Western Civilization is Based on Judeo-Christian Values – Debunked

Here's an interesting discussion on the development of hell.


The Church's Development
of the Hell Myth


The myth of hell developed steadily after Yeshua's death in 30 CE, but it does not appear in the Old Testament, the New Testament, Yeshua's teachings, the Acts of the Apostles, Paul's epistles, or the other epistles in the canon.

The explanation of how it developed in the church follows.

Paul and the early church had a dilemma. The Jewish Yeshua and those in the Jerusalem church, especially James, Yeshua's brother, held a traditional conception of the Messiah. The Messiah would be a man, perhaps descended from David, who would be anointed by God to rout the occupying army, the Romans, and establish an earthly kingdom of God (or Kingdom of Israel). It would be presided over by God's elect, but God would be the supreme ruler. It would be a theocracy. Some envisioned a new Kingdom of Heaven separate from the earth.

The 12 tribes of Israel would be the citizens and beneficiaries of this kingdom. All Jews in the Diaspora would move to Israel. Some believed all other people on Earth would live normally, but be so drawn by the quality of life in the Jewish kingdom of God that they would convert and eventually, all of humanity would be Jewish. Others believed the rest of humankind would be eliminated, leaving only the Jews.

"Salvation," then, meant being saved from Roman occupation and being part of the kingdom of God; there was no conversion involved with the Jewish messiah.

It was salvation for Jews only. Yeshua was thoroughly Jewish, was bringing a message to the Jews exclusively (Matthew 10:5-6 and 15:24), had Jewish disciples, and first had a following after his death established in Jerusalem as a Jewish sect awaiting the return of the Jewish Messiah to establish the Jewish Kingdom of Israel.

Yeshua never thought of starting a new religion and never thought of converting non-Jews to become Jews.

Yeshua's followers believed, when he was alive, that he was the Messiah promised by God for Israel, who would deliver Judea from the Roman occupation. When Yeshua was executed by the Romans, the executioners wrote "King of the Jews" on a placard, showing that the common conception among his followers, the Jews who condemned him, and the Romans who executed him, was that Yeshua was claiming to be the Messiah who would establish an Earthly kingdom of God.

continued

http://30ce.com/developmentofhell.htm

I learned about most of this rather recently. It's really insane just how different Christianity originally was. Jesus wasn't "God in the flesh," he was a messiah strictly for the Jews who was part of a prophecy in which the messiah was to establish a kingdom that Jesus never did. It's no surprise that most Jews rejected Jesus. Not only did he not establish the kingdom he was supposed to, but he refused to help the Jews fight to establish a country free of Roman rule.
Jesus was clearly not the messiah of Jewish prophecy, but today Goys (which the prophecy wasn't for) believe he was, and believe in the Holy Trinity (which Jesus never acknowledged).
 
There’s No Such Thing as Judeo-Christian Values


The label “Judeo-Christian” tends to assume, at the expense of Judaism, that Christians and Jews believe essentially the same things.


Let’s be clear: Far from “sharing” one tradition, Orthodox Jews are prohibited from marrying Christians, setting foot inside a Christian church—and we can’t even drink from an open bottle of kosher wine that has been used by a Christian. We reject the Christian idea of salvation, we abhor Christian divine teachings on every subject, and we are repulsed and outraged by incessant attempts by Christian missionaries to bring us into their fold.


https://www.jewishpress.com/blogs/y...h-thing-as-judeo-christian-values/2013/12/26/

Jews and Christians differ on every single fundamental principle—even on the meaning of core Scriptural texts. More crucially, Christians rely on the Old Testament for legal delineation; whereas Jews rely solely upon our rabbinic tradition. We never, ever turn to our Bible for legal guidance, only to our rabbinic literature. To suggest that our Sages had anything at all in common with the likes of the lower forms of life like Jerry Falwell, or Pat Robertson is a slap in the face of 2500 years of scholarship.
 
