Printable Version of Topic Click here to view this topic in its original format

Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Old Board > There is No Hebrew Word for Hell

Posted by: sexkitten Oct 12 2004, 11:50 AM

Printable Version of Topic Click here to view this topic in its original format ExChristian.Net Open Forums > Debating with Christians > There is no Hebrew Word for 'Hell' Posted by: Yoshiahu Aug 6 2003, 08:03 PM How do these stupid Xians get the word 'Hell'? Doesn't anyone know that "Sheol" means Grave? Posted by: Doug Aug 6 2003, 08:37 PM It would seem that modern christians see hell much differently that the authors of the bible. The old testament uses sheol, the new testament refers to many words which many biblical versions translate as hell. Jesus likes to refer to the burning garbage dump outside the city called Gehenna. "The valley of Hinnom, near Jerusalem, where some of the Israelites sacrificed their children to Moloch, which, on this account, was afterward regarded as a place of abomination, and made a receptacle for all the refuse of the city, perpetual fires being kept up in order to prevent pestilential effluvia. In the New Testament the name is transferred, by an easy metaphor, to Hell." 2 Peter 2:4 even uses the greek word for hell Tartarus. Matt 16:18 uses the word hades, another greek place. Many christians also see three distinct parts of hell, and seven levels of "heaven". Maybe someone on the site with a version of the bible in its original language can tell us what else is used as hell. Dictionary.com: Word History: Hell comes to us directly from Old English hel. Because the Roman Church prevailed in England from an early date, the Romanthat is, Mediterraneanbelief that hell was hot prevailed there too; in Old English hel is a black and fiery place of eternal torment for the damned. But because the Vikings were converted to Christianity centuries after the Anglo-Saxons, the Old Norse hel, from the same source as Old English hel, retained its earlier pagan senses as both a place and a person. As a place, hel is the abode of oathbreakers, other evil persons, and those unlucky enough not to have died in battle. It contrasts sharply with Valhalla, the hall of slain heroes. Unlike the Mediterranean hell, the Old Norse hel is very cold. Hel is also the name of the goddess or giantess who presides in hel, the half blue-black, half white daughter of Loki and the giantess Angrbotha. The Indo-European root behind these Germanic words is *kel-, “to cover, conceal” (so hell is the “concealed place”); it also gives us hall, hole, hollow, and helmet. In Revelation 20:11-15, the people are judged “according to what they had done as recorded in the books". Does this mean people are judged by their works. Also this chapter speaks of hades giving up people to be judged and indicates more layers of hell. Posted by: likeafish Aug 7 2003, 08:21 PM Doug, Great exegetical work there. I cracked a few references to follow up and offer my two cents. Sheol is the word used in the Hebrew bible (OT), but its exact definition has never been agreed upon by scholars. It can only be guessed at by doing studies of similar words. However, it is generally accepted that it does refer to the realm of the dead in one way or another. Isaiah's very last verse (66:24?) is instructive as it is perhaps the first inklings of an early doctrine of hell like the one we are familiar with in its most common understanding, as a place of punishement and torment, which gained popularity before and during the time of Jesus. Gehenna, as Jesus used it, would have been a very real place to most Jews. It is also probably the word used most in the NT and most closely associated with a full-fledged doctrine of eternal punishment. It subsumes Hades at certain, which is borrowed from Greek culture as the place of the dead. I looked a 2 Peter. Tartarus is used poetically as I read it. This is a reference to a place opposite to Elysium, but is used to connote the place for the wicked and is translated sometimes as a dungeon The point of all this is that if you are looking for a doctrine of hell, look no further than Jesus himself. But it is also interesting that Paul is practically silent on the subject. The idea that the truely religious would be rewarded and the wicked would be damned was around during Jesus' time and it is quite possible to draw the tradition from the Synoptics. But Paul is another story. There are several sorts of eschatology which make up a matrix that may or may not fit neatly together. My opinion is that they do not, and that is why we have a spectrum of opinions as to what is meant by hell as a doctrinal position, hence denominations with different emphasis upon different aspects of the Xtian message. What more evidence for the fact that the bible is ancient literature that is by no means consisten or always coherent throughout on any one topic or idea. If you really want to untangle a knot, try to tackle atonement in the scriptures. Interesting that there is NO agreed upon doctrine of atonement in xtianity, and yet it is the lynchpin of the whole message. Without it, what's all this dying on the cross stuff? yet more evidence that it is not god's word but literature. As a systematic philosophical picture of reality or truth, the bible is a clumsy, hodge podge of conceptual fragments and stories that document the struggle of a religous traditon to find its identity. It is a traditon that often does not agree with itself and requires a great deal of effort to hold together at all. Posted by: moorezw Aug 10 2003, 10:21 AM It's also important to note that the concept of an afterlife, much less Hell, didn't exist in the Hebrew mindset until the Babylonian exile or later. Literary study of Deuteronomy through the Chronicles shows a very simple religious relationship: When Israel obeys Yahweh, she is rewarded. When Israel disobeys Yahweh, she is punished. This dichotomy indicates the expectation of instant wordly gratification- that is to say, Israel was the chosen nation of Yahweh, and her kingdom was His dominion on earth. There was no need for a conception of the afterlife; all rewards would come during life, provided the laws of Yahweh were followed. The recorded events in the Old Testament are colored to reflect this ideology, and distort or downplay the contributions of impious kings, such as Omri (one of few Israelite kings important enough to receive extra-Biblical reference). After Israel was exiled from Palestine, the sacred link to the Promised Land was broken, and that ideology had to be revised. Since Yahweh's kingdom on earth was no more, the justification for following His law had to be changed. Thus, if the Israelites were not able to receive their reward in this life, the reward would come in the afterlife. Posted by: Tezkah Aug 10 2003, 05:07 PM Weren't the Jews promised an afterlife in Sheol with their families if they died in a war of some sort? I've read that before. Posted by: woodsmoke Aug 10 2003, 05:44 PM I don't know about the rest of you, but it seems to me that most religions aren't very creative when it comes to the afterlife. Well, except the Islamic, of course. Think about it. If I were getting 72 (whatever the number is) beautiful and desiring of me alone virgins, I just might run a plane into a building, too. I'd aim for an old abandoned one, though. I hope I don't touch a nerve for anyone here , just having a little fun, is all. Posted by: Doug Aug 10 2003, 05:57 PM QUOTE promised an afterlife in Sheol with their families if they died in a war of some sort? Yeah, I've heard that also....where was it.....oh yes, star trek. It's the klingons! Also the Scandinavians were promised Valhalla. This