What the bible says Hell is like

[Vicki Q]

Jesus believed in angels, demons, spirits, ghosts, and resurrections.  The Pharisees believed in those things as well.  Therefore Jesus was a Pharisee.  The Sadducees thought that they were full of crap.

BTW, since Christians and muslims believe in those things they are also Pharisees.

Acts 23:8 (KJV) = "For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both."

The interesting thing about that verse is that it makes the entire Bible a Pharisee fairy tale and not a traditional (Sadducee) Jewish fairy tale.

This link tries to differentiate the various schools of thought:  http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou...senes.html

A=>B doesn't mean B=>A.  Pharisees believing in angels doesn't mean that an angel believer is a Pharisee. The Pharisees had a radically different agenda to Jesus; hence the NT conflict, and hence a lot of Paul's writing.

As a Pharisee he had been waiting and working for the arrival of the Kingdom of God. Then he realised on the Damascus Road that it had already arrived. Much of his writing follows on from how that game changer meant he could no longer stay a Pharisee.

BTW, the Pharisees and Sadducees weren't the only religious division in C1 Israel. The Pharisees were a numerically small but very active pressure group. Think Momentum (UK) or Tea Party (US).

[Vicki Q]

Well, the fact that the synoptic gospels giving him views on judaism which mirror phariseec thought is a big clue. Also is the fact that the latest, anti-semitic gospel of John which only really paints him as being against the pharisees. Actually it is far more logical to think of Yeshua as a cult leader of an anti-Rome pharisee or proto-sicarii group whose image got coopted into a new religion by others rather than a man believing himself son of god (the idea of god having a son was alien to all strands of judaism at that time, yet was prevalent amongst the Romano-Hellenistic cults).

What I said before about Pharisaic and Christian differences.

Plus- if Jesus was a revolutionary military leader, he left no evidence of it, and all of his followers went in a completely different direction. Also, he would have been a complete failure, and would have suffered the same fate as all the other wannabe revolutionaries of the period. There are quite a number of them we know about historically, and as soon as they got killed, their movement came to an immediate halt.

Judaism was comfortable with the idea of God having a presence on earth (burning bush, pillar of fire, Shekinah), and Jesus was seen as the latest in the list. 'Son of God' is more about role than biology in Judaism.

[Pat Mustard]

Well, the fact that the synoptic gospels giving him views on judaism which mirror phariseec thought is a big clue. Also is the fact that the latest, anti-semitic gospel of John which only really paints him as being against the pharisees. Actually it is far more logical to think of Yeshua as a cult leader of an anti-Rome pharisee or proto-sicarii group whose image got coopted into a new religion by others rather than a man believing himself son of god (the idea of god having a son was alien to all strands of judaism at that time, yet was prevalent amongst the Romano-Hellenistic cults).

What I said before about Pharisaic and Christian differences.

Plus- if Jesus was a revolutionary military leader, he left no evidence of it, and all of his followers went in a completely different direction. Also, he would have been a complete failure, and would have suffered the same fate as all the other wannabe revolutionaries of the period. There are quite a number of them we know about historically, and as soon as they got killed, their movement came to an immediate halt.

Judaism was comfortable with the idea of God having a presence on earth (burning bush, pillar of fire, Shekinah), and Jesus was seen as the latest in the list. 'Son of God' is more about role than biology in Judaism.

Yeah keep using post-hoc justifications to hold your irrational beliefs. First of all "christian tradition" didn't get going to the 3rd century. So to say that Jesus wasn't a pharisee because of christian tradition is at best disingenius.

On your dismissal of the 'failed revolutionary' explanation, which is one I didn't offfer in my post, many big things have grown out of initial failures. By your hypothesis Nazi Germany couldn't have happened, nor could the Irish Republic. Bith those entities grew out of failed violent revolutions (in Ireland's case at least five). But theory was to poist Yeshua as a cult leader within Judaic tradition who was co-opted posthumously by the likes of Saul of Tarsus who developed their own Jesus cult in opposition to his official successors.

And I note you don't even begin to touch my statement that the son of god was alien to judaism, probably because you don't have an answer for it.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

What I said before about Pharisaic and Christian differences.

Plus- if Jesus was a revolutionary military leader, he left no evidence of it, and all of his followers went in a completely different direction. Also, he would have been a complete failure, and would have suffered the same fate as all the other wannabe revolutionaries of the period. There are quite a number of them we know about historically, and as soon as they got killed, their movement came to an immediate halt.

Judaism was comfortable with the idea of God having a presence on earth (burning bush, pillar of fire, Shekinah), and Jesus was seen as the latest in the list. 'Son of God' is more about role than biology in Judaism.

Yeah keep using post-hoc justifications to hold your irrational beliefs. First of all "christian tradition" didn't get going to the 3rd century. So to say that Jesus wasn't a pharisee because of christian tradition is at best disingenius.

On your dismissal of the 'failed revolutionary' explanation, which is one I didn't offfer in my post, many big things have grown out of initial failures. By your hypothesis Nazi Germany couldn't have happened, nor could the Irish Republic. Bith those entities grew out of failed violent revolutions (in Ireland's case at least five). But theory was to poist Yeshua as a cult leader within Judaic tradition who was co-opted posthumously by the likes of Saul of Tarsus who developed their own Jesus cult in opposition to his official successors.

