• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

There is no hell.

Status
Not open for further replies.

angelmom01

Veteran
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2006
3,606
273
✟74,119.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single

Not that I'm a Universalist... though I don't believe in eternal or endless torment or annihilation. I don't like labels and I don't agree with everything 'Universalist'.
I differ on a great many things believed by the majority of 'Universalists' that I have come across over the last several years, but it seems as though someone here already made up his mind about what label he can tag me with so as to be able to read it into anything that I write in order to have 'good enough reason' to disagree with anything I say. :)

Did you realize that Universalism has NEVER been labeled 'heretical' by any council? It's a modern day MYTH!
No. I had read that it wasn't one the 15 anathemas against Origen - though he taught it. Though I also read that a "form" of apocatastasis was among the list (though not sure what the various "forms" are supposed to be and have never seen the list). But whether or not it was condemned at that time, it was condemned at some point, I thought by a council in the mid-500's.

Here's why:

Were Origen and Origenism anathematized? Many learned writers believe so; an equal number deny that they were condemned; most modern authorities are either undecided or reply with reservations. Relying on the most recent studies on the question it may be held that:
1. It is certain that the fifth general council was convoked exclusively to deal with the affair of the Three Chapters, and that neither Origen nor Origenism were the cause of it.
2. It is certain that the council opened on 5 May, 553, in spite of the protestations of Pope Vigilius, who though at Constantinople refused to attend it, and that in the eight conciliary sessions (from 5 May to 2 June), the Acts of which we possess, only the question of the Three Chapters is treated.
3. Finally it is certain that only the Acts concerning the affair of the Three Chapters were submitted to the pope for his approval, which was given on 8 December, 553, and 23 February, 554.
4. It is a fact that Popes Vigilius, Pelagius I (556-61), Pelagius II (579-90), Gregory the Great (590-604), in treating of the fifth council deal only with the Three Chapters, make no mention of Origenism, and speak as if they did not know of its condemnation.
5. It must be admitted that before the opening of the council, which had been delayed by the resistance of the pope, the bishops already assembled at Constantinople had to consider, by order of the emperor, a form of Origenism that had practically nothing in common with Origen, but which was held, we know, by one of the Origenist parties in Palestine. The arguments in corroboration of this hypothesis may be found in Dickamp (op. cit., 66-141).
6. The bishops certainly subscribed to the fifteen anathemas proposed by the emperor (ibid., 90-96); and admitted Origenist, Theodore of Scythopolis, was forced to retract (ibid., 125-129); but there is no proof that the approbation of the pope, who was at that time protesting against the convocation of the council, was asked.
7. It is easy to understand how this extra-conciliary sentence was mistaken at a later period for a decree of the actual ecumenical council.

Interesting.

I think I read somewhere that Gregory of Nysaa, who also believed in Universal Salvation, even presided over one of the early church councils in the 300's (??). But, again, I'd have to look it up. I can't say for sure. At the very least both of these men (and several others who held to a belief in universal salvation) are still referred to by the church and many posters here at CF for support in other theological areas.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,098
6,129
EST
✟1,118,693.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
No, I misread what you wrote and thought you said that God do not correct to remediate. So sue me.

Punishment not being remedial does not equate to, "God punishes for the simple pleasure of doing so."

You're not exactly the most humble or charming of posters yourself when it comes to those who disagree with you. I never even posted to you before on this thread (just now coming into the conversation) and all of a sudden you are accusing me of "ignoring" what you said. So if you what to talk about "reactions" look in the mirror.

Oh yes, I found your 1st post to me to be quite humble and charming in a confrontational, in your face kinda way.


So if I quoted to you The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, which says that Universal Salvation was the most commonly taught and believed doctrine of the earliest Christians, particularly in the east where Christianity originated and where many of its adherents and teachers spoke/understood the Greek of the NT, indicting that it is this very doctrine that was taught by the majority of the Christian Theological Schools (until it was labeled as "heretical" some 500 years later), you wouldn't have a problem accepting that particular teaching as being true, then?:
[ . . . ]
Are you a believer now?

Well, then I guess that settles the matter and we can simply destroy all other scholarship on this subject.
 
Upvote 0

angelmom01

Veteran
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2006
3,606
273
✟74,119.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Punishment not being remedial does not equate to, "God punishes for the simple pleasure of doing so."
It certainly makes it PUNITIVE and for what other reasons might someone engage in such an activity?

Oh yes, I found your 1st post to me to be quite humble and charming in a confrontational, in your face kinda way.
And how many times should someone have to read your Encyclopedia references while you accuse them of "humanistic reasoning" because they won't take you're reference as some sort of "proof" that you know what you are talking and they don't before calling you on it?