post set to the music of "Ride of the Valkyries" Posted by: likeafish Aug 10 2003, 06:11 PM Never heard that one Tezkah. Might have to do some internet searching to find out more. It would have to be very obscure. Sheol has several associations and various translations. The question that began the thread is indicative of the problems faced when doing biblical translation. The bottom line is there was no notion of Hell during the time of the OT that was anything like what we imagine now in its most conventional sense. Most of that was conjured up first beginning, as moorezw says, during an inter-testamental time, when various sects were developing seperate theologies and the Jewish culture was fragmented. Among these, Jesus came along proclaiming yet another radical doctrine of a future kingdom of god in opposition to the present kingdom of temporal religious/secular rulers. Or, as another interpretation goes, he preached a kingdom in heaven for those who believe as opposed to torment in hell for unrepentant sinners. Either, or both, conclusions can be reached reading the same bible, as can other eschatologies, the point being that he presented his kingdom in opposition to another, while referring often to the "unquenceable fires" of Gehenna (hell) as the destiny for the wicked. This is where most of our doctrine of hell comes from. It's complicated, and theologians have been working to clean up the mess. But only until recently, because Hell has always been an effective motivator. It was a primary motivating theme in the religous movement called the Great Awakening in the US. Ever since Dante, who gave us the picturesque and descriptive Divine Comedy, an amalgum of Greek and Roman culture applied to a the NT biblical theme of hell, we've had this image of there being this world where god condemns people forever. So it's a big cultural mish-mash. And it's nothing like the realm of the dead variously described by writers of ancient Hebrew texts. There is not a single religion ever found that came into the world complete and fully formed. That BS about god being the same yesterday, today, and forever, is just unworkable crap. Language itself doesn't work that way. Simply look at the way we talk and how it has changed in ten years or so. Religion is a product of culture, and as they intermingle--Greek, Hebrew, Roman, Hun, English, American, you name it--they change, adapt, add, subtract, multiply and divide. "Do you have a personal relationship with JC?" A hundred years ago there wasn't a Xtian alive that talked like that. Now it is practically required that one assent to such garbage to certify their earnest belief. A hundered years from now i dare say it will be some other formulation. That is, if Xtianity makes it that far. (that's another thread) So to end my little lecture on Hell (please pardon me for going on and on. i have too much information swimming around in my head) Who the hell knows what the hell hell means in the bible anyway? who the hell cares? Why the hell should we care? Hell if I know. But seriously, this is why there is never a way to read the bible, or any literary work for that matter "literally." One must always interpret. Those who say they aren't doing so are either lying or in denial or they're ignorant, plain and simple. Posted by: woodsmoke Aug 10 2003, 10:06 PM Okay, I'm going to feel really stupid if someone comes around and disproves me on this, but at least I'll learn from it. If I'm right, then it will clear up a common misconception. QUOTE 2 Peter 2:4 even uses the greek word for hell Tartarus. Matt 16:18 uses the word hades, another greek place. This is another pet peeve of mine, so I just have to vent. Once again, I could be wrong, but I spent years devouring every source I could find on ancient Greek myths, culture, etc. Never once did I read about the Underworld under the label of Hades. To my knowledge, the Greeks did believe in an afterlife. Their concept of it was much the same as the "spirit world" doctrine taught by the LDS Church. They named the place in which one spent this afterlife Tartarus. There, the souls of the living were judged and rewarded or punished according to the way they lived their lives on Earth. Basically, good people (the average man, helps his neighbor, doesn't hurt others, responsible and trustworthy, etc.) were rewarded; Bad people (murderers, liars, cheaters, thieves, etc.) were punished. Very simple. I can understand how, over time, some may have taken to calling it Hades, as that was the name of the deity who ruled over it. However, as I said, nowhere have I ever seen it officially referred to as Hades by any scholars, historians, etc. Hades was a God, not a place! He was one of the three brothers who led the lesser Gods in overthrowing and deposing the Titans. When Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades drew lots/decided/whatever they did for "kingdoms," so to speak, Zeus became ruler of the skies, Poseidon of the seas, and Hades was landed with the underworld, called Tartarus. Well, I'm done lecturing/ranting now. Thank you for your time and patience. Posted by: Doug Aug 10 2003, 10:23 PM You could be correct woodsmoke. I am certainly no greek historian. I've just came across some sites which seemed to indicate that the underworld was sometimes called hades by the greeks. As you said this could be a misconception and the greeks may not have actually used that term but it found it's way into use much later. Either way the word hades is not an original word found in the new testament. Here is an interesting site, though I have not idea how acurate it is. Notice how it mentions hades having a pitchfork. Sound familiar? http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1044/hades.htm Posted by: woodsmoke Aug 10 2003, 11:35 PM Oh yeah, I also forgot to mention, I found Hell. No, really, I did! I figured it all out! Scientifically speaking, I applied logic to all the knowledge I possess of this place called Hell. I have concluded that Hell is very real indeed. It is located within the Earth's mantle. Stay with me, folks; if nothing else, at least you'll get a good laugh out of this. As we all know, Hell is repeatedly referred to in the NT as "a lake of fire and brimstone." Now, let's take a look at the composition of the mantle. We were all taught in our 8th grade science class, and it stated in our book, that the mantle--Earth's largest layer, by far--is composed in large part by a variety of molten minerals and elements which can be found throughout the planet. I remember being told that most of the mantle is made of two or three main elements, but basically all of them are in there to some degree or another. That's not important, though; what's important is the "molten" state of these elements and minerals. As we all know, molten refers to a mineral or element in a liqufied state induced by a degree of heat so intense as to bring on physical deformation and dissolution (I think that's the word). Thus, a molten layer is one mostly of a liquid composition. This covers both the "lake" and "fire" aspects of the description of Hell. Moving on, the Earth's crust--for the most part--floats upon the mantle. However, there are definitely going to be spaces between the molten lake of the mantle and the solid "underbelly" of the crust in some places, and in these spaces there is bound to be air. Aside from the heat of the mantle, which is enough to cause fires on its own, this area is so deep into the planet that there is going to be tremendous pressure and heat forces. Logically, it only follows that there is occasionally going to be tongues of flame licking up off the surface of the mantle. This further covers the "fire" aspect of the