On reading Professor Ehrman’s book, “Heaven & Hell”, I see on page 165 (concerning Gehenna), there are reasons given for the imagery in verses that speak about “the worm that never dies”. I also see verses speaking of “eternal fires” and “fires that are never quenched”, but I can’t find any explanation as to where the imagery for fire comes from. I assume it comes from 2 Kings 23, when worshippers of Molech used fire to sacrifice children.
Is that it, and if not, does the book explain where the fire images come from? I was hoping someone might be able to shed light on the situation for me.
Thanks all.
Could be, I would look to same book and contemporary writings about fire.
I disagree with Dr Ehrman’s thesis that sees the fires as literal in that it burns up and thus annihilating sinners.
** you do not have permission to see this link ** : I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!
did Jesus really mean he wished to be the one burning/annihilating the sinners ?
and
** you do not have permission to see this link ** If anyone tries to harm them, fire comes from their mouths and devours their enemies. This is how anyone who wants to harm them must die.
literal fires don’t come out of peoples’ mouth nor do words from their mouths literally devour ones enemies nor cause them to die
there are others references to fire -use a concordance of new testament – and see which if any you may conclusively are being used literally
tompicard said
Could be, I would look to same book and contemporary writings about fire.I disagree with Dr Ehrman’s thesis that sees the fires as literal in that it burns up and thus annihilating sinners.
** you do not have permission to see this link ** : I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!
did Jesus really mean he wished to be the one burning/annihilating the sinners ?
and
** you do not have permission to see this link ** If anyone tries to harm them, fire comes from their mouths and devours their enemies. This is how anyone who wants to harm them must die.
literal fires don’t come out of peoples’ mouth nor do words from their mouths literally devour ones enemies nor cause them to die
there are others references to fire -use a concordance of new testament – and see which if any you may conclusively are being used literally
Sorry tompicard, I’m not sure what you are saying. Are you saying the fires concerning the sacrifice of children are not literal fires? If so, what do you think they are?
SeaJay said Sorry tompicard, I’m not sure what you are saying. Are you saying the fires concerning the sacrifice of children are not literal fires? If so, what do you think they are?
No I am not commenting on ‘fires’ in Old testament such
from 2 Kings 23, when worshippers of Molech used fire to sacrifice children.
I was thinking of references to ‘fires’ in New Testament such as
Professor Ehrman [refers to in his ] book, “Heaven & Hell”, I see on page 165 (concerning Gehenna), . . verses that speak about “the worm that never dies”. I also see verses speaking of “eternal fires” and “fires that are never quenched”
if above unclear – I think Jesus and the New Testament authors used the word ‘fire’ symbolically ,
Sorry to be more clear the fires Jesus talks about in gehenna are likely meant figuratively .
Bart thinks the fires are real fires that literally burn up reanimated physical bodies of resurrected sinners and annihilates them – that is an enormous stretch of the imagination in my opinion, unwarranted by the texts {I have not read the book but I plan to my biased opinion is based on what I have read in any of his posts where he presents at least synopsis of his arguments} If you think his argument is convincing you might be able to explain it to me
Stephen said
Prof Ehrman identifies the imagery of Gehenna as metaphorical. The point is that this view of punishment is a form of annihilationism not eternal torment.
yeah I guess he sees Jesus as speaking of Gehenna as metaphorical but the fires as literal – seems, to me, like same picking and choosing to fit his thesis as usually used by fundamentalist to fit theirs.
Hi, Stephen. Do you have a specific reference to where Bart says the fire is a metaphor. I don’t doubt you, of course, just want to look it up if I can.
Well the most immediate reference that comes to mind is in the video Prod Ehrman just posted, about 19:30ish, beginning with the comment “…you have to understand how metaphorical language works in the Bible…” and following. He’s specifically addressing the image of the worm that doesn’t die but the principle is the same.
The difference with tompicard is greater. If I remember correctly, I think he believes all of Jesus’ apocalyptic teachings, and even some of those found at Qumran, were symbolic. Tompicard, am I remembering your views correctly?
Perhaps I’m not understanding the argument here. Apocalyptic language by it’s very nature is metaphorical and symbolic. Gehenna is being used because of its associations, the imagery of fire for its consuming properties. Ehrman thinks Jesus taught a form of annihilationism. The imagery of fire consuming the one being punished is a metaphor for the annihilation of the wicked. As Ehrman says with his example of Edom in the video I don’t think anybody actually thought there was a literal fire that would burn eternally outside Jerusalem.
Bart understands a literal fire to be the methods God/Son of Man uses to annihilate sinners [in Jesus view]. that Jesus clearly uses ‘fire’ metaphorically in ** you do not have permission to see this link ** means it is prudent to be skeptical of that portion of Bart’s thesis until he provides more evidence than I have seen to date.
further, if we are able to recognize a more plausible metaphorical meaning to Jesus’ use of the word ‘fire’, than assuming it to be literal, it may then lead to a different interpretation than that Jesus held a theory of annihilation
I do not think I ever said WORLD TRANSFORMATION would NOT happen soon – as I see Jesus made it VERY CLEAR he thought it would happen ‘soon’ [ but I cannot say exactly number of hours and or days or months, etc ]
But that is different question than whether he used ‘fire’, ‘eternal life’, ‘resurrection’, ‘gehenna’, ‘sun’, ‘moon’ literally or symbolically.
I would suggest look at each of the eschatological events independently
for example
Would the Roman Empire and other evil governmental and demonic powers be destroyed by God’s judgement?
Even though I do not recall whether if Jesus exactly predicted the above, that is an extremely common type of prophetic foresight, and when prior prophets predicted such events occurring ‘soon’, never did such events/predictions necessitate a literal and supernatural Son of Man standing on a literal cloud.
Robert said
But no miraculous interventions, correct? I recall some of your threads criticizing that as a ‘magical’ kingdom.
if you want an opinion on Jesus views, I would prefer you ask about a specific ‘miracle’ or ‘magical’ or even ‘medical’ type of event – I think I have learned there is no clear distinction between the terms at Jesus time and maybe not now either.
I do think it is plausible that Peter’s mother in law was feeling sick, possibly with fever, and then Jesus visited her and said something to her and then she maybe felt better, and got up and served them. Jesus maybe even told his disciples that God had cured her. [ not saying I am sure that happened, just that it is possible ].
tompicard, I have to confess I don’t really understand your point of view or the point you are trying to make. Are you denying that Jesus was an apocalypticist? I am not sure in what sense you’re using the word “literal”. Of course you are under no obligation to satisfy my curiosity!
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)