[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Religion See other Religion Articles Title: Jesus' Teaching on Hell Most of what we believe about hell comes from Catholicism and ignorance of the Old Testament, not from the Bible. This study will cause you to re-examine current teaching on hell and urge you to further study on what happens to the wicked after death. "Don't you know that hell is just something the Catholic Church invented to scare people into obedience?" I was righteously indignant when, a number of years ago, a caller uttered these words on a call-in radio show I was conducting. Perturbed by his haphazard use of Scripture, I pointed out to him and the audience, that hell couldn't possibly be something invented by Catholic theologians because Jesus talked about it. I forcefully read some of the passages where Jesus did, and concluded that hell couldn't possibly be the invention of an apostate church. I now believe that hell is the invention of Roman Catholicism; and surprisingly, most, if not all, of our popular concepts of hell can be found in the writings of Roman Catholic writers like the Italian poet Dante Alighieri (1265-1321), author of Dante's Inferno. The English poet John Milton (1608-1674), author of Paradise Lost, set forth the same concepts in a fashion highly acceptable to the Roman Catholic faith. Yet none of our concepts of hell can be found in the teaching of Jesus Christ! We get indignant at the mention of purgatory-we know that's not in the Bible. We may also find that our popular concepts of hell came from the same place that purgatory did-Roman Catholicism. The purpose of this study is to briefly analyze Jesus' teaching on hell (more correctly Gehenna, the Greek word for which hell is given), to see whether these popular concepts are grounded therein. A Plea for Open-Mindedness as We Begin If we strive for open-mindedness and truly want to know what the Bible teaches, the following quotation will help us in our search: We do not start our Christian lives by working out our faith for ourselves; it is mediated to us by Christian tradition, in the form of sermons, books and established patterns of church life and fellowship. We read our Bibles in the light of what we have learned from these sources; we approach Scripture with minds already formed by the mass of accepted opinions and viewpoints with which we have come into contact, in both the Church and the world.…It is easy to be unaware that it has happened; it is hard even to begin to realize how profoundly tradition in this sense has moulded us. But we are forbidden to become enslaved to human tradition, either secular or Christian, whether it be “catholic” tradition, or “critical” tradition, or “ecumenical” tradition. We may never assume the complete rightness of our own established ways of thought and practice and excuse ourselves the duty of testing and reforming them by Scriptures. (J. I. Packer, “Fundamentalism” and the Word of God [Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1958], pp. 69-70.) Of course, Packer just reminds us of Biblical injunctions to test everything proposed for our belief. For example, in II Cor. 13.5, Paul told the Corinthians: Try your own selves, whether ye are in the faith; prove your own selves. Likewise, in Eph. 5.8-10, Paul commanded the Ephesian Christians to be involved in such testing: …for ye were once darkness, but are now light in the Lord, walk as children of light…proving what is well-pleasing unto the Lord. In New Testament times, one was only a disciple of Christ when he was willing to examine himself, his beliefs, and everything proposed for his belief as a child of light. Nothing less is required now. Hell vs. Sheol and Hades We first begin by eliminating the problem the King James Version of the Bible introduced to this study by indiscriminately translating four different words in the Bible as hell: sheol, hades, tartarus, and gehenna. Sheol Used of Unseen In the Old Testament, the word for which hell is given in the King James Version is sheol, a word whose root meaning is “unseen.” The King James Version translates sheol as “hell” 31 times, “the grave” 31 times (since someone in the grave is unseen), and “the pit” three times. Yet in the Old Testament sheol was not exclusively a place of punishment, for faithful Jacob was there (Gen. 37.35, 42.38, 44.29, 31). Righteous Job also longed for it in Job 14.13. David spoke of going to sheol in Ps. 49.15 and Jesus went there, Ps. 16.10 and Acts 2.24-31. In all these cases, these men were “unseen” because they were dead. Sheol Used of National Judgments Many times the Bible uses the word sheol of national judgments, i.e., the vanishing of a nation. In Isa. 14.13, 15, Isaiah said Babylon would go to sheol, and she vanished. In Ezek. 26.19-21, Tyre so vanished in sheol. Likewise, in the New Testament, in Mt. 11.23, 12.41, Lk. 10.15, and 11.29-32, Jesus said that Capernaum would so disappear. These nations and cities