What is the appropriate degree of (un)certainty to have regarding the state of somebody's soul

[Bereta_Eder]

Hades in ancient greek is a far more pleasant place than hell.
You could see your loved ones just hanging out and talk to them (Ulysses saw his mother if I'm not mistaken)

Hell, is a different matter. It can range from the classical dante's like inferno (minus the purgatory) or it might simply be nothingness

It's true that the two are interchangeable but hades seems to fade away linguistically and give its place to kolassis. (when refering to the christian hell)

However hell is certaintly underplayed a lot. It's not like the catholics that even farting in a public place could mean landing in a fiery pit and having demons with tridents poking at you (as I understand)

The course is the quest to heaven, not the fear of hell.

[Elok]

Ok, but what about the part of the creed, "He descended into the dead".

What part of the Creed is that from? Ours, at least, goes: "and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven," etc. No mention of where he went. Is this one of those things like the filioque?

Well ok Hades is not used that much.
More in use is Kolassis, (literally , hell)
Which etymologically steems from Kolazomai which means "to be tempted". Kolazomai is very close semantically to "sin" (amartima which is to act on the kolassimo).

Are you referring to the pre- or post-Jesus afterlife?

[Bereta_Eder]

I think post.
Since all these are empirical and since the church follows the new testament (as I understand) I guess it's post

[Lorizael]

A similar story was true of the earliest Christians: Hell as the banner of disgruntlement, not social control. Looking back, post 18 was misleading, and implies that Jews had a meaningful afterlife. The closest they had was Sheol, which is like the dreary afterlife in Ursula LeGuin's Earthsea: a drab, miserable place where nobody is tortured, or happy, or does anything at all. You just dick around for eternity, and everybody went there in the end, no matter what they did. The notion of a really happy, or unhappy, or otherwise consequential afterlife began (in the Judeo-Christian tradition) with Jesus*, who was the opposite of a cushy oligarch. Judaism, to this day, is a very this-life-centered religion. Job complains about his bad treatment, and God's justice is shown by Job getting all his stuff back, with some extra for the hassle.

I just (half--I got a headache) rewatched Dogma (because Alan Rickman) and this got me thinking. There's this story you hear about how the OT god was full of wrath and anger and killing people all the time, while the NT god is all about peace and love and forgiveness. But if the above is true, it kind of makes sense, and also means that God's attitude hasn't really changed, just his methods. If Judaism is a this-life-centered religion, then punishing people by turning them into pillars of salt/drowning them/striking down their firstborn is a great way to do so. On the other hand, if Christianity is an afterlife-centered religion, then it makes sense for God not to waste his time dicking around with people in this life... but then burning them for an eternity in the afterlife. No matter what, he's still being cruel and brutal; he's just changing when he puts on his S&M gear.

[Bereta_Eder]

There was a book that said that monotheistic religions have their roots on the egyptian pharaoe Amon.
Kind of seems different than the theory that said that it started with the hebrew religion.

(I didn't buy the book because the everyday life of female byzantine aristocracy seemed way more interesting (love drama blood. It also seems that the catholics were at each others throats* much more than the time spending envying byzantium and that illegitimate children of byzantine royalty (there were lots) were usually married to mongols, the golden hoard. Poor bastards)

*the same exact was happening between the different states within byzantium

[Proteus_MST]

There was a book that said that monotheistic religions have their roots on the egyptian pharaoe Amon.
Kind of seems different than the theory that said that it started with the hebrew religion.
...

I heard about this ...
and the hypothesis that Moses was actually an Amun-Priest.

May be difficult to prove anything about it without a time machine ... seems like the jewish society (when they switched to Monotheism) got rid very thorougly of the traces of their polytheist roots (and also edited/selected them out in their collection of religious scriptures).
What was left may have been destroyed during babylonian captivity and the many wares that took place on palestinian soil

[Ben Kenobi]

What part of the Creed is that from? Ours, at least, goes: "and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven," etc. No mention of where he went. Is this one of those things like the filioque?

"Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, and with the Father and Son is worshiped and glorified...." is the filioque.

It's in the Apostles creed, and in the catechism. That's why I was curious if the Greeks have that too.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a5p1.htm

[Ben Kenobi]

seems like the jewish society (when they switched to Monotheism) got rid very thorougly of the traces of their polytheist roots (and also edited/selected them out in their collection of religious scriptures).
What was left may have been destroyed during babylonian captivity and the many wares that took place on palestinian soil

Far more likely that which survived was what the Jews have always believed. We don't have much from this period, arguing that what was passed down was contrary to what the Jews believes presupposes that we have an abundance of sources. We do not.

