Infinite punishment to hell for finite sins?

[danielost]

Sounds link tphe solorpsystem will be destroyed and replaced.

[Jeanne dArc]

Sounds link tphe solorpsystem will be destroyed and replaced.

Haha, they didn't know the solar system existed

[Emmisal]

Enoch 100:3-4 ~ The horse will wade through the blood of sinners, and it will come up to their chest. The chariots will be completely submerged [in blood].

Compare:

Revelation 14:20 ~ Blood came out of the winepress and came up to the horse’s bridles for a distance of sixteen hundred stadiums.

Enoch 81:2 ~ I read the tablet that recorded all the works of everyone born of human flesh, everyone who lived on the face of the earth throughout all ages.

Enoch 51:1 ~ The grave will give back everything it has received, and hell will pay back all of its debts.

Enoch 108:3 ~ [The transgressors'] names will be blotted out of the Book of Life.

Compare:

Revelation 20:12-15 ~ Books were opened. And another book was opened, the Book of Life. And the dead were judged by what things are recorded in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and hell gave up the dead that were in them… and anyone who was not written in the Book of Life was thrown into the lake of fire.

Enoch 91:16-17 ~ The first heaven will pass away, and a new heaven will appear, which will shine seven times more billiant forever.

Compare:

Revelation 21:1 ~ And I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away.

(emphases added)

Good. I've never really read through the whole book of Enoch (though I've read the first few chapters). Personally I believe in the validity of the book, though it's not included in the Bible. After all the book of Jude (a new testament book) also quotes the book of Enoch. But in this case it doesn't really look like the book of revelation quotes Enoch, rather it looks more like the writers were inspired by the same source (which has to be the Holy Spirit). This further validates the credibility of scriptures (I know you don't like to hear that but it's true anyway). I mean given that Enoch was written thousands of years before Revelation yet we can point out some things in common which suggests both writers were inspired by the same source.

[XenoFish]

We all have had many chances to better ourselves spiritually. When you die and aren't ready to do Gods work in heaven then your soul could be cast into another mortal body and given another chance to progress spiritually. Or if you have done enough wrong over many lives then yes Lucifer, and his lake of fire awaits.

There is no shred of proof that any almighty God exist, nor heaven or hell. These's are human concepts used to control others by fear or reward. Do as I say and go to heaven, disobey and go to hell. There is no divine justice system. When you die you'll figure out what happens, until then why continue to fill peoples head with such nonsense.

What if I said a messenger of God herself told me? How does someone give evidence of this? Does a tv news crew have to be there? Or maybe an awesome cell phone pic?

Hearing voices, get therapy.

[Jeanne dArc]

Good. I've never really read through the whole book of Enoch (though I've read the first few chapters). Personally I believe in the validity of the book, though it's not included in the Bible. After all the book of Jude (a new testament book) also quotes the book of Enoch. But in this case it doesn't really look like the book of revelation quotes Enoch, rather it looks more like the writers were inspired by the same source (which has to be the Holy Spirit).

"Has to be the Holy Spirit"??? hahaha

More like: whoever wrote Revelation read the Book of Enoch, and copied bits from it. Much like Joseph Smith paraphrased and plagiarized parts from the Bible when he wrote the Book of Mormon.

This further validates the credibility of scriptures (I know you don't like to hear that but it's true anyway). I mean given that Enoch was written thousands of years before Revelation yet we can point out some things in common which suggests both writers were inspired by the same source.

There is no evidence that the two books were inspired by the same source: what is plain to see is that Enoch was simply a source for Revelation Duh.

[Emmisal]

"Has to be the Holy Spirit"??? hahaha

More like: whoever wrote Revelation read the Book of Enoch, and copied bits from it. Much like Joseph Smith paraphrased and plagiarized parts from the Bible when he wrote the Book of Mormon.

Joseph Smith plagiarized the Bible simply because he was going to start a new religion and he needed a little of the Bible's authority (not very smart). Just as how the Quran plagiarized the Bible (the bible was written long before the Quran came on the scene). Plagiarism is seen in almost all (if not all) religions except Christianity whose doctrines are unique and can hardly be accused of plagiarizing another religion's work ... haha. Doesn't make sense to me that the book of Revelation copied Enoch, what does John (the writer of Revelation) stand to gain from that, he doesn't know Enoch who lived thousands of years before him, Enoch wasn't even a Christian (in the real sense of the word), neither were trying to start any religion. They only happened to experience the same God hence the similarity in what they experienced and wrote.

There is no evidence that the two books were inspired by the same source: what is plain to see is that Enoch was simply a source for Revelation Duh.

Neither is there any evidence that they were not inspired by the same source. Why do you always think of lack of evidence in negative terms, if you really want to judge from a neutral standpoint I think it is fair to also think of lack of evidence in positive terms.

[Jeanne dArc]

Joseph Smith plagiarized the Bible simply because he was going to start a new religion and he needed a little of the Bible's authority (not very smart). Just as how the Quran plagiarized the Bible (the bible was written long before the Quran came on the scene). Plagiarism is seen in almost all (if not all) religions except Christianity whose doctrines are unique and can hardly be accused of plagiarizing another religion's work ... haha.