didn't go to a particular location, but they were going to disappear, and they did. They were destroyed. Thus, sheol is used commonly of national judgments in both the Old and New Testaments. Hades Used of Anything Unseen The New Testament equivalent of sheol is hades, which occurs only eleven times. Like its synonym sheol, the King James Version translates the word “hell.” However, the correct translation is hades, or the unseen. The Bible doesn't use hades exclusively for a place of punishment. Luke 16 pictures righteous Lazarus there. Acts 2.27, 31 says Jesus went there. In I Cor. 15.15, Paul used the same word when he said, “O grave, where is thy victory?” In Rev. 1.18, Jesus said he had the controlling keys of death and hades, the unseen, and in Rev. 6.8, death and hades followed the pale horse. Finally, in Rev. 20.13, 14, death and hades gave up the dead that were in them, and were then cast into the lake of fire. These verses illustrate that hades refers to anything that is unseen. Hades Used of National Judgment Like its companion word in the Old Testament, hades was also plainly used of national judgments in the New Testament. In Mt. 11.23 and Lk. 10.15, Jesus said Capernaum would go down into hades, i.e., it was going to vanish. In Mt. 12.41 and Lk. 11.29-32, Jesus said his generation of Jews was going to fall. About hades in Greek mythology, Edward Fudge said: In Greek mythology Hades was the god of the underworld, then the name of the nether world itself. Charon ferried the souls of the dead across the rivers Styx or Acheron into this abode, where the watchdog Cerberus guarded the gate so none might escape. The pagan myth contained all the elements for medieval eschatology: there was the pleasant Elyusium, the gloomy and miserable Tartarus, and even the Plains of Asphodel, where ghosts could wander who were suited for neither of the above...The word hades came into biblical usage when the Septuagint translators chose it to represent the Hebrew sheol, an Old Testament concept vastly different from the pagan Greek notions just outlined. Sheol, too, received all the dead...but the Old Testament has no specific division there involving either punishment or reward. (Edward William Fudge, The Fire That Consumes [Houston: Providential Press, 1982], p. 205.) We need to make sure that our ideas concerning hades come from the Bible and not Greek mythology. We have no problem using sheol the way the Old Testament used it, or hades, as the New Testament used it. Both refer to the dead who are unseen, and to national judgments. Tartarus Is Also Translated Hell in the King James Version In II Pet. 2.4, we read: For if God spared not angels when they sinned, but cast them down to hell, and committed them to pits of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;... The Greek word translated “pits of darkness” here, the only time it's used in the Bible, is tartarus. Again, the KJV gave us hell for free, there being no reason to translate it so. The passages speak of angels that were being punished when II Peter was written, to show that God knew how to treat disobedience among angels. It says nothing about fire, torment, pain, punishment of anyone else, or that it will last forever. It simply doesn't pertain to our subject. The Popular Concept of Hell Unknown to the Old Testament Before we move to the gospel's teaching on hell, we want to think further concerning that the word gehenna (popularly mistranslated hell, as we'll see) didn't occur in the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint. Let's take a few paragraphs to let the significance of that fact soak in. In previous editions of this material, I merely remarked that prominent Old Testament characters like David and Abraham never heard the term or its equivalent. They were never threatened with eternal torment in hell or heard anything like our popular concept now. However, Gehenna's absence in the Old Testament is a much more serious omission than that. (The concepts in this section are suggested by Thomas B. Thayer in his 1855 Edition of Origin and History of the Doctrine of Endless Punishment.) Before the Mosaic Law Adam and Eve in the Garden When God placed Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, he never mentioned the concept of eternal torment to them. Read for yourself-it's just not there. Don't you think it strange that as human history began on this planet, while God explained which tree they could not eat of, that he didn't give the parents of all mankind some kind of warning about eternal punishment, if there was potential for it to be in their future, and the future of all their posterity? Most of us think eternal torment will engulf the vast majority of mankind, nearly all of Adam and Eve's descendents, yet here's a father, God, who didn't warn his children of the potential of what might befall them. What would you think of a father who told his young child not to ride his bike in the street, and if