Heaven and Hell, by Bart Ehrman

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Does Ehrman unpack the concepts of Sheol and Gehenna later in the book? Both are often loosely translated as Hell which is not, strictly speaking, correct AFAIK.

But it seems to me both concepts could be relevant to the author's thesis.
Yep, in the chapters on Jewish understandings (note the plural) of the afterlife.
 
Chapter 1 : Guided Tours of Heaven and Hell

In Chapter 1, Ehrman discusses some early Christian accounts of Heaven and Hell, "guided tours" as he calls them, making the point that they do appear quite early in the history of the faith, just not in the Gospels or other canonical books.

The accounts he presents are:
  • The Apocalypse of Peter, a one-time rival to Revelations for inclusion in the canon
  • The Passion of Perpetua, which alleges to be the writings of a Christian woman imprisoned and martyred for her faith
  • The Acts of Thomas, an alleged account of Jesus' twin brother (seriously) Judas Thomas and his mission to India
Each presents accounts of Heaven and Hell, sometimes dreams and sometimes Near Death Experiences.

Did any of these interest you? How or why?

Did anything in this chapter catch your attention or surprise you?

Why do you think these ideas emerged given that they are mostly absent in the Gospels and other earlier sources?

Have you ever had a dream or similar experience involving Heaven and/or Hell?
 
One of the themes that struck me was the very graphic descriptions of the punishments and torments of hell (especially for any real or alleged abuse of sexual 'norms') as opposed to the rather sketchy rewards of heaven-- good weather, good food, good company, they all lived happily ever after.

I thought 'hellfire and brimstone' preaching techniques arose in the 1700's and 1800's. Evidently the roots of such scare tactic appeals are much deeper.
 
One of the themes that struck me was the very graphic descriptions of the punishments and torments of hell (especially for any real or alleged abuse of sexual 'norms') as opposed to the rather sketchy rewards of heaven-- good weather, good food, good company, they all lived happily ever after.

I thought 'hellfire and brimstone' preaching techniques arose in the 1700's and 1800's. Evidently the roots of such scare tactic appeals are much deeper.
One thing I found interesting is how some of the descriptions of punishments presage Dante's version. Apparently, he was drawing on fairly old tradition when he wrote Inferno.

But, yeah, Hell has always had better press than Heaven, I think. Guess torture porn plays better than paradise for some, eh.
 
I was also intrigued by the story of Judas Thomas; for some reason it reminded me of the story of Esther-- someone gets into a situation not of their own making, does what seems right from their own perspective, things look really bleak, but then POOF! All ends well.
 
I was also intrigued by the story of Judas Thomas; for some reason it reminded me of the story of Esther-- someone gets into a situation not of their own making, does what seems right from their own perspective, things look really bleak, but then POOF! All ends well.
Well, and the whole "Jesus' twin brother" thing. Apparently the manger was rather more crowded than we thought. :sneaky: Yes, I know it is symbolic or metaphorical in some way, but it would really bring Jesus "down to Earth" if 'twere literally true.
 
(Also almost laughed at the image of aborted babies firing lightning bolts at their mothers, and getting a kick out of mom's suffering.
 
(Also almost laughed at the image of aborted babies firing lightning bolts at their mothers, and getting a kick out of mom's suffering.
The whole thing gets rather Python-esque at times. I tend to visualize things like that as Terry Gilliam animations, in fact. Which, of course, brings us to...

(not recommended for the easily-offended or humour-impaired)


And for Hell, there's Rowan Atkinson's classic sketch. And he does drop a few "punishments" in there that fit with what we see in these accounts ("Male adulterers, line up in front of the little guillotine please").

 
It's an interesting chapter but I thought Ehrman might have overstated his case in the last couple of paragraphs. He argues that the idea of a glorious hereafter for some souls (& eternal torment for others) is not found in the OT.

Ditto for the teachings of the historical Jesus.

Yes, this might be technically true but the historical Jesus had plenty to say about a final judgment and the need for repentance.

Ehrman writes, "To put it succinctly, the founder of Christianity' did not believe that the soul of a person who died would go to heaven or hell."

It's a bit of a miscall to name Jesus as the founder of Christianity', isn't it?

I am not sure what Jesus thought would happen prior to that final judgment.
 
It's an interesting chapter but I thought Ehrman might have overstated his case in the last couple of paragraphs. He argues that the idea of a glorious hereafter for some souls (& eternal torment for others) is not found in the OT.

Ditto for the teachings of the historical Jesus.

