(17 votes, average: 4.94 out of 5)
Loading...This is the second of my two posts on Gehenna. My ultimate point in this discussion is that when Jesus talked about people ending up there, he did not mean they would roast forever in the first of hell, but that they would end up very badly indeed because (a) they would not receive burial and (b) even worse, their corpses would be thrown into the most hideous literally-god-forsaken place a Jew could imagine.
The earliest evidence from outside the Hebrew Bible for Gehenna as a place of divine punishment comes in 1 Enoch 27, written, as we have seen, at least two centuries before the days of Jesus. In one of his encounters with the angel Uriel, Enoch asks why such an “accursed valley” lies in the midst of Israel’s “blessed land.” The angel tell him:
The accursed valley is for those accursed forever; here will gather together all those accursed ones, those who speak with their mouth unbecoming words against the Lord…. Here shall they be gathered together, and here shall be their judgment in the last days. There will be upon them the spectacle of the righteous judgment, in the presence of the righteous forever.
And so, well prior to Jesus, Gehenna was seen as …
To see the rest of this hellacious post, you will need to belong to the blog. Time is short, so you should join today! Joining is quick, easy, and cheap. So why not?
Dr. Ehrman, you’re right on the money here. So far, it looks like your book is gonna be pretty good!
the issue with fundamentalist (and even some ex-fundamentalist) is that they use linguistic gymnastics to claim they are properly reading the bible properly often times deciding in one instance ‘death’ (or ‘kill’) is literal and another time it’s non-literal. likewise ‘fire’
examples are too numerous to list
“not just physically dead, but completely dead, . . .”
anyway when I read that Jesus used the word “death” how am i supposed to know which of the two adverbs (physically or completely) he left out ? it is very confusing . . .
Usually you have to depend on context.
Jesus was a Jew, and certainly familiar with the idea of Gehenna. It would not be unusual for him to take something from Jewish scripture and repurpose it.
However, it wouldn’t be unusual for Matthew to do that either. Or any of the gospel authors, really. Perhaps none of them were born Jewish, but they spent some time pouring over the Jewish texts, looking for ways to get their points across to a Jewish audience (more true of the synoptics than John, probably). In particular looking for ways to prove Jesus was Messiah, but they had other interests–they may have been looking for ways to flesh out their sketchy information about what Jesus said and believed in life. And Jesus was often quite vague about what would happen once the Son of Man came. Here he seems to have been a bit more specific. Suspiciously specific. And Matthew is, after all, the angriest gospel. Matthew wants everybody who doesn’t accept Jesus to have a particularly nasty fate. It’s a thing.
Couldn’t Jesus’ words about Gehenna simply be Matthew taking the Jewish concept of Gehenna and turning it against the Jewish leadership he so despises?
How do we know Jesus said this? How do we know these aren’t words put in his mouth? Suppose all he meant by Gehenna was a place reserved for those unworthy of the Kingdom, which would be a hell because were its only denizens–and they would not know eternal life because that is reserved for the sheep. Many called, few chosen.
Obviously I’m biased here, but somehow it doesn’t sound like him to gloat that much.
So was the addition of eternal fire/torture/damnation invented to scare people into converting or just an honest, lost in translation/cultural lines mistranslation?
Ah, that’s what I’ll be discussing in my book!
Did all Jews expect “a future resurrection” or did some sects/cults believe that a physical death was the ultimate?
The Sadducees were dead set against the idea of resurrection.
Good one, Bart. Intentional pun–or are you just that good?
Possibly both? 🙂
A savant from my church asked if I knew if either the Pharisees or Sadducees believed in resurrection? He told me it was easy to remember that the Sadducees did not because “They were sad, you see”
Yeah, I use that one in class. It’s a classic.
Observation and question:
First, I think the line from 1 Enoch 92:9-10 is also on point:: “They shall be thrown into the judgment of fire, and perish in wrath and in the force of the eternal judgment.” (There is a translator’s note saying that it is not clear if “they” means the heathen or the towers/palaces – do you have an opinion on that?)
And a question: Jewish custom is that everyone deserved burial, even executed criminals. So why would there be unburied bodies in Gehenna? From Roman executions, perhaps?
Sorry: 1 Enoch 91:9-10.
Yup. Or God chucking them in there.