description of Hell. Lastly, the crust itself is made mostly of minerals and materials clumped loosely together. At times, the Earth's gravity is inevitably going to pull segments of the crust down into the mantle, where they could very possibly float for a time until they are broken down and melted. It's not unlikely to presume that this could happen fairly often, and though the pieces of crust eventually break down and melt, they remain in a solid state for at least a little while. Since the Earth's gravity is constant, it is constantly going to be pulling loose pieces of crust down into the mantle, thus having a constant presence of solid materials floating in this "lake of fire." This covers the "brimstone" aspect of the description of Hell. Now to explain how we end up in this place. Regardless of what happens to our bodies after we die-- wether we're cremated, placed in a tomb/crypt, or just buried in the style popular among western culture today--, everyone one of us is eventually returned to the Earth upon which we lived and from which we earned our livelihood. Now it's anyone's guess as to exactly how widespread the molecules and cells that compose our bodies are spread after we are commissioned into the care of the Earth, however it cannot be debated that, eventually, there has got to be some small part of every body of every person that makes it into one of those chunks of crust that breaks loose and falls into the mantle. Since the size of a soul cannot be proved, it could be proposed that small part of our composition which eventually finds its way to the mantle might house our spiritual counterparts. Of course, this would throw a conventional Xian into conniptions, as the following logic would dictate that, in accordance with the process described above, one way or another, everyone goes to Hell eventually. Posted by: woodsmoke Aug 10 2003, 11:55 PM QUOTE Here is an interesting site, though I have not idea how acurate it is. Notice how it mentions hades having a pitchfork. Sound familiar? Again, I could be mistaken, but I believe the pitchfork was a demonization of later times and different cultures. All the Gods seemed to have some icon of their own, unique to them. Zeus had his thunderbolts, Hermes his winged sandals, Athena her spear, etc. I don't recall what item was associated with Hades, though I'm nearly certain it wasn't a polearm of any kind. The only God I can think of who had claim to such an item was Triton with his trident--which I believe could have been named in honor of its usage by him, though I'm not so sure on that point. Posted by: Redshift Aug 11 2003, 04:32 AM For me the most important thing to bring home to a bible thumpin' christian is the following bit of concrete, verifiable history. I related this bit to my dad ( a church elder ) and I could almost see the blinkers drop from his eyes. Most of you are probably aware that there's a huge disparity between Jewish doctrine before the exile to Babylon and Jewish doctrine after the exile. So much of what they picked up from the Zoroastrian faith ultimately contributed to formation of the Christian religion. This fact in itself should be enough to make any Christian see that their's is literally just another set of tribal superstitions elevated to preposterous hights by a quirk of history. It was enough for me in any case. QUOTE Pre-Exilic Judaism was a minority religion in the Northern Kingdom and maybe also in Judea, since most Israelites and large numbers of Judeans were either totally Pagan or semi Pagan.... Outside some Psalms and Job (believed to be post- exilic), pre-exilic Judaism is missing some important doctrines that are cardinal in Post-exilic Judaism. Satan, the Resurrection, Hell and Heaven. What change came over the religion in the exile years and where did this change originate? (From religioustolerance.org's page on Zoroastrianism http://www.religioustolerance.org/zoroastr.htm) The real Jewish faith (sans all the above notions) is only practiced by around 4000 people today. Ever heard of the Samaritans? QUOTE There once was an ancient temple society, led by hereditary high priests from the lineage of Levi who taught and transmitted the sacred words of God as preserved in the Torah (the five books of Moses). Each year at Passover the community gathered in a solemn assembly to perform the rituals on the Paschal Lamb in remembrance that God had saved them from bondage. And through the years this community worshiped God as Creator and Sustainer of all life. Yet this group was vilified and marginalized over the centuries, their beliefs mocked, their people scapegoated and eventually their holy temple destroyed by outside forces. Presently their numbers have dwindled to some 4000 active adherents. But wait, are there not more than 4000 faithful Jews today? Yes, indeed! But we are not talking about the Jews, we are talking about the Samaritans! If we look closely, we discover that the Samaritans carry all of the important identifying features that would lead us to believe that they are faithful Israelites. Yet, our scriptures tell us otherwise and our popular lessons generalize them as mongrels, impure and religiously vacuous. But can we help ourselves? Our view of the Samaritans is entirely shaped by the perspective that is offered to us—a perspective that is prevalent throughout both the Old and New Testament scriptures. How would our perspective and understanding of the Samaritans be enhanced if we heard their story through their own voices? How would this inform our understanding of the cultural and religious tensions that played an ongoing role in Palestinian society between the years of the Jewish return from exile to New Testament times The returning Jewish exiles saw themselves as the true Israelites, marching on their exodus out of Babylonian captivity much like their forebearers had marched out of Egyptian captivity. Once back in the land of Palestine, the Jews tried to reestablish their customs, beliefs and most importantly their temple practices with its attendant priesthood hierarchy , but other groups who claimed to be true Israelites (such as the Samaritans) wanted to participate. How were the returning exiles to determine who was truly Israel and who was not? http://www.meridianmagazine.com/gospeldoctrine/nt/030131samaritan.html The exile of the Jews to Babylon and their subsequent exposure to Zoroastrianism was the absolute turning point in Jewish history. Ther returning exiles literally hijacked the old Judaism and replaced it with the Babylon-tainted version they had concocted during their 70 odd year exile. It's all there folks. Interestingly enough, upon their return to Israel, many of the exiles who had ingratiated themselves to the certain powerful Babylonians were wealthy and powerful men. Many of them were "Jewish" priests to boot! Some even brought Babylonian wifes back with them. Judging from the Bible's fleeting references to the Samaritans, it's quite plain that they lost to the battle to preserve their faith. Posted by: moorezw Aug 11 2003, 05:19 AM Very true, Redshift. I couldn't have made that point better myself. Likeafish, you mentioned in passing Jesus' "Kingdom of God" movement. After studying John Dominic Crossan's work, I agree with his interpretation of the Kingdom of God movement being completely worldly in nature, a grassroots challenge to the established Jewish leaders and their Jerusalem-centric religion. At it's heart, this interpretation of Jesus' message implies a religious egalitarianism, where all are free to experience God as they see fit, outside the boundaries of traditional religion. Were it not for his belief in Yahweh as the Deity, I believe Jesus might have been (in some ways) a