So I gave an encyclopedia reference of my own, to make a point. If that is too "in your face" for you then perhaps you missed the point.
 
Upvote 0

Norbert L

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Mar 1, 2009
2,856
1,064
✟582,860.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Interesting. Thanks!

And surely our Lord can extract 'the truth' from His 'slaves' without 'literally' torturing them, right?

I believe there is some serious humor (not the kind that makes a person go 'lol') in that. But more like when a child experiences punishment and at the time it seems most detestable, but when all grown up the person can look back on it, having learned from it, with a good smile and say "thank You".

And just whose name(s) are we to believe are written in THE LAMB'S book of Life anyway? ;)

I believe everyone can be given the potential to be written in the Lamb's book of life.

Nor would the fact that the Jew is Christ's day believed and taught the eternal torment of the wicked in hell (as I am quite sure that they did) 'prove' that that belief was correct and not something that they adopted from Paganism while in captivity (which, perhaps, is why Christ used it against them ;)).

Martha expressed a belief about life after death, and it would be fair to extrapolate that was at least somewhat common among Jews in Christ's day. "...'I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.'" (Jn 11:24)

The reply Jesus gave was "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?" (Joh 11:25-26)

However no mention is made to address and clarify the idea in her Jewish mind, "that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day". WHERE IS LAZARUS?

First we are led to believe he is sleeping, then we find out he is dead, Martha thinks she is going to see him on the last day. We're told if we believe in Jesus that we shall never die, then His fellow Jewish disciples warn him that it's going to stink if his tomb is opened. WHERE IS LAZARUS?

I would conclude at the conclusion of this particular revealed knowledge, all that men can be assured of is God has given Jesus the power of life and death over all people. No mention of a place where Lazarus is, only a condition is mentioned of what Lazarus is in... "he sleeps". Metaphorical or literal?

However I would suggest to understand what Jews believed about life after death in Jesus' time, may not be so dissimiliar from any of the religious Jews of this time. That they believe the faithful will take part in the age to come.

But to make any comments about how Jews believe now and then, can only be honestly determined about the numerous teachings they have about scriptures such as, "Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, And the spirit will return to God who gave it." (Ecc 12:7)

I believe it is folly for gentiles to speak for Jews unless they thoroughly examine the teachings of their ancient sages and can quote from them their opposite points of view. Who here has a thorough and unbiased knowledge of the Mishnah and Gemara?

Because from the little I know about their teachings, it's not that Hebrew logic will reach the exact same conculsion as the Greek logic used by gentiles today. There is a remarkable difference between the two and it just may be found that both "heaven and hell" and "soul sleep" allow the Hebrew believer into the age to come.

And that of course doesn't exactly give a definite answer to the statement "There is no hell".
 
Upvote 0

angelmom01

Veteran
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2006
3,606
273
✟74,119.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I believe there is some serious humor (not the kind that makes a person go 'lol') in that. But more like when a child experiences punishment and at the time it seems most detestable, but when all grown up the person can look back on it, having learned from it, with a good smile and say "thank You".
Exactly! (Though there are some parents who do cross that line into actual "torture"; I don't believe our heavenly Father is one of those parents. :thumbsup:)

I believe everyone can be given the potential to be written in the Lamb's book of life.
If it is The Lamb's book of life then it seems to me that (perhaps, just something that I have been thinking about) the way we get "written in" to it is by being called by HIS name. But even if not, being found in Him is what makes us "a new creature" and we are given "a new name" and it seems to me that it is that name (that of the "new man") that is found in the Lamb's book of life and not the name of the "old man".

Martha expressed a belief about life after death, and it would be fair to extrapolate that was at least somewhat common among Jews in Christ's day. "...'I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.'" (Jn 11:24)
Did she say this as a Jew or as a Christian?

The reply Jesus gave was "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?" (Joh 11:25-26)
Another one of the reasons that I stopped believing in the doctrine of soul sleep.

However no mention is made to address and clarify the idea in her Jewish mind, "that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day". WHERE IS LAZARUS?
How do you know she said that in reflection of a Jewish belief, as opposed to an understanding that she had gained through the teachings of Christ, but not knowing or properly understanding WHO "the resurrection" is, nor what "the DAY of the Lord" is?

First we are led to believe he is sleeping, then we find out he is dead, Martha thinks she is going to see him on the last day. We're told if we believe in Jesus that we shall never die, then His fellow Jewish disciples warn him that it's going to stink if his tomb is opened. WHERE IS LAZARUS?

I would conclude at the conclusion of this particular revealed knowledge, all that men can be assured of is God has given Jesus the power of life and death over all people. No mention of a place where Lazarus is, only a condition is mentioned of what Lazarus is in... "he sleeps". Metaphorical or literal?
The natural 'typifies' the spiritual, as I currently understand it.