Yes, plagiarism in religion is common. Really hoping the "haha" is intended to signify the fact that you realize that Christianity has plagiarized (quite heavily) from other religions. Of all religions I'm aware of, Hinduism seems to contain the least plagiarism from others (though there are some things taken from ancient Avestan sources, if I recall): perhaps that's because it's one of the older religions.

Seriously though, on the chance you really aren't aware: Christianity is probably the most heavily plagiarized religion, taking motifs from Judaism, Hellenistic religion, Roman religion, Zoroastrianism, and many other Middle Eastern religions. It contains virtually zero unique concepts.

Doesn't make sense to me that the book of Revelation copied Enoch, what does John (the writer of Revelation) stand to gain from that, he doesn't know Enoch who lived thousands of years before him, Enoch wasn't even a Christian (in the real sense of the word), neither were trying to start any religion. They only happened to experience the same God hence the similarity in what they experienced and wrote.

John is the claimed writer of Revelation: we don't know for sure. Many documents of that period are pseudepigraphical (claiming false authorship), so Revelation may have been written under the name "John of Patmos", but it could have been written by John, or by someone else, or perhaps even multiple people. We don't know.

As for what he'd stand to gain from plagiarizing Enoch: the Book of Enoch was often thought to be a credible source in those days, especially when regarding matters of eschatology and angelology. Much like Joseph Smith plagiarized the Bible to give an air of legitimacy and credibility to his Book of Mormon, the author of Revelation quite clearly took from Enoch for the same reason. Or perhaps, if he did in fact experience some sort of hallucinatory vision, as described in the text, his vision may have been strongly influenced by Enoch still, on the basis that any literate Jew would likely have been familiar with the Book of Enoch. Psychotropic vision are often influenced by things which are familiar or known to the one experiencing them: if Revelation isn't entirely fictional, and is perhaps an actual account of such a vision, then it would be expected that whoever wrote it may have had elements from texts such as Enoch appear, for that reason. And it's quite plain that the text must either be fictional or an account of psychotropic drug use. Drug use was not uncommon for inducing spiritual visions in those days: and Revelation reads very much like the accounts of people who use LSD or DMT.

Enoch may not have been Christian, but Christianity and Judaism have a shared mythology (as a result of Christianity having originated as a form of Judaism, and later branching off into its own religion, while retaining and plagiarizing select portions of the Jewish faith).

And as for the claim that they weren't try to start a religion.... Maybe they were We don't know that either. In fact, there is some evidence that that may have been the case: Revelation was written during the tumultuous, formative years of organized Christianity, surrounding the reign of Constantine the Great (who effectively founded Christianity as the Roman state religion). Revelation could very well have been a text plagiarized from Enoch, written with the intent of giving a distinct eschatology to the young Christian religion: to make it distinct from orthodox Judaism, and to establish Jesus as a deity figure (which he hadn't been concretely in many early Christian sects, who viewed him as a prophet or immaterial spirit). That's one hypothesis I've heard anyway. I personally am fine saying that some guy called John of Patmos just had a really wicked acid trip and wrote it down, hahaha

Neither is there any evidence that they were not inspired by the same source. Why do you always think of lack of evidence in negative terms, if you really want to judge from a neutral standpoint I think it is fair to also think of lack of evidence in positive terms.

That's not how it works. There is no evidence which could ever be used to definitively prove that they were not "divinely inspired" by the same source, since the sort of "inspiration" you're talking about is unobservable and unfalsifiable. Which is why it is useless, and pointless. I cannot prove definitively that leprechauns don't exist, but lacking any evidence whatsoever that they do, it's safe to say that they don't. That's something called reason

And incidentally, there is in fact some evidence that would suggest that they were not "inspired" by the same source. Take for instance the fact that they espouse different religious concepts: while similar, one is very clearly Christian, while one is clearly not. Also, they were written in very different times, one long before the other: for them to be so similar does not suggest "inspiration" by the same source, rather, that the latter simply copied from the earlier one, just as we can determine that the Book of Mormon and Quran are essentially inauthentic/plagiarized based on the fact that they were written long after the source they copied from. That is evidence. Not definitive (it couldn't possibly be definitive), but evidence nonetheless.

[Perceptivum]

What does it matter if God sends you to Hell for what YOU define as tiny, finite sins? What does it matter if God deals in absolutes rather than the grey area in between? If you get the answer you are looking for will that change your behavior? If you receive an answer that goes against your preconceived notion you will call for evidence or proof, knowing that provision of this is nearly impossible. The answers you seek are found in the Bible. If you choose to read and reject, God has a place for you (believe it or not). If you choose to read and accept, God has a place for you. If you choose not to read, whether you scoff or ignore believers, God has a place for you. It’s not my, nor other believer’s, responsibility to provide evidence for or against what you ask; God clearly commands that responsibility as only God can provide the specific, individualistic evidence you require to believe. If you question whether that place God has in store for you is Hell or not, why do you care as you do not believe? With an answer will you then stop sinning in fear; doubtful as I believe in God and still sin abundantly. What you, and other scoffers, seek you will not find here.