Deist. Posted by: fortunehooks Aug 11 2003, 02:06 PM moorewz: you and i know the bible writers would've never made a fictional story where the lead charcter(Jesus)in the second half of the whole book is a deist. you said it his belief in yahweh. how convient is that. why could he not believe in zeus, osiris,dionysus etc. i just doubt his validity. redshift: zoroaster he came up with two absolute gods who are in constant warfare. one is good the other evil. am i correct. Posted by: Redshift Aug 12 2003, 01:24 AM The Zoroastrian faith was monotheistic, similar to Judaism. Their god, Ormuzd (or Ahura Mazda) was the one absolute, all powerful god. As far I understand it, his evil counterpart, Ariman (read Satan), was not considered to be a god and I'm not sure to what they attribute his origins. (in the light of other similarities, my guess would be fallen angel!) What I find really fascinating is that a cult arose around Ormuzd's son, Mithras (born human from a virgin) causing a split amongst Zoroastrians. He too died, was resurrected to redeem his followers etc etc etc... This all waaaay before the godman was born! Posted by: Redshift Aug 12 2003, 01:39 AM whoops, my mistake...apparently they were brothers QUOTE No more philosophically profound, no grander or more graphic and suggestive type exists among the allegories of the world-religions than that of the two Brother-Powers of the Mazdean religion, called Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu, better known in their modernized form of Ormuzd and Ahriman. Of these two emanations, "Sons of Boundless Time" -- Zeruana Akarana, itself issued from the Supreme and Unknowable Principle -- the one is the embodiment of "Good Thought" (Vohu Mano), the other of "Evil Thought" (Ako Mano). The "King of Light" or Ahura Mazda emanates from Primordial Light and forms or creates by means of the "Word," Honover (Ahuna Vairya), a pure and holy world. But Angra Mainyu, though born as pure as his elder brother, becomes jealous of him, and mars everything in the universe, as on the earth, creating sin and evil wherever he goes. Posted by: Redshift Aug 12 2003, 02:21 AM okay I'm really backpedaling here... meant to be workin now anyway and jeez this stuff is as assbackward contrived as the bible. Nor was Mithras considered the son of ormuzd, but rather a lesser angel worshipped as a god by the Mithras cult. The religion does have a messiah-type prophesy, but that's another matter. Good synopsis of the whole sordid link between Christianity/modern Judaism and Zoroastrianism here http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0690Mithras.html Posted by: Davidium Aug 12 2003, 02:40 AM I always found the similarities between early Paulist-Christianity and the Greek mystery cults quite fascinating..... Small groups, hiding from the government, meeting in secret, secret ceremonies, have to be born into being a new person to join, noticed by a special symbol hidden somewhere (fish). Kinda sounds like the Elks or the Mason's, doesnt it? In pursuit of Truth, Davidium Posted by: moorezw Aug 12 2003, 05:58 AM Fortunehooks: I certainly don't think the writers of the Gospels intended to portray Jesus as a Deist; in fact, I think they tried to make him fit with Paul's teachings as much as possible. But I believe that they weren't able to completely change his teachings, just color them. It's true that having a belief in Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews, technically disqualifies him as a Deist, but I bet he'd be more comfortable talking with Deists than Christians. Posted by: likeafish Aug 12 2003, 07:52 AM Part of my theological studies focused on th historical Jesus from Schweitzer's little hand grenade of a book and onward. Given that line, Jesus was essentially a failure because he failed to establish his kingdom. I think there's something to that, and that the resurrection stories and Paul's imaginative attempts to give it all some kind of coherence had to do with dealing with the failure of Jesus. Jesus was a religious reformer, if nothing else, as were many of his day, but not a particularily original thinker as far as ethics. His one original idea seems to be the "render unto Ceaser" quote that split the sacred from the secular. This idea would have been extremely radical, almost impossible to imagine at that time, but also a possible pragmatic solution the dilema of the Jewish situation. But Jesus seems to have also expected some sort of radical transformation of his followers and Jewish society as a whole, perhaps it was a more indivdualized purification ("you are the temple. . .") and that it would be realized through his person/life/actions in some way. Who knows. It's all over the map as far as I can see. Read Mark, as Schweitzer did, you get a certain picture. Luke, another. John, it gets even more wierd. Posted by: nightbreeze Aug 12 2003, 05:53 PM QUOTE This post set to the music of "Ride of the Valkyries" I love "Ride of the Valkyries"! When I lived in the Pacific Northwest, I would go for long drives in the Cascades and listen to my Wagner tape. Beautiful music, but with a dark side. Posted by: nightbreeze Aug 12 2003, 05:58 PM Here is a site that looks at hell from a Christian Universalist point of view: http://www.what-the-hell-is-hell.com/ Very interesting. Posted by: ami_hertz Aug 14 2003, 03:13 AM Oy! Several brief comments. Sheol: The most important aspect of our existance is the present life. In the Hebrew Bible, there is no such thing as "heaven" or "hell" in the Christian sense. Sheol literally means the "grave" or the "pit"... it is simply another word for "dead". In Sheol (that is, in the state of being dead), people cannot do anything, either good or bad (this is plainly stated in the Hebrew Bible). It is even questionable whether people are conscious there. The Hebrew Bible doesn't speak much about the afterlife, but this much can be gathered from the things that it does say. There has always (even in ancient times) been a very large portion of Jews who rejected the afterlife (or conscious afterlife, or afterlife where anything matters). An important point is that even those who do not reject it, do not emphasize it either. It is simply not an important part of the religion, even for those who believe in it. Gehenna: As many rightly pointed out, this was a garbage dump outside Jerusalem. At that time, people had an attitude of extreme respect(?) / reverence(?) toward the dead. By Biblical law, a dead person must be buried before sunset, no matter who he is (even if he is a criminal). NT parables were saying that some bad people would be thrown unto a garbage dump, to decay in the open, and to possibly be eaten by hyenas. That's a huge insult to the dead. But has nothing to do with any afterlife. The Christian afterlife is actually taken from the Greek religion. Post-exilic Judaism: I found Redshift's claims rather ridiculous. I don't see any change of doctrine from before the Babylonian exile. Judaism does not have a devil character even today. There is a Hebrew word "satan", but its meaning is totally unrelated to the Christian word "Satan" or "devil". Christianity simply redefined this, and several other words. So, no devil in post-exilic Judaism. Resurrection: This one is a maybe. The passages can be interpreted as referring to ressurection or not. Many prophecies about the distant future actually state that they cannot be understood until those events occur. And so, Judaism never placed a great emphasis on the distant future. (Christianity, OTOH, is very concerned with it.) Heaven and Hell: Huh? As I said, there were always those who did not believe in this; those who believe this, never emphasized it; and the concepts are not