However I would suggest to understand what Jews believed about life after death in Jesus' time, may not be so dissimiliar from any of the religious Jews of this time. That they believe the faithful will take part in the age to come.
Not all Jews believe in life after death and, as I understand it, they don't teach much about it. They live more for the here and now and even in Jesus' day expected an earthly king/dom with temporal blessings (and viewed God's punishments as temporal, as well). However, I am still not sure what your point is? Are you under the impression that I'm saying that there is no afterlife?

But to make any comments about how Jews believe now and then, can only be honestly determined about the numerous teachings they have about scriptures such as, "Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, And the spirit will return to God who gave it." (Ecc 12:7)

I believe it is folly for gentiles to speak for Jews unless they thoroughly examine the teachings of their ancient sages and can quote from them their opposite points of view. Who here has a thorough and unbiased knowledge of the Mishnah and Gemara?

Because from the little I know about their teachings, it's not that Hebrew logic will reach the exact same conculsion as the Greek logic used by gentiles today. There is a remarkable difference between the two and it just may be found that both "heaven and hell" and "soul sleep" allow the Hebrew believer into the age to come.
You've lost me completely. I'm no expert on Jewish thought or theology and never have claimed to be. But am quite familiar with the bible and that is what I try to go by when examining my own thoughts and beliefs as it related to Christ and Christianity. I also know that Jesus chastised the Jewish religious leaders of His day for leading His sheep astray. He also told the Sadducees that they did not know the scriptures or the power of God when it came to the resurrection of the dead.

And that of course doesn't exactly give a definite answer to the statement "There is no hell".
Not a statement that I have made. ;)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

angelmom01

Veteran
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2006
3,606
273
✟74,119.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
From: History of the Jews, Volume 1. Heinrich Graetz, Philipp Bloch:
Ch XX, pg 402-406. (The Sopheric Age: 420-300 B.C.E.)

Please excuse any typos, I am not the best typist.

The fundamental concept of the Diety, as one incorporeal perfect God, was so firmly implanted in the heart of every Judean, that no one would allow himself to be influenced by the concept of the Persian god of light, Ahura-Mazda (Ormuzd), however spiritual that conception might be. Their seers, full of penetration, speedily divined the error of the Iranian doctrine of acknowledging two great rival powers, the god of light and goodness, and the god of darkness and sin, Angro-Mainyus (Ahriman). They contrasted that doctrine with their own belief, that the God of Israel created light and darkness, good and evil. They denied that the world and mankind are being perpetually drawn in divergent directions by two rival powers, but are destined to live in peace and unity. The spiritual leaders of the Judeans in the Sopheric age expressed this belief in one of the morning prayers: “God is Creator of light and of darkness, He has created peace and had made everything.” But although the Judean resisted any alteration in their conception of the Deity, still they could not prevent many of the ideas and customs of the Persians from gaining ground among the nation. They imagined that they were adding to the glory of God if, in imitation of the Iranians, they surrounded Him with myriads of obedient servants. The “messengers of God,” whom we read of in the Bible as executors of His will, became, after the pattern of Persian beliefs, heavenly creatures, endowed with peculiar characteristics and special individuality. The people pictured to themselves the divine throne, surrounded by a countless throng of heavenly beings, or angels, awaiting a sign to do the bidding of God. “Thousand times thousands served Him.” Like the Persians, the Judeans called the angels “the holy watchers” (Iran-Kadishin). The angels received special names: Michael, Gabriel, the strong, Raphael, the healer, Uriel or Suriel, Matatoron, and others.

As fancy had changed the Yazatas into angels, and given them a Hebrew character and Hebrew names, so also were the bad spirits, or Daevas, introduced among the Judeans. Satan was a copy of Angro-Mainyus, but he was not placed in juxtaposition to the God of Israel, for this would have been a denial of the fundamental doctrine of the Judeans. He, the Holy One, high and mighty and all-powerful, could not be limited, or in any way interfered with by one of His own creatures. Still the first step had been taken, and, in the course of time, Satan grew to be as strong and powerful as his Iranian prototype, and was endowed with a kingdom of darkness of his own, where he reigned as the supreme power of evil. Once created in the image of Angro-Mainyus, Satan had to be surrounded with a host of attendant demons or evil spirits (Shedim, Mazikim, Malache Chabalah). One demon, as an adaptation of the Iranian Daeva names, was called Ashnodai; another, by the name of Samael, was at the head of the troop of persecuting spirits. The angel of death (Malach-ham Maveth), lying in ambush, ready to seize upon men’s lives, was endowed with a thousand eyes. The creatures of the imagination soon took firm hold of the Jewish soul, and with them many usages resembling those of the Magi invaded the Jewish religion; and especially the laws of purification became more and more rigorous.