And I note you don't even begin to touch my statement that the son of god was alien to judaism, probably because you don't have an answer for it.

Did the Sadducees even believe in the God character or were they atheists who just liked to wear fancy robes?

[Pat Mustard]

Yeah keep using post-hoc justifications to hold your irrational beliefs. First of all "christian tradition" didn't get going to the 3rd century. So to say that Jesus wasn't a pharisee because of christian tradition is at best disingenius.

On your dismissal of the 'failed revolutionary' explanation, which is one I didn't offfer in my post, many big things have grown out of initial failures. By your hypothesis Nazi Germany couldn't have happened, nor could the Irish Republic. Bith those entities grew out of failed violent revolutions (in Ireland's case at least five). But theory was to poist Yeshua as a cult leader within Judaic tradition who was co-opted posthumously by the likes of Saul of Tarsus who developed their own Jesus cult in opposition to his official successors.

And I note you don't even begin to touch my statement that the son of god was alien to judaism, probably because you don't have an answer for it.

Did the Sadducees even believe in the God character or were they atheists who just liked to wear fancy robes?

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.

[Vicki Q]

First of all "christian tradition" didn't get going to the 3rd century. So to say that Jesus wasn't a pharisee because of christian tradition is at best disingenius.

I'm completely unaware of mentioning 'Christian tradition'. Do you mean 'beliefs', because they're not the same thing at all, y'know.

On your dismissal of the 'failed revolutionary' explanation, which is one I didn't offfer in my post, many big things have grown out of initial failures. By your hypothesis Nazi Germany couldn't have happened, nor could the Irish Republic. Bith those entities grew out of failed violent revolutions (in Ireland's case at least five).

There's pretty major differences. Irish Republicanism was an ongoing historical movement that was going to survive any number of failures, and the Nazi setbacks weren't nearly serious enough to end it all. However C1 Jewish Messianic movements simply couldn't survive the death of their Messiah because of the theology involved. Your Messiah had to survive, or by definition he wasn't the Messiah. End of. That's how C1 Jewish Messianic movements worked, and we know this solidly both from theory and very good historical evidence.


That the disciples concluded Jesus to be the Messiah despite his death requires an extraordinary explanation.

And I note you don't even begin to touch my statement that the son of god was alien to judaism, probably because you don't have an answer for it.

How odd.


I thought my last paragraph was about the Son of God thing not being alien to Judaism. I mean I suspect some would read the phrase ” 'Son of God' is more about role than biology in Judaism.” as being a pretty clear sort of summary answer, but perhaps I've misunderstood what I wrote.


Let's unpack.


I think you rather misunderstand the phrase “Son of God” within Judaism.


To have humans described as Sons of God clearly isn't new within Judaism. Good people, the Israelites, Kings of Israel etc etc etc, were all described as Sons of God in the OT. So far from being alien to Judaism, it was integral.


Indeed, anyone with Messainic ideas would be seen as a special 'Son Of God'. Jesus saw himself as the one who would bring Israel's destiny to a climax, and so 'Son Of God' would necessarily apply as part of the job description. (BTW, nowhere yet is divinity integral to this designation.)


Jesus acted on a perceived vocation to to do and to be for Israel, and the world what, according to the OT, only Israel's God can do and be. God had always promised to return to Zion and bring salvation, forgiveness and bring a new covenant. Through Jesus actions, this was achieved, Hence the phrase “Son of God” applied to Jesus started to acquire an extra level of meaning through the bringing together of two utterly Jewish ideas.


So the Graeco-Roman concept of 'Son of God' (your meaning of the phrase) is very different to the Jewish one that I'm referring to.

[Angrboda]

On your dismissal of the 'failed revolutionary' explanation, which is one I didn't offfer in my post, many big things have grown out of initial failures. By your hypothesis Nazi Germany couldn't have happened, nor could the Irish Republic. Bith those entities grew out of failed violent revolutions (in Ireland's case at least five).

There's pretty major differences. Irish Republicanism was an ongoing historical movement that was going to survive any number of failures, and the Nazi setbacks weren't nearly serious enough to end it all. However C1 Jewish Messianic movements simply couldn't survive the death of their Messiah because of the theology involved. Your Messiah had to survive, or by definition he wasn't the Messiah. End of. That's how C1 Jewish Messianic movements worked, and we know this solidly both from theory and very good historical evidence.

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?

[Pat Mustard]

First of all "christian tradition" didn't get going to the 3rd century. So to say that Jesus wasn't a pharisee because of christian tradition is at best disingenius.

I'm completely unaware of mentioning 'Christian tradition'. Do you mean 'beliefs', because they're not the same thing at all, y'know.

Christian tradition is generally accepted as the general corpus of mythology which make up orthodox christian religion. And it wasn't properly firmed up until First Nicaea in 325CE It was here that the "exact nature of Jebus" was decided (and actually fell down to one of the later theories IIRC), it decided on the trinity (i.e. the polytheistic nature at the heart of orthodox christianity), created the Nicene creed, adopted the first canon (as opposed to cannon) laws, and was in effect the first unification of christianity from many varied and opposing sects into one cultic religion.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Did the Sadducees even believe in the God character or were they atheists who just liked to wear fancy robes?

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?

[dyresand]

Hell isn't all that bad remember now all the smart people go to hell that being said all the smart people still have their free will
and well hell would be a better place they would have extinguished the fires and or made a AC unit by now..