the same as the Christian ones (no eternal hell... 12 months tops). The charge that Samaritans are the "real" Jews is also ridiculous. (Btw, there are only about 500 of them, if memory serves right. Nowhere near the figures you cite.) If you are saying that the pre-exilic Judaism was the "real" one... Samaritans don't have any of the pre-exilic prophets (after Moses).. so there. Oh.. and Zoroastrians are dualistic. They, like the Christians, believe in two universal powers. One that fights for good, the other that fights for evil. (God and devil). The main difference is that in the Hebrew Bible, there is only one force. That is, it's non-dualistic. If you want to call both "monotheism", that's fine. But you should know that there is a difference. Posted by: Contra Xian Aug 14 2003, 04:41 AM Ami - Well written and very informative information from an "insider", I don't know if I agree with all that you say, but I do agree with most of what you say (my historical specialty is the "Indo-Europeans", not the Hebrews, but most of my limited knowledge of your people is in agreement with you). Keep up the posting, be our "resident" expert on Judaism for the forum. Posted by: moorezw Aug 14 2003, 05:14 AM Ami- Post-exilic Judaism: I'm referencing the wonderful book Surpassing Wonder by Donald Harmon Akenson. It's an excellent work of scholarship which chronicles the formation of the Bible and the Talmuds. After being forced from their homeland, the religious landscape of the Hebrew people changed a great deal. So much so, that I would submit that pre-exile, they be considered Hebrew at least, Yahwist at most. It's only post-exile that the beginnings of Judaism (truthfully, Judahism) are born. Rabbinic Judaism (what we consider Judaism today) formed in reaction to the destruction of the Temple and the Fall of Jerusalem in the 1st century CE, but I'm not going to go into that. The clues to the change from Yahwism to Judahism can be found in the text of the Hebrew scriptures. The Pentateuch has been well documented to contain material from three sources- the "J" source, the "E" source, and the "P" source. Material contributed from the J and E sources predate the P source, which has been connected with the Babylonian exile. To make a long story short, in order to maintain a national (and religious) identity during the exile, Hebrew priests and scribes codified the oral traditions of the Yahwist cult and wrote a history of their people emphasising the role of Judah (hence, Judahist). Additionally, they made many additions in the form of rules and levitical regulations, which seem arbitrary until you realize that their goal was to capture the memory of the destroyed Temple. This segues into the next topic... Samaritans: Not all the Hebrews were taken to Babylon in exile. Only the high-ranking members of society were of any worth to the conquerors; as a result, the common people were left in Palestine to practice the Yahwist religion as they had for centuries. This religion was relatively decentralized, and maintained places of worship throughout Palestine. When the Judahist Hebrews returned to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem, their religion was markedly different from the local populace. The scriptures record many conflicts Ezra and Nehemiah had trying to establish their Judahist faith in a land that was still Yahwist. Obviously, the Judahists won out in the end, and kept very low regard for the Yahwists, who retreated to Samaria. So much so that Jesus' famous parable of the Good Samaritan seems almost an affront to the Judahist religion of the time- the two pious Judahists refused to help the distressed man, but the Yahwist Samaritan did the obvious right thing. Interestingly, the Hebrew word for Samaritan (Shomronim) has been twisted (in a classic Hebrew play-on-words) by the Samaritans themselves to Shomerim, which means "Keepers", or "Keepers of the Faith." Posted by: Redshift Aug 14 2003, 05:40 AM Thanks Ami, indeed very informative, but what I've read conflicts with some of what you are saying. QUOTE The charge that Samaritans are the "real" Jews is also ridiculous. (Btw, there are only about 500 of them, if memory serves right. Nowhere near the figures you cite.) If you are saying that the pre-exilic Judaism was the "real" one... Samaritans don't have any of the pre-exilic prophets (after Moses).. so there. Thanks for correcting me on the number of surviving Samaritans. I should have noticed that my source is of LD church origin. . And, yes, you are correct when stating that their shared line of prophets stops at Moses. Big deal - history is written by the victors. Clearly, the Samaritans weren't a part of the retroactive revision of Jewish history. I'll quote the well known scholar of the ancient middle east, Prof. LH Mills, who wrote in the 1880's: QUOTE It is an obvious and pressing fact that much exilic matter is present in many places in our present so-called pre-exilic texts. We might indeed be imperatively forced to doubt the uninfluenced existence of any pre-exilic texts at all. I'm not an expert in this field but, from what I've read, few scholars would deny that the Jews acquired many of the central features of their religion from Zoroastrianism. I reassert my belief that the religion of the Samaritans does indeed represent an older pre-exilic form of Judaism. The idea of a "covenant" with god was imposed on the "returners" from exile, who had to impose it on the native people of Palestine. The Persins who are repeatedly shown on their sculptures making covenants with Ormuzd or Marduk. Persian held covenant relationships to be binding as an aspect of truth and had Asha and Mithras to guard them. Both saviour and covenant came from the Persians, the saviour was Cyrus and the covenant was with Ormuzd, the God of Heaven, renamed Yehouah for the Jews, whose representative on earth was the Persian king. it is as Professor Lawrence Mills repeatedly said a hundred years ago. No attempt has been made by the Jewish and Christian religions, by teachers or by scholars, they are proved to be dishonest and one can only conclude that they are intent on perpetuating the lies that their relgions are original. If they are correct that there is one supreme God of goodness, they might be surprised to find he does not have the name they expect, and puts a greater value on truth than they do. Ami, can you show me a non-biased (ie not Christian or Jewish apologist) source that denies this connection? Posted by: Redshift Aug 14 2003, 05:56 AM moorezw Posted by: ami_hertz Aug 15 2003, 01:36 AM Samaritans: Samaritans put the schism between them and the Jews at the time when David and Solomon established the Temple in Jerusalem. Jews put the schism at the conquest of the Northern Kingdom (as described in the book of Kings), which is much later. I don't think secular historians have a solid theory. IIRC, one thing I read put the schism even later, at the time of the Maccabees. Zoroastrians: As far as I can tell, the allegation that Judaism is borrowed from / influenced by Zoroastrianism is mostly speculation. You're right, everyone has an agenda, including the atheist apologists. Now, where is the solid evidence? I don't believe that the Hebrew Bible was influenced by Zoroastrians. Zoroastrians are dualist: they believe in a God and a devil. Jews do not have a devil. Zoroastrians have an elaborate system of angels and demons. The Bible mentions that there are "messengers", but that's that. Zoroastrians are big on the afterlife (IIRC). How well does the Bible describe an afterlife? Zoroastrians worship / venerate fire. The Bible actually has measures against this (the prohibition against lighting fire on the sabbath). Zoroastrians