he did, he would get a spanking. Suppose he also planned to roast him over a roaring fire for fifty years? After he spanked him, would you think him a just father for not warning his child? Can you think of an apology or a defense for him? Yet to Adam and Eve, the father of all mankind failed to mention a much greater punishment than the death they would die the day they ate of the forbidden tree. Was this just a slip of the mind on God's part, to not mention at all the interminable terrible woes that lay ahead for the vast majority of their descendants? No, God announced to them a tangible present punishment the very day they committed the sin: “In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” They found that the wages of sin was death. Cain and Abel The same is true with Cain and Abel, a case of murder of a brother. Surely, we would think that God might roll out the threat of eternal torment that Cain was to receive as a warning to all future generations. In the whole account, there's not a hint, not a single word on the subject. Instead, Cain is told, “And now art thou cursed from the earth...When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.” Again, Cain received an immediate, tangible physical punishment administered, with absolutely no warning of future eternal torment. Like Adam, Cain heard none of the dire warnings preached from pulpits of the fiery wrath of God, tormenting his soul throughout eternity. Now, if Cain were to receive such punishment from God without warning, would God be a just lawgiver and judge to impose additional, infinitely greater punishment with no word of caution whatsoever? In Gen. 4.15, God said, “Therefore, whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him seven-fold.” If, with no warning, Cain was going to receive eternal fiery torment, would those who killed him receive seven times endless fiery torment? I'm not making light of endless torment, I'm just pointing out that it's remarkable that God hadn't said a word about it thus far in the Bible story. Noah and the Flood When we come to Noah and the flood, God noted that “every thought of man's heart was only evil continually,” and that “the earth was filled with violence, and all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.” If not before, wouldn't this be the ideal time to reveal eternal torment ahead for nearly all inhabitants of the earth? If any circumstances warranted such punishment, this would be the time, would it not? However, Noah, “a preacher of righteousness,” didn't threaten endless punishment to evildoers. If warnings of such punishment serve to turn man aside from his evil way, surely this would have been the time to have revealed it, but there's nary a whisper of it. Instead, they were destroyed by the flood, a physical, tangible punishment for their sin, with absolutely no warning of endless torment. Nor was there such a warning when mankind inhabited the earth again after the flood. One word from God might have set the world on an entirely different course. Surprisingly no such word was given. Sodom and Gomorrah We could go on with the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the physical destruction of the cities and their inhabitants, with not even a rumor of endless future torment that we probably think they unknowingly faced. What would we think if our government passed a new law with a huge fine as the punishment, but when a guilty party was found, he paid the fine, but also had to serve endless torment that the citizens had no warning of? What kind of judge explains the law and known penalty, while carefully concealing a much more awful penalty? What would the penalty of a few thousand dollars matter in a case where he was also going to be tormented horribly and endlessly? Yet the popular concept is that the Sodomites were sent into such a judgment. We could go through the accounts of the builders of the tower of Babel, the destruction of Pharoah and his armies, and Lot's wife, yet we would notice the same thing. All these received a temporal physical punishment, with no mention of an infinitely greater torturous punishment awaiting them in the future. Was this teaching delibrately excluded from the record, or did it never belong? We know that it isn't there. Neither the word gehenna nor the concept of endless torment was given in the millennia before the giving of the Law of Moses. From the creation to Mt. Sinai, there was simply no insinuation of it in the entirety of human history up to that time. By the conclusion of this study, we'll see that God never had a plan of inflicting such dreadful torment on the people of his own creation. Under the Mosaic Law Most of us are familiar with the blessings and cursings Moses pronounced upon the Israelites in Deuteronomy 28-30 before they entered the promised land. If the Jews were disobedient to God, he promised them every conceivable punishment: he would curse their children, their crops, their flocks, their