What the bible says Hell is like

[GUBU]

From what I've read the biggest difference between saducee and pharisee factions is that the saducees wanted to keep temple access mosaic laws and full worship only with the Temple families (ie the priesthood and aristocracy) whereas  the pharisees wanted all of judaism (well, ok, men only) to have full privileges and responsibilities under the religious laws.

The Sadducees didn't believe in spirits so how could they believe in the holy ghost?  Isn't God supposed to be a spirit?

The holy ghost is more of a christian thing, though. It is a post hoc entry into the christian pantheon.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

The Sadducees didn't believe in spirits so how could they believe in the holy ghost?  Isn't God supposed to be a spirit?

The holy ghost is more of a christian thing, though. It is a post hoc entry into the christian pantheon.

The God character was a spirit in Genesis 1:2 (KJV) = "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

The idea of ghosts go back to Genesis 25:8 (KJV) when the crazy old coot Abraham kicked the bucket:  "Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people."

So, since the Sadducees didn't believe in spirits or ghosts did they really believe in the fairy tale or were they atheists? How could they believe in hell?

[GUBU]

The holy ghost is more of a christian thing, though. It is a post hoc entry into the christian pantheon.

The God character was a spirit in Genesis 1:2 (KJV) = "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

The idea of ghosts go back to Genesis 25:8 (KJV) when the crazy old coot Abraham kicked the bucket:  "Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people."

So, since the Sadducees didn't believe in spirits or ghosts did they really believe in the fairy tale or were they atheists? How could they believe in hell?

I wouldn't be deducing the beliefs of the sadducees from the KJV, for one thing, the bible does twist the torah and tanakh quite a lot, and for second KJV was written with the specific ideas of King James vis a vis divine right very much in mind (the KJV is as much a party political tract for monarchical absolutism as it is a religious text, which is why I find it so amusing when roinek yank religious fundamentalists list it as the true bible, they want their guns for keeping King George's armies out of Murrica and they want the bible which says King George should control every aspect of their lives).

[Wyrd of Gawd]

The God character was a spirit in Genesis 1:2 (KJV) = "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

The idea of ghosts go back to Genesis 25:8 (KJV) when the crazy old coot Abraham kicked the bucket:  "Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people."

So, since the Sadducees didn't believe in spirits or ghosts did they really believe in the fairy tale or were they atheists? How could they believe in hell?

I wouldn't be deducing the beliefs of the sadducees from the KJV, for one thing, the bible does twist the torah and tanakh quite a lot, and for second KJV was written with the specific ideas of King James vis a vis divine right very much in mind (the KJV is as much a party political tract for monarchical absolutism as it is a religious text, which is why I find it so amusing when roinek yank religious fundamentalists list it as the true bible, they want their guns for keeping King George's armies out of Murrica and they want the bible which says King George should control every aspect of their lives).

Maybe they got their info from the KJV but it says pretty much the same thing.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou...senes.html

[Vicki Q]

That's how they worked, unless in this case they didn't.   Your inductive argument is weak in a context of one-time-only events.

What's your historical evidence that failed C1 messianic revolutions can't give rise to greater revolutions?

I'm not sure I quite understand what you're trying to say. Perhaps if you unpack it a bit, I might be able to give a more targeted reply.

From what I think you're trying to say with the last sentence-

Because of the theory. The job of the Messiah was to be involved with the inauguration of God's kingdom. As revolutions go, they don't come greater. And this is an all-or-nothing total succeed or fail thing. If you fail, God was not with you, and what you were doing was meaningless.

Because of the practice. Many Messiahs came and died. At that point their movement stopped, so enough recorded history tells us.

When Paul writes “But we preach The Messiah as crucified, a stumbling block/scandal to the Jews...” his comment fits hand-in-glove with what contemporary historians like Josephus were saying was the universal reaction to dead Messiahs.

Which leads us to the challenging historical puzzle as to why Jesus was still seen as successful by his followers. Even more intriguingly, how they decided his death lead to the inauguration of God's kingdom. After all, dead Messiahs were the very definition of failure...

[GrandizerII]

Which leads us to the challenging historical puzzle as to why Jesus was still seen as successful by his followers. Even more intriguingly, how they decided his death lead to the inauguration of God's kingdom. After all, dead Messiahs were the very definition of failure...

Hence, the Resurrection "revelation" surely helped to offset that failure, if you know what I mean ...

