Guest SerenityNow Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 Just wondering what the explanation is for YHWH NOT warning people in the first five books of the Bible that eternal torture would be the punishment for disobedience and/or disbelief. Matter of factly, correct me if I am wrong, doesn't Paul actually get it right here? "The wages of sin is death".... I think a few thousand years came between the creation story and Joshua. So why no mention of this dreaded punishement that Jesus mentions? Personally, I believe because there is no such thing as eternal punishment and the NT writers have it all wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 Just wondering what the explanation is for YHWH NOT warning people in the first five books of the Bible that eternal torture would be the punishment for disobedience and/or disbelief. Matter of factly, correct me if I am wrong, doesn't Paul actually get it right here? "The wages of sin is death".... I think a few thousand years came between the creation story and Joshua. So why no mention of this dreaded punishement that Jesus mentions? Personally, I believe because there is no such thing as eternal punishment and the NT writers have it all wrong. The NT had more influence from Zoroastrism and greek religions than the Torah. The Hades, land of the dead, etc. Strong pagan influence. Like people say, religion is a process of evolution too, develops and certain ideas just survives better in certain cultures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Joseph Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 Just wondering what the explanation is for YHWH NOT warning people in the first five books of the Bible that eternal torture would be the punishment for disobedience and/or disbelief. Matter of factly, correct me if I am wrong, doesn't Paul actually get it right here? "The wages of sin is death".... I think a few thousand years came between the creation story and Joshua. So why no mention of this dreaded punishement that Jesus mentions? Personally, I believe because there is no such thing as eternal punishment and the NT writers have it all wrong. The entire ideas behind spiritual beings and an afterlife are called into question in various instances within the Tanakh. In Job's story there is even a point where it says that those in the gave do not speak (another way of saying they lack conciousness). There were two schools that formed, those that took a very literal idea of the law and those that had a very loose idea of the law (spirit of the law). Jesus' teachings pretty much agreed with the school of Hillel for the most part (some things would not match up) but of course Jesus sided with the idea that demons existed in the very least (he "cast out" demons). So, unless he was healing the mind of a mentally ill man and just didn't want to tell primitive mankind that, there is alot to think about when trying to try a linkage between what is taught at VARIOUS points in the Tanakh vs. the NT. Heck, if you want to open a huge problem try to discuss Ezekiel's idea of justice (18:20) with Paul's idea of original sin of Adam upon all mankind unto condemnation. They are polar opposites in fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
been borg again Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 eternal punishment, a hellenized/Greek/Roman: evolving to midevil concept , I wont bother finding the Old Testament verses that speak of death as a "sleeping". It seems obviouse to me the Gospel authors ( like John and his LOGOS) were educated in greek/roman philosophy. even Rome had its " lake of fire" or " Logos" hundreds of years before A.D. or the New Test. ever mentioned a burning fire of afterlife punishment......... Christians, are you reading this??? you think I am making this up???? check these facts yourself sigh.. why bother. Carry on cult-devotees, ignore the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shy1680 Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 The entire ideas behind spiritual beings and an afterlife are called into question in various instances within the Tanakh. In Job's story there is even a point where it says that those in the gave do not speak (another way of saying they lack conciousness). There were two schools that formed, those that took a very literal idea of the law and those that had a very loose idea of the law (spirit of the law). Jesus' teachings pretty much agreed with the school of Hillel for the most part (some things would not match up) but of course Jesus sided with the idea that demons existed in the very least (he "cast out" demons). So, unless he was healing the mind of a mentally ill man and just didn't want to tell primitive mankind that, there is alot to think about when trying to try a linkage between what is taught at VARIOUS points in the Tanakh vs. the NT. Heck, if you want to open a huge problem try to discuss Ezekiel's idea of justice (18:20) with Paul's idea of original sin of Adam upon all mankind unto condemnation. They are polar opposites in fact. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Could you please show me some O.T. teachings about these demons that Jesus was sending out of people. I have read from page 1 of the bible and now in Psalms and there is no mention of demons or possession like Jesus was handling. Have I missed something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shy1680 Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 Just backing you up shy1680...no not a single mention. I just did a search at biblegateway.com and typed in "demon" in the word search...Only in the NT did it pop up AND just to make sure we weren't bombarded with demon meant evil spirit I did a search on that too. That did pop up, here are a couple of scripture references.................. Judges 9:22-24 22 After Abimelech had governed Israel three years, 23 God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the citizens of Shechem, who acted treacherously against Abimelech. 