I looked up Ken Fortier’s website, as you (or someone else?) on another thread recommended him as an ex-Roman Catholic Christian thinker. I have to say though, I was singularly unimpressed.
I read several of his essays...and they all had lots of assertions (like the claim that Hell is merely a pagan/medeival construct), with however, zero proof, either from scripture, or scholarship. When someone says, “why the great majority of scholars today say....” without citing who, or, on what basis (even generally) they supposedly say that, my skeptical ears go up...
He had lots of his own high sounding opinions about the supposed extra-scriptural idea of Hell—without ever dealing with the evidence (from scripture, and, mostly, from the very lips of Christ) defenders of orthodox conservative theology (both Roman AND classical Protestant) rely on for their ancient understandings.
Yes, he rejected Rome, only unfortunately to embrace his own brand of liberal Protestantism (or is he an Adventist?)....
From what I read, to my mind, he went from the frying pan to the fire.
Nothing amazing here. I don't doubt your opinion, nor would I doubt the opinion of others who find it very worthy in showing the "the other side of the story", as the expression goes.
I read several of his essays...and they all had lots of assertions (like the claim that Hell is merely a pagan/medeival construct), with however, zero proof, either from scripture, or scholarship. When someone says, “why the great majority of scholars today say....” without citing who, or, on what basis (even generally) they supposedly say that, my skeptical ears go up...
While I'm not Ken's apologist, I respect him for bringing to the forefront his findings on the words "sheol/hades" translated as "hell" in the scriptures. What you say is not very valuable because you don't bring up the context he spoke in. I guess that would make me "skeptical" of what you just said.
He had lots of his own high sounding opinions about the supposed extra-scriptural idea of Hell—without ever dealing with the evidence (from scripture, and, mostly, from the very lips of Christ) defenders of orthodox conservative theology (both Roman AND classical Protestant) rely on for their ancient understandings.
On this I would disagree. His exegesis of Scripture and conclusions are not just his, but are the same as a great number of scholars. Ken (and I) both have studied what ancient writers, Roman and Protestant, have asserted as their understanding of religious and secular beliefs on that topic. Personally, I have had to throw out most of the teachings that were taught me after examining the topic in depth.
Yes, he rejected Rome, only unfortunately to embrace his own brand of liberal Protestantism (or is he an Adventist?)....
From my knowledge of Ken, which is great, he does not accept either Catholic or Protestant beliefs on the topic you seem to have different opinions on. He is also in no way connected with Adventists denominations. He does not accept being a hypenated Christian, preferring to say he is simply a Christian growing in the knowledge of God and His Christ, Jesus.
From what I read, to my mind, he went from the frying pan to the fire.
That's your opinion, and you are welcomed to it. Others have different opinions.