believe in talismans and incantations. The Bible does not mention anything like that. If Samaritanism is authentic and the idea of a covenant is from Zoroastrianism, then how come Samaritans believe in the covenant as well? Remember, they have the Five Books of Moses (though with an important difference) and the book of Joshua. Why do you conclude that the idea of a covenant was "taken" from Zoroastrians? Perhaps they took it from the Jews? Or perhaps the idea was common enough? Posted by: moorezw Aug 15 2003, 04:53 AM Ami and Redshift: Let's set aside the Samaritan question for now. We'll just agree to disagree, since we've all made our arguments. As for the Zoroastrians, I would actually argue more for their influence on Christian theology than Judahist. However... There are many elements of Babylonian mythology which were introduced into the Hebrew scriptures when they were written during the exile. The Enuma Elish, elements of the Gilgamesh epic, the code of Hammurabi, to name a few. It is this influence that turned exiled Hebrew Yahwists into Judahists. Posted by: Redshift Aug 15 2003, 07:40 AM Okay Moorezw - this is my last post on the Samaritans, then I'm done. Ami: *You're right, everyone has an agenda, including the atheist apologists Atheism is a religious belief. Personally I claim no such omniscience. Non-religious, non biased scholarship does not qualify as "atheist apologist". One does not require any religious opinions whatsoever in order to study history. In fact absence of such opinions would be an advantage to the serious scholar. *Now, where is the solid evidence? A silly question. You are stalling again. I asked you for solid refutes to overwhelming, well documented evidence from secular sources. Moorezw has gone some ways towards answering your question anyway. My uncle is an archeologist/historian who has spent the best part of the last 17 years digging shit up in the middle east. Even he acknowledges the Judahist/Zoroastrian connection as fact. This despite his being an intolerably brainwashed Christian fundamentalist. As an apologist, for an explanation, he resorts to the "Lord works in mysterious ways" argument. Puh-lease! *Zoroastrians worship / venerate fire. Worship fire??? Bullshit. They regard fire merely as symbolising God's presence. That's as good as saying that Jews think God hates foreskins, since he likes them sliced off. *how come Samaritans believe in the covenant as well? Remember, they have the Five Books of Moses (though with an important difference) and the book of Joshua Scholars believe the Pentateuch is a compilation of a variety of sources and that it was edited into its final form during the Babylonian Exile. During the Exile, the priests collected older Pentateuch sources and edited the Pentateuch into its final form, no doubt adding new material of their own in the process. The Pentateuch was then known as the "Torah" or law. The basis of the modern Jewish religion. From what I've come to understand of these Samaritans, some of their beliefs have in fact been corrupted by post-exilic Priestly doctrine. On the return from the Exile, the Jews refused the Samaritans participation with them in the worship at Jerusalem, and the latter separated from all fellowship with them, and built a temple for themselves on Mount Gerizim. This temple was razed to the ground more than one hundred years B.C. Then a system of worship was instituted similar to that of the temple at Jerusalem. It was founded on the Law, copies of which had been multiplied in Israel as well as in Judah. Thus the Pentateuch was preserved among the Samaritans, although they never called it by this name, but always "the Law," which they read as one book. The division into five books, as we now have it, however, was adopted by the Samaritans, as it was by the Jews. As I said, I'm no expert and I'm relying on fewer sources than for the Zoroastrian claims. As Moorezw pointed out, let's leave it at that since the claims of Zoroastrian corruption do not hinge on this point. Most if not all of these (pre-exilic) sources do not actually physically exist today anyway so it's impossible to prove that the Torah hasn't been corrupted by redaction. Posted by: ami_hertz Aug 15 2003, 11:07 PM I do not know of any solid evidence that the Hebrew Bible was influenced by or is based upon Zoroastrianism. It is true that there are some similarities between the two. First, as I explained before, the two are different on issues of major importance. Second, where is the evidence that before the exile, Judaism was one way, but after it was another? Perhaps Zoroastrians borrowed from Judaism? Why don't you consider this possiblity? You're asking me to prove that there was no borrowing from Zoroastrianism. You're asking me to prove a negative. You even say that the (hypothetical) pre-exilic sources that were different do not exist. And now I have to prove that these non-existent sources agree with the post-exilic sources. This all comes to the burden of proof. In many cases, such as this, it is easier to prove a positive than a negative. That's why it's generally accepted that the burden of proof is with a positive statement. In fact, atheists use this same argument when they are asked to prove that there is no God. They simply say that they don't have a burden to prove a negative. ... And here that's exactly what you're asking me to do. Posted by: Redshift Aug 18 2003, 06:23 AM No, Ami, I am not asking you to prove a universal negative. I am asking YOU to provide a convincing argument against something that I regard to be fact. There is plenty of evidence for my point of you and none (as far as I know) for yours. Please, I'm begging you - point me to any one reputable archeologist (translation: not a rabbi or an apologist with a religious agenda) who argues against the claims I have been making. My stance on this issue is convincing, because I have based all of my opinions on archeological evidence from various secular sources. I can only advocate my views if I believe these sources to be reliable. If you are sincerely interested in the actual history of the Jewish people and unless you have a deeply ingrained mistrust of their underlying agendas, then you are compelled to seriously consider the findings of these prominent scholars in the field of archeology. Unless one of us can get his hands on a time-machine, this is as solid as the evidence is going to get. I think the most exhaustive research in recent decades has been done by scholars who happen to be Jewish themselves and Israelis to boot. Most, if not all, regard the issue of Babylonian influence on Judahism as incontroverable fact. An excellent resource is The Bible Unearthed, by Israeli archaeologists Israel Finkelstein & Neil Asher Silberman. Dr. Finkelstein is Professor of Archaeology at the University of Tel Aviv as well as director of their Institute of Archaeology. You can find his credentials here: http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/archaeology/faculty/finkelcv.html Posted by: ami_hertz Aug 19 2003, 04:05 AM I know about these claims. I know that they are recognized as true by all archeologists. What I don't know is, what is the actual evidence for these claims?? Maybe there is evidence, I just don't know about it. It looks to me like there is no evidence either way. Archeologists take one position, one that does not involve religion. It doesn't mean there is any evidence behind that position. Before Einstein, it was thought that the Universe did not have any beginning. All scientists held this view dearly. But there was never any evidence for it. There was never any evidence either for or against a beginning. So they picked one view. But the question