I learned about most of this rather recently. It's really insane just how different Christianity originally was. Jesus wasn't "God in the flesh," he was a messiah strictly for the Jews who was part of a prophecy in which the messiah was to establish a kingdom that Jesus never did. It's no surprise that most Jews rejected Jesus. Not only did he not establish the kingdom he was supposed to, but he refused to help the Jews fight to establish a country free of Roman rule.
Jesus was clearly not the messiah of Jewish prophecy, but today Goys (which the prophecy wasn't for) believe he was, and believe in the Holy Trinity (which Jesus never acknowledged).

A key point was that the Messiah would deliver the Jews (save them) from the Roman occupation.. I don't see any indication of that in what we are taught about the life of Christ.


Here's more on the development of the concept of hell.

After Yeshua's death, his followers were sure he would return within a few days or weeks to rout the Romans and establish the Jewish theocracy. The author of Luke reported that after Yeshua's death, two downtrodden disciples leaving Jerusalem for Emmaus despaired, ". . . we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel." (Luke 24:21) "Salvation" had nothing to do with a place of torment; people would either be in or out, saved or unsaved, Jewish or non-Jewish. If they were unsaved, meaning not Jewish, they would live outside of the kingdom as they had been living on earth; some asserted the non-Jews would perish, meaning they would die and no longer exist, leaving only Jews in the Kingdom of Israel.

But the disciples, Jewish leaders, and Romans didn't understand Yeshua's words. Yeshua did have a message for the 12 Tribes of Israel, but it was that the kingdom of God was within, not a physical kingdom. He likely believed himself to be the Messiah, but his message was for the Jews to be born again (actually in the Greek, "born from above"). What he believed politically is not known. However, his spiritual message is crystal clear. Salvation for Yeshua meant growing to be compassionate, loving, non-judgmental, peaceful, and forgiving. The person who grew to spiritual maturity would display those qualities, and would thus live in the kingdom of God that was within. That was salvation for Yeshua.

However, the disciples misinterpreted his message and continued to be sure Yeshua would drive the Romans out of the land and establish the Kingdom of Israel.

Paul and the others converting the gentiles had a problem. The gentiles couldn't relate to the "Kingdom of Israel" at all. They were not willing to convert to Judaism, would not follow Mosaic law, and certainly would not submit to circumcision. The conception of an earthy Kingdom of Israel was meaningless to them. A Messiah descended from David was lost on them. If Paul and the others were to draw gentiles to believe Yeshua was ordained by God to save humankind, they had to shift their perspective.

So "salvation" came to have a different meaning the gentiles could understand. Anyone who expressed belief that Yeshua was the anointed one would be rewarded with being part of the kingdom of God Yeshua was going to return to establish and would have everlasting life. Yeshua was resurrected as the first man to live eternally. He was not considered by Paul to be a God. When Adam sinned, death came into the world. Through Yeshua, death had been defeated and believers would live eternally. That was what it meant to be "saved."


Paul still had no conception of a hell of everlasting torment or a heaven elsewhere than on earth. People who were not "saved" would simply die. They wouldn't have everlasting life. They would perish and never be heard of or seen again. They would not go to a hell; they would just be dead.

By the second century, however, the church leaders, in their zeal to convert people to become followers of Yeshua, read references to fire and judgment in the Bible to mean that people who did not convert to their version of Yeshua's theology would not simply die--they would be thrown into a fire that would burn eternally. They based this belief on the pagan descriptions of a hell at the time.

The first adoption of the pagan beliefs by a Christian writer was in the Apocalypse of Peter, probably written between 125 and 150 CE that remained in various church lists as a canonical text for centuries. It contains what the author claimed were the words of Yeshua as he instructed Peter after the resurrection about the signs of the end times.

It also contains a variety of punishments awaiting sinners in hell and the pleasures of heaven. The descriptions clearly came from Homer, Virgil, Plato, and Orphic and Pythagorean traditions. The hell myth wasn't in the Old Testament or Christian tradition before this writer developed it out of pagan traditions.

In the New Testament canon, Yeshua referred to "Gehenna," the valley of Hinnom, where garbage burned continually, corpses were sometimes deposited, and in earlier times, people had been sacrificed.

He only referred to it to illustrate his lessons about spiritual growth and the Earthly realm--that the earthly body was meaningless and would be thrown on the garbage dump. Some suggest he was warning the entire Jewish nation that it must turn away from its Earthly focus and reform by being more concerned with spiritual growth and the inner person, and if it didn't, the Jews would be destroyed in fire. He was right, of course. Jerusalem and the temple were torched in 70 CE.

continued
 
There’s No Such Thing as Judeo-Christian Values


The label “Judeo-Christian” tends to assume, at the expense of Judaism, that Christians and Jews believe essentially the same things.

Yeah, it's usually just used by Christians sucking up to Jews.
 
not at all......I KNOW that your posts are not true when they directly contradict what is there for everyone to see...

The Old Testament

The Old Testament refers to "Sheol" (Hebrew) or "Hades" (Greek) as the place of the dead where all who die go. It simply means "unseen." In no instance in the Old Testament does it refer to a place of torment where people go after death. The Anglo-Saxon (English) word "hell" originally also meant "unseen," so it was a suitable translation from "Sheol" or "Hades." However, hell came to be the place of torment, fire, and brimstone in church tradition, so it lost its original meaning in Anglo-Saxon.

Thomas B. Thayer on Hell in the Old Testament

(From The Origin and History of the Doctrine of Endless Punishment by Thomas B. Thayer, 1855)

The word hell, in the Old Testament, is always a translation of the Hebrew word Sheol, which occurs sixty-four times, and is rendered "hell" thirty-two times, "grave" twenty-nine times, and "pit" three times.

By examination of the Hebrew Scriptures it will be found that its radical or primary meaning is, The place or state of the dead.

It is plain that it has here no reference to a place of endless torment after death.

It is plain, then, from these citations, that the word Sheol, "hell," makes nothing for the doctrine of future unending punishment as a part of the Law penalties. It is never used by Moses or the Prophets in the sense of a place of torment after death; and in no way conflicts with the statement already proved, that the Law of Moses deals wholly in temporal rewards and punishments.

This position, also, I wish to fortify by the testimony of Orthodox critics, men of learning and candor [who were currently professors of history and theology at Oxford when Thayer wrote]. They know, and therefore they speak.

CHAPMAN. [Mark Chapman, Oxford theologian and historian] "Sheol, in itself considered, has no connection with future punishment." Cited by Balfour, First Inquiry.
DR. ALLEN says: "The term sheol does not seem to mean, with certainty, anything more than the state of the dead in their deep abode."
DR. CAMPBELL. "Sheol signifies the state of the dead without regard to their happiness or misery."
DR. WHITBY. "Sheol throughout the Old Testament signifies not the place of punishment, or of the souls of bad men only, but the grave only, or the place of death."
DR. MUENSCHER. [A distinguished author of Dogmatic History] "The souls or shades of the dead wander in sheol, the realm or kingdom of death, an abode deep under the earth. Thither go all men, without distinction, and hope for no return. There ceases all pain and anguish; there reigns an unbroken silence; there all is powerless and still; and even the praise of God is heard no more."
VON COELLN. "Sheol itself is described as the house appointed for all living, which receives into its bosom all mankind, without distinction of rank, wealth, or moral character. It is only in the mode of death, and not in the condition after death, that the good are distinguished above the evil. The just, for instance, die in peace, and are gently borne away before the evil comes; while a bitter death breaks the wicked like as a tree."
[Thayer continues] These witnesses all testify that sheol, or hell, in the Old Testament, has no reference whatever to this doctrine; that it signifies simply the state of the dead, the invisible world, without regard to their goodness or badness, their happiness or misery. The Old Testament doctrine of hell, therefore, is not the doctrine of endless punishment. It is not revealed in the Law of Moses. It is not revealed in the Old Testament. To such result has our inquiry led us; and now what shall we say of it?


Hell Is Not in the New Testament

http://30ce.com/developmentofhell.htm
 
The Old Testament

The Old Testament refers to "Sheol" (Hebrew) or "Hades" (Greek) as the place of the dead where all who die go. It simply means "unseen." In no instance in the Old Testament does it refer to a place of torment where people go after death. The Anglo-Saxon (English) word "hell" originally also meant "unseen," so it was a suitable translation from "Sheol" or "Hades." However, hell came to be the place of torment, fire, and brimstone in church tradition, so it lost its original meaning in Anglo-Saxon.

Thomas B. Thayer on Hell in the Old Testament

(From The Origin and History of the Doctrine of Endless Punishment by Thomas B. Thayer, 1855)

The word hell, in the Old Testament, is always a translation of the Hebrew word Sheol, which occurs sixty-four times, and is rendered "hell" thirty-two times, "grave" twenty-nine times, and "pit" three times.

By examination of the Hebrew Scriptures it will be found that its radical or primary meaning is, The place or state of the dead.

It is plain that it has here no reference to a place of endless torment after death.

It is plain, then, from these citations, that the word Sheol, "hell," makes nothing for the doctrine of future unending punishment as a part of the Law penalties. It is never used by Moses or the Prophets in the sense of a place of torment after death; and in no way conflicts with the statement already proved, that the Law of Moses deals wholly in temporal rewards and punishments.

This position, also, I wish to fortify by the testimony of Orthodox critics, men of learning and candor [who were currently professors of history and theology at Oxford when Thayer wrote]. They know, and therefore they speak.

CHAPMAN. [Mark Chapman, Oxford theologian and historian] "Sheol, in itself considered, has no connection with future punishment." Cited by Balfour, First Inquiry.
DR. ALLEN says: "The term sheol does not seem to mean, with certainty, anything more than the state of the dead in their deep abode."
DR. CAMPBELL. "Sheol signifies the state of the dead without regard to their happiness or misery."
DR. WHITBY. "Sheol throughout the Old Testament signifies not the place of punishment, or of the souls of bad men only, but the grave only, or the place of death."
DR. MUENSCHER. [A distinguished author of Dogmatic History] "The souls or shades of the dead wander in sheol, the realm or kingdom of death, an abode deep under the earth. Thither go all men, without distinction, and hope for no return. There ceases all pain and anguish; there reigns an unbroken silence; there all is powerless and still; and even the praise of God is heard no more."
VON COELLN. "Sheol itself is described as the house appointed for all living, which receives into its bosom all mankind, without distinction of rank, wealth, or moral character. It is only in the mode of death, and not in the condition after death, that the good are distinguished above the evil. The just, for instance, die in peace, and are gently borne away before the evil comes; while a bitter death breaks the wicked like as a tree."
[Thayer continues] These witnesses all testify that sheol, or hell, in the Old Testament, has no reference whatever to this doctrine; that it signifies simply the state of the dead, the invisible world, without regard to their goodness or badness, their happiness or misery. The Old Testament doctrine of hell, therefore, is not the doctrine of endless punishment. It is not revealed in the Law of Moses. It is not revealed in the Old Testament. To such result has our inquiry led us; and now what shall we say of it?


Hell Is Not in the New Testament

http://30ce.com/developmentofhell.htm

preach your religion well, brother.......
 
preach your religion well, brother.......

Words in scripture actually have meaning... You know the Bible wasn't written in English.


th
 

U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey
Executive Summary
Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons are among the highest-scoring groups on a new survey of religious knowledge, outperforming evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants and Catholics on questions about the core teachings, history and leading figures of major world religions.

On average, Americans correctly answer 16 of the 32 religious knowledge questions on the survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life. Atheists and agnostics average 20.9 correct answers. Jews and Mormons do about as well, averaging 20.5 and 20.3 correct answers, respectively.

Protestants as a whole average 16 correct answers; Catholics as a whole, 14.7. Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons perform better than other groups on the survey even after controlling for differing levels of education.

(They just aren't interested in studying religion or science or anything else.)
 
U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey
Executive Summary
Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons are among the highest-scoring groups on a new survey of religious knowledge, outperforming evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants and Catholics on questions about the core teachings, history and leading figures of major world religions.

On average, Americans correctly answer 16 of the 32 religious knowledge questions on the survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life. Atheists and agnostics average 20.9 correct answers. Jews and Mormons do about as well, averaging 20.5 and 20.3 correct answers, respectively.

Protestants as a whole average 16 correct answers; Catholics as a whole, 14.7. Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons perform better than other groups on the survey even after controlling for differing levels of education.

(They just aren't interested in studying religion or science or anything else.)

I've taken the test.....I missed one about the Hindus.......how did you do?......
 
Back
Top