Moreover, if I do not believe in unicorns, why would I call for others to present evidence that they exist? Just to mock and belittle them as they present their ideas? Do you mock and belittle children who believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy? Perhaps we, i.e., believers, are children in our belief and as in Matthew 18:3 “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.”

[ambelamba]

If most Americans agree with you then I can see the fundamental problem with this country. I served for and loved America. But if Americans choose to obey this Hebrew demon without question I'd put my money on China.

[Jeanne dArc]

What does it matter if God sends you to Hell for what YOU define as tiny, finite sins? What does it matter if God deals in absolutes rather than the grey area in between? If you get the answer you are looking for will that change your behavior? If you receive an answer that goes against your preconceived notion you will call for evidence or proof, knowing that provision of this is nearly impossible. The answers you seek are found in the Bible. If you choose to read and reject, God has a place for you (believe it or not). If you choose to read and accept, God has a place for you. If you choose not to read, whether you scoff or ignore believers, God has a place for you. It’s not my, nor other believer’s, responsibility to provide evidence for or against what you ask; God clearly commands that responsibility as only God can provide the specific, individualistic evidence you require to believe. If you question whether that place God has in store for you is Hell or not, why do you care as you do not believe? With an answer will you then stop sinning in fear; doubtful as I believe in God and still sin abundantly. What you, and other scoffers, seek you will not find here.

Moreover, if I do not believe in unicorns, why would I call for others to present evidence that they exist? Just to mock and belittle them as they present their ideas? Do you mock and belittle children who believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy? Perhaps we, i.e., believers, are children in our belief and as in Matthew 18:3 “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.”

If I don't believe in unicorns, but other people are claiming that there are unicorns, and that I should also, isn't it reasonable to ask them to provide evidence of their existence? If people believe in a thing, and want others to believe in it also, they should have evidence, and be prepared to share that evidence.

Incidentally, I think Jesus was full of **** in that Matthew 18:3 thing Telling people that they just have to be gullible and abandon all reason to believe what you're saying isn't how someone with a good point should talk, hahaha

[ambelamba]

I bet Jesus never said that. It was written in by Roman politicians to keep people docile.

[Grandpa Greenman]

Matthew 18:3, doesn't sound like it came from a Rabi, sounds like it came from a politician. There is no way you can trace he (if he was even real) said it.

[Perceptivum]

...isn't it reasonable to ask them to provide evidence of their existence? If people believe in a thing, and want others to believe in it also, they should have evidence, and be prepared to share that evidence.

What you ask is reasonable. We have the evidence and offer the evidence that was/is acceptable to us (e.g., the Bible and personal experiences), but you and others find that it isn't suitable evidence. And, at least for this Christian, I'm OK with that skepticism as it isn't my responsibility to convert you, merely plant the seed (i.e., share the gospel).

Incidentally, I think Jesus was full of **** in that Matthew 18:3 thing Telling people that they just have to be gullible and abandon all reason to believe what you're saying isn't how someone with a good point should talk, hahaha

Right, because children are gullible and have no reason. So, you are implying that it's only in adulthood a person has reason? And when is that adulthood? Is a 10-year old "child" without reason and totally gullible? What about 17? Is a 16, 17, or 18 year old still a child? My children will still be my children when they are 40-years old and I'm still a child to my parents. So what is Jesus really saying here? Jesus is telling us that we should be more dependent on God, like a child to their parent(s). You may call it gullible and "abandon all reason" but to me it's faith and dependence. Unfortunately for most, independence and logic are blindfolds.

To me, what is the harm if I am wrong? What is the harm if you are wrong? And again, I reiterate my point before, what questions one asks in regards to God's judgment doesn't matter if one doesn't believe. If one doesn't believe in light, then why would one question whether it is a wave or particle?

Edited July 28, 2014 by Perceptivum

[Perceptivum]

I bet Jesus never said that. It was written in by Roman politicians to keep people docile.

I bet Roman politicians never wrote that. It was said by Jesus to provide an illustration.

[ambelamba]

Um...

A location tells a lot about an individual.

[Jeanne dArc]

What you ask is reasonable. We have the evidence and offer the evidence that was/is acceptable to us (e.g., the Bible and personal experiences), but you and others find that it isn't suitable evidence. And, at least for this Christian, I'm OK with that skepticism as it isn't my responsibility to convert you, merely plant the seed (i.e., share the gospel).

That's the problem of course: Christians don't prescribe to the same standard of evidence as, for instance, a scientist such as myself. The Bible isn't evidence. Personal experience is, at best, very poor evidence.

Right, because children are gullible and have no reason. So, you are implying that it's only in adulthood a person has reason? And when is that adulthood? Is a 10-year old "child" without reason and totally gullible? What about 17? Is a 16, 17, or 18 year old still a child?

Well, for the most part, that's essentially the case. A young child has not yet formed or been taught the proper methods of reason, rationality, etc., and they can be persuaded quite easily to believe very odd things indeed. That's why you don't find very many adults believing in Santa Claus. Children aren't entirely bereft of reason, but their ability to judge truth from fiction is very meager at young ages in particular. Late teens begin to have more fully formed cognitive and reasoning capabilities, but at that point it also comes down to education: and at least in my country, teens aren't very well educated. Particularly with regards to complex issues such as religion.