is, is there actual evidence? Posted by: I Broke Free Aug 19 2003, 06:38 AM QUOTE (ami_hertz @ Aug 19 2003, 07:05 AM) Before Einstein, it was thought that the Universe did not have any beginning. All scientists held this view dearly. But there was never any evidence for it. There was never any evidence either for or against a beginning. So they picked one view. But the question is, is there actual evidence? Before Christianity, it was thought that the Universe did not have any beginning. All Religions held this view dearly. But there was never any evidence for it. There was never any evidence either for or against a beginning. So the Christians picked one view. But the question is, is there actual evidence? Works both ways, doesn’t it? Christians love to point out that science is always changing its mind and is therefore fallible and not worthy of placing any trust in. God however is unchanging, and the only safe place to put your trust. But the concept of God is always changing too. Even within Christianity the nature of God changes with each generation. Science is always in a state of flux, but only at its latest level of knowledge. Do you think we are going discover that the planets don’t revolve around the sun, but indeed do revolve around the Earth? Of course not. I place faith in the scientific method because it is “open” to change as new discoveries are made. Science has given humankind a solid foundation to work from. From this foundation we can create the steps necessary to walk out of the basement of ignorance and into the light of knowledge. Those who choose to stay in the basement with your gods will be left behind in the dark. Posted by: Redshift Aug 20 2003, 01:07 AM QUOTE It looks to me like there is no evidence either way. Well now I don't know about that. Look, I intend to study this matter in-depth because I find it utterly fascinating. As yet, I'm relying on fragmented but compelling information from a wide variety of sources. My thinking is that, if it can be shown that significant portions of post-exilic OT scripture contain ideas virtually identical to and predated by Persian Zororastrianism, then we have a rather compelling reason to cast doubt on the originality of all scripture containing uncanny similarities/coincidences. It is the same as with my views on the New Testament. If any one component can be shown to have been borrowed from another religion, it seriously damages the credibility of the whole insofar as its claims to Divine Inspiration. Below is an excerpt by Dr. Jehan Bagli, an expert scholar of Zoroastrianism, containing some particularly juicy arguments that support my point of view. Does it constitute evidence? Well, I suppose that depends on your definition of the word. QUOTE It is important to note that the GENESIS account of the cosmogony in Chapter I is markedly different from the story of the Garden of Eden In Chapter II. The account of the first chapter bears marked resemblance to the Zoroastrian description. We read in Genesis, "In the beginning God created heaven and earth... Let light come to be... and God began calling the light Day but the darkness he called Night" (verse 1.3-5). This is followed by creation account of the other elements culminating in (verse 1.26-28) the creation of humans. The stark similarity of the above account to that of Zoroastrianism could be expected. The reason being, that by this time, knowledge of Zoroastrianism had become known to clergy and theologians of other faiths in that part of the world. The influence of Zoroastrianism on the eschatological aspect of Judaism is also noticeable in the post-exilic scriptures. In the early Hebrew writing joy in the hereafter was at best vaguely expressed. For the first time in IInd Isaiah one sees expressions as follows: "Your dead ones will live.. they will rise up. Awake and cry out joyfully....The earth will bring those long dead to birth again" (verse 26.19). These expressions are clear overtones of the Zoroastrian revelations in this area. As concluded by Prof. Boyce, ".. it is difficult not to concede to Zoroastrianism both priority and influence; the more especially since elements cf Zoroaster's teaching can be traced far back in the ancient Indo-Iranian religious traditions, whereas those of Jewish apocalyptic first appear after the time of contact with the Persian faith". Finally, the concept of Zoroaster, of the 'Limited Time'; at the end of which 'evil' will be totally eradicated and the true kingdom of Ahura Mazda will prevail on this earth, is wholly unique to his faith. Even this concept appears to have permeated in the writings of IInd Isaiah where we read, "He will actually swallow up death forever and the Lord Jehovah will certainly wipe the tears from all faces" Verse 25.8 Posted by: moorezw Aug 20 2003, 04:48 AM Don't forget, Zoroastrianism was not the only influence on the Judahist scriptures- elements of Babylonian mythology are reflected, like the Enuma Elish, the Epic of Gilgamesh, and the struggle between Marduk and Tiamat. Posted by: Yoshiahu Aug 21 2003, 08:58 AM QUOTE (ami_hertz @ Aug 14 2003, 03:13 AM) Oy! Several brief comments. Sheol: The most important aspect of our existance is the present life. In the Hebrew Bible, there is no such thing as "heaven" or "hell" in the Christian sense. Sheol literally means the "grave" or the "pit"... it is simply another word for "dead". In Sheol (that is, in the state of being dead), people cannot do anything, either good or bad (this is plainly stated in the Hebrew Bible). It is even questionable whether people are conscious there. The Hebrew Bible doesn't speak much about the afterlife, but this much can be gathered from the things that it does say. There has always (even in ancient times) been a very large portion of Jews who rejected the afterlife (or conscious afterlife, or afterlife where anything matters). An important point is that even those who do not reject it, do not emphasize it either. It is simply not an important part of the religion, even for those who believe in it. Gehenna: As many rightly pointed out, this was a garbage dump outside Jerusalem. At that time, people had an attitude of extreme respect(?) / reverence(?) toward the dead. By Biblical law, a dead person must be buried before sunset, no matter who he is (even if he is a criminal). NT parables were saying that some bad people would be thrown unto a garbage dump, to decay in the open, and to possibly be eaten by hyenas. That's a huge insult to the dead. But has nothing to do with any afterlife. The Christian afterlife is actually taken from the Greek religion. Post-exilic Judaism: I found Redshift's claims rather ridiculous. I don't see any change of doctrine from before the Babylonian exile. Judaism does not have a devil character even today. There is a Hebrew word "satan", but its meaning is totally unrelated to the Christian word "Satan" or "devil". Christianity simply redefined this, and several other words. So, no devil in post-exilic Judaism. Resurrection: This one is a maybe. The passages can be interpreted as referring to ressurection or not. Many prophecies about the distant future actually state that they cannot be understood until those events occur. And so, Judaism never placed a great emphasis on the distant future. (Christianity, OTOH, is very concerned with it.) Heaven and Hell: Huh? As I said, there were always those who did not believe in this; those who believe this, never emphasized it; and the concepts are not the same as the Christian ones (no eternal hell... 12 months tops). The charge that Samaritans are the "real" Jews is also ridiculous. (Btw, there are only about 500 of them, if memory serves right. Nowhere near the figures you cite.) If