health, the health of their children, the welfare of the nation, etc. He foretold that they would even go into captivity, and would have such horrible temporal physical judgments to drive them to eat their own children. Among such an extensive list of punishments that would come upon his disobedient people, God uttered not even a whisper of endless torment upon them in any case of rebellion. All these physical, temporal judgments would take place in this life. We could multiply such cases of temporal punishments for rebellion, corruption, and idolatry under Moses. He spelled them out in minute detail. The writer of Hebrews (in 2.2) said: “...the word spoken through angels (the Mosaic Law) proved stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward...” As we've seen, the punishment was physical and temporal with no promise of endless torment whatsoever. Endless torment was simply unknown under the Law. The question now arises, did every transgressor and disobedient Jew receive just punishment, or not? If they did, will their punishment continue to be just if in the future, they will also receive endless torment in “hell” that they were never told of and knew nothing of? If so, will eternal torment on top of their just physical temporal punishment still be just? It cannot be, can it? How can adding infinite torture in the future that they knew nothing of to a just punishment they received in the past under the Old Testament still be just? In summary, the popular concept of hell is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. The word gehenna is not even contained in the Greek Old Testament, endless torment is nowhere to be found in its pages. Where Did the Concept of Endless Torment Originate? As we've seen, it most certainly did not originate in the Old Testament, either before or during the Mosaic Law. A great deal of evidence (more than we'll give here) suggests that it originated in Egypt, and the concept was widespread in the religious world. Augustine, commenting on the purpose of such doctrines, said: This seems to have been done on no other account, but as it was the business of princes, out of their wisdom and civil prudence, to deceive the people in their religion; princes, under the name of religion, persuaded the people to believe those things true, which they themselves knew to be idle fables; by this means, for their own ease in government, tying them the more closely to civil society. (Augustine, City of God, Book IV, p. 32, cited by Thayer, Origin & History, p. 37.) Contriving doctrines to control people? Who would have believed it? Well, the Greek world did, the Roman world did, and evidently between the testaments, the Jews got involved, as well, as the concept of endless torment began appearing in the apocryphal books written by Egyptian Jews. Thayer wrote further: Polybius, the historian, says: "Since the multitude is ever fickle, full of lawless desires, irrational passions and violence, there is no other way to keep them in order but by the fear and terror of the invisible world; on which account our ancestors seem to me to have acted judiciously, when they contrived to bring into the popular belief these notions of the gods, and of the infernal regions. B. vi 56. Livy, the celebrated historian, speaks of it in the same spirit; and he praises the wisdom of Numa, because he invented the fear of the gods, as "a most efficacious means of governing an ignorant and barbarous populace. Hist., I 19. Strabo, the geographer, says: "The multitude are restrained from vice by the punishments the gods are said to inflict upon offenders, and by those terrors and threatenings which certain dreadful words and monstrous forms imprint upon their minds...For it is impossible to govern the crowd of women, and all the common rabble, by philosophical reasoning, and lead them to piety, holiness and virtue-but this must be done by superstition, or the fear of the gods, by means of fables and wonders; for the thunder, the aegis, the trident, the torches (of the Furies), the dragons, &c., are all fables, as is also all the ancient theology. These things the legislators used as scarecrows to terrify the childish multitude." Geog., B., I Timaeus Locrus, the Pythagorean, after stating that the doctrine of rewards and punishments after death is necessary to society, proceeds as follows: "For as we sometimes cure the body with unwholesome remedies, when such as are most wholesome produce no effect, so we restrain those minds with false relations, which will not be persuaded by the truth. There is a necessity, therefore, of instilling the dread of those foreign torments: as that the soul changes its habitation; that the coward is ignominiously thrust into the body of a woman; the murderer imprisoned within the form of a savage beast; the vain and inconstant changed into birds, and the slothful and ignorant into fishes." Plato, in his commentary on Timaeus, fully endorses what he says respecting