if we suggested everyone get a real handle on obeying the English translations of Scripture before progressing into other extra-biblical recourses, we probably would only need the Bible.

If one assumes that reading, understanding and obeying are synonymous…

“…being clothed with humility…”

(You go first. I’ll wait at first base. )

I have yet to see an observable Christlike elevation in speech or behavior that can be reasonably linked to further education. As a matter of fact, if we suggested everyone get a real handle on obeying the English translations of Scripture before progressing into other extra-biblical recourses, we probably would only need the Bible.

As for the other side of our debate, I agree that extra-biblical reading can be very helpful and I do that myself. I think where we disagree is as to how important it is in relation to the Bible.

I would agree that the average Christian (”layperson” for some, though I see no reason for a lay/clergy distinction) probably does not need much schooling in history. In fact, I would say that for any Christian the first order of business would be to read the Bible front-to-back, and the Gospels multiple times. You should know the Scriptures well before you start reading all sorts of additional commentary on them. A study bible can be useful (for the notes on particularly hard to understand passages), but the order of business is learning what is in the Bible.

AFTER you’ve got that, you should continue reading through it (or listening through it, if you listen to it on tape/podcast) while looking at sources which help give context to it – particularly the new testament passages. My wonderful wife purchased ZIBBCOT (vol 2-4, since I have 1 and 5) and ZIBBCNT for me for Christmas, and they are excellent for a wide band of readers (from novice to serious) in providing historical setting to the entire Bible, while respecting Scripture as primary.

It shows consistently that this was the language He spoke.

No, you’ve just applied that as your assumed context. I would suggest you pick up the book I linked above (or other similar sources), which go into a great bit of detail on the linguistic analysis of the NT (including addressing each of the Aramaic references, which were noted as exceptions, not norms). Aramaic is a “poorer” language than Hebrew (it has much fewer words), and has a large number of overlap words to Hebrew. When Jesus is in Judea, he most often quotes from the Septuagint when quoting Scripture, but when he is in Galilee, his quotes match the Hebrew OT passages found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. A number of the examples he uses in his teaching are obvious Hebraisms that have been literally translated to Greek, for which there is no Aramaic equivalent.

Regardless, I doubt He ever used the word “Hades”. Neither does Paul or the other apostles. There are 2 final destinations from the beginning of the OT until the end of the NT:

Actually, Jesus most likely DID use the word Hades in Caesarea Philippi, since it is built right up against a rock feature (still there today) called “the Gates of Hades”. Also, when in Jerusalem, he most likely spoke Greek in public, which would make the usage of Hades more probable.

Also, Peter specifically used the word Tartarus (another Greek underworld concept without a Hebrew parallel).

Which, if their primary language was Aramaic, singling out incidents when they they spoke it would be rather odd.

Actually Chris, in the case of Paul’s Damascus Road re-enactment (Acts 26) he was speaking to a king and his court.

All the other cases don’t say he spoke in the Aramaic tongue specifically, but just recount what he said (like when he was dying on the cross, for example). It shows consistently that this was the language He spoke.

Regardless, I doubt He ever used the word “Hades”. Neither does Paul or the other apostles. There are 2 final destinations from the beginning of the OT until the end of the NT:

eternal life or death.
Not heaven or hell.

As for the other side of our debate, I agree that extra-biblical reading can be very helpful and I do that myself. I think where we disagree is as to how important it is in relation to the Bible.

You have brought up some valid points with the parables you mentioned.

And when Jesus arrested Paul on the road to Damascus, he spoke in “the Aramaic tongue.” Should I take the scholars’ account or that of the Bible?

FYI – a false choice, since the scholars I’ve read on the subject would not disagree with that. The dominant languages of Palestine were Greek and Hebrew. Aramaic was primarily used in addressing the Samaritans, which would make Jesus’ use of Aramaic when confronting Paul on the Road to Damascus an interesting message in itself…

Start with Hebrews 11. Is that chapter somehow unbalanced in its portrayal of these individuals?

Well, other than it not being in the OT, which you were somehow trying to show had a primary focus on the afterlife…

And when Jesus arrested Paul on the road to Damascus, he spoke in “the Aramaic tongue.” Should I take the scholars’ account or that of the Bible?

Which, if their primary language was Aramaic, singling out incidents when they they spoke it would be rather odd.

Nevertheless, my point is that whether Aramaic or Hebrew, “sheol” (not hell) is the destination of mankind until the resurrection. Jesus was consistent on this (see John 6 where there are 3 references alone to “the last day”.)

Yes. But the OT doesn’t dwell on (or focus on) what comes after the grave. Yes, it is mentioned by the Psalmist, and alluded to in the minor prophets, but it is not a dominant theme.

Gehenna is not analogous to Sheol.

I know. Never said it was.