I’m looking forward to your upcoming book on the afterlife telling us how belief in such a sadistic, merciless thing as eternal suffering in hell could have been considered consistent by early Xians with belief in an omniscient, omnipotent God of perfect love (if both those things were believed by early Xians).
How do you interpret the ‘fire’ described in 4 Ez 13 ?
it comes from the messiah’s/son of man’s mouth and it burns up sinners.
does this ‘fire’ brought by the son of man annihilate sinners? what does it mean its coming out of his mouth?
Is it possible Jesus read these verses and used ‘fire’ in same way? like in Luke 12:49? how about Matt 13:42 ?
Is it possible John the Baptizer used ‘fire’ in this manner in Matt 3:12 ?
to summarize into one single question
why don’t you believe the ‘fire’ is in all the above instances means “God’s Word”?
[for the benefit of the blog readers besides Bart, here is the passage from 4 Ezra 13 I was referring to above – I have put the interesting references to fire in CAPS]
. . ..
As I kept looking the wind made something like the figure of a man come up out of the heart of the sea. And I saw that this man flew with the clouds of heaven ; and everywhere he turned his face to look, everything under his gaze trembled . . . After this I looked and saw that an innumerable multitude of people were gathered together from the four winds of heaven to make war against the man who came up from the sea . . . When he saw the onrush of the approaching multitude, he neither lifted his hand, nor held a spear, or any weapon of war, but I saw only how HE SENT FORTH FROM HIS MOUTH SOMETHING LIKE A STREAM OF FIRE , AND FROM HIS LIPS A FLAMING BREATH . . .[which] fell on the onrushing multitude that was preparing to fight, and burned up all of them , so that suddenly nothing was seen of the innumerable multitude but only the dust of ashes and the smell of smoke.
. . . .
The point I was trying to bring up is that apocalyptic preachers, like this author (was it Ezra?.) use fire and flames to symbolize something emanating from a person’s mouth, that is to mean “God’s Word”.
On the other hand, the last verse there could support Bart’s thesis that those attacking this ‘man’ wind up annihilated as mere ashes and the smell of smoke
Jesus too in Luke 12:49 said that “he came to cast fire on the earth” – it is not quite as clear as in Ezra that ‘fire’ is meaning God’s Word but I think it is a reasonably likely
So since Jesus used the word ‘fire’ in his career on occasion in non-literal/symbolic manner, so a thesis other than that resurrected and non-resurrected sinners are cast into a literal fire should be considered too.
Hope it makes you think
I’m afraid I’ve never looked at it closely.
Of course none of us were taught this in the churches that we grew up in. How do your students react when they hear this explanation in class?
I”ve never given it. Just realized what it was all about while writing the book!
of course they wouldn’t…otherwise all control over them is lost
Speaking of 1st Enoch, I know the letter of Jude makes reference to it. Are there any additional reasons for thinking the book was known and appreciated by the early Christians? Does Jesus ever say anything specific that suggests he was familiar with it?
There’s no direct evidence that Jesus knew of it. It was talked about by some of the church fathers, including Tertullian.
Since the book of Enoch was so influential, how could Jesus not have known about it? (I am not asking this rhetorically.) If you think that Jesus wasn’t familiar with the book of Enoch, do you think that he got his conception of the Son of Man solely from the book of Daniel?
Since he was not highly educated and was from a remote rural area, he may never have run across it. (Just as most people who are highly educated today *still* haven’t)
Eternal torment is a barbarous idea, incompatible with the providence of a just and loving God. Thank heavens, then, it didn’t come from Jesus or Paul.
Would it be letting the cat out of the bag to tell us who you’ve found originated the idea and when it became Christian orthodoxy?
I won’t be able to name a name, but yes, part of the point of the book is to explain where it came from.
I have random question Dr. What is Peter holding in his hand in Da Vinci’s last supper? It changes the whole seen if it what I am seeing. Oh, maybe it was for bread. Was Peter was a jealous man?
I have no idea!
Is there any verse in the book of Enoch where the punishment after the resurrection seems to imply eternal torment instead of annihilation?
That seems to be the implication of three of the four pits that Enoch observes.
Hmm, it seems that the NT is influenced by the stream of thought of Enoch, isn’t it then likely that the NT authors also meant eternal torment? Is that not so because maybe Gehenna isn’t seen as eternal conscious torment in Enoch? How should I see that?
