A question to Christians

[Pegg]

No, it doesn't say that. It says:

The statement that Gehenna is situated in the valley of Hinnom near Jerusalem, in the "accursed valley" (Enoch, xxvii. 1 et seq.), means simply that it has a gate there

"The statement that Gehenna is situated in the valley of Hinnom near Jerusalem, in the "accursed valley" (Enoch, xxvii. 1 et seq.), means simply that it has a gate there. It was in Zion, and had a gate in Jerusalem (Isa. xxxi. 9). It had three gates, one in the wilderness, one in the sea, and one in Jerusalem ('Er. 19a).

its saying its in a physical literal place and it had gates in which to enter it. Its location was in Zion which is a literal place too.

 

[nazz]

"The statement that Gehenna is situated in the valley of Hinnom near Jerusalem, in the "accursed valley" (Enoch, xxvii. 1 et seq.), means simply that it has a gate there. It was in Zion, and had a gate in Jerusalem (Isa. xxxi. 9). It had three gates, one in the wilderness, one in the sea, and one in Jerusalem ('Er. 19a).

its saying its in a physical literal place and it had gates in which to enter it. Its location was in Zion which is a literal place too.

Look, you are free to believe what you want but you don't get to speak for what other people, Jews in this case, believe.

 

[Pegg]

Look, you are free to believe what you want but you don't get to speak for what other people, Jews in this case, believe.

do you realise that Zion is Jerusalem?

Is Jerusalem a symbolic place too?

 

[nazz]

do you realise that Zion is Jerusalem?

Is Jerusalem a symbolic place too?

Pegg, I gave you the article. Read what it says. That is what Jews believed.

 

[Pegg]

Pegg, I gave you the article. Read what it says. That is what Jews believed.

I read what it said. The article said that it was a place. It went onto say that 'some' believe it is also a mystical place beneath the earth.

"Some say that Gehenna can not be measured" (Pes. 94a). It is divided into seven compartments (Soṭah 10b); a similar view was held by the Babylonians (Jeremias, "Hölle und Paradies bei den Babyloniern," pp. 16 et seq., Leipsic, 1901; Guthe, "Kurzes Bibel-wörterb." p. 272, Tübingen and Leipsic, 1903).

It gave more then one view of what 'some' believe Gehenna to be. But right at the outskirt it gave the definition of a literal place which had gates outside of Jerusalem.

 

[Shiranui117]

what you've described does reflect what many christians believe and teach...however, that is not what the bible teaches.

The bible explains that mankind and animal kind are all 'souls'
Ge 2:7“the man came to be a living soul.”

Gen 1:24*And God went on to say: “Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.”

So all living creatures are 'souls'. We dont 'have' souls, we ARE souls. And the bible says that when the soul dies, it returns to the ground: Gen 3:19""...For dust you are and to dust you will return.”
Job 34:15 All flesh will expire together, And earthling man himself will return to the very dust.
Ecclesiastes 3:20 All are going to one place. They have all come to be from the dust, and they are all returning to the dust

The bible says that when a soul dies, it is no longer conscious of anything at all: Ecclesiates 9:5*For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all...'

So if we take the bibles teaching as the basis of our own, there is no eternal torment for the dead. If someone is not conscious, it means they cannot think or feel or suffer.... so how can they experience 'torment'? They can't.

However, what the bible does tell us is that all who have died will be brought back to life on earth as the souls they once were.

Isaiah 26:19*“Your dead ones will live. A corpse of mine—they will rise up. Awake and cry out joyfully, YOU residents in the dust! For your dew is as the dew of mallows, and the earth itself will let even those impotent in death drop [in birth]

This resurrection of all who have died is made possible through Christ Jesus. He said of himself: John 11;25*Jesus said to her: “I am the resurrection and the life. He that exercises faith in me, even though he dies, will come to life...'
But this doesnt mean that only those who exercise faith in Christ will be resurrected because that promise God made in the book of Isaiah was spoken to people who lived hundreds of years before Christ even came. So God has already promised the people of the ancient past that they will be brought back to life.

So yes, God certainly is merciful and his plan is to bring back all who have died. They will then be given the opportunity to live under his loving guidance and care in a world governed by him.

that is what the bible teaches. But you wont find many Christians teaching these things because they take their teachings from human philosophies and false religious ideas.

Sorry, but this flies in the face of what the very concept of "Hades" implies. It also bears note that concepts within the Bible evolve and develop as the people of Israel received more revelation from God. The conceptions of the soul and the afterlife possessed by the writers of the Pentateuch differs from those of the writers of the later books of the Bible.