24 God did this in order that the crime against Jerub-Baal's seventy sons, the shedding of their blood, might be avenged on their brother Abimelech and on the citizens of Shechem, who had helped him murder his brothers. 1 Samuel 16:14-16 14 Now the Spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul, and an evil [a] spirit from the LORD tormented him. 15 Saul's attendants said to him, "See, an evil spirit from God is tormenting you. 16 Let our lord command his servants here to search for someone who can play the harp. He will play when the evil spirit from God comes upon you, and you will feel better." Um, does anyone notice the apparent problem here? Specifically that evil spirits are from god. Again, what a loving guy, praise him for sending us evil spirits. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Interesting, Jesus would rebuke God's works, since the evil spirits are from God. That is if "demons" are supposed to be representation of those evil spirits in people of the N.T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
been borg again Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 Its interesting to know that I have never met a Jew that beleives in Afterlife, except for the possibility of Reincarnation.( I might add all the Jews i have known are Reform, not Orthodox.) Almost all the them are very knowledgable of the Torah and OT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 I am by no means an expert on this, but I think that some of the answers to the OT / NT dichotomy can be found in the Old Testament apocrypha and intertestament writings. It isn't very widely known in Christian circles, but there wasn't complete silence in the 400 years between NT and OT. There's were all kinds of things being written. Christians like to advance the idea that Christian thought and ideas all originated with Jesus. I know that some of the ideas of the "lake of fire" and other hell doctrines are taken from the book of Enoch. Although I don't think Enoch is an intertestament writing. As I understand it, it's very ancient and was part of the discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Other OT apocrypha directly reflect theology from Babylon and Persia. (some of which is reflected in New Testament theology.) Perhaps someone here who knows more about OT apocrypha and intertestament writings can elaborate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 On a goofy sidenote, aren't the descriptions of hell a contradiction? Jesus calls it "the outer darkness" It's also called a "lake of fire" If there's a fire burning, then it wouldn't be dark, would it? I know, stupid thought. I have way too much time on my hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 ITA BBA...... it really makes me wonder, now looking at Christianity on this side of the wall, how on earth it could possibly be a branch off of Judaism. Clearly the NT is anti-jew. I see absolutely no connection other than that they both claim the creator god is YHWH. I think Christianity was developed of different reasons, but I think one of them were to hijack the jewish faith. Jealous romans wanted to destroy the Jews and the best way of doing it would be to confuse the faith more. Take all good they have, build on it, make something else, embed greek philosophy and roman theology (saints etc), and then try to convert the jews and destroy it from within. When it didn't work, just add hateful statements in there so people think they are better than the traditional jews. Now you can dismiss the jewish religion because you are a "jew" but better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
been borg again Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 I am by no means an expert on this, but I think that some of the answers to the OT / NT dichotomy can be found in the Old Testament apocrypha and intertestament writings. It isn't very widely known in Christian circles, but there wasn't complete silence in the 400 years between NT and OT. There's were all kinds of things being written. Christians like to advance the idea that Christian thought and ideas all originated with Jesus. I know that some of the ideas of the "lake of fire" and other hell doctrines are taken from the book of Enoch. Although I don't think Enoch is an intertestament writing. As I understand it, it's very ancient and was part of the discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Other OT apocrypha directly reflect theology from Babylon and Persia. (some of which is reflected in New Testament theology.) Perhaps someone here who knows more about OT apocrypha and intertestament writings can elaborate. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Book of Enoch was rejected by the Coucil Nicene 380ish A.D. as heretical since it mentioned spirits/angels fighting in Heaven, and so wasnt included in the offical Bible, even though it was a popular book. I cannot rememebr if Enoch is part of the Hebrew bible, I think it is, at least with the Jewish mystics it is considered scripture, and I think the Talmud mentions Enoch several times.I think NTcanon.com has more info, and a super site for Primary Sources on everything new testament canon. i think the date for Enoch was 200 BC. If I rememebr right deadseascrolls.com has on the books online. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