My children will still be my children when they are 40-years old and I'm still a child to my parents. So what is Jesus really saying here? Jesus is telling us that we should be more dependent on God, like a child to their parent(s). You may call it gullible and "abandon all reason" but to me it's faith and dependence. Unfortunately for most, independence and logic are blindfolds.

Well now you're just using a different definition of "children" altogether

And as for being like children to a parent, YHWH would be a horrid parent Lock the bast*rd up for good: and while we're at it, a psychiatric evaluation as well, pronto. Dependence and faith in such a creature is just textbook battered person syndrome.

To me, what is the harm if I am wrong? What is the harm if you are wrong? And again, I reiterate my point before, what questions one asks in regards to God's judgment doesn't matter if one doesn't believe. If one doesn't believe in light, then why would one question whether it is a wave or particle?

Ah, a paraphrased Pascal's Wager Haven't had that in a while.

The harm if you're wrong: who knows? What if the Muslims are right? Allah has a place for infidels, after all I don't have any particular beliefs about the afterlife, I'm open-minded, but as far as any reasonable science has shown, death really is the end. In which case, if you're wrong, the consequences would really just be that you had wasted significant time, effort, and money in your brief existence to an empty cause.

The harm if I'm wrong: I was mistaken, but honestly, justifiably mistaken. At least I would have retained my own dignity, and be sent to hell with all the other dignified people, rather than the psychopaths who'd have to look on forever on our torture from heaven and be powerless to save us. Heaven is gross I wouldn't want to end up in a place where I'd have to live forever in full knowledge that I couldn't save the billions of people that my "parent" was torturing. I'd rather be tortured than have to sit idly by and let others be tortured. Because again, I have dignity: and basic human compassion. Of course I'm also an infidel, so if the Muslims are right we're both in the same boat, haha

And as for why I'd discuss the Christian afterlife despite being an atheist myself: because, as I've seen firsthand, Christians can be dissuaded. Pointing out the obvious idiocy of the Christian afterlife is just one of many ways that one can cause a Christian to actually examine their beliefs. And that's a good thing.

I bet Roman politicians never wrote that. It was said by Jesus to provide an illustration.

And your bet is equally as probable or improbable as ambelamba's.

[Bluefinger]

Yes, plagiarism in religion is common. Really hoping the "haha" is intended to signify the fact that you realize that Christianity has plagiarized (quite heavily) from other religions. Of all religions I'm aware of, Hinduism seems to contain the least plagiarism from others (though there are some things taken from ancient Avestan sources, if I recall): perhaps that's because it's one of the older religions.

Seriously though, on the chance you really aren't aware: Christianity is probably the most heavily plagiarized religion, taking motifs from Judaism, Hellenistic religion, Roman religion, Zoroastrianism, and many other Middle Eastern religions. It contains virtually zero unique concepts.

I disagree. First, Christianity was foremost a sect of Judaism that grew more and more distant from Orthodox Judaism in the first century until it was recognized as a separate religion by the Romans altogether. This became useful especially after the Jewish War (66-70 CE), when a heavy Jewish tax was placed on all Jews.

Second, Christianity is a cross-cultural religion. You do not need to be from a certain country or be of a certain race to be a Christian. You also do not have to have a certain worldview. Early Greek Christians disagreed with early Roman Christians. Yet they both called each other 'brother' and considered them 'orthodox.'' That being said, Christianity was embraced by Hellenists, Neo-Platonists, Stoics, Ethiopians, Egyptians, and more; all without forcing them to assimilate to Jewish customs that the original Christians upheld.

With both points considered, you can see that Christianity was take from Jewish roots and related to non-Jewish cultures using their own philosophical and religious background. An example of this is in the book of Acts, where Paul tells a city that the 'Unknown God' they worship is the Father of The Lord Jesus Christ.

If you truly are skeptical, you should probably check anti-Christians sources with the same amount of criticism as you address Christian sources. Otherwise, you are just another contributor of the distribution of misinformation, propaganda, and disinformation.

John is the claimed writer of Revelation: we don't know for sure. Many documents of that period are pseudepigraphical (claiming false authorship), so Revelation may have been written under the name "John of Patmos", but it could have been written by John, or by someone else, or perhaps even multiple people. We don't know.

Agreed. I'd argue that John did not write the book. Pseudepigraphy is very likely, IMO.

As for what he'd stand to gain from plagiarizing Enoch: the Book of Enoch was often thought to be a credible source in those days, especially when regarding matters of eschatology and angelology.

It really depends, actually. If he was a mystic in the Essene camp, he likely viewed Enoch as authoritative. The other Jewish sects, however, did not think it worth canonizing.

Much like Joseph Smith plagiarized the Bible to give an air of legitimacy and credibility to his Book of Mormon, the author of Revelation quite clearly took from Enoch for the same reason. Or perhaps, if he did in fact experience some sort of hallucinatory vision, as described in the text, his vision may have been strongly influenced by Enoch still, on the basis that any literate Jew would likely have been familiar with the Book of Enoch. Psychotropic vision are often influenced by things which are familiar or known to the one experiencing them: if Revelation isn't entirely fictional, and is perhaps an actual account of such a vision, then it would be expected that whoever wrote it may have had elements from texts such as Enoch appear, for that reason. And it's quite plain that the text must either be fictional or an account of psychotropic drug use. Drug use was not uncommon for inducing spiritual visions in those days: and Revelation reads very much like the accounts of people who use LSD or DMT.