It was also at this time that a new doctrine of retribution was developed in Judaism. According to the Iranian doctrine, the universe was divided into two great kingdoms; that of light and that of darkness; the pure, or worshippers of Ahura-Mazda, were admitted into the region of light (Paradise), and the wicked, the followers of Angro-Mainyus, into the kingdom of darkness (Hell). After death, the soul remained during the three days near the body it had tenanted; then, according to its life upon earth, it was taken by the Yazatas to Paradise, or was drawn down by the Daevas into Hell. This idea of retribution after death was adopted by the Judeans. The Garden of Eden (Gan-Eden), where the story of the Creation placed the first human beings whilst they lived in a state of innocence, was transformed into Paradise, and the Valley of Hinnom (Ge-Hinnom), in which, since the days of Ahaz, sacrifices of children had been offered up, gave the name to the newly-created Hell. In what way could such new beliefs have crept into the Judean faith? That is as little capable of demonstration as is the way in which the pores of the skin become impregnated with a disease that has poisoned the atmosphere. However, these views about angels and Satan with his attendant spirits, about Paradise and Hell, never obtained the dignity of fixed dogmas which it would be mortal sin to doubt, but on the contrary, during that time, and in all future time, their adoption or repudiation was left to the discretion of the individual. Only one belief emanating from the Iranean religion, that of the resurrection of the dead, became part of the spiritual life of the Judeans, until it grew at least to be a binding dogma. The Magi had taught and insisted upon this doctrine. They believed that the re-awakening of the dead would take place at a future day, when Ahura-Mazda will have conquered and destroyed his rival, when the god of darkness will have to give up the bodies of the “pure men” which he has stolen. The Judaism of the Sopheric age adopted this hopeful and inspiriting doctrine all the readily, as illusions to it existed in the Judaic writing. The prophets had constantly made reference to the day of the last judgment, and the scribes, inferring that the resurrection of the dead was meant, made it an article of faith amongst their people, and in the daily prayer, praise was rendered to God for awakening the dead to life.

At a later day, when the Judean nation was struggling with death, a seer, comforting the sufferers, said:--
“Many of those who are sleeping in the dust shall awake, some to eternal life, and some to disgrace and everlasting abhorrence.” (DANIEL xii.2.)
In this manner a peculiar doctrine of retaliation, with a brilliant picture of the future, or of the next world (Olam ha-Ba), was evolved. A magical world unfolded itself to the eye, intoxicating the believer. He saw the time come when all discords of life would vanish when the pious, the faithful, and the just, who had suffered so much upon earth, would rise from their graves and enter on eternal life in innocence and purity. Even the sinners who had erred only from frivolity and weakness would be purified by penitence in Hell, and would enjoy the pleasures of eternal life. But how was this resurrection to take place, and how was this beautiful new world to be organized? Imagination could not find an answer to such a question. Fervent faith and enthusiastic hope do not indulge in subtle inquiries; they are contented with giving the pious the comforting assurance that a just recompense is in store for them, in the future life, and this assuaging the sorrows of an unhappy earthly existence. Although Judaism received the essence of this teaching from without, yet the power of enriching it, and of endowing it with the faculty of working immeasurable good came from within. The foreign origin of this belief becoming finally obliterated, it was considered as an original Judean doctrine. Only the Samaritans objected, for a considerable time, to the belief in the resurrection and to the idea of a future life.
 
Upvote 0

angelmom01

Veteran
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2006
3,606
273
✟74,119.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
If there's no hell then there's no consequence for sinning
I think the title is misleading. The thread seems to be geared more towards defining what "hell" IS, rather than just simply claiming that it doesn't exist.

Some say "hell" (Sheol/Hades) refers simply to "the grave"

Some say "hell" (Gehenna/Lake of Fire) refers to "eternal torment"

Some say "hell" (whether Sheol/Hades or Gehenna/Lake of Fire) refers to "annihilation" (ie "the second death" or "eternal death")

Not to overlook any number of variations of the above that may have also been presented.

I think, though, that the claim that "there is no hell" was meant to convey the message that God will not torment/torture the wicked for all eternity (eliminating that specific definition of "hell") as the penalty for sin.
 
Upvote 0

Montalban

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2004
35,424
1,509
57
Sydney, NSW
✟42,787.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I think the title is misleading. The thread seems to be geared more towards defining what "hell" IS, rather than just simply claiming that it doesn't exist.

Some say "hell" (Sheol/Hades) refers simply to "the grave"

Some say "hell" (Gehenna/Lake of Fire) refers to "eternal torment"

Some say "hell" (whether Sheol/Hades or Gehenna/Lake of Fire) refers to "annihilation" (ie "the second death" or "eternal death")

Not to overlook any number of variations of the above that may have also been presented.

I think, though, that the claim that "there is no hell" was meant to convey the message that God will not torment/torture the wicked for all eternity (eliminating that specific definition of "hell") as the penalty for sin.


when they traslatd it into Greek they chose Hades
 
Upvote 0

angelmom01

Veteran
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2006
3,606
273
✟74,119.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
And Hades has a meaning - the Greeks 'hell' was a place where people were conscious
So we should adopt Greek Mythology as Christian theology? Is that what you believe Christ was doing? Giving credence to Greek myths?

Or was he, perhaps, using something that they were already familiar with (and teaching, incorrectly) to teach a spiritual truth (that might not necessarily be meant to be understood quite as literally)?

I believe the latter. But I also agree with you that those who are "in Hades", though "dead", are conscious (which is supported not only by the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, but by other passages of scriptures which clearly demonstrate that those in hades/sheol can move, speak, weep, etc).
 
Upvote 0

Montalban

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2004
35,424
1,509
57
Sydney, NSW
✟42,787.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
So we should adopt Greek Mythology as Christian theology? Is that what you believe Christ was doing? Giving credence to Greek myths?
If you think that that's what the Jews were doing...

I don't. I believe that they used the word in Greek that best represented their idea of an afterlife. If they meant 'pit', then they'd have used the Greek word for it.
 
Upvote 0

heavensprings

Jesus loves me this I know...
Jun 22, 2004
311
20
seated in heavenly places
✟15,550.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Where does my post say anything about Pharisees?


It doesn't, but that doesn't mean I can't mention them... :)

I have a friend who use to be an Hasidic Orthodox Jew (and ended up becoming a Spirit filled Christian) who is also a Director of a Library in the States. He wrote this piece following (and more) after I asked him what had happened to the Pharisee's after the destruction of the Temple in 70AD.

"The Pharisees began to rework the national faith of Israel immediately after the destruction of the Temple by creating the first yeshiva (rabbinic academy) in the coastal town of Yavne (now a part of Gaza). A primary activity of these new yeshivot was to try to counter the influence of the many "Followers of the Way" (Jewish-born believers in Messiah) in Israel by attempting to refute the belief that Yeshua is the Deliverer foretold by the ancient prophets. To do this, they aggressively sought to have blasphemous characterizations of Yeshua included in their core texts of study (Talmud).

After the destruction of the final remnant of Jewish resistance at the Dead Sea fortress of Masada in 73 A.D., the era of the Pharisees began to wane. Future generations of rabbis, though, systematically studied and memorized their writings for guidance on all aspects of life, thus securing a far longer-lasting influence than the sect's leaders might have thought possible.


As you can see, the Pharisee's and Rabbi's are very closely associated. That's why I mentioned Pharisee's.

I believe that the Jewish Encyclopedia is an accurate record of the historical beliefs and practices of the ancient Jews. Do you have any credible, verifiable, historical evidence which shows otherwise?

I didn't disagree that the Jewish Encyclopedia is an accurate record of the historical facts of what the Jews believed and practiced. I just don't think YOU, as a Christian, should believe that what they believed and practiced is God's truth and that you should quote it!

I explained my view of the Talmud. It will serve as a historical reference until you can produce something else written by the ancient Jews which shows how they interpreted and applied scripture.

This is what you said.... "The Talmud simply records how the Jews, who OBTW spoke and read Hebrew interpreted the scripture."... to which I say... :doh:

This is what my ex-Hasidic friend had to say in regards to the Talmud... and please don't tell me he's not a reliable source... he LIVED it and studied it for many years...

The "oral law" later became known as the Talmud ("Teaching"). Actually, it is nothing more than the sayings and opinions of rabbis who disputed with each other between the second century B.C. and the third century A.D. Their endless arguments over minor points of ritual Law that would have required the Temple and priesthood in any case, led to their developing convoluted, meaningless hypothetical situations. Because of its endless meandering, a modern Talmud is so voluminous it requires its own bookcase.

They didn't just interpret scripture, they added to it, and Jesus said...

Mat 16:11 How is it that ye do not perceive that I spake not to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Mat 16:12 Then understood they that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the -teaching- of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

These scripture do not support your assertion!

This is part of what you wrote in the link you posted:

Aion, Aionios and the lexicons:
166. αιωνιος aionios; from 165; agelong, eternal:— eternal(66), eternity(1), forever(1).

Thomas, Robert L., Th.D., General Editor, New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries,

166 aionios- αιωνιος
1) without beginning and end, what has always been and always will be
2) without beginning
3) without end, never to cease, everlasting

---Thayers

And you will find I agreed with you!... but I don't think you really read my posts...

None of this is found in any Greek lexicon or grammar!

And?

An artificial distinction which is not supported by any Greek grammar or lexicon.

Do you only learn about God through Greek grammar and lexicon's?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rajni
Upvote 0

angelmom01

Veteran
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2006
3,606
273
✟74,119.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
If you think that that's what the Jews were doing...
I said I did not and asked you if you did.

I don't. I believe that they used the word in Greek that best represented their idea of an afterlife.
Then why do you say that you do not believe that Jesus was giving credence to Greek Myths? If the Greek concept of Hades properly represents the afterlife, then isn't that exactly what he was doing?

If they meant 'pit', then they'd have used the Greek word for it.
You said that Hades is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word Sheol. So why would you now say that it can't mean "pit" when Sheol is translated "grave" 31 times and "pit" 3 times (KJV)?
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,550
28,531
74
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,300.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
If you think that that's what the Jews were doing...

I don't. I believe that they used the word in Greek that best represented their idea of an afterlife. If they meant 'pit', then they'd have used the Greek word for it.
:)
Would that be the same as the "abyss" spoken of in the Jewish/Hebrew book of Revelation? :wave:

http://www.scripture4all.org/

John 4:11 Is saying to Him, the woman "Lord! not a bucket Thou are having and the well/frear <5421> is deep/baqu <901>, whence then Thou are having the water, the living?

Revelation 9:1 And the fifth Messager trumpets and I saw a Star out of the heaven having fallen into the land, and was given to him the key of the well/freatoV <5421> of the Abyss/abussou <12>,
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

Norbert L

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Mar 1, 2009
2,856
1,064
✟582,860.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
How do you know she said that in reflection of a Jewish belief, as opposed to an understanding that she had gained through the teachings of Christ, but not knowing or properly understanding WHO "the resurrection" is, nor what "the DAY of the Lord" is?

However, I am still not sure what your point is?

How does any person know what she said isn't a reflection of other Jews? Did Christ choose to do the following because it was convient, just because there would be a whole bunch of people assembled? Or is there more going on in the peoples mind, what they are reflecting on when they congregate for an annual Sabbath?

"On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water." (Joh 7:37-38)

The point is by reading the entire Bible today two thousand years later. That does not necessarily provide enough insight into how the Jews in detail interpreted and understood the entirety of those same scriptures way back then. Some of their doctrinal beliefs are explained but very little additional information is given. Such as the Sadducees didn't believe in the resurrection of the dead but the Pharisees did, but that does not show all the hows, whys and where.

Personally before I would say anything about what the Jews believed in or did not believe in, hell or any other doctrine. I think it would be a good idea to start quoting from their ancient sages and how they interpreted the scriptures. And in that regard it is just like Christianity in that manner, lots of different interpretations. Not all of them correct and some are just more commandments of men, only this time they're Christian.
 
Upvote 0

angelmom01

Veteran
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2006
3,606
273
✟74,119.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
How does any person know what she said isn't a reflection of other Jews?
I don't know. But it did seem to me as though you were stating, with some degree of certainty, that her comments were based on her beliefs as a Jew. That is why I asked. I was wondering how 'you' knew that or what made 'you' think that.

Did Christ choose to do the following because it was convient, just because there would be a whole bunch of people assembled? Or is there more going on in the peoples mind, what they are reflecting on when they congregate for an annual Sabbath?

"On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water." (Joh 7:37-38)

The point is by reading the entire Bible today two thousand years later. That does not necessarily provide enough insight into how the Jews in detail interpreted and understood the entirety of those same scriptures way back then. Some of their doctrinal beliefs are explained but very little additional information is given. Such as the Sadducees didn't believe in the resurrection of the dead but the Pharisees did, but that does not show all the hows, whys and where.
Whether they are explained or not and whether her reply was based on Jewish beliefs or not is not as important as Christ's response. And it does not seem to me that Christ was commending her answer, but that He was correcting her misunderstanding of who/what "the resurrection" is. The same as He did with the Sadducees who, while not even believing in the resurrection of the dead, asked about it after a carnal understanding. And in so doing showed their lack of understanding of not only the scriptures but the power of God.... (and Christ who IS "the" resurrection). Yet how many Christians, even today, speak of at least "two" resurrections and of "the last day" in the same way that Martha did, in relation to it? Completely bypassing (by not even counting) the resurrection OF CHRIST and overlooking (to some degree, at least) the true "hope of glory" which is "Christ in you"?

Personally before I would say anything about what the Jews believed in or did not believe in, hell or any other doctrine. I think it would be a good idea to start quoting from their ancient sages and how they interpreted the scriptures.
I don't believe that I said anything about what Jews believe (then or now), initially; that was another poster. I simply demonstrated that posting something from an encyclopedia will not "prove" anything when it comes to proving or disproving the bible - no matter how many times you post it. No one is going to take the word of an encyclopedia (or concordance or lexicon) alone and use it to interpret scripture. Or least they shouldn't, IMO.