I don’t think you can do it that way, for a couple of reasons. One is that it’s impossible to say that all the authors were influenced by any one book in particular, or in which way. Soem of them may have known about the book of 1 Enoch, but it’s not clear that most did. In fact there’s no evidence they did. The other is that these early Christian authors were influenced by *lots* of predecessors — almost certainly, for example, by Old Testament authors. And those authors did NOT hold to eternal torment. So just because an author shows aquaintance with one predecssor or another, doesn’t mean that he agreed with all on everything. That couldn’t happen. PLUS: no NT author refers to these views of 1 Enoch.
I could not reply to your response, I will do that here then;
I see and totally understand,
The author of enoch would have the OT as inspiration too and still holds to eternal torment then. So extrapolating the OT to Jesus seems flawed, right? There then have to be other reasons why you think Jesus did not teach eternal torment.
Also, is Gehenna itself ever described as a place of eternal torment in 1 Enoch?
No, it’s not. And right: if somneone quotes a verse from a text, it doesn’t mean he agrees with everything found in the text — or that he even understands the verse he quotes in teh way that the original author did (or that we do)
That seems to be the implication of three of the four pits that Enoch observes.
I seen there is a hurricane heading for the Carolinas. I hope is well Dr.
Thanks! We’re battening down the hatches.
As Miracle Max says, “It turns out your friend is only MOSTLY dead.”
Would you say that Jesus (and 1st century apocalyptic Jews) had a different view of body-soul duality compared to say one common Christian view where upon death, the soul immediately departs for heaven (or elsewhere)? Also, what seemed to be the view about the status of people who had died and were awaiting the resurrection – were they in some state of sleep/suspended animation?
Yes indeed — the person was unitary, body and soul united together. they didn’t exist independently of one another. As to what happens in the interim, that’s a major issue I’ll be discussing int hte book.
It appears Jesus depiction of a fate without burial and corpses thrown into the hideous Gehenna would have sent a shiver down the spine of his Jewish listeners who expected a bodily resurrection and eternal life in God’s presence. Would this imagery have provoked the same negative reaction to a Greco-Roman audience, as Jesus’ words were retold to Gentiles? Maybe it didn’t, and that was why later Gentile Christians felt the need to invent vivid accounts of torture in hell.
Probably not, unless they had it explained to them.
Huh. As in my previous comment, this is a very new way of looking at Jesus’ sayings regarding Gehenna (etc.). Somewhere along the line, likely in a Bible commentary or perhaps the writings of another Bible scholar, I got the tale that Gehenna was a garbage dump. And I’ve repeated that tale–Gehenna is not Hell but a garbage dump, so it is very interesting to see this new and more accurate perspective. Live and learn!!
Yup, it’s what I always read and said as well!
Thinking about Gehenna and how it evolved into the concept of Hell and eternal torment lead me to think about Salvation as taught be Jesus and Paul. Would it be a fair assessment to say that Jesus believed that Salvation and entry into the Kingdom of God was obtainable through keeping the Law while Paul taught that righteousness could not be obtained through keeping the Law?
Will you be writing on the various teachings of Salvation in your book on the Afterlife? Have you written in any of your trade books much about how Jesus and Paul differ, ever thought writing a trade book on the differences between Jesus and Paul?
I would say, roughly, yes. And I’ll be talking about that issue a bit, yes.
The book of Judith also riffs on Isaiah 66’s theme of eternal fire and worms for the unsaved. But it riffs on it toward an ECT reading (“eternal conscious torment”). This is all pre-synoptic gospels.
Judith 16:17
Woe to the nations that rise up against my people! The Lord Almighty will take vengeance on them in the day of judgment. He will send fire and worms into their flesh. They shall weep in pain forever.
My issue with those who are sure that the historical Jesus and/or ‘the [Protestant] Bible’ (i.e. the one minus Judith haha) doesn’t teach ECT is that if Judith was already riffing on these OT verses and turning them into ECT readings pre-synoptics, how can we be sure that when we read of “eternal fire”, seemingly perpetually-feeding “worms” on carcasses, a Lake of Fire that the unsaved are cast into in which it is also said will cause the Beast and his angels “eternal torment”, etc., that they too aren’t also moving in the same direction as Judith?