I think the author did have predictions (or maybe even hallucinatory visions), but I would argue that a majority of the Apocalypse was already fulfilled when it was authored during the reign of Domitian, as Iranaeus insisted in his book Against Heresies. Predating it to Vespasian's rule would lead the readers during Domitian's reign to believe that their time was the culmination of all the events leading up to Christ's return. That would add emphasis to Revelation 1:3's statement that the time was near.

Enoch may not have been Christian, but Christianity and Judaism have a shared mythology (as a result of Christianity having originated as a form of Judaism, and later branching off into its own religion, while retaining and plagiarizing select portions of the Jewish faith).

I wouldn't call it plagiarizing Judaism. There were three known schools of Jewish thought at the time that were recorded: the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the Essenes. Adding Christianity to the mix would not make it a plagiarizing religion. It would make it a Jewish sect. Your insistence to not treat Christianity with the proper historical respect it deserves is quite misleading.

And as for the claim that they weren't try to start a religion.... Maybe they were We don't know that either.

If you do not know, then what is there to do but speculate?

In fact, there is some evidence that that may have been the case: Revelation was written during the tumultuous, formative years of organized Christianity,

On the contrary, Revelations argues that churches had already been well established. The formative years had past. Christianity was growing at an unprecedented rate. Revelation chapter 7 captures that description by saying that a multitude that nobody could count from every nation was holding palm branches and praising God. That does not sound like Christianity was still in its formative years.

surrounding the reign of Constantine the Great (who effectively founded Christianity as the Roman state religion). Revelation could very well have been a text plagiarized from Enoch, written with the intent of giving a distinct eschatology to the young Christian religion: to make it distinct from orthodox Judaism, and to establish Jesus as a deity figure (which he hadn't been concretely in many early Christian sects, who viewed him as a prophet or immaterial spirit). That's one hypothesis I've heard anyway. I personally am fine saying that some guy called John of Patmos just had a really wicked acid trip and wrote it down, hahaha

Oh, I see. It was all conjecture. Sorry about that. I would argue that all the conjecture is incorrect. Not to dismiss your beliefs as incredulous. I just think there is a better, more factual explanation for the book.

That's not how it works. There is no evidence which could ever be used to definitively prove that they were not "divinely inspired" by the same source, since the sort of "inspiration" you're talking about is unobservable and unfalsifiable. Which is why it is useless, and pointless. I cannot prove definitively that leprechauns don't exist, but lacking any evidence whatsoever that they do, it's safe to say that they don't. That's something called reason

That same 'reason' led many in the academic circles of history and archeology to conclude that the city of Troy did not exist and it was all a myth. Turns out they were wrong. I cannot blame them for initially reaching that conclusion. But I can blame them for too easily dismissing it. And if people so easily dismiss something that has zero impact to their lives, how much easier for them to dismiss something that could?

Edited July 29, 2014 by Bluefinger

[Jeanne dArc]

I disagree. First, Christianity was foremost a sect of Judaism that grew more and more distant from Orthodox Judaism in the first century until it was recognized as a separate religion by the Romans altogether. This became useful especially after the Jewish War (66-70 CE), when a heavy Jewish tax was placed on all Jews.

Second, Christianity is a cross-cultural religion. You do not need to be from a certain country or be of a certain race to be a Christian. You also do not have to have a certain worldview. Early Greek Christians disagreed with early Roman Christians. Yet they both called each other 'brother' and considered them 'orthodox.'' That being said, Christianity was embraced by Hellenists, Neo-Platonists, Stoics, Ethiopians, Egyptians, and more; all without forcing them to assimilate to Jewish customs that the original Christians upheld.

With both points considered, you can see that Christianity was take from Jewish roots and related to non-Jewish cultures using their own philosophical and religious background. An example of this is in the book of Acts, where Paul tells a city that the 'Unknown God' they worship is the Father of The Lord Jesus Christ.

I agree. I was tired and somewhat in haste when I wrote my response to Emmisal, so I suppose I didn't get that idea across. I didn't mean to suggest that Christianity was separate from Judaism at its inception: I merely meant that Christianity "plagiarized" from Judaism in the sense that as a sect, the Christians were selective in their perceived canon of the scriptures (for instance rejecting books such as Sirach and Enoch which were considered canon in some sects). Not per se plagiarism, but again, I was somewhat in haste when I was replying before, and didn't quite explain properly. As for being a cross-cultural religion, yes, that is essentially the source of much of the "plagiarism" that Christianity displays: cross-cultural contamination showing motifs from non-Hebrew cultures all across the Middle East and Mediterranean. That is what I meant: I never intended to suggest that there was some conspiracy of the early church to come together and forge a religion from disparate, plagiarized parts.

If you truly are skeptical, you should probably check anti-Christians sources with the same amount of criticism as you address Christian sources. Otherwise, you are just another contributor of the distribution of misinformation, propaganda, and disinformation.

