Shermana
Heretic
In modern times, there is a major trend (at least particularly among "Liberal" Christians, not particularly among Conservatives) to say that the Jews never had an idea of hell, at least in Jesus's day, since we know that the early Talmud is chock full of references to a literal fiery hell. The "Garbage dump" reference apparently dates to the 1200s as a minority opinion of a single Rabbi. For the most part, it seems that this concept of a non-literal hell was mostly regulated to the development of Millerism around the 1800s. Also, the name seems to come (in their view) from that the place was used by the Canaanites to sacrifice babies in a fire to Moloch.
The Targums nonetheless seem to indicate Gehenna is directly in relation to the afterlife. We have absolutely no reference to Gehenna being used to burn bodies and trash until the 13th century. The Book of Enoch (whose exact dating is a subject worthy of debate) indicates a belief in a "Valley of fire" for the Wicked in their afterlife. Is it possible that this "valley of fire" was directly similar to the Greek "Lake of fire"? Would the terms used in Enoch indicate that its audience would be already familiar with such an idea regardless if its in the 4th century BC or not?
Many brush off the "parable" of the Rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:18-31 as a "parable" as if all things in a parable can't exist. However, almost all parables are identified specifically as "parables". And even if it is a parable, why would Jesus even use such imagery if there was no comparison? Why would he even say there's a gulf to prevent those in hell from speaking to those alive, if they weren't able to try to communicate? Must we simply dismiss this "parable" as a parable devoid of any cosmological basis the audience would identify with? Jesus only spoke in parables when speaking to the crowds, we have no indication that he was talking to anyone but his disciples here.
With that said, there also appears to be multiple places where Gen-hinnom could have been located, we don't even know which valley it was referring to specifically.
1) Who was this Hinnom character? Why do we not know what Hinnom means? Every other Hebrew name has a known meaning, but not Hinnom?
2) Did the Jews just develop this idea of a fiery hell over time or is there good reason to believe that they had ideas of an afterlife for the souls of the dead? Is this view that they never did grounded in precedent? Why would the view of death be regulated to an everlasting fire in such poetic terms when a simple statement of "there's no existence anymore" would do?
3) Was every single reference of Hell in the NT purely metaphorical? Including the "Parable" of the Rich Man and Lazarus? Does the language Jesus uses indicate it was defacto meant as a metaphorical symbol of death and non-existence?
4) As stated, the name of the valley is that of the "Son of Hinnom" or "Ben Hinnom". (And Gen-hinnom elsewhere). We don't know what "Hinnom" means. Why not? Does the Bible have any names that don't mean anything or that we aren't familiar with what the name means? Why would a valley be named after him as such in the first place?
5) Gehenna is referred to as a place where the "Fire is never quenched". Is it fair to say that this may be a literal indication and more than just metaphorical or is this just a really extensive metaphor for "Death never ceases"?
7) Is it possible that the name of the valley was in honor of the concept of hell in the same way that "Hell's kitchen" is named after Hell? I.e. A terrible place named "hell." Is it possible that the name "Topeth" simply means "Burning place" and can be applied to both an afterlife idea as well as the site of a "Burning place" on Earth?
8) The text says that the valley will no longer be known as the "Valley of burning" but the "Valley of slaughter". Yet, if its a reference solely to the valley for fiery terms in later books, wouldn't this be a blatant contradiction, since it's still being referred to as a place of fire?
9) The argument that Jesus spoke in "parables" and "metaphors" has some merit, but is that to mean that this indicates he was talking symbolically in every instance about hell too? Does that mean every instance of the Kingdom of Heaven in an afterlife sense is purely symbolic or did he mean a literal reference for that?
10) Jesus in the Gospels warns that merely calling someone a fool will put them in danger of "Gehenna". Is this meant to imply that merely calling someone a fool will put them in danger of a horrible death? Or perhaps indicating their fate afterwards?
11) Some of the early Christian "NT apocrypha" like the Apocalypse of Peter (which many Church Fathers considered writ) directly stated that there was in fact a place of hellish torture for sinners in the afterlife. Are we to reject these accounts regarding established doctrine merely because they didn't make it into the final canon?
12) Why would it say that God can destroy body AND soul in Gehenna? Why would it say there's a difference between one who can destroy the body and the body and soul in this particular location? Why use Gehenna for such symbolism of the destruction of the soul? Why would it say "Luke 12:5: "....fear the One who, after He has killed has authority to cast into, 'Gehenna;' yes, I tell you, fear Him."...What is this "Gehenna" that one can be cast into? If it's just a metaphor for destruction of the soul, why not just say so? Why all this "Where the worm dies not" nonsense, especially if the body is already destroyed?
13) In James 3:6 it says "New International Version
The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole body, sets the whole course of one's life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell (Gehenna)."
What can "Set on fire by (Gehenna) possibly mean if Gehenna is just a fictional metaphor for the destruction of the soul? How can the tongue be set on fire BY this place? If it's referring to something abstract, was that really likely the intended meaning as opposed to a direct reference to this same place the Jews believed in 200 years later?