I want to point out that I don’t have a horse in the race. I’m not a Christian and am under no illusion of biblical consistency. All I know is that when I read the synoptic gospels and the Book of Revelation, and study the arguments, etc., that I can’t say with a straight face that they’re DEFINITELY not teaching ECT as part of their eschatology. I understand the argument for Annihilation. And I think there are verses within these texts that are clearly Annihilationist (Matthew 10:28 being the most obvious). But I guess I’m hesitant in assuming biblical consistency, whether within the boundaries of ‘the Bible’, or its parts – the New Testament, a specific gospel, or even within a specific gospel.
Thoughts? Why can’t Mark 9, Matthew 25, Luke 16, Revelation 20, etc., be riffing in the same direction as Judith 16? This isn’t an argument for ECT, but the possibility of them being ECT readings alongside Annihilationist ones…
Intersting parallel. My view is that they certainly can be all moving in the same direction. The question is always whether they are or not, based on a close reading of all the texts. (Just because one text reads one way doesn’t necessarily mean — or even provide evidence — that another is as well). IMHO.
Is there any indication in the NT that at death there is nothingness rather than the possibility of annihilation? The latter seems to indicate active destruction, however brief that act may be.
In my part of the world I have heard the cycle of pre-birth, life and death rendered as “First you aint, then you are and then you aint again.”
Only after being annihilated. The righteous live for ever.
Very interesting, especially the insight from 1 Enoch. I see more clearly where you’re coming from with your thesis.
In a somewhat related matter, I wonder if you could help me understand how the gospel authors understood the human soul. In Matthew, Luke and John, they describe Jesus either giving up “his spirit” or committing his “spirit” into the hands of his father:
Mt 27:50 “And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.”
Lk 24:46 “Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.””
Jn 19:30 “When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.”
Interestingly there is no mention of this in Mark’s gospel.
I can’t read Greek, so I’d like to know if the “spirit” referred to is the same word as “soul” mentioned in Mt 10:28? So did these evangelists believe that at the moment of death Jesus’ “soul” departed his body?
One of the reasons this is important is that I understand some people believed (the separationist heretics you mention in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture – fantastic book by the way!) that it wasn’t Jesus’ soul leaving, or even *his* spirit, but instead, it was the *Holy Spirit* instead. Can you clear this up, please?
I’m afraid it’s massively complicated. One issue is whether a person is unitary — a body and soul united makes the person; or binary — a body with a soul each of which can exist independently; or tripartite — a body and a soul and a spirit, each of which is distinct. And if the latter, then can the human spirit be replaced by the Holy Spirit. The only reasonable short response I can give to the bigger question is: It depends which text/author you’re reading! (But yes, spirit and soul are different words in Greek: pneuma and psuche)
Absolutely fascinating! I did not appreciate these distinctions – thank Bart.
In 1Cor2, Paul seems to identify three spirits:
1. the Spirit of God
2. the human spirit
3. the spirit of the world
“11 For what human being knows what is truly human except the human spirit that is within? So also no one comprehends what is truly God’s except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the gifts bestowed on us by God.”
In your view, are these three spirits to be identified separately, or do you think Paul really means spirit 2 and 3 are to be identified together?
It’s not clear if the spirit of the world is the human spirit or, perhaps more likely, the “supernatural” spirit that is opposed to God in the world.
What is your view on what Paul believed in this matter – did he believe that the human spirit was replaced with the Holy Spirit? If so, does that open the possibility that Paul thought that Jesus’ human spirit was replaced with the Holy Spirit at his baptism, and departed his body at death?
No, I don’t think he believed in replacement. He thought the Holy Spirit could indwell a person, along with their own spirit.
In one of your Great Courses lectures you talk about how some Christians during the time of Nero were so afraid of him, that even after his death they feared he would come back from the dead to persecute them again.
Now, given that it would seem resurrection was a fairly common theme in the ancient world, wouldn’t the complete and total annihilation of evil men (or forces or rulers) be the preferred outcome, particularly in the view of an apocalypticist like Jesus? Wouldn’t want to run the risk of someone coming back from death to wreak havoc all over again.
I’m not completley sure that I understand your question! I don’t think that people chose what to believe about the afterlife based on what would work best for their others views (if that’s what you’re asking)
Yes thank you, actually, thats exactly what i was asking!