My initial comments (as I recall, anyway) were geared towards the definition of the words that were presented from a Jewish encyclopedia. And they did not cover the full scope of scholarship on the subject, even though the person posting the entry seemed to want to insist that it did.... being unwilling, also, to consider how some of the things that he was being told about the use of the words and their meanings were also contained within the very text he, himself, posted - though he was arguing against such uses.

I also, later, came back and did post some of (or one of) my own sources with regard to Jewish history and Jewish beliefs. Had I not had to type it out in order to post it, I could have done it sooner in the conversation, rather than just saying what I knew or understood those facts to be.

The lack of quotes does not necessarily prove the lack of knowledge - or at least some knowledge - on a subject. Nor does the ability to copy/paste an encyclopedia entry - or any other source - prove that one has a full understanding of that which they are quoting (not excluding myself).

And in that regard it is just like Christianity in that manner, lots of different interpretations. Not all of them correct and some are just more commandments of men, only this time they're Christian.
Absolutely true.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,098
6,129
EST
✟1,118,693.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It doesn't, but that doesn't mean I can't mention them...

Anybody can post any irrelevant thing they want to but I won't waste time addressing it.

I have a friend who use to be an Hasidic Orthodox Jew (and ended up becoming a Spirit filled Christian) who is also a Director of a Library in the States. He wrote this piece following (and more) after I asked him what had happened to the Pharisee's after the destruction of the Temple in 70AD.

"The Pharisees began to rework the national faith of Israel immediately after the destruction of the Temple by creating the first yeshiva (rabbinic academy) in the coastal town of Yavne (now a part of Gaza). A primary activity of these new yeshivot was to try to counter the influence of the many "Followers of the Way" (Jewish-born believers in Messiah) in Israel by attempting to refute the belief that Yeshua is the Deliverer foretold by the ancient prophets. To do this, they aggressively sought to have blasphemous characterizations of Yeshua included in their core texts of study (Talmud).

After the destruction of the final remnant of Jewish resistance at the Dead Sea fortress of Masada in 73 A.D., the era of the Pharisees began to wane. Future generations of rabbis, though, systematically studied and memorized their writings for guidance on all aspects of life, thus securing a far longer-lasting influence than the sect's leaders might have thought possible.


As you can see, the Pharisee's and Rabbi's are very closely associated. That's why I mentioned Pharisee's.

Your friend's summation agrees largely with the Jewish Encyclopedia.


I didn't disagree that the Jewish Encyclopedia is an accurate record of the historical facts of what the Jews believed and practiced. I just don't think YOU, as a Christian, should believe that what they believed and practiced is God's truth and that you should quote it!

Why should I not quote historical evidence which shows how the Jews interpreted and put into practice the OT, before, during and beyond the time of Jesus, to counter accusations that the teaching there was a place of eternal, unending, punishment for the unrighteous, was copied from pagan religions by early Christians?

This is what you said.... "The Talmud simply records how the Jews, who OBTW spoke and read Hebrew interpreted the scripture."... to which I say...

This is what my ex-Hasidic friend had to say in regards to the Talmud... and please don't tell me he's not a reliable source... he LIVED it and studied it for many years...


The "oral law" later became known as the Talmud ("Teaching"). Actually, it is nothing more than the sayings and opinions of rabbis who disputed with each other between the second century B.C. and the third century A.D. Their endless arguments over minor points of ritual Law that would have required the Temple and priesthood in any case, led to their developing convoluted, meaningless hypothetical situations. Because of its endless meandering, a modern Talmud is so voluminous it requires its own bookcase.

They didn't just interpret scripture, they added to it, and Jesus said...

Mat 16:11 How is it that ye do not perceive that I spake not to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Mat 16:12 Then understood they that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the -teaching- of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Jewish Encyclopedia - Talmud - The Name.

"Talmud" is an old scholastic term of the Tannaim, and is a noun formed from the verb "limmed" = "to teach." It therefore means primarily "teaching," although it denotes also "learning"; it is employed in this latter sense with special reference to the Torah, the terms "talmud" and "Torah" being usually combined to indicate the study of the Law both in its wider and in its more restricted sense, as in Pe'ah i. 1, where the term "talmud Torah" is applied to study as a religious duty. On the other hand, the learning acquired by study is also called "talmud," so that Akiba's pupil Judah ben Ilai could say: "He from whom one derives the greater part of his knowledge ["talmudo"] must be regarded as the teacher" (Tosef., B. M. ii., end; Yer. B. M. 8d; B. M. 33a has "&#7717;okmah" instead of "talmud"). To designate the study of religion, the word "talmud" is used in contrast with "ma'aseh," which connotes the practise of religion. Akiba's view that on this account the "talmud" ranked above the "ma'aseh" was adopted as a resolution by a famous conference at Lydda during the Hadrianic persecution (see Sifre, Deut. 41; &#7730;id. 40b; Yer. Pes. 30b; Cant. R. ii. 14). The two terms are contrasted differently, however, in the tannaitic saying (B. B. 130b), "The Halakah [the principles guiding decisions in religious law] may not be drawn from a teaching of the master ["talmud"] nor be based upon an act of his ["ma'aseh"], unless the master expressly declare that the teaching or act under consideration is the one which is applicable to the practise."