Is it fair to say that there may be something wrong with this modern trend to try to say Hell never existed in the time around Jesus and that it only later (200 years later apparently) became a Jewish concept of a fiery inferno for naughty souls? Or is the evidence conclusive that this was the case? Is it at least plausible to say that it's POSSIBLE the NT writers did in fact mean a place of fiery punishment?
The Targums nonetheless seem to indicate Gehenna is directly in relation to the afterlife. We have absolutely no reference to Gehenna being used to burn bodies and trash until the 13th century. The Book of Enoch (whose exact dating is a subject worthy of debate) indicates a belief in a "Valley of fire" for the Wicked in their afterlife. Is it possible that this "valley of fire" was directly similar to the Greek "Lake of fire"? Would the terms used in Enoch indicate that its audience would be already familiar with such an idea regardless if its in the 4th century BC or not?
Many brush off the "parable" of the Rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:18-31 as a "parable" as if all things in a parable can't exist. However, almost all parables are identified specifically as "parables". And even if it is a parable, why would Jesus even use such imagery if there was no comparison? Why would he even say there's a gulf to prevent those in hell from speaking to those alive, if they weren't able to try to communicate? Must we simply dismiss this "parable" as a parable devoid of any cosmological basis the audience would identify with? Jesus only spoke in parables when speaking to the crowds, we have no indication that he was talking to anyone but his disciples here.
With that said, there also appears to be multiple places where Gen-hinnom could have been located, we don't even know which valley it was referring to specifically.
1) Who was this Hinnom character? Why do we not know what Hinnom means? Every other Hebrew name has a known meaning, but not Hinnom?
2) Did the Jews just develop this idea of a fiery hell over time or is there good reason to believe that they had ideas of an afterlife for the souls of the dead? Is this view that they never did grounded in precedent? Why would the view of death be regulated to an everlasting fire in such poetic terms when a simple statement of "there's no existence anymore" would do?
3) Was every single reference of Hell in the NT purely metaphorical? Including the "Parable" of the Rich Man and Lazarus? Does the language Jesus uses indicate it was defacto meant as a metaphorical symbol of death and non-existence?
4) As stated, the name of the valley is that of the "Son of Hinnom" or "Ben Hinnom". (And Gen-hinnom elsewhere). We don't know what "Hinnom" means. Why not? Does the Bible have any names that don't mean anything or that we aren't familiar with what the name means? Why would a valley be named after him as such in the first place?
5) Gehenna is referred to as a place where the "Fire is never quenched". Is it fair to say that this may be a literal indication and more than just metaphorical or is this just a really extensive metaphor for "Death never ceases"?
7) Is it possible that the name of the valley was in honor of the concept of hell in the same way that "Hell's kitchen" is named after Hell? I.e. A terrible place named "hell." Is it possible that the name "Topeth" simply means "Burning place" and can be applied to both an afterlife idea as well as the site of a "Burning place" on Earth?
8) The text says that the valley will no longer be known as the "Valley of burning" but the "Valley of slaughter". Yet, if its a reference solely to the valley for fiery terms in later books, wouldn't this be a blatant contradiction, since it's still being referred to as a place of fire?
9) The argument that Jesus spoke in "parables" and "metaphors" has some merit, but is that to mean that this indicates he was talking symbolically in every instance about hell too? Does that mean every instance of the Kingdom of Heaven in an afterlife sense is purely symbolic or did he mean a literal reference for that?
10) Jesus in the Gospels warns that merely calling someone a fool will put them in danger of "Gehenna". Is this meant to imply that merely calling someone a fool will put them in danger of a horrible death? Or perhaps indicating their fate afterwards?
11) Some of the early Christian "NT apocrypha" like the Apocalypse of Peter (which many Church Fathers considered writ) directly stated that there was in fact a place of hellish torture for sinners in the afterlife. Are we to reject these accounts regarding established doctrine merely because they didn't make it into the final canon?
12) Why would it say that God can destroy body AND soul in Gehenna? Why would it say there's a difference between one who can destroy the body and the body and soul in this particular location? Why use Gehenna for such symbolism of the destruction of the soul? Why would it say "Luke 12:5: "....fear the One who, after He has killed has authority to cast into, 'Gehenna;' yes, I tell you, fear Him."...What is this "Gehenna" that one can be cast into? If it's just a metaphor for destruction of the soul, why not just say so? Why all this "Where the worm dies not" nonsense, especially if the body is already destroyed?
13) In James 3:6 it says "New International Version
The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole body, sets the whole course of one's life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell (Gehenna)."
What can "Set on fire by (Gehenna) possibly mean if Gehenna is just a fictional metaphor for the destruction of the soul? How can the tongue be set on fire BY this place? If it's referring to something abstract, was that really likely the intended meaning as opposed to a direct reference to this same place the Jews believed in 200 years later?
Is it fair to say that there may be something wrong with this modern trend to try to say Hell never existed in the time around Jesus and that it only later (200 years later apparently) became a Jewish concept of a fiery inferno for naughty souls? Or is the evidence conclusive that this was the case? Is it at least plausible to say that it's POSSIBLE the NT writers did in fact mean a place of fiery punishment?
Last edited:
