Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
25 online now:
AZPaul3, caffeine, PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (4 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,822 Year: 16,858/19,786 Month: 983/2,598 Week: 229/251 Day: 0/58 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   When did God curse us to hell?
Dilyias
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 20 (190496)
03-07-2005 3:06 PM


In Genesis, per the advice of the serpent (no mention of Satan is made), Adam and Eve eat of the fruit. God then curses Adam, stating that he will toil until he returns to the dust from which he was made. God then kicks Adam and Eve out of the garden less they eat of another tree and live forever.

Not until several thousand years later do we see (in the NT) that God now expects us to live after death in the Heavens or Hell.

My questions:

Where in the Old Testament does God explicitly curse us to Hell?

Why would God want us to live forever (as an extension to our mortal bodies) with him in Heaven if he did not want Adam to live forever? It appears that Adam was mortal, had no soul, and only lived by the breath of God.

Thanks,
Eric


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by arachnophilia, posted 03-23-2005 12:54 AM Dilyias has responded

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 20 (193516)
03-22-2005 6:52 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 3 of 20 (193575)
03-23-2005 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dilyias
03-07-2005 3:06 PM


Where in the Old Testament does God explicitly curse us to Hell?

the answer: everywhere. simply put, everyone in the old testament is going to hell.

because, you see, "hell" is an english rendering of sheol - the name of the hebrew underworld. or grave, in the most literal sense.

however, your observations of the text are pretty good. i've been constantly debating those precise things for months here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dilyias, posted 03-07-2005 3:06 PM Dilyias has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Thugpreacha, posted 03-23-2005 2:57 AM arachnophilia has responded
 Message 5 by Dilyias, posted 03-23-2005 4:58 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12805
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 4 of 20 (193590)
03-23-2005 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by arachnophilia
03-23-2005 12:54 AM


It could also be argued that God was never speaking to us in the O.T.

By definition, "us" is a group of people who would never have been allowed or invited to even know the truth until the revelation of the mystery by the Apostle Paul.

The question that I would ask is this: How does God speak to "us" today?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by arachnophilia, posted 03-23-2005 12:54 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by arachnophilia, posted 03-23-2005 10:45 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded
 Message 11 by Dilyias, posted 03-24-2005 1:11 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
Dilyias
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 20 (193725)
03-23-2005 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by arachnophilia
03-23-2005 12:54 AM


the answer: everywhere. simply put, everyone in the old testament is going to hell.

When "hell" is in reference to the grave (returning to dust), that makes sense. It appears that eventually people believed that part of the individual existed after death, thus the grave becomes an abode of the dead, and later ruled by an anti-god figure.

This really doesn't make much sense with God's original purpose for Adam; to keep the garden and multiply. There is no evidence of a "soul" that exists after death in early Genesis.

In other words, God's original purpose for man was to live on this earth. Humankind would stay "alive" through the process of having offspring rather than the individual person living forever after returning to dust. For a mortal was nothing but dust with the breath of God keeping it alive (per Genesis).

It appears to me that the purpose for Jesus was the product of the evolution of human thought of afterlife, not because the Old Testament God changed his mind about the purpose and lifespan of mortals.

Does this make sense to anyone else or am I off my rocker? :-)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by arachnophilia, posted 03-23-2005 12:54 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by arachnophilia, posted 03-23-2005 11:00 PM Dilyias has responded

  
Chad_Hilse1
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 20 (193732)
03-23-2005 5:24 PM


Speaking of this, where in the new testament does God condem us to hell? I've been searching for this for a while, after reading in Revelation that we were sentenced to the "River of Fire, or the second death" this sounds a lot more like he's just destroying our spirit, not condemming us to suffering.

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 7 of 20 (193828)
03-23-2005 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Thugpreacha
03-23-2005 2:57 AM


It could also be argued that God was never speaking to us in the O.T.

then why have it at all?

By definition, "us" is a group of people who would never have been allowed or invited to even know the truth until the revelation of the mystery by the Apostle Paul.

i do not consider paul's epistles to be inspired, let alone a revelation of anything. as i've pointed out before, he contradicts christ as well as the torah.

The question that I would ask is this: How does God speak to "us" today?

i don't think he does, personally.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Thugpreacha, posted 03-23-2005 2:57 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 8 of 20 (193833)
03-23-2005 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Dilyias
03-23-2005 4:58 PM


When "hell" is in reference to the grave (returning to dust), that makes sense. It appears that eventually people believed that part of the individual existed after death, thus the grave becomes an abode of the dead, and later ruled by an anti-god figure.

actually, i think it MAY have been the other way around. i think the concept of an afterlife may have actually existed first, and have disappeared by the time of the writing of the bible.

but i'm not sure. i'll look into it.

however, your's a good model from there. the indication in the bible is only hints of an afterlife. mostly, it seems to use "grave" in a euphemistic sense for death. the concept that followed it, which i think you can find some inter-testimental books, is something similar to hades. not HELL, per se, but people exist as shades of their former selves.

later, this concept gets muddle with christianity, and the newer concept of satan, who becomes evil, and then becomes a fallen angel. sometimes condemned to hell, sometimes running it.

the idea never fully makes sense to me. if satan's in hell, why is he here too? if he encourages evil, why does he also punish it? the concepts have gotten far too mixed up with stuff that's frankly all later dogma.

This really doesn't make much sense with God's original purpose for Adam; to keep the garden and multiply. There is no evidence of a "soul" that exists after death in early Genesis.

you're mixing up the two stories. the commandment to "be fruitful and multiply" is not in the tending the garden story. there, adam is just a gardener. the indication is that he is mortal, however. but the two stories are NOT related.

and no, there is no indication of an afterlife ANYWHERE in genesis. nroe i believe most of the ot. but i haven't read it carefully or completely.

Humankind would stay "alive" through the process of having offspring rather than the individual person living forever after returning to dust.

quite. genesis 1 has quite a respect for evolution. for instance, if you pay close attention, it's not god that creates the animals -- it's the earth. god commands the earth, and the earth does it. all god does is talk. god creates man, however. and treats man, two separate entities, as one, made in his image. the tense of the verb in that verse actually indicates a long and possibly unfinished process, too. in other words, we are still evolving towards god.

not to pretend there is a huge correlation between science and genesis 1. there just isn't. but whoever wrote it had some idea of what was going on, if not common descent.

It appears to me that the purpose for Jesus was the product of the evolution of human thought of afterlife, not because the Old Testament God changed his mind about the purpose and lifespan of mortals.

i think jesus is an example like satan was above. he got thrown into a role he wasn't meant to play. i think jesus was out to reform judaism, not be your ticket to heaven.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Dilyias, posted 03-23-2005 4:58 PM Dilyias has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Dilyias, posted 03-24-2005 12:50 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
Dilyias
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 20 (193859)
03-24-2005 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by arachnophilia
03-23-2005 11:00 PM


actually, i think it MAY have been the other way around. i think the concept of an afterlife may have actually existed first, and have disappeared by the time of the writing of the bible.

I would be interested to see what you can dig up about this.

you're mixing up the two stories. ..

Yes, I agree that they are two unrelated stories. However, my point was to show that God's intention for mankind was one of mortality. So I agree with you there.

quite. genesis 1 has quite a respect for evolution. for instance, if you pay close attention, it's not god that creates the animals -- it's the earth. god commands the earth, and the earth does it.

Very interesting, indeed. I have not thought of this before.

i think jesus was out to reform judaism, not be your ticket to heaven.