the fabulous invention of these foreign torments. And Strabo says that "Plato and the Brahmins of India invented fables concerning the future judgments of hell" (Hades). And Chrysippus blames Plato for attempting to deter men from wrong by frightful stories of future punishments. Plutarch treats the subject in the same way; sometimes arguing for them with great solemnity and earnestness, and on other occasions calling them "fabulous stories, the tales of mothers and nurses." Seneca says: "Those things which make the infernal regions terrible, the darkness, the prison, the river of flaming fire, the judgment seat, &c., are all a fable, with which the poets amuse themselves, and by them agitate us with vain terrors." Sextus Empiricus calls them "poetic fables of hell;" and Cicero speaks of them as "silly absurdities and fables" (ineptiis ac fabulis). Aristotle. "It has been handed down in mythical form from earliest times to posterity, that there are gods, and that the divine (Deity) compasses all nature. All beside this has been added, after the mythical style, for the purpose of persuading the multitude, and for the interests of the laws, and the advantage of the state." Neander's Church Hist., I, p. 7. , (Origin & History, 41-43.) Mosheim, in his legendary Church History, described the permeation among the Jews of these fables during the period between the testaments: Errors of a very pernicious kind, had infested the whole body of the people (the Jews--SGD). There prevailed among them several absurd and superstitious notions concerning the divine nature, invisible powers, magic, &c., which they had partly brought with them from the Babylonian captivity, and partly derived from the Egyptians, Syrians, and Arabians who lived in their neighborhood. The ancestors of those Jews who lived in the time of our Savior had brought from Chaldaea and the neighboring countries many extravagant and idle fancies which were utterly unknown to the original founders of the nation. The conquest of Asia by Alexander the Great was also an event from which we may date a new accession of errors to the Jewish system, since, in consequence of that revolution, the manners and opinions of the Greeks began to spread among the Jews. Beside this, in their voyages to Egypt and Phoenicia, they brought home, not only the wealth of these corrupt and superstitious nations, but also their pernicious errors and idle fables, which were imperceptibly blended with their own religious doctrines. (Mosheim's Church History, century I pt. I chap. ii.) A similar statement is made in an old Encyclopedia Americana, cited by Thayer: The Hebrews received their doctrine of demons from two sources. At the time of the Babylonish captivity, they derived it from the source of the Chaldaic-Persian magic; and afterward, during the Greek supremacy in Egypt, they were in close intercourse with these foreigners, particularly in Alexandria, and added to the magician notions those borrowed from this Egyptic-Grecian source. And this connection and mixture are seen chiefly in the New Testament. It was impossible to prevent the intermingling of Greek speculations. The voice of the prophets was silent. Study and inquiry had commenced. The popular belief and philosophy separated; and even the philosophers divided themselves into several sects, Sadducees, Pharisees, and Essenes; and Platonic and Pythagorean notions, intermingled with Oriental doctrines, had already unfolded the germ of the Hellenistic and cabalistic philosophy. This was the state of things when Christ appeared. (Encyclopedia Americana, art. "Demon, " cited by Thayer (Origin & History, p. 120). Note that Luke wrote in Ac. 7.22 that “Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians,” yet knowing the Egyptian concepts, he gave not a whiff of endless torment in any of his writings. Thus, we see that the concept of endless torment afterlife was not found in the Old Testament. It evidently crept in among some Jews during the period between the testaments. Thayer summarizes the intertestamental period on this subject in the following words: The truth is, that in the four hundred years of their intercourse with the heathen, during which they were without any divine teacher of message, Pagan philosophy and superstition had, so far as regarded the future state, completely pushed aside the Law of Moses and the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and set up in place of them their own extavagant inventions and fables respecting the invisible world. (Ibid., p. 53) If you have further interest, there is a lot more information at the site. A LOT more information. This is more complete that what I have posted before, but is basically the same information; hell is a pagan concept grafted onto Christianity. It ia a big part of the aposty of Christianity, along with the immortal soul, trinity, purgatory, 'going to heaven,' and the like. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 23.