You should do more research on how these ideas and concepts evolve throughout the Bible. What the later prophets, Christ and the Apostles say about the nature of the soul and the afterlife is different than what Kings David and Solomon say.

Originally, yes, "Hades" did just mean "the grave," and "soul" did just mean "life force." However, later on, "Hades" came to mean a distinct dwelling place where people lived on as shades--still alive and conscious on some level, yet certainly not living. Hades remained a dark place. By the time of Christ, Hades had separate "compartments" or regions: The "Bosom of Abraham," a place of peace, repose and joy where the blessed rested, and also a fiery portion where the wicked were tormented.

Likewise, originally, there was no such thing as a resurrection of the dead in the original belief. There are statements in the Bible that strongly imply that, once you're in Hades, you're there forever, and you'll never be resurrected. The concept of the resurrection of the dead came about as later prophets were given more revelation by God.

And the soul likewise was more seen as just a life force at the start, but later on, it was seen as a sort of counterpart to the physical body--man was later viewed as composed of body and soul. This is clear by the time of the New Testament.

 

[nazz]

It should also be noted that in later Jewish writings Sheol was used as a synonym for Gehenna.

 

[Katzpur]

Originally, yes, "Hades" did just mean "the grave," and "soul" did just mean "life force." However, later on, "Hades" came to mean a distinct dwelling place where people lived on as shades--still alive and conscious on some level, yet certainly not living. Hades remained a dark place. By the time of Christ, Hades had separate "compartments" or regions: The "Bosom of Abraham," a place of peace, repose and joy where the blessed rested, and also a fiery portion where the wicked were tormented.

Interesting. And very, very Mormon.

 

[Pegg]

Originally, yes, "Hades" did just mean "the grave," and "soul" did just mean "life force." However, later on...

all that really matters is what the original servants of God wanted us to know and believe.

they held to the original true meaning of hades/soul/sheol etc. They explained what those things were in their writings. If someone comes along later and changes the meaning, they are simply deviating from the truth and creating a lie.

Can you explain to me why anyone would want to change the original meanings and why we should accept those changes as 'truth'?

 

[Katzpur]

all that really matters is what the original servants of God wanted us to know and believe.

If that's what really matters, Pegg, you should be aware that the "original servants of God" believed that the spirits of those in hades/sheol, etc. were alive and cognizant beings. I don't have any online material I could provide you a link to, but I have plenty of printed material dating from the first century, and not from fringe, gnostic groups either.

 

[Shiranui117]

all that really matters is what the original servants of God wanted us to know and believe.

they held to the original true meaning of hades/soul/sheol etc. They explained what those things were in their writings. If someone comes along later and changes the meaning, they are simply deviating from the truth and creating a lie.

Can you explain to me why anyone would want to change the original meanings and why we should accept those changes as 'truth'?

Take it up with the authors of the Bible, not me. If the authors of the later Biblical books affirm: 1, a resurrection of the dead; 2, that the dead are conscious and aware in Hades; and 3, and that the soul is an independent thing from the human body and is not merely an animating force, while authors of earlier Biblical books believed that: 1, the soul was merely an animating force much like Chinese chi that did not survive death, 2, Hades was just a hole people's corpses got thrown into instead of being a dwelling-place of the souls of the departed, and 3, Hades was a permanent place/state from which no one could ever return (i.e. no resurrection of the dead), whose side are you going to take? Are you going to deny the resurrection of the dead or affirm it?

If you want to know why the understanding of Hades, the soul and the resurrection of the dead developed, it's easy: God gave more revelation as time went on. The earlier understandings of the soul, Hades and the resurrection of the dead were primitive, human constructs that were to be replaced by God's revelation on the matter--and we can trace that development within the very words of the Bible itself.

If you want to affirm the original meanings and understandings of these things, my advice to you would be to pitch out all the later prophetic writings and the whole of the New Testament. Because that is the only way your beliefs can stand.

 

[Pegg]

Take it up with the authors of the Bible, not me. If the authors of the later Biblical books affirm: 1, a resurrection of the dead; 2, that the dead are conscious and aware in Hades; and 3, and that the soul is an independent thing from the human body and is not merely an animating force, while authors of earlier Biblical books believed that: 1, the soul was merely an animating force much like Chinese chi that did not survive death, 2, Hades was just a hole people's corpses got thrown into instead of being a dwelling-place of the souls of the departed, and 3, Hades was a permanent place/state from which no one could ever return (i.e. no resurrection of the dead), whose side are you going to take? Are you going to deny the resurrection of the dead or affirm it?