you are saying that the pre-exilic Judaism was the "real" one... Samaritans don't have any of the pre-exilic prophets (after Moses).. so there. Oh.. and Zoroastrians are dualistic. They, like the Christians, believe in two universal powers. One that fights for good, the other that fights for evil. (God and devil). The main difference is that in the Hebrew Bible, there is only one force. That is, it's non-dualistic. If you want to call both "monotheism", that's fine. But you should know that there is a difference. Ami, Glad to see you here. Posted by: Dhampir Dec 15 2003, 09:45 PM Hi reach! Sorry I took so long. I opened a long dead thread that seemed appropriate. If I may, I'd like to ask you those questions-feel free to not respond if you like. Any Christian is free to answer my other queries, but this one is for you personally. I was going to start with some more enlightened thought, but I forgot what it was. the question I was going to ask in it's place I'll save for later. So: if for some reason, during the course of my questions, I cause you (I honestly don't want to, really) to have a truly valid question concerning your faith,(I don't think it'll happen, but it's possible) would you be willing to do the research behind it, to the possible detriment of said faith? Posted by: Lokmer Dec 16 2003, 04:31 AM It would be perhaps not out of line to point out that, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the Zoroastrian priestly party concerned primarily with teaching the law of Mazda to the people were the Paresis, pronounced "pareesees". It is from this word that the Jews got the term "Pharisees." -Lokmer Posted by: Reach Dec 16 2003, 08:18 PM Dhampir, Let me be real with you. I love to read and some of my reading would certainly be classified as research, although research, per se, is certainly not my favorite reading material. I like to study but I generally have to be driven by some deep, internal desire to do research. Why don't you pose your questions and let me respond to what I can? If your questions drive me to the books, so be it. I'm not afraid to read material that might challenge my faith but let me say this: I have a life I love and I don't want to waste any of it. So, please don't be offended if I don't feel I have the time (or ability) to properly answer one question or another. Also, it's possible that the very things you might pose have already been answered on this website by others whose minds are much more intelligent, educated and/or intellectual than mine. By the way, how many total man-hours do you think were spent (or wasted) today on reading and responding to the topic "I am a Christian. What reason should I join you?" Having said that, fire when ready. What are your questions? reach Posted by: Dhampir Dec 17 2003, 11:38 AM Strong response. How much time wasted? By me? Not a hell of a lot, I wrote one thought out response, then I implored the other responders not to waste their time. It's good to know there are people with brains from all walks of life. Btw, thanks for the compliments, I'm about due for some ego stroking Well, any way, here goes. I still can't remember my original mind-blowing question, but maybe I will later. So: Do you believe in the doctrine of a literal Hell? Do you think of it as an actual place in which sinners and unbelievers will spend eternity? I would direct you to the fact that no part of the canonized OT speaks of any such place, or even an afterlife, prior to judgement. Every translation from the original Hebrew that says Hell, means Sheol, ie. the pit, the common grave of all mankind. Further, I direct you to the fact that some believe that not even Jesus spoke of a literal Burning Place when he spoke of hell, but that he was talking about the literal Hinnom, aka Gehenna, the valley southwest of Jerusalem, wherein the fires ignited to burn refuse and supposedly dishonored sorts like thieves and murderers was rarely if ever stopped. Then there's Revelation, which, forgive the imagery, resembles some ancient acid trip. they say it was debated until the 1st millennia whether or not to add that particularly incomprehensible book to the modern canon. I just read an article that says even the Pope has renounced the church standpoint on a literal Hell. If you do, how so, and how do you reconcile it with an omnipotent, merciful and just God, a God who can get what he wants, and wants everyone in heaven? Long I know, but everything need not be addressed. Posted by: MalaInSe Dec 17 2003, 02:01 PM QUOTE (woodsmoke @ Aug 10 2003, 10:06 PM) This is another pet peeve of mine, so I just have to vent. Once again, I could be wrong, but I spent years devouring every source I could find on ancient Greek myths, culture, etc. Never once did I read about the Underworld under the label of Hades. To my knowledge, the Greeks did believe in an afterlife. Their concept of it was much the same as the "spirit world" doctrine taught by the LDS Church. They named the place in which one spent this afterlife Tartarus. There, the souls of the living were judged and rewarded or punished according to the way they lived their lives on Earth. Basically, good people (the average man, helps his neighbor, doesn't hurt others, responsible and trustworthy, etc.) were rewarded; Bad people (murderers, liars, cheaters, thieves, etc.) were punished. Very simple. I can understand how, over time, some may have taken to calling it Hades, as that was the name of the deity who ruled over it. However, as I said, nowhere have I ever seen it officially referred to as Hades by any scholars, historians, etc. Hades was a God, not a place! He was one of the three brothers who led the lesser Gods in overthrowing and deposing the Titans. When Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades drew lots/decided/whatever they did for "kingdoms," so to speak, Zeus became ruler of the skies, Poseidon of the seas, and Hades was landed with the underworld, called Tartarus. Woody, If I remember correctly from my ancient days of studying Greek, Hades was possessive (genitive) when referring to the place. That would make it mean "(the place) of Hades." I don't recall how its declined when used in the NT. Renee Posted by: Doug2 Dec 17 2003, 04:37 PM QUOTE I just read an article that says even the Pope has renounced the church standpoint on a literal Hell. Please share the link. I have been looking for proof of that. Posted by: Dhampir Dec 17 2003, 04:49 PM http://smithbrad.nventure.com/pope.htm There were a lot when I typed - pope hell - in google, but this seems to be the best. Posted by: Doug2 Dec 17 2003, 05:12 PM Thanks Dhampir! I will have to read this more carefully when I have some time. It seemed in this article that popey was being a bit vague. He clearly states that heaven is not a physical place, but then goes back and forth about it being a spiritual condition. He doesn't really seem to deny its existence, but just deny it being a physical place. That does bring up revelation, which if I remember correctly, gives the physical specifications for the new jerusalem cube in the sky. Wasn't that "in" heaven or was that the new earth that existed for a millennium? Posted by: Dhampir Dec 17 2003, 05:26 PM QUOTE He doesn't really seem to deny its existence, but just deny it being a physical place. It says enough to say that hell is not a literal physical place, states of mind not withstanding. Google, if you want to find some more stuff: type -pope hell-. As for Revelation, I might have been wrong about how long they deliberated before putting it in the NT. I know it was taken out more than once, can someone tell me when it was finally permanently admitted int

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)