#8. To: richard9151 (#0)
Oh dear. Where to start... How about the concept of Purgatory? Its a logical requirement. Nothing unclean can enter heaven - sin makes one unclean - believers are promised eternal life. How do you reconcile it? Logically, to make it all fit, the "stain" must be removed. Thus, purgatory is a cleansing process. As for Hell, these guys really need to read the Lost Gospels - and I mean the books that didn't make it into the Bible. The Apocalypse of Peter would be a good place to start. 2nd Century. That'll tell you where 'fire and brimstone' really came from. Way too many people are totally ignorant of their own religion and where things came from. Catholic Church? Bah, the 'fire and brimstone' vision of Hell predates the formalizing of Biblical canon.
No such thing.
No such thing. Once again we see one little example of why the whole Christianity thing is complete bullshit. Catholics say there is a Purgatory and Protestants says there isn't. Catholics have hundreds, if not thousands of books written on the biblical justification for Purgatory, such as Mt 5:48, Heb 12:14, James 3:2, Rev 21:27, 1 Jn 5:16-17, James 1:14-15, 2 Sam 12:13-14, Mt 5:26, Mt 12:32, Mt 12:36, 2 Mace 12:44-46, 1 Cor 3:15, 1 Pet 3:18-20; 4:6, 2 Tim 1L16-18, 1 Cor 15:29-30, while Prostestants reject these same passages and have hundreds, if not thousands of books claiming these same passages do not mean what the Catholics say they mean, but mean something else completely. I won't bother to list the passages protestants use to prove Purgatory is wrong because with Protestants, it not only depends on what denomination you're speaking about, but also the particular person you are speaking with. While Catholics have a biblical doctrine, individual Protestants, regardless of denomination, can warp the Bible to mean literally anything they want it to mean, therefore it's not as easy to pin down. So who is correct? No one knows. The Catholics can't prove they are right and the Protestants can't prove they are right. Yet both sides try to make everyone else believe that if they don't follow their brand of lunacy then they are going to rot in hell. Actually, "both sides" is not the correct term because there are literally more than 37000 denominations of "Christianity." The chances of getting the correct 1 of 37000+ denominations is pretty small so why bother? You can either live like a hedonist and have a great time on earth so that you can burn in hell forever after you die, or you can live a pious life on earth following the precepts of your denomination only to be told, "oops, wrong choice" and be rewarded with the same eternal damnation as the hedonist, your whole life a waste. So the all-knowing God so loved the world that he will happily torment the inhabitants of that world for eternity for the crime of not picking the correct denomination. For the different sides in this fight to be correct, God would have to be like the demonic neighbor kid on Toy Story who liked to burn ants with a magnifying glass, torture animals and blow up his toys with firecrackers. I don't believe any of this garbage and laugh at you that spend so much time arguing back and forth over it. What's even funnier is that everyone of you argue as if you have some type of authority; as if you speak on behalf of God. LOL! Yet all you have is your opinions. You have no more authority than the person you are arguing with! LOL! To us spectators, its like watching the dumbasses on TV arguing about, "Tastes Great, Less Filling!" LOL!