[Ben Kenobi]

There's this story you hear about how the OT god was full of wrath and anger and killing people all the time, while the NT god is all about peace and love and forgiveness. But if the above is true, it kind of makes sense, and also means that God's attitude hasn't really changed, just his methods. If Judaism is a this-life-centered religion, then punishing people by turning them into pillars of salt/drowning them/striking down their firstborn is a great way to do so. On the other hand, if Christianity is an afterlife-centered religion, then it makes sense for God not to waste his time dicking around with people in this life... but then burning them for an eternity in the afterlife. No matter what, he's still being cruel and brutal; he's just changing when he puts on his S&M gear.

If this were true, then it would mark a significant change between the Mosaic Law and Christianity. The problem is that it isn't. Christ always went on about the fulfillment of the law, not just by the words, but of the spirit. That's the major difference here.

[Elok]

Scholars are very fond of finding similarities between Christianity and other near eastern religions. The similarities are typically superficial and unremarkable in the grand scheme of things. For example, many contemporary mystery cults had ritual baths, communal feasts, fasting, etc., which makes it sound like they must have been the source of Christianity until you realize that many of the same things were found in Judaism (it's called a mikvah, folks), or shamanistic rituals from the other end of the world, including the Plains Indians of North America. Pagan Christs? Sure, Central America had oodles of them, enough that there's a general term for the group of them ("Corn Gods")! They, and the closer ones, look a lot like Jesus if you squint real hard.

I once had a book on Celtic legends from the early decades of the twentieth century, arguing that the Celts had roots in ancient Egypt due to the clear similarities in the ways they rendered boats. Turns out they were wrong; it's just that there's only so many different ways you can draw a boat.

[Jon Miller]

This has been interesting.

I found it interesting when I started exploring other (non-SDA) views is that Christ mostly preached 'the Kingdom of Heaven is now'. That was the good news, the gospel. It was about this life and not the afterlife. Christ's message about the afterlife tended to come towards the end of His ministry.

Paul was very focused about the afterlife. During that time Christian's were persecuted. It is from Paul that we get:
"If the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished"
(1 Cor. 15:13–18).

It might be that Christians still tend to over emphasise the afterlife, even though they are generally no longer losing their lives.

JM

[Bereta_Eder]

That is my favorite hymn


Τῇ ὑπερμάχῳ στρατηγῷ τὰ νικητήρια,
ὡς λυτρωθεῖσα τῶν δεινῶν εὐχαριστήρια,
ἀναγράφω σοι ἡ Πόλις σου Θεοτόκε.
Ἀλλ' ὡς ἔχουσα τὸ κράτος ἀπροσμάχητον,
ἐκ παντοίων με κινδύνων ἐλευθέρωσον,
ἵνα κράζω σοιˑˑ• Χαῖρε, Νύμφη ἀνύμφευτε


it looses greatly in translation


To the defender army leader all the jubilees
entitled to You by Your city, God-bearer
as gratitude expressives for being saved from woes
In as much as You keep the state invincible,
deliver me from all kinds of perils,
so that I can exclaim to You: Rejoice, Bride unwed


Your soul feels with power and strenght when you hear it
Heavy metal ain't got nothing on it


I woke up with plenty of energy today

[Elok]

The typical English translation is far from literal, I think. "To thee our captain, queen of war, the battle-trophies won" is how it starts.

[Proteus_MST]

This has been interesting.

I found it interesting when I started exploring other (non-SDA) views is that Christ mostly preached 'the Kingdom of Heaven is now'. That was the good news, the gospel. It was about this life and not the afterlife. Christ's message about the afterlife tended to come towards the end of His ministry.
...

JM

You mean, Jesus as the end times prophet
(where he literally means that none of his will "taste death" till his return (with other words, that he will return very soon ... within the lifetime of his disciples ... to bring Armageddon)

(which may also fit to Jesus telling his disciplers to buy a sword, even if tghey have to sell their cloak for it)

[Jon Miller]

You mean, Jesus as the end times prophet
(where he literally means that none of his will "taste death" till his return (with other words, that he will return very soon ... within the lifetime of his disciples ... to bring Armageddon)

(which may also fit to Jesus telling his disciplers to buy a sword, even if tghey have to sell their cloak for it)

No, I mean that Jesus preached and emphasised being born again as something that impacted the now more than He did His death, resurrection, or return. The instruction to buy a sword was also a late ministry teaching as was most of the recorded teachings referring to His return.

JM