If you want to know why the understanding of Hades, the soul and the resurrection of the dead developed, it's easy: God gave more revelation as time went on. The earlier understandings of the soul, Hades and the resurrection of the dead were primitive, human constructs that were to be replaced by God's revelation on the matter--and we can trace that development within the very words of the Bible itself.

If you want to affirm the original meanings and understandings of these things, my advice to you would be to pitch out all the later prophetic writings and the whole of the New Testament. Because that is the only way your beliefs can stand.

i hate to tell you this, but there are no later 'biblical' books. You are reading 'apocryphal' writings. These books are not written by Jesus apostles and Jesus only gave his 12 apostles authority to lay down his teachings for his followers.

None of the apochryphal writings were written by the apostles of Jesus...they were written by false apostles, false teachers and false christians and thats why they contradict the writings of the apostles.

 

[nazz]

i hate to tell you this, but there are no later 'biblical' books. You are reading 'apocryphal' writings. These books are not written by Jesus apostles and Jesus only gave his 12 apostles authority to lay down his teachings for his followers.

None of the apochryphal writings were written by the apostles of Jesus...they were written by false apostles, false teachers and false christians and thats why they contradict the writings of the apostles.

The Epistle of Jude quotes the Book of Enoch. Was St. Jude a false prophet?

 

[Pegg]

The Epistle of Jude quotes the Book of Enoch. Was St. Jude a false prophet?

Its not known whether he was actually quoting from the book of Enoch. Perhaps the writer of Enoch was himself quoting a common tradition handed down and taught orally....Jesus also frequently used well known phrases in his teachings.

There is no reason to believe that Jude only knew of the information because it was in an apocryphal writing. How did the writer of Enoch know?? Perhaps he was merely repeating an oral tradition which can be historically correct.

 

[Shiranui117]

i hate to tell you this, but there are no later 'biblical' books. You are reading 'apocryphal' writings. These books are not written by Jesus apostles and Jesus only gave his 12 apostles authority to lay down his teachings for his followers.

I'm not talking about the Intertestamental books of the Bible (which were part of the Septuagint Bible used and quoted by Christ and the Apostles, you should know.) I'm talking about comparing different books within the pieces of the Old Testament that the Protestants still adhere to. The Old Testament didn't fall out of Heaven in one complete volume, you know. The Torah was composed first, then the historical books, then the prophetic books. And many of these books were added to over time as more revelation came in from God--for example, the once rampantly polytheistic Israelites became properly monotheistic, they eventually came to believe that Sheol was not eternal and that there would be a resurrection of the dead, etc. The Old Testament was compiled over the course of centuries. Parts were being added to the books, and some books took on their fully-developed, modern form before others.

For example, in Job 7, we see a statement that effectively denies the resurrection of the dead:

“Remember that my life is a breath;
my eye will never again see good.
8 The eye of him who sees me will behold me no more;
while your eyes are on me, I shall be gone.
9 As the cloud fades and vanishes,
so he who goes down to Sheol does not come up;
10 he returns no more to his house,
nor does his place know him anymore.

And again in Job 10:
18 “Why did you bring me out from the womb?
Would that I had died before any eye had seen me
19 and were as though I had not been,
carried from the womb to the grave.
20 Are not my days few?
Then cease, and leave me alone, that I may find a little cheer
21 before I go—and I shall not return—
to the land of darkness and deep shadow,
22 the land of gloom like thick darkness,
like deep shadow without any order,
where light is as thick darkness.”


And in Isaiah 38, we see the same idea:
10 I said, In the middle[d] of my days
I must depart;
I am consigned to the gates of Sheol
for the rest of my years.
11 I said, I shall not see the Lord,
the Lord in the land of the living;
I shall look on man no more
among the inhabitants of the world.
...
18 For Sheol does not thank you;
death does not praise you;
those who go down to the pit do not hope
for your faithfulness.

And top top that all off in 2 Samuel 14:14 we see this statement: 14 We must all die; we are like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again. But God will not take away life, and he devises means so that the banished one will not remain an outcast.

IOW, whoever dies cannot hope for God's mercy to bring them back from the dead. Sheol was eternal. There was no coming back from it. This was the original belief among the Hebrews and the Israelites. Only later did the belief in the resurrection of the dead develop, as God gave more revelation to the people of Israel.

None of the apochryphal writings were written by the apostles of Jesus...they were written by false apostles, false teachers and false christians and thats why they contradict the writings of the apostles.

Wait, wait, wait. Are you talking about the intertestamental writings of the Old Testament, or the New Testament Gnostic Apocrypha?