You're arguing about the various religious practices and beliefs, created by MAN. And, whenever you have any group of men together, you will never find 100% agreement on anything. As far as Christianity, itself, if the religions of the world which claim to be Christian, actually followed what is in the Holy Scriptures, rather than religious dogma and human created traditions, you would see agreements rise and divisions reduced. Finally, since the Holy Scriptures (the books found in the King James Version, for example, as opposed to the "Jehovah Witnesses' Bible" or the "Catholic Bible")....not one book was ever originally written in English, so there have been arguments since their translation from Aramaic, Latin, Greek, etc., as to the most proper or exact meaning, as the translators were not only dealing with translation of just the words, but the context in which particular words would make the most sense in English (and English culture and understanding).
I'm not arguing about anything. I'm making a point about those that are arguing. As far as Christianity, itself, if the religions of the world which claim to be Christian, actually followed what is in the Holy Scriptures, rather than religious dogma and human created traditions, you would see agreements rise and divisions reduced. And if you asked an average pious, pro-war Southern Baptist and an average anti- war Quaker, each would swear upon their Bible that they are following the "Holy Scripture." Finally, since the Holy Scriptures (the books found in the King James Version, for example, as opposed to the "Jehovah Witnesses' Bible" or the "Catholic Bible")... OK, so yo are obviously a Protestant of some sort. not one book was ever originally written in English, so there have been arguments since their translation from Aramaic, Latin, Greek, etc., as to the most proper or exact meaning, as the translators were not only dealing with translation of just the words, but the context in which particular words would make the most sense in English (and English culture and understanding). Well then I guess the Orthodox must be the "one true" denomination then because they've used the Greek Septuaint since the very beginning of their creation and have never had to worry about English translations.
Yes...these arguments come from religious traditions and dogma, not what is actually found in the Bible. Those traditions and dogmas were manufactured by men, not God. And if you asked an average pious, pro-war Southern Baptist and an average anti- war Quaker, each would swear upon their Bible that they are following the "Holy Scripture." Actually, both of those religions read from the same scriptures, but they have espoused different dogmas...based upon their religious practices and traditions. Finally, since the Holy Scriptures (the books found in the King James Version, for example, as opposed to the "Jehovah Witnesses' Bible" or the "Catholic Bible")... OK, so yo are obviously a Protestant of some sort. Jehovah Witnesses have severely changed the text of the original Scriptures, as have the Catholics, which have included books not found in the King James Version (or the New American Standard, or the Amplified, or the Ryrie Study Bible, or the New International Version, etc., etc., etc.). The books found to be added into the Catholic Bible promote the Catholic "version" of Christianity; the severe alterations found in the Jehovah's Witness bible promote the Jehovah Witnesses' version of Christianity...that being Christ is not God, for example. Well then I guess the Orthodox must be the "one true" denomination then because they've used the Greek Septuaint since the very beginning of their creation and have never had to worry about English translations. My point was that virtually no English speaker can read, for themselves, text not in English. Therefore, a translation was necessary. But that there is dispute concerning the translation of the Holy Scriptures is not the fault of God, nor does it make the Holy Scriptures faulty, rather, it is the fault of the many men who translated. "Fault" here is not to condemn them, just to point out their ability is limited to the text and their own understandings, as well as their own cultural backgrounds, but this is no way means the Holy Scripture itself is defective.
