoric was the advent of Canaan being a promise of God worth fighting for - the beginning of the OT Canon.

 

[Caroljeen]

What do you think a scientific approach to history would be?

I was just giving 5wize grief.
I'm of the belief that the humanities cannot be studied using a scientific approach.

 

[5wize]

I was just giving 5wize grief.

Love it!!!!

 

[Gus Bovona]

What do you think a scientific approach to history would be?

Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus

 

[SteveB]

Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus

I get an "about-blank" page.

Do you have an active link?

 

[Torin]

I get an "about-blank" page.

Do you have an active link?

Same. Presumably it was meant to be a link to the Richard Carrier book.

 

[SteveB]

Same. Presumably it was meant to be a link to the Richard Carrier book.

??

 

[SteveB]

@5wize

The preface of his book certainly has drawn me into wanting to read it. Ehrman gives a layout of the entire book but left his final conclusion rather murky- pages xix-xxi.
His timeline:
1. Oldest sources of the Hebrew Bible do not talk about life after death but simply the state of death in their grave or in a mysterious entity called Sheol.
2. The Hebrews struggled with the destruction of their nation (by Assyria and Babylon?). How could God allow his own chosen people to be wiped out by a foreign, pagan power?

Habakkuk definitely describes his problem with it. God tells him that he will judge that nation who destroyed Israel.

3. 6th BCE- Hebrew prophets- proclaim the nation of Israel that had been destroyed would be restored to life by God, not a resurrection of people who have died. (I'm looking forward to this part. I don't recall resurrection imagery in the Bible for the nation of Israel's comeback but I wouldn't be surprised if it is there.)

Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Isaiah.
Ezekiel 36-39 is my favorite.
While imagery is indeed used, there's enough clarity to show that it's not a biological resurrection of people, but a political restoration of the nation.
In the circles I associate, the modern day nation of Israel is a fulfillment of those prophecies. And there is yet one to come as well.

4. Near the end of the OT period- some Jewish thinkers believe this future resurrection is for individuals not the nation and appeal to the God's just character. A resurrection of the dead with a day of judgment.

Daniel 12 details this.

5. Jesus of Nazareth-inherited this view and forcefully claimed it. "Those who did God's will would be rewarded at the end, raised from the dead to live forever in a glorious kingdom here on earth. Those opposed to God would be punished by being annihilated out of existence.

I have not seen in scripture where annihilation is stated.
I see people who talk like this.
What i think is sad is giving unbelievers that information.
Especially in light of Ezekiel 18, and 33.
God takes this quite seriously and says he'll hold us to account, laying their blood on our shoulders, making us responsible for refusal to warn them.

For Jesus this was to happen very soon.

in what way? Preteristically?
after the resurrection, the 12 asked Jesus if it was then time for the kingdom to be restored to Israel. Jesus made it clear- it is nit for you to know the times and seasons in the Father's care. Acts 1:7.

Evil had taken control of this world and was wreaking havoc in it... But God would soon intervene to overthrow these forces of evil and establish his kingdom here on earth.

in his time.
Jesus was quite clear in the gospels,
The gospel of the kingdom must first be preached to all nations, THEN the end will come. Matthew 24:14

from what I see on the https://joshuaproject.net/
page, only 60% of the world has heard.

So, let us know when the whole world hears.

6. After Jesus' death his disciples transformed Jesus' teaching (because Jesus didn't come back when they expected him to) judgment for each person at death.

No they didn't. Jesus describes the situation in John 16.

Believers would be taken to heaven as they await the return to their bodies at the future resurrection (maybe he means a transformed spiritual body,1 Cor 15:42-57) and those opposed to God would be punished. Once thought to be annihilation but changed to eternal torment since God is eternal.

the same language is used for the righteous and the unrighteous, regarding eternity
why would God give the righteous eternal life, and then take it away from the unrighteous?
especially in light of Isaiah 66:24, Matthew 25:41-46, Mark 9:38-50, and Revelation 20:10-21:8

Eternity will show forth God's glorious judgments: paradise for the saints and pain for the sinners. Heaven and hell were born.

I'm sure his book will elaborate on all of these claims.

His summary: "The ideas of the afterlife that so many billions of people in our world have inherited emerged over a long period of time as people struggled with how this world can be fair and how God or the gods can be just. Death itself cannot be the end of the story. Surely all people will receive what they deserve. But this is not what people always thought. It was a view that Jews and Christians came up with over a long period of time as they tried to explain the injustice of this world and the ultimate triumph of good over evil."

I should be able to get through a chapter a week.
I don't have a problem if you want to bow out for any or no reason. I'll post something at the end of each chapter.

In the latter years of Daniel he has a vision, an appearance of Michael, in which Michael tells him-
Some people will rise to life, and others to shame, and everlasting contempt.
Daniel 12:3.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Same. Presumably it was meant to be a link to the Richard Carrier book.

Yes it was. Mixed something up.