One wonders which image of final destination is worse: eternal hell or annihilation. At least with the former some move can be made (anyway some try to make it) where the lost still survive and have their own twisted and ego-centered pleasures. In that sense an eternal hell is “merciful” – like allowing an alcoholic to go on drinking simply because he wants to. True, he is not sober. But hey, it is better that he is alive and is having *some* pleasure, right? On the other hand to annihilate just seems the most depressing thing imaginable. To think that I could ever be okay with – that I could ever find tolerable the thought – that one of my loved ones will never laugh, smile, have hopes or joy! It is not them not doing these things that would be most depressing, but the thought that I could be okay with that, that I could accept it, that I could rejoice in heaven knowing it. How could my love of them have been real then? How could I have “loved them as myself”? Can I love my neighbor if I do not desire his salvation in a way that makes his destruction intolerable and unacceptable? How can I love – truly love – if that love can eventually reduce to an apathy regarding the salvation of the one I love? The whole idea of an eternal destruction of humans rends the very fabric of humanity. In destroying even one human being then the very idea of the universal brotherhood of humanity, the universal love of all, is destroyed – annihilated – as well. But then did love even ever exist? Is it not eternal? Is not the good stronger than the evil? How then could anything a Good God made ever be utterly destroyed?
Any God worth believing in seems to me one who *shall* reconcile all to himself: therefore all human loves, therefore every possible love that ever bubbled up into heart and mind of man.
Dr, Ehrman, off topic, but with Hurricane Florence approaching the Carolina’s….. thinking of you and your family and all those in its path.
Many thanks! We are battening down the hatches!
I’m going to recite these last two posts at Thanksgiving this year, just after my uncle shouts at me that I’m going to burn in hell for eternity after our dinner conversation on Trump and gays/progressives/English majors/etc. Then we’ll watch the Cowboys lose to someone. Can’t wait.
Looks like they’ll definitely be losing, *this* year.
Will your book weigh in on the debate surrounding the translation of “aiōnios”? I presume you will argue that the “kolasis aiōnios” refers to the fact that the wicked will cease to exist forever (aiōnios), not that they will be punished for an age-long period (aiōnios).
Looking forward to your book. I really like the title “Heaven, Hell, and the Invention of the Afterlife.” My own title would have been a banal “The Development of the Afterlife.” But I’m more partial to your title. Using the word invention should get attention.
I’ve decided not to go down that particular rabbit hole!
Is there any discussion at all in the OT, NT or other scripture about what might happen to animals after their death? An afterlife for species other than Homo sapiens?
No, I’m afraid not.
“Jesus expected that to come in the kingdom. There would be a resurrection of the dead for life. But that’s only for those whose bodies have died but whose life force is restored. If the life-force too is destroyed, there will be no resurrection into God’s coming kingdom. There will only be death. God alone can destroy the life-force. When he does so the person is not just physically dead, but completely dead, destroyed, exterminate, annihilated.”
I’m unclear if you think that Jesus thought that the evil dead would also be resurrected, only to be killed again and thrown into Gehenna, or if their dead bodies would go directly to Gehenna (and not collect $200.00). If the former, do you think the words of John 5:28-29 (cf. Daniel 12:2) were spoken by Jesus? If the latter, how would the bodies of long-dead evil people (such as the kings of the Northern Kingdom) be reconstituted to be killed again and destroyed in Gehenna?
My sense is that everyone goes to … wherever they go to when they die (for Jesus). At the end everyone is raised for a final judgment. The righteous are brought into God’s kingdom; the wicked are shown the errors of their ways, see what they’re missing out on, and then destroyed.
How do you account for the amount of Stoicism in Jesus’ teaching?
Do you blame the author of Matthew or in Jesus’ missing years, he studied Stoicism?
= = =
In your post above about there not being eternal punishment, you did not tell us Matthew 25: 46 is translated incorrectly. Is it translated incorrectly?
45Then the King will answer, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for Me.’ 46And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
I’ve never been convinced that there is any stoicism in Jesus’ teachings (apart from “generally held wisdom”). Do you have something in mind?
(From the manuscript I’m writing for publication) Roman Stoicism appears in the thoughts and sayings of the Biblical Jesus—and, not just in “The Our Father Prayer” and “Thoughts as Sins.” It appears in forgiveness, love of enemies, turning the other cheek, and Jesus’ call to perfection.