been borg again Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 I think Christianity was developed of different reasons, but I think one of them were to hijack the jewish faith. Jealous romans wanted to destroy the Jews and the best way of doing it would be to confuse the faith more. Take all good they have, build on it, make something else, embed greek philosophy and roman theology (saints etc), and then try to convert the jews and destroy it from within. When it didn't work, just add hateful statements in there so people think they are better than the traditional jews. Now you can dismiss the jewish religion because you are a "jew" but better. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Interesting theory, about Roman Consperacy to hijack Judaism. I assume Christianity was a grass roots movement from the poor and underclass, since it included woman and slaves as members without any eliteist special high class needed, like the rest of Roman religion. I thought Rome hated Christianity and accused them of Atheism, since they would'nt recognize the Offical Roman Gods. I would think the roman underclass felt alienated by its society, and therefore found a new reigion in the mixing of greek philosophy/roman gods/hellenized jew/ mixed with the Cynic philosophy of Poverty.. I would imagine alot of poor people would find appealing, since the underclass/ slaves were not allowed to participate in roman religions. Rome was famous for tolerating the Jewish faith, and others. I cant rememeber which anceint historian I read, but he mentioned many times how well the Jews got along with the Romans, contrary to popular belief that Rome hated the Jews. The Jews and culture seemed to mix well with Rome after they got used to the idea of being occupied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lizard Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 I asked the question of some Christians..and here's a response I got I suppose because God knows the correct time to reveal certain aspects of his "great plan" to humanity. Ok..so all those people from Adam to Jesus, who did not believe were in for quite a shock, huh? Great plan??? Hell is part of his great plan?? And then I was given these verses: Isaiah 66:2222 As the new heavens and the new earth which I will make Shall endure before me, says the LORD, so shall your race and your name endure. 23 From one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, All mankind shall come to worship before me, says the LORD. 24 4 They shall go out and see the corpses of the men who rebelled against me; Their worm shall not die, nor their fire be extinguished; and they shall be abhorrent to all mankind. Ok..but my response to that was that it referred to dead bodies, not souls in torment for ever! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 Interesting theory, about Roman Consperacy to hijack Judaism. I kind of just threw it out there. I assume Christianity was a grass roots movement from the poor and underclass, since it included woman and slaves as members without any eliteist special high class needed, like the rest of Roman religion. I thought Rome hated Christianity and accused them of Atheism, since they would'nt recognize the Offical Roman Gods. I would think the roman underclass felt alienated by its society, and therefore found a new reigion in the mixing of greek philosophy/roman gods/hellenized jew/ mixed with the Cynic philosophy of Poverty.. I would imagine alot of poor people would find appealing, since the underclass/ slaves were not allowed to participate in roman religions. Rome was famous for tolerating the Jewish faith, and others. I cant rememeber which anceint historian I read, but he mentioned many times how well the Jews got along with the Romans, contrary to popular belief that Rome hated the Jews. The Jews and culture seemed to mix well with Rome after they got used to the idea of being occupied. Since Christianity has mixed in theology from pagan and green and roman religion, and also philosophy, I think there’s strong indication that there were different parallel movements that got fused. Like the Gnostic had one view and some groups had Jewish influence and so on. But the Romans hated the Christians, that I think came later, when it started to threaten the Roman religion. I agree that it came from grass root movements. If my previous post sounded different, I didn’t mean it was an attempt from the Roman leaders, but it could have been a construct from some philosophical underlings in the Roman empire, that either wanted to undermine Jewish religion and/or Roman. After all it has a hateful attitude towards Jews and Romans. I asked the question of some Christians..and here's a response I got Ok..so all those people from Adam to Jesus, who did not believe were in for quite a shock, huh? Great plan??? Hell is part of his great plan?? And then I was given these verses: Ok..but my response to that was that it referred to dead bodies, not souls in torment for ever! That’s exactly the teaching I got. That Jesus didn’t come until the right time. Not until there was one common language, infrastructure for transport and traveling, one law etc. Basically God wanted United States to happen before he would send Messiah to San Francisco. And I think he’s still there, somewhere on the streets, in a corner, but no one takes him for serious. But my opinion against it now, is why God waited for the common language, common culture, common infrastructure etc, when he had it at the Tower of Babel? Then he punished the people for having it, and then he waited 2500 years for it to happen again to give us salvation. It sounds like he’s playing the game “Black & White” with us, just for the fun of it. But I haven’t seen the big cow incarnation yet…or people being thrown into the ocean… *** Man, I’m not a good writer at all right now. Not that I ever was. But today is not a good day for my brain… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts