Did Hell original exist in the bible?

[LSHAFC2004]

Did eternal damnation exist in the original bible?
In my eyes one of the things which discredits the bible and the christian religion is eternal damnation. We are all told to belive that the chrstian God is a God of love and forgivness(despite all the atrocties God commits in the old testament towards his people), the new testament states that all who do not belive in Jesus Christ will go to Hell for eternity(regardless of what they do in their life). And where is hell in the bible? Noneother than inside the Earth itself,millions of souls(inmaterial) are being burned in natural fire(material) inside the Earth. If this is the case then hell cannot be for eternity as our sun in a few billlion years time will exspand and engulf our Earth destroying it and therefore destroying Hell. Anyway scolers have evidence that Hell was not in the original Bible and was later added to scare people. They also say english scholers mistranslated the work "aion" in Greek to mean "eternity" when it should mean "ages". In the Bible it is claimed that Jesus talks about Hell more than Heaven and says the majority of people are going to Hell. 2 Peter also contracticts the gospels completly and he states that in Hell it is pitch black. The gospels say there is flame in Heaven, flame = light. Also in Hell abraham the rich man looks up to heaven and sees the poor man. If there was no light and you are inside the Earth, you cannot see the clouds and Heaven in the sky. What are we to belive? How can Jesus who we accosiate love and kindness with talk about people burning and being tortured in the flame by the devil(who God created). If Christianity is to be accepted the doctrine of Hell should hopefully be a false teaching used to scare people. Different chapters in the Bible clear contradict themselves about the doctrine of Hell. Anyone agree with the above?
:devil2: :devil1: :devil3: :devil3: :devil1: :devil2:

[Seeker2000]

What, didn't you know that Hell is really inside the Earth?
Then you should read The Truth about Hell (http://www.av1611.org/hell.html) :D

[rationalOne]

Anyway scolers have evidence that Hell was not in the original Bible and was later added to scare people. I assume you're referring to the old testament. Actually there is a mention of eternal hell in Daniel 12:1 ( http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/dan/12.html) And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

[judge]

Did eternal damnation exist in the original bible?

There have probably been lots of threads here on this here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=91440&highlight=hell) is one where I gave my thoughts. :)

[johntheapostate]

It is crucial to the Christian doctrine as formulated by Paul, that hell exist. For in witnessing the eternal torment of the reprobate, the elect will be brought to a full comprehension of the glory of god and in comparison to the never ending agony of the reprobate, the fortunate circumstances of the elect will bring them to a full awareness of god's mercy toward them that were chosen not on any merit in themselves, but at the good pleasure of their maker. And with this knowledge they will experience a full measure of gratitude and together with the screams of the damned, they will raise their voices in a never ending tribute to the creator of heaven and earth.

[Toto]

Chili's digression has been split out here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=112130)

[justsumner]

No.

[Chili]

It is crucial to the Christian doctrine as formulated by Paul, that hell exist. For in witnessing the eternal torment of the reprobate, the elect will be brought to a full comprehension of the glory of god and in comparison to the never ending agony of the reprobate, the fortunate circumstances of the elect will bring them to a full awareness of god's mercy toward them that were chosen not on any merit in themselves, but at the good pleasure of their maker. And with this knowledge they will experience a full measure of gratitude and together with the screams of the damned, they will raise their voices in a never ending tribute to the creator of heaven and earth.

That's a crock because the 'comprehension' comes first or you would be trying to tell us that Jesus rose before he was crucified.

If the chosen ones are those seated at the "right and the left" who are they going to sing to?

[johntheapostate]

That's a crock because the 'comprehension' comes first or you would be trying to tell us that Jesus rose before he was crucified.

If the chosen ones are those seated at the "right and the left" who are they going to sing to?

As I am an atheist, my post was strictly sarcastic. But the gist of the message can be supported using Paul's letter to the Romans.

I am not equipped to debate anyone on a mystical level, which I think is lame anyway ( I was raised fundamentalist ) but if you feel justified in pulling some deep meaning from Christianity, that in my opinion has little textual support, then certainly I should be able to present concepts which do have textual support .

Here is something I have posted in a different thread


I have gone through these passages before, but I would like to go through them again in order to clarify how believers in absolute predestination can integrate the many instances where god condemns and punishes individuals for choices they have made.

The passages from 2 Samuel 24 come to mind, where god is seen to be inciting David and at the same time condemning and punishing Davids actions

If one were not compelled to believe that god would not do such a thing, an idea that it was possible for god to be the instigator of certain behavior and at the same time condemn and punish the individual for that behavior could be justified in the plain reading of the text.


And it is just this conclusion that Paul expresses in his letter to the Romans.

Romans 9:16 ' It does not therefore depend on man's desire or effort but on God's mercy. For the scriptures say to Pharaoh, I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."

It is interesting that Paul immediately follows his message of god's mercy with an illustration from scripture that depicts god's lack of mercy in the case of Pharaoh and his people

In Paul's mind it is it is critical that he convey to his readers that god was responsible for initiating all human behavior, good or bad. In fact in these passages he explicitly places the fate of Pharaoh directly after his assertion of the absolute sovereignty of the will of god over the actions of man

We have the assertion that it was god who initiated the actions that led to death and destruction in Egypt. We also are informed of the motive. God initiated the series of event in order to glorify himself in the eyes of the Israelites and of the whole world.

To further illustrate that it was this he intended to convey, Paul adds the passage which show god taking ownership over the actions of men.

"Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden"

Paul shows that god does this only on the basis of his good pleasure, and to enforce that this is the case he anticipates and answers the objection that would only arise if this was so.

" One of you will say to me, Then why does god still blame us? For who resists his will"

This is a question that confirms Paul's intended message. For by his choice of words Paul affirms that yes he is intending that we are to understand that he believes that god will judge us for actions that god himself initiated.

And here we have the crux of the predestination answer to those who insist we must have free will and through this we are able to act in ways contrary to gods will and by which he is justified in imposing condemnation.

One can simply understand that even in those cases where it appears a choice is given and condemnation and punishment are the result, god is still the initiator of those actions.

In his choice of words " Why does he still blame US " Paul shows that he considers everyone to be subject to the doctrine he has just outlined and not just historical figures such as Pharaoh

To any reasonable person a god such as this has no basis in logic and reasonable behavior and we would expect some form of justification for this behavior. Paul supplies the answer to the objection .

" But who are you O man to talk back to god? shall what is formed say to him who formed it, Why have you made me like this?"

Again Paul enforces his intended message. We are the product in every way, positive and negative of the intent of god. Paul reinforces his doctrine in the next passages.

" Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble use and some for common use"

Again in his choice of words Paul hammers home his doctrine. In the form of question Paul explicitly defines the role of man and his destiny as having the same relationship as a lump of clay to a potter. To further enforce his point that we have no more influence over our destiny than an inanimate object Paul continues.

What if God choosing to show his wrath and make his power known bore with great patience the objects of his wrath prepared for destruction"

Here Paul clearly defines the reprobate as no more than an object, not preparing himself for destruction, but being prepared by god for destruction.

But why would God do such a thing? Paul could again have answered that we do not have the right to question the motives of god. But as a concession to his readers and a revelation of his personal belief, he elaborates further.

"What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy whom he prepared in advance for glory, even us whom he also called."

And in this passage Paul reveals the justification for all god's actions. In the same way as the reprobate is an object prepared for destruction, the elect is simply an object of mercy prepared for glory. Both objects inherit there fate as a matter of god's good pleasure. And in the same way as god brought death and destruction on to the Egyptians in order that he might be glorified in the eyes of the Israelites and the world, he will also inflict eternal damnation on the reprobate so that he may be glorified in the eyes of the elect in that in comparison to the suffering of the damned the elect may be made aware of gods great mercy to them that received there blessing only at gods discretion and not on any merit in themselves.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



There are some Christians who would gladly do away with the testimony of Paul, for the justification of the damnation of the reprobate is simply that in the everlasting agony of the reprobate, the elect will be brought to a fuller comprehension of the glory of god and in comparison to the eternal torture that god inflicts on the reprobate, the elect will fully appreciate gods mercy toward themselves.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by johntheapostate : Today at 03:50 PM.

[Chili]

As I am an atheist, my post was strictly sarcastic. But the gist of the message can be supported using Paul's letter to the Romans.



I noticed the sarcasm but I find the core of the message wrong and actually evil or vengeful. The bliss of heaven is the presence of God and after that anything can be fun including to many ways people try to manipulate the rest of the world so they can get 'there' or 'anywhere' in life.

[johntheapostate]

I noticed the sarcasm but I find the core of the message wrong and actually evil or vengeful. The bliss of heaven is the presence of God and after that anything can be fun including to many ways people try to manipulate the rest of the world so they can get 'there' or 'anywhere' in life.


Yet it does have textual support. Is one to interpret scriptural text going further than using a plain reading of the text. Is an interpretation with only the criteria that it does not endanger the integrity of ones personal god concept valid. Even if it stretches the plain meaning of the text. Where does one draw the boundary between creative interpretation and falsehood. Who decides.

[Dave Roberts]

It does exist, and you'll be worse off in Heaven

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hell_tem.htm

[Chili]

Yet it does have textual support. Is one to interpret scriptural text going further than using a plain reading of the text. Is an interpretation with only the criteria that it does not endanger the integrity of ones personal god concept valid. Even if it stretches the plain meaning of the text. Where does one draw the boundary between creative interpretation and falsehood. Who decides.


But don't go to the Epistles for support because they were written for the believers to reinforce their faith.

Just start comparing mythologies and see if they tell the same story. A good argument here is that voodoo fits into Catholicism, so does Zen Buddhism and all others because it can overshadow them all.

Actually, interpreting scripture is always wrong until it is prior to us by nature and we read about it afterwards in the bible.

[Roland]

I always figured that the concept of hell came to Judaism through Zoroastrianism when the Persians overthrew the Babylonians and liberated the exiled Jews.

Maybe I'm wrong.

[Dave Roberts]

I always figured that the concept of hell came to Judaism through Zoroastrianism when the Persians overthrew the Babylonians and liberated the exiled Jews.

Quite possibly you are correct sir

http://www.askwhy.co.uk/judaism/0270ZoroastInf.html

The Fate of the Soul
For Zoroaster, Ahura Mazda had revealed a message that was a matter of “life and death�—the fate of the soul after death. It depended on its earthly existence. A person’s every act, word and thought affects the judgement of their soul after death. The sum total of anyone’s thoughts, words and deeds determine the fate of their soul in the other world.

Everyone’s life falls into two parts—its earthly portion and that which is lived after death. At the “Last Judgement�, the record of people in life is judged, but meanwhile many people will have died. This is where the idea of heaven comes in, as a place for the Righteous to tarry until the end of “Time of Long Dominion�. This is the proper belief of Christianity, but they have abandoned it for a spiritualism, so simplistic and popular that ministers and priests dare not correct it. The lot assigned to anyone after death is the result and consequence of their life upon earth. Works on earth are strictly reckoned in heaven by Mithra, assisted by the spirit of justice. All the thoughts, words and deeds of each are entered in the book of life as credits—all the evil thoughts, words and deeds, as debts. After death the soul arrives at the Cinvato peretu, or accountant’s bridge, over which lies the way to heaven. Here the statement of his life account is made out. The souls of people were judged on their deeds in life and divided into three categories. If they has a balance of good works in their favour, they were righteous and passed forthwith into paradise and the blessed life. If their evil works outweighed their good, they have chosen the Lie and were cast into the Abyss of torment and woe, falling under the power of Evil, where “the pains of hell are his portion for ever�. Should the evil and the good be equally balanced, the soul passed into an intermediary stage of existence, a type of pugatory, and its final lot is not decided until the last judgement.

The course of inexorable law cannot be turned aside by any sacrifice or offering, nor yet even by the free grace of God. Ahuramazda had appointed these rules out of his grace to humankind but he was not subject to whims and fancies so would not bend to entreaties of any kind. Zoroaster made no allowance for repentance and remission of sins, though Zoroasatrian churches now do, perhaps influenced by Christianity. An evil deed could never be struck out by any means, repentence, indulgences, prayer or god’s fancy. Wicked actions cannot be undone, but an evil deed in the heavenly account can be atoned for by a surplus of good deeds. Once evil was done, it was entered into the Book of Life and the best that the evildoer could then do in life was to try to balance it out with sufficient good work to merit a favourable judgement.

In several places in the Avesta but notably Vendidad 19:27ff, Ahura Mazda answers Zarathustra’s question about the fate of the soul after death. While the demons responsible for putrefaction attack the dead body, for three days and nights the soul lingers, one each for Good Deeds, Good Words and Good Thoughts, and on the dawn of the fourth day, when Mithras appears on the mountains as the sun rises, it departs.

Zoroastrians had no reactionary idea of original sin. The Wise Lord would reward the good act, speech and thought, and punish the bad—people were judged in heaven for their works on earth. Mithras was the heavenly judge, a role that later Christ assumed. Everyone’s works and deeds were entered in a Book of Life as a balance sheet of credits and debits upon which the judge would pass his judgement.

The dead soul journeyed to the bridge to heaven where the book was opened. The honest and the deceitful have both to be assessed at the account-keeper’s bridge where their deeds are measured. Each person meets his actions in life (Daena) in the form of a fifteen year old girl who is more beautiful or ugly depending on the balance of the person’s good and bad deeds, though this girl is merely an illumination in Vendidad 19:27. The girl is likely to be the origin of the houris of the Moslem paradise.

The account-keeper’s bridge has many paths across, some being broad and some as narrow as a razor’s edge. The truthful souls take the broad routes and the lying souls have to try to balance their way across on the narrow routes. The truthful are therefore able to cross into heaven easily but the false find it impossible to cross and fall into the Abyss. The concept of the bridge will be based on the rainbow, seen as a bridge to heaven, and appears in Islam as the Arch of Al-Sirat.

The souls of ones with a positive balance walked across into paradise, first the heaven of good thoughts, good words and good deeds and then to the final destiny, the House of Songs, the home of Ahura Mazda—paradise. Those with a negative balance fell into the chasm or Abyss to suffer the pains of hell—not eternal torture in flames but, in the later tradition, 9000 years of intense loneliness in the frozen northern wastes. The mistaken idea of eternal burning comes from the fate of the wicked world at the End of Time when the Last Judgement occurred.

No bad thoughts, words, and deeds, are ever forgiven. Everyone is free to choose between Truth and Lies, between Good and Bad, but the choice has grave consequences. There is no relief from this by intercession, prayer, incantations, magic formulae, belief in any favoured doctrine or being born into any particular ethnic grouping. God has laid out His rules and they shall apply to all dead souls without favour.

Humanity does not have this knowlege and is too easily ensnared by the evil powers. People cannot distinguish between truth and lies, and so Ahuramazda in his grace sent a prophet to lead them by the right way, the way of salvation. Zoroaster was fit for the mission, and felt within him, the call of Ahuramazda. In calling him, Ahuramazda was making a last appeal to humanity before The End. Like John the Baptist, Jesus and his apostles, Zoroaster thought the fulness of time was near, that the kingdom of heaven was at hand. He often spoke directly with God and His archangels. Zoroaster called himself a prophet (manthran), a priest, and a saviour (saoshyant, the helper of those come to be judged by their deeds).

The Gathas say little regarding ritual practices of Zoroastrian doctrine. The Gathas are essentially eschatological—revelations concerning the last things, future lot whether bliss or woe, concerning human souls, promises for true believers, threats for misbelievers, and confidence that the future will be triumph of the good.

[LSHAFC2004]

Maybe it doesnt exist. But if it did, the contracdictions in 2 Peter of total blackness and the gospels portrayel are flame or ridculous. Which one is right? and Hel inside the Earth? That really seems a bit to much. :)

[johntheapostate]

But don't go to the Epistles for support because they were written for the believers to reinforce their faith.

Just start comparing mythologies and see if they tell the same story. A good argument here is that voodoo fits into Catholicism, so does Zen Buddhism and all others because it can overshadow them all.

Actually, interpreting scripture is always wrong until it is prior to us by nature and we read about it afterwards in the bible.


In much the same way that you take liberties in interpreting scripture to fit a presupposed belief, Paul also felt he was authorized to contort Hebrew scriptures to fit his beliefs.

I don't know you well enough to say that you believe your creative interpretation is correct to the exclusion of all others, but Paul did seem to hold this belief.

Here is a post from the Calvinism thread that illuminate the nature of Paul's creative interpretation and what resulted from that.

Not everything in this post may apply to this thread, but here it is.

Paul was militantly insistent that his was the only correct interpretation of scripture and he condemned anyone who disagreed with him. The fundamentalist attitude that there interpretation is the only valid path to salvation is a direct reflection of Paul

1 Corinthians 15:1-2 " Now brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you have received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved , if you hold firmly to the word I preached you. Otherwise you have believed in vain.

2 Corinthians 11:3-4 " But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough."

2 Corinthians 11:13-15 " For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising then , if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. There end will be what there actions deserve." ( I am almost certain that these false apostles were representatives of the Jewish church sent to correct the incorrect teachings of Paul. So while Paul demonises those sent from the mother church for trying to impose an orthidox practice of belief, he considerer's himself righteous for perverting them in the first place)

Galatians 1:6-9 " I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ,and turning to a different gospel, which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said , so now I say it again. If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! " ( Again I am almost certain that these false teachers where direct representatives of the Jerusalem church)


In my opinion I am perfectly justified in holding Paul as accountable to a literal interpretation of Hebrew scripture as he insists his gospel must be.

Having said that may I direct your attention to Galatians 3:16 " The promise was spoken to Abraham and his seed. The scripture does not say, and to seeds, meaning many people, But to seed meaning one person, who is Christ."

On Paul's interpretation of one word rests the justification for erasing thousands of years of Jewish history. The covenant promises the law everything. With his interpretation of the word seed Paul transfers everything promised to the Jews to the Christians On this interpretation rests the justification for all the persecutions inflicted on the Jews by Christians.

Lets see if Paul is justified in completely altering the course of history on his interpretation of one word

Lets consult my NIV study Bible. Oh, my Bible has translated seed in the pertinent passages as descendent's. How can this be. Ah on further study it appears that the word seed in the original language of the Hebrew texts can be interpreted in the plural as well as the singular, coincidentally the same way that it can be used in the English language. How odd that Paul, a Jew did not know this.

As I have the KJV as well, I will see how it has interpreted the passages.

Genesis 17:6-10" And I will make thee exceeding fruitfull, and I will make nations of thee, and kings will come out of thee. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in THEIR GENERATIONS for an EVERLASTING covenant to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee and to thy seed after thee the land wherin thou art a stranger all the land of Canaan for an EVERLASTING possession and I will be THEIR God. And God said unto Abraham. Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou and thy seed after thee in THEIR generations. This is my covenant which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee. EVERY man child among you shall be circumcised."

And to show that although Abraham would be the father of many nations God was only going to extend his special covenant to the Israelites.

Genesis 17:19 " And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed, and thou shalt call his name Isaac, and I will establish my covenant with him for an EVERLASTING covenant and with his seed after him"

After Abraham had proved willing to sacrifice Isaac, God had these words for him.

Genesis 22:16-17 "By myself have I sworn saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son. That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and the sand which is seashore, and thy seed shall possess "the gate of his enemies."

Why does god say Isaac is Abraham's only son when we know that Ishmael was also Abraham's biological child?


" the gate of HIS enemies" On this one word "his" rests the justification for Paul's entire doctrine for seed meaning one and not many. But according to many Christians we are not to base an interpretation of doctrine on the basis of one verse, never mind the interpretation of one ambiguous word. Yet it is exactly such interpretations of Hebrew scriptures on which rests the validity of Christianity. My NIV, which in my opinion has its faults but still shows more integrity when interpreting Hebrew scripture has interpreted the passage this way.

Genesis 22:17 " your descendants will take possession of the cities of there enemies"

There are many more verses showing that seed was plural rather than singular but I think that I have illustrated my point.

As a matter of fact, Paul was actually well aware of the plural nature of the word seed. Romans 4:18 " Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be"

In both Galatians and Romans Paul is writing about the same passages of scripture. When it suited him to exclude the Jews he insisted that seed was singular, when it suited him to include all the Gentiles he insisted that seed was plural.

Its just another case of someone twisting scripture to reflect his own opinion.

[LSHAFC2004]

Whos Paul? :confused:

[johntheapostate]

Whos Paul? :confused:


Paul wrote the Epistles in the New Testament. He brought Christianity to the Gentiles and was often vehemently opposed to the Jewish leadership of the Jesus cult in Jerusalem. As only the Gentile branch of Christianity survived, Paul is in many ways the real founder of modern Christianity.

[Chili]

In much the same way that you take liberties in interpreting scripture to fit a presupposed belief, Paul also felt he was authorized to contort Hebrew scriptures to fit his beliefs.

I don't know you well enough to say that you believe your creative interpretation is correct to the exclusion of all others, but Paul did seem to hold this belief.

Here is a post from the Calvinism thread that illuminate the nature of Paul's creative interpretation and what resulted from that.

Not everything in this post may apply to this thread, but here it is.

Oh but Paul has the freedom to do what he wants when he starts a new religion as long as he leaves the old religion behind and builts a new one that returns to its Genesis when believers come full circle in the new religion . . . as they surely would if it was inspired by Peter.

The passages you cited were his caution against false prophets that were prevalent in those days and were given free reign again after the Reformation.


2 Corinthians 11:13-15 " For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising then , if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. There end will be what there actions deserve." ( I am almost certain that these false apostles were representatives of the Jewish church sent to correct the incorrect teachings of Paul. So while Paul demonises those sent from the mother church for trying to impose an orthidox practice of belief, he considerer's himself righteous for perverting them in the first place)

But they were servants of the angel of light and Paul was correct in demonising them. They were the wolves in sheep's clothing that promoted the Jesus movement. Paul wanted Catholics to be Catholic and wanted to protect his flock from these marauding wolves that tried to bring a false Gospel to them.

Galatians 1:6-9 " I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ,and turning to a different gospel, which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said , so now I say it again. If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! " ( Again I am almost certain that these false teachers where direct representatives of the Jerusalem church)

So here we go. This new gospel promised freedom in Christ and circumcision in the law which is a contradiction in itself for in the Gospel of Paul it was for liberty that Christ freed us and therefore Paul urged the true believer not to take on the yoke of slavery a second time. Go to Gal.5:1-4 and read "It was for liberty that Christ freed us. So stand firm and do not take on yourselves the yoke of slavery a second time! Pay close attention to me, Paul, when I tell you that if you have yourself circumcised, Christ will be of no use to you! I point out once more that all who receive circumcision that they are bound by the law in its entirety. Any of you who seek your justification in the law have severed yourself from Christ and fallen from Gods favor."

Yes, it is a fine line between these two gospels but the difference between these two is enormous and is the difference between heaven and hell.


On Paul's interpretation of one word rests the justification for erasing thousands of years of Jewish history. The covenant promises the law everything. With his interpretation of the word seed Paul transfers everything promised to the Jews to the Christians On this interpretation rests the justification for all the persecutions inflicted on the Jews by Christians.

Yes, seed in the singular paved the way for Catholicism as a new religion and that erased thousand of years of history from its past but does not include the persecution of Jews since the past was erased. Where and when things go wrong is when the Gospel of Christ is perverted by those who read the scriptures with curious eyes and think that they have freedom in Christ while they remain yoked to the law that convicts them of sin. These were the "saves sinners" of those days, they are those the Church has fought against since its beginning, and have found full freedom again to pervert the Gospel of Christ after the Reformation.

[Chili]

Paul wrote the Epistles in the New Testament. He brought Christianity to the Gentiles and was often vehemently opposed to the Jewish leadership of the Jesus cult in Jerusalem. As only the Gentile branch of Christianity survived, Paul is in many ways the real founder of modern Christianity.

Perhaps, but I object to your use of the word "Christianity" because that was the enemy Paul fought against under Jewish leadership. Catholicism is what Paul had in mind and Catholics are not Christian in the strict definition of the word Christian.

The fundamentalism of Paul was directed towards the tradition and stream of consciousness to be entrenched in the mind of the believer 'out of' and 'against which' the believer must be liberated as Catholic-now-become-Christian (salvation by faith only). This would be the same as Jesus was a Jew and became Christian when Judaism annihilated him.

Let me point out that the Jesus cult is still the enemy of the fullness of salvation.

[johntheapostate]

I am going to take a little time to respond to your post because I have some other business to take care of.


Please don't take this personally. But I have some experience when it comes to bipolar disorder and your posts seem to have the signature of someone on a manic high.

[Chili]

Please don't take this personally.

Fear not john. So now you are telling me that in a world of opposites manic highs do exist to counter manic lows? Interesting. Either way, I am not part of the argument and neither high or low.

[johntheapostate]

Oh but Paul has the freedom to do what he wants when he starts a new religion as long as he leaves the old religion behind and builts a new one that returns to its Genesis when believers come full circle in the new religion . . . as they surely would if it was inspired by Peter.

Who gave Paul the right to create a new religion, especially one that contrary to your opinion is little more than a perversion of Judaism created by the willfull highjacking of Hebrew scripture. I am a little confused by your reference to Peter. Is it not a little ironic that the Protostant tradition also insists they are only bring Christianity back to a pure form of belief, one they believe Catholisism has deviated from.


The passages you cited were his caution against false prophets that were prevalent in those days and were given free reign again after the Reformation.

I believe these prophets were none other than representatives of the mother church in Jerusalem sent to correct belief and practice that had deviated under the direction of Paul. The Jerusalem church could claim eye witness testimony to the teachings of Jesus, while Paul had little more than a vision, which may have been a product of a psychological condition.


But they were servants of the angel of light and Paul was correct in demonising them. They were the wolves in sheep's clothing that promoted the Jesus movement. Paul wanted Catholics to be Catholic and wanted to protect his flock from these marauding wolves that tried to bring a false Gospel to them.

Again in my opinion they were representatives of the Jerusalem movement who represented the values they believed had been formulated by Jesus.


So here we go. This new gospel promised freedom in Christ and circumcision in the law which is a contradiction in itself for in the Gospel of Paul it was for liberty that Christ freed us and therefore Paul urged the true believer not to take on the yoke of slavery a second time. Go to Gal.5:1-4 and read "It was for liberty that Christ freed us. So stand firm and do not take on yourselves the yoke of slavery a second time! Pay close attention to me, Paul, when I tell you that if you have yourself circumcised, Christ will be of no use to you! I point out once more that all who receive circumcision that they are bound by the law in its entirety. Any of you who seek your justification in the law have severed yourself from Christ and fallen from Gods favor."

Yes, it is a fine line between these two gospels but the difference between these two is enormous and is the difference between heaven and hell.


But the Hebrew scriptures to the greatest degree hold a positive view of the law and there is really no provision for them to be annulled. In fact they were said to be everlasting.

Here we have Gods promise to Abraham and his words regarding the circumcision that Paul so vehemently hated.

Genesis 17:7" I will establish my covenant as an EVERLASTING covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for ALL the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an EVERLASTING possession to you and your descendants after you, and I will be their God. Then God said to Abraham, As for you, you must keep my covenant you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep, Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision and it will be a sign of the covenant between me and you. For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with your money must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an EVERLASTING covenant. Any uncircumcised male who has not been circumcised in the flesh will be cut off from his people, he has broken my covenant."

This is the one of the promises to Abraham that Paul is so fond of using in the defense of his doctrine. He asserts that these promises supersede any covenant that included the law. And yet Paul insists that circumcision is worse than useless when God in his promise to Abraham mentions it six times and in the strongest language insists it is to be an everlasting tradition.


So much for the integrity of Paul's interpretation.


Yes seed in the singular paved the way for Catholicism as a new religion and that erased thousand of years of history from its past but does not include the persecution of Jews since the past was erased. Where and when things go wrong is when the Gospel of Christ is perverted by those who read the scriptures with curious eyes and think that they have freedom in Christ while they remain yoked to the law that convicts them of sin. These were the "saves sinners" of those days, they are those the Church has fought against since its beginning, and have found full freedom again to pervert the Gospel of Christ after the Reformation.

I believe I have shown that Paul was deliberately perverting the meaning of seed in his letter to the Galatians and therefor any new religion whose justification lies in this false premise is also a perversion.

Therefor the perversion of your brand of Christianity is a perversion of the perversion of Judaism which in my opinion is also the product of a long history of perversion.

So much for religious belief.

[Chili]

Who gave Paul the right to create a new religion, especially one that contrary to your opinion is little more than a perversion of Judaism created by the willfull highjacking of Hebrew scripture. I am a little confused by your reference to Peter.

But it is an improvement of Judaism and a New Testament came into force.

It wasn't Paul's idea but it was Christ's idea and he was a Jew or at least from the Jewish tradition. Paul just testified on behalf of the living God that Christ promised. In other words, Paul was another Christ and spoke from real life experience.

My reference to Peter is to show that inspiration is to be the rock of salvation and not second hand bible passages (Jn.5:39-40). This promise was first made by Jesus when Peter recognized Jesus as the messiah in Matthew 16:18. This same Peter was defrocked when all doubt was removed prior to the ascension of Jesus now fully Christ, and that left him stranded naked on their next fishing trip when they could catch nothing all night. The message here is that there was no rational faith left in Peter who was subsequently told to cast his nets on the other side of the boat (this is the right side of his mind) where the fish were large, plentiful, and easy to catch. Upon seeing this Peter put on his cloak of faith and dove headfirst into the celestial sea to built this new Church.

Paul comes next as the evidence of this truth.

I believe these prophets were none other than representatives of the mother church in Jerusalem sent to correct belief and practice that had deviated under the direction of Paul. The Jerusalem church could claim eye witness testimony to the teachings of Jesus, while Paul had little more than a vision, which may have been a product of a psychological condition.

It happened to Paul also. Paul was another Christ or the first or second Christian, shall we say and thus Paul knew the archetype itself . . . which is much better than a third person perspective.

The whole point here is that the historic Jesus is like water under the bridge.

In those days psychology was shunned as bad science or good science by bad people. The name of their game was philosophy.

But the Hebrew scriptures to the greatest degree hold a positive view of the law and there is really no provision for them to be annulled. In fact they were said to be everlasting.

For the Jews they were as long as they were Jew.

This is the one of the promises to Abraham that Paul is so fond of using in the defense of his doctrine. He asserts that these promises supersede any covenant that included the law. And yet Paul insists that circumcision is worse than useless when God in his promise to Abraham mentions it six times and in the strongest language insists it is to be an everlasting tradition.

The laws were for the conviction of sin and therefore the Laws are good as a instrument towards salvation. When salvation comes about the purpose of the Law will have been fulfilled and the Laws become redundant to the Christ(ian) who henceforth is censored by natural law (a broken reed he shall not crush).

One must see religion as a means to the end and not an end in itself . . . but only when salvation comes our way. A qualifier is needed here since there are two kinds of salvation. One is by God and the other is by carnal desire which is the false Gospel that brings the angel of light into our midst (read minds)instead of the true light that Paul preached about (see Jn.1:13 for this).

Therefor the perversion of your brand of Christianity is a perversion of the perversion of Judaism which in my opinion is also the product of a long history of perversion.

So much for religious belief.

But my brand is not Christianity but Catholicism and there is a difference since I hold that Catholics are not Christians. From there I claim that the condition of being called Christian is to have heaven on earth wherefore there are no churches in the New Jerusalem -- or there could not be freedom in Christ from the bondage of slavery and sin. In fact, it is absurd to even think that Christianity can be a religion at all.

[johntheapostate]

But it is an improvement of Judaism and a New Testament came into force.

It wasn't Paul's idea but it was Christ's idea and he was a Jew or at least from the Jewish tradition. Paul just testified on behalf of the living God that Christ promised. In other words, Paul was another Christ and spoke from real life experience.

The Protestant tradition holds that it is an improvement on Catholicism, but you would deny the validity of that.

I suppose Jesus was authorized to alter the meaning and structure of Hebrew text because he was divine.

I would like to examine one of the passages that hint at Jesus's divinity.

John 10:31-38

"Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said I have shown you many miracles from the Father, For which of them do you stone me"

Not bad for someone who said no sign would be given.

"We are not stoning you for any of these, replied the Jews, but for blasphemy ,because you a mere man claim to be god"

It is interesting to note that Jesus does not make an outright denial of their accusation. Instead he uses a pathetic appeal to scripture to support his claim that he has a special relationship with god

"Jesus answered them, is it not written in your Law "I have said you are gods"? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came and the Scripture can not be broken- what about the one whom the Father has set apart as his very own"

Here Jesus appeals to the scripture as a measure of absolute truth and he insists that because in Psalms (not the Law) there is a statement "I have said you are gods" We must not be so rigid in our concept of one god.

I would like to make the assertion that scriptures also say, and they cant be broken " there is no god"

Psalm 14:1 according to the technique employed by Jesus
" There is no God "

Psalm 14:1 according to a technique that employs context
" The fool says in his heart,
"There is no God" "

Here is some verses from Psalm 82

Psalm 82:1 " God presides in the great assembly, he gives judgment among the gods"

Without context one could come to the conclusion that according to there own scripture the Jews were being to ridged in there interpretation of monotheism, but the context is given in the rest of the Psalm.

After berating and demeaning the gods God utters this statement which includes the statement that Jesus used in his appeal to scripture"

Psalm 82:6-7 " I said, You are gods, you are all sons of the Most High. But you will die like mere men, you will fall like every other ruler"

If one is to view Jesus statement with even only the immediate context included one must come to the conclusion that he deliberately misquoted scripture to deceive people or he was such a dolt that he was unable to comprehend the plain meaning of passages and used them to inflate his concept of himself.

It is plain to see that this Psalm is one denouncing the kings and rulers of the world for there unjust behavior hence the statement "you will die like mere men"

It is probable that at the time of the writing of the Psalm it was not unusual to refer to a king as a son of god or son of the most high. In light of the preponderance of Hebrew scripture indicating the singular nature of god, to invalidate the claim by Jews that god is one, on the testimony of a few words taken out of context is preposterous.


It is most probable that Christianity has read much more into the title "son of god" than can be legitimized by the Hebrew scripture.

Perhaps if hell actually exists, they will suffer the fate of the worst sort of idolater.

At any rate I myself don't have a high regard for the scholarship of Jesus's interpretation of scripture and if one is to hang ones belief in his divinity on this and other equally weak proof-texts it indicates an ignorance of scripture rather than some profound understanding

The fact of the matter remains Jesus did not have any divine authority to mold Judaism into some new and fantastic form.

[Atheos]

I'm beginning to believe that Hell was a late addition to the tradition of the Judaeo-Christian god myth, borrowed from Babylonian and possibly Greek traditions.

-Atheos

[Chili]

The Protestant tradition holds that it is an improvement on Catholicism, but you would deny the validity of that.

I would even spell it with a small p :)

I suppose Jesus was authorized to alter the meaning and structure of Hebrew text because he was divine.

To be honest about it, an improvement was needed because it doesn't sound right to spend 40 years in the desert and still die despite all the passages they got from Moses. Go to John 6 and read all about it but that is why an improvement was needed . . . which in turn was why Paul had to protect his followers from the Jewish wild-fires with their second hand gospel.

Next, go to Revelation 13 where the first beast came out of the [celestial] sea while the second beast came out of the [old] earth. These two beasts show the difference between rebirth from God and carnal desire as per Jn.1:13. Notice that the first beast spend 42 months in purgatory which is between rebirth and ascension to make heaven a place on earth for those who are chosen and have a special relationship with the father as in "my father" in John.

The second beast will be the Jesus worshiper that Paul was fighting against and who Jesus condemned as part of the great assembly of your Psalm 82:6-7 " I said, You are gods, you are all sons of the Most High. But you will die like mere men, you will fall like every other ruler."

Notice that both beasts spent, at least some time, in this assembly of the Most High but that not all were chosen after they were called, and thus those who were called but not chosen will spend the rest of their days wandering as if in the wilderness and will die nonetheless. This is where puragatory becomes hell on earth if those who were chosen only spend [about] 42 moths there and become resident of heaven after that (until they die their physical second death).

I actually see the gospels as the time where the son of man must provoke the religious leaders of the day to isolate the religious identity that gave birth to the son of man and 'eat it' like it was the placenta of the Jew that gave birth to the son of man. In other words, to be 'set free' from religion is not the same as 'walking away' from religion. Moreover, the tension must escalate because Jesus needs the Jews to convict him (the old ego identity) after it has been emptied from both his own world and his Jewish heritage.

Does that make his sholarship better?