I try The skeptical bit, that is, haha.

Agreed. I'd argue that John did not write the book. Pseudepigraphy is very likely, IMO.

Yes, agreed, that likelihood is quite high.

It really depends, actually. If he was a mystic in the Essene camp, he likely viewed Enoch as authoritative. The other Jewish sects, however, did not think it worth canonizing.

That is an excellent point. Early Christianity seemed to bear more similarity in certain ways to the Essene sect than to the Pharisaic or Sadducean doctrines, I wouldn't be surprised if many early Christians had close ties to Essene concepts, such as perhaps acceptance of Enoch.

I think the author did have predictions (or maybe even hallucinatory visions), but I would argue that a majority of the Apocalypse was already fulfilled when it was authored during the reign of Domitian, as Iranaeus insisted in his book Against Heresies. Predating it to Vespasian's rule would lead the readers during Domitian's reign to believe that their time was the culmination of all the events leading up to Christ's return. That would add emphasis to Revelation 1:3's statement that the time was near.

I think it is probable that the narrative given in Revelation was essentially a veiled religio-political allegory concerning times surrounding its authorship: either way it reads like an account of a psychotropic trip to me Perhaps it's both?

I wouldn't call it plagiarizing Judaism. There were three known schools of Jewish thought at the time that were recorded: the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the Essenes. Adding Christianity to the mix would not make it a plagiarizing religion. It would make it a Jewish sect. Your insistence to not treat Christianity with the proper historical respect it deserves is quite misleading.

Again, I apologize if I was misleading; in my haste I must not have explained properly. I agree.

If you do not know, then what is there to do but speculate?

On the contrary, Revelations argues that churches had already been well established. The formative years had past. Christianity was growing at an unprecedented rate. Revelation chapter 7 captures that description by saying that a multitude that nobody could count from every nation was holding palm branches and praising God. That does not sound like Christianity was still in its formative years.

Mind you, by "organized" Christianity, I was referring to Nicene Christianity, the concepts of which were still formative during the late 1st and 2nd centuries (and would of course culminate in the 4th Century). Of course there were churches already established prior to that, but during those years Christianity was beginning to be less of a Jewish sect and distancing itself from orthodox Jewish doctrine (such as strict kosher laws, alienation of gentiles, etc.). I still say the Christianity was largely in a formative stage at that time: the movement may have spread significantly, but it was not centralized, nor did it have a canon of scripture or doctrinal tenets which were universally adhered to.

Oh, I see. It was all conjecture. Sorry about that. I would argue that all the conjecture is incorrect. Not to dismiss your beliefs as incredulous. I just think there is a better, more factual explanation for the book.

I agree, the conjectures are unlikely. I maintain that Revelation may have had ties to psychotropic drug use, but that's just me: I otherwise agree with your interpretation of its origin, for the most part.

That same 'reason' led many in the academic circles of history and archeology to conclude that the city of Troy did not exist and it was all a myth. Turns out they were wrong. I cannot blame them for initially reaching that conclusion. But I can blame them for too easily dismissing it. And if people so easily dismiss something that has zero impact to their lives, how much easier for them to dismiss something that could?

Well, the Mormons would say the same for "too easily dismissing" claims of ancient Hebrew settlements in North America I think it's pretty safe to say that if there is zero evidence of such a thing, then it can be essentially dismissed, until such time as there is evidence to think that it should not be dismissed. That's the general rule of thumb in science. Unless of course you're an M-theorist Yep, I went there, hahaha

[Bluefinger]

I agree. I was tired and somewhat in haste when I wrote my response to Emmisal, so I suppose I didn't get that idea across. I didn't mean to suggest that Christianity was separate from Judaism at its inception: I merely meant that Christianity "plagiarized" from Judaism in the sense that as a sect, the Christians were selective in their perceived canon of the scriptures (for instance rejecting books such as Sirach and Enoch which were considered canon in some sects). Not per se plagiarism, but again, I was somewhat in haste when I was replying before, and didn't quite explain properly. As for being a cross-cultural religion, yes, that is essentially the source of much of the "plagiarism" that Christianity displays: cross-cultural contamination showing motifs from non-Hebrew cultures all across the Middle East and Mediterranean. That is what I meant: I never intended to suggest that there was some conspiracy of the early church to come together and forge a religion from disparate, plagiarized parts.

Roger that. Thanks for clarifying your use of plagiarism. I agree that Christians were selective in which writings they chose. This is partly because they viewed the other camps of Judaism as incorrect in their interpretations. The book of Acts captures Philip speaking with the Ethiopian eunuch in the desert about how to interpret Isaiah 53. The book of Matthew quotes the book of Daniel. The epistle of Jude quotes the book of Enoch. I believe the view among Christians was that, if it edified Christ, it was useful. They did not fine-tooth comb everything like the Protestants fifteen hundred years later.

That is an excellent point. Early Christianity seemed to bear more similarity in certain ways to the Essene sect than to the Pharisaic or Sadducean doctrines, I wouldn't be surprised if many early Christians had close ties to Essene concepts, such as perhaps acceptance of Enoch.