Yes, this might be technically true but the historical Jesus had plenty to say about a final judgment and the need for repentance.

Ehrman writes, "To put it succinctly, the founder of Christianity' did not believe that the soul of a person who died would go to heaven or hell."

It's a bit of a miscall to name Jesus as the founder of Christianity', isn't it?

I am not sure what Jesus thought would happen prior to that final judgment.
He is really just getting ahead of himself since he makes the case for those statements later in the book. But, yeah, in this chapter they do kind of come out of nowhere.
 
We do read about an outer darkness in the NT. Does this mean simply lack of light? Nothingness?

Sheol in the OT is sometimes described as a boring nothingness. But how can nothingness be boring? Wouldn't it just be nothing?

Sorry, I am getting ahead of myself here.
 
We do read about an outer darkness in the NT. Does this mean simply lack of light? Nothingness?

Sheol in the OT is sometimes described as a boring nothingness. But how can nothingness be boring? Wouldn't it just be nothing?

Sorry, I am getting ahead of myself here.

People need such shadows to rest ... thus god is out of it for a bit ... heis resting!

You folks label me as expressing strange things!
 
Also, darkness isn't always to be feared.

One of my favorite things is waking up in the middle of the night when it's so dark that you can't tell the difference in blackness between eyes open and closed.
 
Also, darkness isn't always to be feared.

One of my favorite things is waking up in the middle of the night when it's so dark that you can't tell the difference in blackness between eyes open and closed.

We recently had a theological discussion about the pros and cons of the dark and mysterious ... totally Theo Re Ethical! Scripted slips?

Some super stitch'n will sew it up ...
 
Yes, this might be technically true but the historical Jesus had plenty to say about a final judgment and the need for repentance.

re final judgment. A brief root through of apocalyptic passages in The Five Gospels suggest that many of these references were probably not made by Jesus. I think that it's much more likely that the dates the gospels were written (all around or just after the destruction of the Temple, a pretty apocalyptic event).

And repentance is an interesting word. It means to go in a different direction. But if one thinks one is sorta trending in the right direction, what does it mean, then? To keep a vigilant eye on one's direction?
 
re final judgment. A brief root through of apocalyptic passages in The Five Gospels suggest that many of these references were probably not made by Jesus. I think that it's much more likely that the dates the gospels were written (all around or just after the destruction of the Temple, a pretty apocalyptic event).

And repentance is an interesting word. It means to go in a different direction. But if one thinks one is sorta trending in the right direction, what does it mean, then? To keep a vigilant eye on one's direction?

What's left that was forgotten? Sorry meant to stay out of this thread ... for reasons ...

Barth is an interesting author though!
 
re final judgment. A brief root through of apocalyptic passages in The Five Gospels suggest that many of these references were probably not made by Jesus.
Ehrman suggests that the apocalyptic comments by Jesus in Mark and Matthew are likely historical. The focus starts to shift in Luke and then shifts more dramatically in John.
 
Which led up to what we see in the sources that Ehrman describes in Chapter 1.

So why? It seems to be a response to the fact that Jesus' return and the resurrection of the dead went from "in the lifetimes of those present" to "someday" fairly quickly. I mean, by the time the later canon was written, like John and Revelation, it must have been pretty clear that Jesus' return was not as immediate as he suggested. And certainly by the time of these books, when Jerusalem had fallen without Jesus appearing, the idea that Jesus return was a ways off was probably catching on. So is an immediate afterlife more appealing than a "resurrection someday"? Is this really a theology of impatience?
 
It's interesting to look at the last words from the cross through this lens of this shift in apocalyptic thinking.

Mark and Matthew give us a human, Jewish Jesus, bewailing his lot and quoting scripture:
"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Luke moves into the spiritual realm, seeking forgiveness for the two other criminals, and and anticipating an afterlife:
"Father forgive them, for they don't know what they are doing."
"Today you will be with me in paradise."
"Father into your hands I commend my spirit."


John, despite being the most "spiritual" of the four gospels has Jesus asking two people to look after each other:
"Son behold your mother. Mother, behold your son."

And John has Jesus saying:
"I thirst."
"It is over."


Interesting isn't it? I see the shift in Luke that Ehrman describes in the book. John is more puzzling . . . could the author be giving us Jesus fully human and fully divine???
 
Interesting, and relevant, quote from this morning's Economist Espresso (their daily news app). Might be interesting to reflect on as we get into chapter 2 about fear of death (which I might try to get an intro for tonight).

Fabrizio de Andre said:
Hell exists only for those who fear it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top