This is my position as well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by arachnophilia, posted 03-23-2005 11:00 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by arachnophilia, posted 03-24-2005 1:07 AM Dilyias has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 10 of 20 (193863)
03-24-2005 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Dilyias
03-24-2005 12:50 AM


I would be interested to see what you can dig up about this.

more of a suspicion than anything else. but i'll poke around a bit.

there is the occasional hint at an earlier religion in the torah, a pre-judaic faith. the etiologies are there to explain practices that already happen (why people get married, why places have certain name, etc). "passover" is an etiology of why people kill a lamb in a certain way, and hold a certain feast every year. in reality, this practice is probably closely related to the "scapegoat." sacrificing one animal in the flock to satisfy an evil outside demon (azazel), animal, etc. better one of your choosing, than an animal tearing through your flock.

the predecesors of the jews had probably been doing this for several thousand years before writing the torah, and it suggests a very primitive superstitious spirituality, from around the time of the dawn of civilization. it might be possible that the need for something after death reaches back that far as well, and the judaic tradition is built upon that.

but like i said, i don't know. i doubt anyone really does. it's hard to find writing from around then. :P

However, my point was to show that God's intention for mankind was one of mortality. So I agree with you there.

well, i think it's a little more than mortality. but not neccessarily as individuals. i'm not even totally sure what i believe here, really.

i think jesus was out to reform judaism, not be your ticket to heaven.

This is my position as well.

i think the bible will support that, when you remove the tradition built on top of it.

he did say he did not come to abolish the law. and yet that is what paul has him doing.

This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 03-24-2005 01:08 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Dilyias, posted 03-24-2005 12:50 AM Dilyias has not yet responded

  
Dilyias
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 20 (193865)
03-24-2005 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Thugpreacha
03-23-2005 2:57 AM


It could also be argued that God was never speaking to us in the O.T.
By definition, "us" is a group of people who would never have been allowed or invited to even know the truth until the revelation of the mystery by the Apostle Paul.

Regardless of who God (or the human author(s) of Genesis) was talking to, there is no mention of man living beyond death or having a soul. Eternal life does not really fit with God's stated purpose for man in either story (be fruitful and multiply, keep the garden).

What is more realistic - progressive revelation that adds completely new ideas to an existing text, or evolution of thought?

Throughout history we see how the thoughts and ideas of humans have evolved.

But some Christian ideas (like the idea that God created a new "good" creation, put Adam in the garden, and then let Satan control the snake) just do not "fit" with the original story.

The question that I would ask is this: How does God speak to "us" today?

And the answer will very by Christian. Some say that He speaks to us in prayer. Some say that He only speaks to us through the Bible ( Which is no different than saying we read the Bible and decide what it means to us).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Thugpreacha, posted 03-23-2005 2:57 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by arachnophilia, posted 03-24-2005 1:17 AM Dilyias has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 12 of 20 (193868)
03-24-2005 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Dilyias
03-24-2005 1:11 AM


What is more realistic - progressive revelation that adds completely new ideas to an existing text, or evolution of thought?

study the bible in my class last semester brought me to an interesting "revelation."

i'd always perceived a few major changes in the way god is represented in the bible.

first: angry and petty.
then: angry and magnificent.
then: absent followed by stern
then: forgiving.

now, it's pretty easy to see where the BIG shifts take place. the god of genesis is different than the god of exodus. judges and samuel aren't in line either. isaiah and matthew don't seem to match up.

but as we studied the smaller books a little, these abrupt changes smoothed out a lot. seems i just hadn't read these transitional fossils. then it occured to me:

it's not god changing. it's the people writing about him.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Dilyias, posted 03-24-2005 1:11 AM Dilyias has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by purpledawn, posted 03-24-2005 8:05 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31276
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 13 of 20 (193899)
03-24-2005 2:28 AM


One General point I'd like to inject.
GOD != Bible.

Bible != GOD.

The Map is not the Territory.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by arachnophilia, posted 03-24-2005 3:24 AM jar has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 14 of 20 (193912)
03-24-2005 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by jar
03-24-2005 2:28 AM


Re: One General point I'd like to inject.
can't do the ≠ symbol?

(also, my map seems to be a little out of date, taped together from a few hundred different maps, and drawns all over in crayon.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 03-24-2005 2:28 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 03-24-2005 8:08 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1715 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 15 of 20 (193975)
03-24-2005 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by arachnophilia
03-24-2005 1:17 AM


quote:
it's not god changing. it's the people writing about him.

Exactly!


"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by arachnophilia, posted 03-24-2005 1:17 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by arachnophilia, posted 03-24-2005 8:12 AM purpledawn has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019