There is a good chance that is was a mix from all Jewish camps. I think that Paul was definitely of the camp of Pharisees. The author of the Gospel of John (possibly John the Presbyter) was likely a mystic closer to the camp of the Essenes. I think there is reason to believe that an Essene converted to Christianity and wrote the Apocalypse.

I think it is probable that the narrative given in Revelation was essentially a veiled religio-political allegory concerning times surrounding its authorship: either way it reads like an account of a psychotropic trip to me Perhaps it's both?

Yes, I'd agree. The interpretations definitely point in that direction. It likely explains the policy of Emperor Domitian: Worship the emperor to show your allegiance to the Roman Empire or die as a traitor.

Again, I apologize if I was misleading; in my haste I must not have explained properly. I agree.

No worries.

Mind you, by "organized" Christianity, I was referring to Nicene Christianity, the concepts of which were still formative during the late 1st and 2nd centuries (and would of course culminate in the 4th Century).

I see now. Thanks for clarifying that. I think it was hard for the author of the Apocalypse to envision such a thing since he was honestly convinced that Jesus was coming back during Domitian's reign. The idea of an organized Christianity that would become the state religion of the entire Roman Empire must have caught many by surprise.

Of course there were churches already established prior to that, but during those years Christianity was beginning to be less of a Jewish sect and distancing itself from orthodox Jewish doctrine (such as strict kosher laws, alienation of gentiles, etc.). I still say the Christianity was largely in a formative stage at that time: the movement may have spread significantly, but it was not centralized, nor did it have a canon of scripture or doctrinal tenets which were universally adhered to.

Agreed. I think that Christianity successfully broke from Judaism in the first century. Not surprising, a majority of New Testament texts capture this process. At the end of the first century, the break was noticeable, showing that it had already happened by that point (c. 96 CE).

The second century was spent emphasizing three points: 1) Orthodoxy, that all churches are part of the one body of Christ, are led by one Spirit, and worship the same no matter where you go. This is what Catholic originally meant (and does to many today), that the Universal Church is the same in Christ no matter where you go. This doctrine countered centralization actually. 2) Unorthodoxy, or heresy was greatly opposed. The second century saw an inflamed rate of heresies entering the body of Christ. 3) Apologetics. Christians such as Justin Martyr spent a great deal of time arguing in defense of orthodox Christianity, especially in response to Roman persecution.

The third century saw an unprecedented amount of persecution. The Diocletian persecution was the worst persecution to date, even though it was most enforced in Asia-Minor. The church experienced something new at this time: Schisms. When persecutions led many Christians to recant of their faith in effort to save their lives, the Church was faced with a problem: What happens if they are truly sorrowful and repentant? Can they enter into the Church again? The insistence upon Rome that they could led certain sects such as the Novatianists and the Donatists to break away from the Church. Tertullian found himself breaking from the Universal Church and following the Montanist movement because the Catholic (Universal) Church was too forgiving.

I agree, the conjectures are unlikely. I maintain that Revelation may have had ties to psychotropic drug use, but that's just me: I otherwise agree with your interpretation of its origin, for the most part.

Well, the Mormons would say the same for "too easily dismissing" claims of ancient Hebrew settlements in North America I think it's pretty safe to say that if there is zero evidence of such a thing, then it can be essentially dismissed, until such time as there is evidence to think that it should not be dismissed. That's the general rule of thumb in science. Unless of course you're an M-theorist Yep, I went there, hahaha

I disagree with that approach and do not believe that all scientists hold that view. There has yet to be a cure for cancer. But that has not stopped people from searching. By your explanation above, we should dismiss the idea altogether.

Edited July 29, 2014 by Bluefinger

[hellig heilige]

First, Christianity was foremost a sect of Judaism that grew more and more distant from Orthodox Judaism in the first century until it was recognized as a separate religion by the Romans altogether.

It's the propaganda you've accepted. Christian gnosticism is much older b/c it's based on mystical teachings..............................................................................................

[XenoFish]

Lies lies, tell me sweet little lies (walks off singing to himself).

[Jeanne dArc]

Roger that. Thanks for clarifying your use of plagiarism. I agree that Christians were selective in which writings they chose. This is partly because they viewed the other camps of Judaism as incorrect in their interpretations. The book of Acts captures Philip speaking with the Ethiopian eunuch in the desert about how to interpret Isaiah 53. The book of Matthew quotes the book of Daniel. The epistle of Jude quotes the book of Enoch. I believe the view among Christians was that, if it edified Christ, it was useful. They did not fine-tooth comb everything like the Protestants fifteen hundred years later.

Agreed

There is a good chance that is was a mix from all Jewish camps. I think that Paul was definitely of the camp of Pharisees. The author of the Gospel of John (possibly John the Presbyter) was likely a mystic closer to the camp of the Essenes. I think there is reason to believe that an Essene converted to Christianity and wrote the Apocalypse.

I think Paul may have been a Pharisee-turned-Christian, yes; he's an interesting case in that he shows a clear, radical departure from Pharisaic doctrine after his conversion, including strong violation of the mitzvot. I agree that the authors of John and Revelation were likely closer to Essenes prior to conversion.