In the second place, the word "talmud"—generally in the phrase "talmud lomar"—is frequently used in tannaitic terminology in order to denote instruction by means of the text of the Bible and of the exegetic deductions therefrom. In the third place, the noun "talmud" has the meaning which alone can be genetically connected with the name "Talmud"; in tannaitic phraseology the verb "limmed" denotes the exegetic deduction of a halakic principle from the Biblical text (for examples see R. H. ii. 9; Sifre, Num. 118); and in harmony with this meaning of the word "talmud" denotes that exposition of a halakic saying which receives an exegetic confirmation from the Biblical text. Of the terms, therefore, denoting the three branches into which the study of the traditional exegesis of the Bible was from earliest times divided by the Tannaim (see Jew. Encyc. iii. 163, s.v. Bible Exegesis), "midrash" was the one identical in content with "talmud" in its original sense, except that the Midrash, which includes any kind of Biblical hermeneutics, but more especially the halakic, deals with the Bible text itself, while the Talmud is based on the Halakah. The Midrash is devoted to Biblical exposition, the result being the Halakah (comp. the phrase "mi-kan ameru" [= "beginning here the sages have said"], which occurs frequently in the tannaitic Midrash and which serves to introduce halakic deductions from the exegesis). In the Talmud, on the other hand, the halakic passage is the subject of an exegesis based on the Biblical text.


Read more: JewishEncyclopedia.com - TALMUD

Do you only learn about God through Greek grammar and lexicon's?

Do you only have discussions by trying to insult people?
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,098
6,129
EST
✟1,118,693.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
From: History of the Jews, Volume 1. Heinrich Graetz, Philipp Bloch:
Ch XX, pg 402-406. (The Sopheric Age: 420-300 B.C.E.)

Please excuse any typos, I am not the best typist.


[ . . . ]The Magi had taught and insisted upon this doctrine. They believed that the re-awakening of the dead would take place at a future day, when Ahura-Mazda will have conquered and destroyed his rival, when the god of darkness will have to give up the bodies of the “pure men” which he has stolen. The Judaism of the Sopheric age adopted this hopeful and inspiriting doctrine all the readily, as illusions to it existed in the Judaic writing. [Does this refer to oral tradition or scripture??] The prophets had constantly made reference to the day of the last judgment, and the scribes, inferring that the resurrection of the dead was meant, made it an article of faith amongst their people, and in the daily prayer, praise was rendered to God for awakening the dead to life.

At a later day, when the Judean nation was struggling with death, a seer, comforting the sufferers, said:--

“Many of those who are sleeping in the dust shall awake, some to eternal life, and some to disgrace and everlasting abhorrence.” (DANIEL xii.2.)

In this manner a peculiar doctrine of retaliation, with a brilliant picture of the future, or of the next world (Olam ha-Ba), was evolved.

If I understand this correctly Josephus, a historian NOT a Bible scholar claims that Dan 12:2 is NOT the word of God. If this is correct how much more of the OT does Josephus claim is not the word of God?

A magical world unfolded itself to the eye, intoxicating the believer. He saw the time come when all discords of life would vanish when the pious, the faithful, and the just, who had suffered so much upon earth, would rise from their graves and enter on eternal life in innocence and purity. Even the sinners who had erred only from frivolity and weakness would be purified by penitence in Hell, and would enjoy the pleasures of eternal life. But how was this resurrection to take place, and how was this beautiful new world to be organized? Imagination could not find an answer to such a question. Fervent faith and enthusiastic hope do not indulge in subtle inquiries; they are contented with giving the pious the comforting assurance that a just recompense is in store for them, in the future life, and this assuaging the sorrows of an unhappy earthly existence. Although Judaism received the essence of this teaching from without, yet the power of enriching it, and of endowing it with the faculty of working immeasurable good came from within. The foreign origin of this belief becoming finally obliterated, it was considered as an original Judean doctrine. Only the Samaritans objected, for a considerable time, to the belief in the resurrection and to the idea of a future life.

Am I the only one who can see the contradiction here? If some foreign belief, adopted by the Jews, had been obliterated, how does Josephus know about it?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.