[Angrboda]

Because of the practice. Many Messiahs came and died. At that point their movement stopped, so enough recorded history tells us.

"We survivors of 1993 are looking for David and all those that died either in the shootout or in the fire," Doyle says. "We believe that God will resurrect this special group."

~ Branch Davidians 20 years after the seige at Waco

[God of Mr. Hanky]

The holy ghost is more of a christian thing, though. It is a post hoc entry into the christian pantheon.

The God character was a spirit in Genesis 1:2 (KJV) = "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

The idea of ghosts go back to Genesis 25:8 (KJV) when the crazy old coot Abraham kicked the bucket:  "Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people."

So, since the Sadducees didn't believe in spirits or ghosts did they really believe in the fairy tale or were they atheists? How could they believe in hell?

Why did I think that ideas go back not to the time in which a story is set, but to the time at which the story is first told? I'm only guessing without knowing the facts, but this may have been centuries or even millennia after the said time of Abraham.

[Vicki Q]

Because of the practice. Many Messiahs came and died. At that point their movement stopped, so enough recorded history tells us.

"We survivors of 1993 are looking for David and all those that died either in the shootout or in the fire," Doyle says. "We believe that God will resurrect this special group."
~ Branch Davidians 20 years after the seige at Waco

Branch Davidians (BDs) and C1 Jews had completely different ideas about theology, and particularly the Messainic role. There are major dangers with 'generalising' religions.

For a start, where C1 Jews believed in the resurrection, it was the general resurrection (everyone in one go) at the inauguration of the Kingdom of God. They wouldn't sit around a field waiting for a bunch of people to reappear in advance of the end of the world.

Secondly, the inauguration of God's Kingdom was primarily seen as the military triumph of the Jewish people winning back their land of Israel and their freedom, lead by the Messiah. If your candidate got himself killed, God wasn't with him, and you needed to look elsewhere for the Messiah. BD theology is clearly much more flexible- your man can die and God can still be with him.

Thirdly, the BDs appear to invent theology as they go along, without substantial roots. Judaism had to follow the meta-narrative of the OT.

Context is all here.

Which leads us to the challenging historical puzzle as to why Jesus was still seen as successful by his followers. Even more intriguingly, how they decided his death lead to the inauguration of God's kingdom. After all, dead Messiahs were the very definition of failure...

Hence, the Resurrection "revelation" surely helped to offset that failure, if you know what I mean ...

I'm not sure I understand you, because I think you're making my point. Something extraordinary convinced them them that, after all, God was inaugurating his Kingdom, was with Jesus despite the rather large “stumbling block” of his death, and that resurrection was a definite thing.

[Angrboda]

"We survivors of 1993 are looking for David and all those that died either in the shootout or in the fire," Doyle says. "We believe that God will resurrect this special group."
~ Branch Davidians 20 years after the seige at Waco

Branch Davidians (BDs) and C1 Jews had completely different ideas about theology, and particularly the Messainic role. There are major dangers with 'generalising' religions.

For a start, where C1 Jews believed in the resurrection, it was the general resurrection (everyone in one go) at the inauguration of the Kingdom of God. They wouldn't sit around a field waiting for a bunch of people to reappear in advance of the end of the world.

Secondly, the inauguration of God's Kingdom was primarily seen as the military triumph of the Jewish people winning back their land of Israel and their freedom, lead by the Messiah. If your candidate got himself killed, God wasn't with him, and you needed to look elsewhere for the Messiah. BD theology is clearly much more flexible- your man can die and God can still be with him.

Thirdly, the BDs appear to invent theology as they go along, without substantial roots. Judaism had to follow the meta-narrative of the OT.

Context is all here.

This is all beside the point. Jesusism apparently appealed to quite a few. You can't use the people it wouldn't appeal to as evidence that it couldn't have spawned a revolution even though the original revolution was a failure. This isn't evidence, it's not even speculation, it's a clumsy attempt at rhetoric. This is not evidence that C1 failed revolutions can't spawn greater revolutions. I see a lot of ad hoc reasoning and shifting the goalposts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails

After the failure of the prediction, she left Chicago after being threatened with arrest and involuntary commitment. She later founded the Association of Sananda and Sanat Kumara. Under the name Sister Thedra, she continued to practice channeling and to participate in contactee groups until her death in 1992. The Association is active to this day.

That's two examples that contradict your claim.