Yes, I'd agree. The interpretations definitely point in that direction. It likely explains the policy of Emperor Domitian: Worship the emperor to show your allegiance to the Roman Empire or die as a traitor.

Yes, certainly.

No worries.

I see now. Thanks for clarifying that. I think it was hard for the author of the Apocalypse to envision such a thing since he was honestly convinced that Jesus was coming back during Domitian's reign. The idea of an organized Christianity that would become the state religion of the entire Roman Empire must have caught many by surprise.

For sure. After all, who could possibly have predicted Constantine's conversion? That would've been a huge surprise, haha

Agreed. I think that Christianity successfully broke from Judaism in the first century. Not surprising, a majority of New Testament texts capture this process. At the end of the first century, the break was noticeable, showing that it had already happened by that point (c. 96 CE).

That sounds about right

The second century was spent emphasizing three points: 1) Orthodoxy, that all churches are part of the one body of Christ, are led by one Spirit, and worship the same no matter where you go. This is what Catholic originally meant (and does to many today), that the Universal Church is the same in Christ no matter where you go. This doctrine countered centralization actually. 2) Unorthodoxy, or heresy was greatly opposed. The second century saw an inflamed rate of heresies entering the body of Christ. 3) Apologetics. Christians such as Justin Martyr spent a great deal of time arguing in defense of orthodox Christianity, especially in response to Roman persecution.

The third century saw an unprecedented amount of persecution. The Diocletian persecution was the worst persecution to date, even though it was most enforced in Asia-Minor. The church experienced something new at this time: Schisms. When persecutions led many Christians to recant of their faith in effort to save their lives, the Church was faced with a problem: What happens if they are truly sorrowful and repentant? Can they enter into the Church again? The insistence upon Rome that they could led certain sects such as the Novatianists and the Donatists to break away from the Church. Tertullian found himself breaking from the Universal Church and following the Montanist movement because the Catholic (Universal) Church was too forgiving.

Agreed again

I disagree with that approach and do not believe that all scientists hold that view. There has yet to be a cure for cancer. But that has not stopped people from searching. By your explanation above, we should dismiss the idea altogether.

Well, medicine is a bit different than other branches of science. We search for a cancer cure because we want desperately for there to be one, because cancer is rather a problem in our world. Also, that particular endeavor deals with us attempting to make a cure for cancer, rather than dig one up somewhere, for instance. A slightly different manner of pursuit. With pertinence to searching for objects, creatures, people, etc., it's usually prudent to have evidence to reason that they exist in the first place, so that you don't waste time on a wild goose chase (*cough* cryptozoologists *cough*)

[Bluefinger]

Well, medicine is a bit different than other branches of science. We search for a cancer cure because we want desperately for there to be one, because cancer is rather a problem in our world.

And yet people fail to realize the reality of the problem of sin in our world. We constantly set up new systems of government, new methods of discovery, and new systems of knowledge...yet they all go wrong, terribly wrong. That is because the problem is sin. The Bible doesn't necessarily make a case for morality as much as it does about sin. It is like cancer, but is more evident at an earlier age.

Also, that particular endeavor deals with us attempting to make a cure for cancer, rather than dig one up somewhere, for instance. A slightly different manner of pursuit. With pertinence to searching for objects, creatures, people, etc., it's usually prudent to have evidence to reason that they exist in the first place, so that you don't waste time on a wild goose chase (*cough* cryptozoologists *cough*)

Haha, yes cryptozoology has its hands full. I agree that playing on the imagination is a rather dangerous endeavor. But, as you have shown, it does not negate the value in pursuit of knowledge.

[Jeanne dArc]

And yet people fail to realize the reality of the problem of sin in our world. We constantly set up new systems of government, new methods of discovery, and new systems of knowledge...yet they all go wrong, terribly wrong. That is because the problem is sin. The Bible doesn't necessarily make a case for morality as much as it does about sin. It is like cancer, but is more evident at an earlier age.

I of course disagree, as I don't believe in the concept of sin. But whatever

Haha, yes cryptozoology has its hands full. I agree that playing on the imagination is a rather dangerous endeavor. But, as you have shown, it does not negate the value in pursuit of knowledge.

Depending, but yeah

[Emmisal]

Coming back online, I can see that bluefinger has done a really good job, probably better than I would have done. But I want to point out a few more things.

Christianity... contains virtually zero unique concepts.

I really disagree with you here. The concept of the Trinity (one God in three persons) is exclusive to Christianity. Other concepts like God being a father and we Christians being his children, God being our husband (the bible calls Christians the bride of Christ), God living inside of a christian to relate with them as a friend. All these concepts are some of what forms the foundation of the Christian faith and they are exclusive to the Christianity. Christianity is probably the only religion that believes in such deep intimacy with God. That's what the Christian faith is all about (intimate relationship with God) not even about heaven and hell (though we still believe that).

I personally am fine saying that some guy called John of Patmos just had a really wicked acid trip and wrote it down, hahaha

Just a word of advice: Stop building your convictions with assumptions. Most (if not all) of what you know about God and religion are assumptions yet you use these assumptions to build a conviction that God isn't real and religion is fake. Assumptions are not very good building blocks.