1 “The Our Father Prayer”
2 Do the will of Zeus, in the original Stoic terms, do the will of God
“Ultimately, there is only one way to know what is the right thing to do in a particular circumstance or what Zeus requires: consult a sage. Consult (bring it to) Jesus.
2b Don’t do things to be seen as righteous but wisdom is the correct disposition of character, with firmness, tenor, and fixity
What God requires for righteousness is not simply the performance of actions that in themselves are generally accepted as morally good, but rather that such actions be done with the right moral disposition that is the equivalent of doing God’s will–all basic to Stoic thought..
3 “Thoughts as Sins.” (criterion of interiority or intention)
4 forgiveness, love of enemies, turning the other cheek, no revenge
5 Jesus’ call to perfection = The Stoic Sage’s call to perfection
6 Jesus is the sage with virtues as his moral skills while Pharisees and scribes are wicked, fools, vicious, hypocrites
7 Beatitudes – blessed are the poor, not a financial class as for Luke but a character condition, poor in spirit (realizing the need to seek out a sage; what would a Stoic Sage do = what would Jesus do, What a Friend We Have in Jesus then becomes carry your worries to a Stoic Sage as Stoicism teaches)
~ ~ Kingdom of Righteousness can become Kingdom of Roman Stoic Righteousness (my words, not Stanley’s) ~ ~
8 The Sun shines on the wicked as well as the good comes from Stoic principles.
9 Finally, God had punished Jews for not being obedient, AD 70, according to Jesus as Stoic Sage, because Jewish leadership was not perfect, they did things to appear righteous
And no, this is not generally held wisdom, for the professor, Stowers, says, for example, about “thoughts as sins,” “This ethic derives from a highly technical Stoic theory of action that resulted in making people morally responsible for their emotions. What matters ethically about any action–and Stoics treated emotions like actions–is the mental event that initiates the action.” On a later page, he further says this is not generally held wisdom when he says, “Again, there is detailed technical Stoic theory behind their distinctive attitude toward enemies and love of humanity.”
This is not just Matthew giving us a Stoic differentiation from Luke’s version of Jesus but the content of the historical Jesus.
“Jesus the Teacher and Stoic Ethics in the Gospel of Matthew” by Stanley K. Stowers of Brown University. which is in the collection (book) Stoicism in Early Christianity edited by Tuomas Rasimus, Troels Engberg-Pedersen and Ismo Dunderberg
Stanley K. Stowers, Professor of Religious Studies, works in the areas of early Christian history and literature, Hellenistic philosophy and early Christianity, Greek religion, and theory and method in the study of religion. He teaches courses in early Christianity, Greco-Roman religions and has taught the department’s required seminars for concentrators and for graduate students on theory and method in the study of religion for many years. He has also taught comparative/critical problems in the history of religions courses such as “Sacrifice and Society,” and has co-taught a large comparative literature course, “Secular and Sacred Readings.” In addition to serving as department Chair, Stowers served ten years as Director of Graduate Study.
Stowers has authored A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews and Gentiles (Yale University Press, 1994), Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (Westminster, 1986), The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Scholars Press, 1981) and has published more than thirty articles in books and peer reviewed journals, including a commentary on Fourth Maccabees (Harper’s Bible Commentary).
I don’t believe he is talking about the historical Jesus, but about Matthew’s understanding of Jesus. But correct me if I’m wrong.
This is not just Matthew giving us a Stoic differentiation from Luke’s version of Jesus but the content of the historical Jesus.
Dr Ehrman, can’t tell you how much I appreciate your work and am looking forward to your new book. Like many others I grew up in a Christian home and at the age of 7 my parents took me to a revival meeting where after a blistering sermon on hell, I asked Jesus to save me. I then spent the next 45ish years wrestling with “sin” trying to please the Lord ( church, bible college, evangelism etc). In my early fifties I finally decided that I could no longer believe the Bible to be infallible which led to eventual agnosticism. Your writings have been of immense value in helping me understand the “truth” as I learned it and the “truth” as it is. I can’t think of a better tool for seekers of the truth than your upcoming book! As FDR put it “ we have nothing to fear but fear itself” and the fear of hell has certainly taken it’s toll on the masses.
Thanks for this. Good luck as you forge onward!