 

[nazz]

Its not known whether he was actually quoting from the book of Enoch. Perhaps the writer of Enoch was himself quoting a common tradition handed down and taught orally....Jesus also frequently used well known phrases in his teachings.

There is no reason to believe that Jude only knew of the information because it was in an apocryphal writing. How did the writer of Enoch know?? Perhaps he was merely repeating an oral tradition which can be historically correct.

Wow. An escape act worthy of Houdini!

 

[Pegg]

i'm not talking about the intertestamental books of the bible (which were part of the septuagint bible used and quoted by christ and the apostles, you should know.) i'm talking about comparing different books within the pieces of the old testament that the protestants still adhere to. The old testament didn't fall out of heaven in one complete volume, you know. The torah was composed first, then the historical books, then the prophetic books. And many of these books were added to over time as more revelation came in from god--for example, the once rampantly polytheistic israelites became properly monotheistic, they eventually came to believe that sheol was not eternal and that there would be a resurrection of the dead, etc. The old testament was compiled over the course of centuries. Parts were being added to the books, and some books took on their fully-developed, modern form before others.

For example, in job 7, we see a statement that effectively denies the resurrection of the dead:

“remember that my life is a breath;
my eye will never again see good.
8 the eye of him who sees me will behold me no more;
while your eyes are on me, i shall be gone.
9 as the cloud fades and vanishes,
so he who goes down to sheol does not come up;
10 he returns no more to his house,
nor does his place know him anymore.

And again in job 10:
18 “why did you bring me out from the womb?
Would that i had died before any eye had seen me
19 and were as though i had not been,
carried from the womb to the grave.
20 are not my days few?
Then cease, and leave me alone, that i may find a little cheer
21 before i go—and i shall not return—
to the land of darkness and deep shadow,
22 the land of gloom like thick darkness,
like deep shadow without any order,
where light is as thick darkness.”


and in isaiah 38, we see the same idea:
10 i said, in the middle[d] of my days
i must depart;
i am consigned to the gates of sheol
for the rest of my years.
11 i said, i shall not see the lord,
the lord in the land of the living;
i shall look on man no more
among the inhabitants of the world.
...
18 for sheol does not thank you;
death does not praise you;
those who go down to the pit do not hope
for your faithfulness.

and top top that all off in 2 samuel 14:14 we see this statement: 14 we must all die; we are like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again. but god will not take away life, and he devises means so that the banished one will not remain an outcast.

Iow, whoever dies cannot hope for god's mercy to bring them back from the dead. Sheol was eternal. There was no coming back from it. This was the original belief among the hebrews and the israelites. Only later did the belief in the resurrection of the dead develop, as god gave more revelation to the people of israel.

Wait, wait, wait. Are you talking about the intertestamental writings of the old testament, or the new testament gnostic apocrypha?

nt

 

[Pegg]

Wow. An escape act worthy of Houdini!

even Paul quotes an ancient orally taught account when he names the egyption magicians of Pharoahs court at 2Tim 3:8*Now in the way that Jan′nes and Jam′bres resisted Moses,...

no where are these two men named in the scriptures, so they must have been oral teachings handed down from generation to generation.

 

[Shiranui117]

nt

Oh, the NT Apocrypha. Yeah, you're right, screw those.

But the parts of the OT that the Protestants removed (Books of Maccabees, Wisdom of Sirach, Jude, Tobit, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah, Prayer of Manasseh, Books of Esdras, and parts of the Book of Daniel) are part of the same Bible used and quoted by the Apostles--the Septuagint.

 

[Pegg]

Oh, the NT Apocrypha. Yeah, you're right, screw those.

But the parts of the OT that the Protestants removed (Books of Maccabees, Wisdom of Sirach, Jude, Tobit, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah, Prayer of Manasseh, Books of Esdras, and parts of the Book of Daniel) are part of the same Bible used and quoted by the Apostles--the Septuagint.

i've read some of the wisdom of Sirach and it was completely contrary to what scripture teaches in many respects.... for that reason alone I would never consider it worthy of being considered scripture.

He completely contradicts the statement at Romans 5:12-19, which places the responsibility for sin upon Adam. Instead he likes to blame the woman entirely for mankinds woe's, ie “From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die.” (25:33, Dy)
He also has a very negative view of women where he says he prefers any type of wickedness over the wickedness of a woman. 25:19, Dy

You never hear such things from any of the bible writers. The value of women are upheld in the real scriptures.... i would call ben sirach a false teacher of the worst kind.... but then i am a woman, so perhaps i'm being a little biased