But of course, your particular brand of Christianity does not have this problem right? ...as have the Catholics, which have included books not found in the King James Version (or the New American Standard, or the Amplified, or the Ryrie Study Bible, or the New International Version, etc., etc., etc.). The books found to be added into the Catholic Bible promote the Catholic "version" of Christianity; the severe alterations found in the Jehovah's Witness bible promote the Jehovah Witnesses' version of Christianity...that being Christ is not God, for example. That is a very distorted twist on history. Don't mistake my opinions about Christianity to mean that I am ignorant about Christianity. The early church used the Septuagint old testament and translated it from that document into Syriac, Coptic, Ge'ez and Latin. In AD 382, at the Council of Rome, "St." Jerome translated the original Greek and Hebrew texts into Latin and produced the Vulgate. This was used in the western Latin speaking countries, while in the eastern, Greek speaking countries, the Septuagint continued to be used. Both the Septuagint and the Vulgate contain the books you claim were added by Catholics to promote "their version" of Christianty. This is quite unlikly though because at the time of the the early church, they were being persecuted by the Roman Empire and had more important things to worry about (like staying alive) than promoting "their version" of Christianity. On top of that, there was only one church then, not 37000+. Also, the Greek Septuagint was written in the 3rd to 2nd centuries BC, while the Masoretic Text, which is what the KJV OT was translated from, was not written until between the 7th-10th centuries AD. Last but not least, the KJV was not published until 1611. The Catholics and Orthodox had been using their bible more than a millenia before Protestantism was invented by Luther. It was the writers of the KJV who changed the Bible, not the Catholics oir the Orthodox. So it's not that the Catholics added anything to promote "their version" of Christianty, it's that Protestants left out those books because it hurt "their version."
I have no brand of Christianity. I belong to and am a member of no church. I was baptized and raised Catholic and have learned enough about its religion to know that it is the THE TRUE CHURCH. A church is not a building, it is the born again believers who are "the church." Catholicism does not adhere to God's laws, nor to Christ's commands. Its traditions conflict with Christ's teachings and what is plainly read in the Holy Scripture. You are trying to sell Catholicism....sorry, that's not going to work here; it is full of men's traditions which flagrantly violate God's ordinances in several ways, one being the praying to idols, another having a priest forgive your sins. Christ is the Great High Priest; it is He who intercedes for the believers, and He never said to go to a priest to confess. I use the King James Version because it is most used by many different Christian religions and does not attempt to instill into dogmas from a particular religion, such as the Catholics did at the Council of Rome, for instance, by St. Jerome....
In other words, just another kook with an opinion. Gotcha. You are trying to sell Catholicism....sorry, that's not going to work here LOL! You try to blow smoke up my ass and get caught and now all of a sudden I'm trying to sell Catholicism? LOL! Not hardly. I gave you a history lesson and nothing more. That's far from "trying to sell Catholicism." I'm not a Christian - Catholic or otherwise. My stance for as long as I've been on this site is that it's all bullshit. You might want to reread my very first post. If I'm going to be tormented in eternal hell for not properly interpreting the bible, then I'm not going to bother trying. I will live my life on MY terms, not on the terms of some invisible sky-God who would allow his words to be twisted in such a way and still hold people accountable for their ignorance.
#24. To: Hayek Fan (#23)
I'm a happy "kook" for Christ, one who has been studying the Bible for over 30 years and still learning every day. Thanks. You try to blow smoke up my ass and get caught and now all of a sudden I'm trying to sell Catholicism? It certainly appears to me you were defending the viewpoint of the Catholic church and their version of the Holy Scripture, which greatly differs from those used by all other Christian churches. If that was not your intent, please explain. at the time of the the early church, they were being persecuted by the Roman Empire and had more important things to worry about (like staying alive) than promoting "their version" of Christianity. On top of that, there was only one church then, not 37000+. Not so. There were many factions (or denominations, if you will) of "Christians", even while the Apostle Paul was living, otherwise he would not have written in 1 Corinthians 1: Furthermore, among Christians, most especially between the born again Jews and the born again Gentiles (non-Jews), there arose arguments and debates and factions, as well, between them over such things as eating meat, observing holy days, and drinking wine (Romans 14:2-3; 5, 21). Concerning that, Paul said, for example "Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath." Colossians 2:16 and "Why do you submit to regulations, 21 "Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch" 22 (referring to things which all perish as they are used), according to human precepts and doctrines?" Colossians 2:21 Clearly, these arguments have been around since the inception of Christianity. If I'm going to be tormented in eternal hell for not properly interpreting the bible You're not. You will only get to heaven, however, if you do the following: Acts 16:25-33, the jailer anxiously asked Paul, "What must I do to be saved"? Paul answered "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved ..." verse 31".
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||