How to get to heaven

[EricK]

Doesn't "Hell" come from the Norse Goddess Hel?

[Næt.]

Doesn't "Hell" come from the Norse Goddess Hel?

I think that's the etymology of the word, but it was wrongly given as the English equivalent of 'sheol' (or, as wiki informs me, 'sh'ol').

//shrug

Edit: The Wikipedia article on Sheol has this to say on the matter:

"The English word "hell" comes from Germanic mythology, and is now used in the Judeo-Christian sense to translate the Greek word Gehenna — a term which originally referred to a valley outside Jerusalem used for burning refuse, but came to designate the place of punishment for sinners. Although older translations (such as the King James Version) also translated Hades as "hell", modern English translations tend to preserve the distinction between the two concepts by transliterating the word hades and reserving "hell fire" for gehenna fire."

[Sally]

Doesn't "Hell" come from the Norse Goddess Hel?

I was wrong above -- the meaning is related to Gehenna (which is an actual place south of the hills of Hinnom where garbage was burned = constantly burning) and Sheol (grave), but hell does come from goddess hel. When the Norse were dragged into Christianity, hell was incorporated into the theology as a place sinners went after death.

[Næt.]

How on Earth can Christianity be the 'true religion' - should you belive such a thing exists - if the local non-Christian religions keep getting mixed in with it?

[-V-]

Like the borg chritstianity adds elements of other religions to itself and becomes stronger for it. Your theological and ecclesiastical distinctivness will be added to our own.

[Gatto]

Doesn't "Hell" come from the Norse Goddess Hel?

I was wrong above -- the meaning is related to Gehenna (which is an actual place south of the hills of Hinnom where garbage was burned = constantly burning) and Sheol (grave), but hell does come from goddess hel. When the Norse were dragged into Christianity, hell was incorporated into the theology as a place sinners went after death.

Of course most christians don't speak english, and don't call "hell" "hell".

The etymology seems kind of irrelevant to me. Of course the word itself comes from pagan mythology, just like the days of the week. The king James is maybe not a very accurate translation, but I must say it's my favorite one to quote, most of the time.

[Sally]

How on Earth can Christianity be the 'true religion' - should you belive such a thing exists - if the local non-Christian religions keep getting mixed in with it?

It's branding -- whatever gets mixed in/absorbed is still labeled "Christianity." -_-

[Min Farshaw]

Gehenna (which is an actual place south of the hills of Hinnom where garbage was burned = constantly burning)

I recall a conversation I had a few years ago with a Christian who didn't believe that the Bible supported any interpretation of Hell. He mentioned that not only was Gehenna the constantly burning garbage dump, but it was also the place where the "dregs" of society would have their bodies unceremoniously dumped after dying, the criminals, prostitutes etc.

With that context in mind, "Die in sin and you burn in Hell" actually becomes "Get your act together and sort out your life, or you'll end up in the garbage dump when you die." I'm not sure how accurate that is, but it's still interesting to consider how easily a fairly positive message could be twisted into a fear tactic.

[ProdeFemme]

Gehenna (which is an actual place south of the hills of Hinnom where garbage was burned = constantly burning)

I recall a conversation I had a few years ago with a Christian who didn't believe that the Bible supported any interpretation of Hell. He mentioned that not only was Gehenna the constantly burning garbage dump, but it was also the place where the "dregs" of society would have their bodies unceremoniously dumped after dying, the criminals, prostitutes etc.

With that context in mind, "Die in sin and you burn in Hell" actually becomes "Get your act together and sort out your life, or you'll end up in the garbage dump when you die." I'm not sure how accurate that is, but it's still interesting to consider how easily a fairly positive message could be twisted into a fear tactic.

Wow, that's a really cool pov and yes, one can see how that could easily be twisted into the current Hell concept. Fascinating!

[Jordan]

Hell could have also had influence from the volcanoes in Greece. Is there a little ring of fire in the Mediterranian?

[Gatto]

Fish...that's a tall order; in sum, it kinda dropped into my lap in one swell foop on the night I first ate peyote, in Seattle in 1964 (it was legal then; we had it shipped from San Antonio). There's been much refinement and detail added since then, of course, but that was my rocket-ride out of atheism into ecumenical mysticism. I've said various things about it all in many posts, most of them probably in this forum.

Subjective Effects of Nitrous Oxide

William James

Some observations of the effects of nitrous-oxide-gas-intoxication which I was prompted to make by reading the pamphlet called The anaesthetic revelation and the gist of philosophy (Blood, 1874), have made me understand better than ever before both the strength and the weakness of Hegel's philosophy. I strongly urge others to repeat the experiment, which with pure gas is short an harmless enough. The effects will of course vary with the individual, just as they vary in the same individual from time to time; but it is probable that in the former case, as in the latter, a generic resemblance will obtain. With me, as with every other person of whom I have heard, the keynote of the experience is the tremendously exciting sense of an intence metaphysical illumination. Truth lies open to the view in depth beneath depth of almost blinding evidence. The mind sees all the logical relations of being with an apparent subtlety and instantaneity to which its normal consciousness offers no parallel; only as sobriety returns, the feeling of insight fades, and one is left staring vacantly at a few disjointed words and phrases, as one stares at the cadaverous-looking snow peak from which the sunset glow has just fled, or at the black cinder left by an extinguished brand.

The immense emotional sense of reconciliation which characterizes the "maudlin" stage of alcoholic drunkeness -- a stage which seems silly to lookers-on, but the subjective rapture of which probably constitutes a chief part of the temptiaon to the vice -- is well-known. The centre and periphery of things seem to come together. The ego and its objects, the meum and the tuum , are one. Now this, only a thousand-fold enhanced, was the effect upon me of the gas: and its first result was to make peal through me with unutterable power the conviction that Hegelism was true after all, and that the deepest convictions of my intellect hitherto were wrong. Whatever idea of representation occurred to the mind was seized by the same logical forceps, and served to illustrate the same truth; and that truth was that every opposition, among whatsoever things, vanished in a higher unity in which it is based; that all contraditions, so-called, are of a common kind; that unbroken continuity is of the essence of being; and that we are literally in the midst of an infinite , to perceive the existence of which is the utmost we can attain. Without the same as a basis, how could strife occur? Strife presupposes something to be striven about; and in this common topic, the same of both parties, the differences merge. From the hardest contradition to the tenderest diversity of verbiage deffierences evaporate; yes and no agree at least in being assertions; a denial of a statement is but another mode of stating the same, contradiction can only occur of the same thing --- all opinions are thus synonyms, and synonymous, are the same. But the same phrase by difference of emphasis is two; and here again difference and no-difference merge in one.

It is impossible to convey an idea of the torrential character of the identification of opposites as it streams through the mind in this experience. I have sheet after sheet of phrases dictated or written during the intoxixation, which to the sober reader seem meaningless drivel, but which at the moment of transcribing were fused in the fire of infinite rationality. God and devil, good and evil, life and death, I and thous, sober and drunk, matter and form, black and white, quantity and quality, shiver of ecstasy and shudder of horror, vomiting and swallowing, inspiration and expiration, fate and reason, great and small, extent and intent, joke and earnest, tragic and comic, and fifty other contrasts figure in these pages in the same monotonous way. The mind saw how each term belonged to its contrast through a knife-edge moment of transition which it effected, and which, perennial and eternal, was the nunc stans of life. The thought of mutual implication of the parts in the bare form of a judgement of opposition, as "nothing--but," "no more--than," "only--if," etc., produced a perfect delirium of the theoretic rapture. And at last, when definite ideas to work on came slowly, the mind went through the mere form of recognizing sameness in identity by contrasting the same word with itself, differently emphasized, or shorn of its initial letter. Let me transcribe a few sentences.

What's mistake but a kind of take?

What's nausea but a kind of -usea?

Sober, drunk, -unk, astonishment.

Everything can become the subject of criticism --

How criticise without something to criticise?

Agreement -- disagreement!!

Emotion -- motion!!!!

By God, how that hurts! By God, how it doesn't hurt!

Reconciliation of two extremes.

By George, nothing but othing!

That sounds like nonsense, but it is pure onsense!

Thought deeper than speech...!

Medical school; divinity school, school! SCHOOL!

Oh my God, oh God; oh God!

The most coherent and articulate sentence which came was this: There are no differences but differences of degree between different degrees of difference and no difference.

But now comes the reverse of the medal. What is the principle of unity in all this monotonous rain of instances? Although I did not see it at first, I soon found that it was in each case nothing but the abstract genus of which the conflicting terms were opposite species. In other words, although the flood of ontologic emotion was Hegelian through and through, the ground for it was nothing but the world-old principle that things are the same only so far and not farther that they are the same, or partake of a common nature -- the principle that Hegel most tramples under foot. At the same time the rapture of beholding a process that was infinite, changed (as the nature of the infinitude was realized by the mind) in to the sense of a dreadful and ineluctable fate, with whose magnitude every finite effort is incommensurable and in the light of which watever happens is indifferent. This instantaneous revulsion of mood from rapture to horror is, perhaps, the strongest emotion I have ever experienced. I got it repeatedly when the inhalation was continued long enough to produce incipient nausea; and I cannot but regard it as the normal and the inevitable outcome of the intoxication, if sufficiently prolonged. A pessimistic fatalism, depth within depth of impotence and indifference, reason and silliness united, not in a higher synthesia, but in the fact that whichever you choose it is all one -- this is the upshot of a revelation that began so rosy bright.

Even when the process stops short of this ultimatum, the reader will have noticed from the phrases quoted how often it ends by losing the clue. Something "fades," "escapes"; and the feeling of insight is changed into an intense one of bewilderment, puzzle, confusion, astonishment. I know no more singulr sensation than this intense bewilderment, with nothing left to be bewildered at save the bewilderment itself. It seems, indeed, a causa sui, or "spirit become its own object."

My conclusion is that the togetherness of things in a common world, the law of sharing, of which I have said so much, may, when perceived, engender a very powerful emotion; that Hegel was so unusually susceptible to this emotion throughout his life that its gratification became his supreme end, and made him tolerably unscrupulous as to means he employed; that indifferentism is the true outcome of every view of the world which make infinity and continuity to be its sessence, and that pessimistic or optimistic attitudes pertain to the mere accidental subjectivity of the moment; finally, that the identification of contradictories, so far from being the self-developing process which Hegel supposes, is really a self-consuming process, passing from the less to the more abstract, and terminating either in a laugh at the ultimate nothingness, or in a mood of vertiginous amazement at a meaningless infinity.

[osito]

My conclusion is that the togetherness of things in a common world, the law of sharing, of which I have said so much, may, when perceived, engender a very powerful emotion; that Hegel was so unusually susceptible to this emotion throughout his life that its gratification became his supreme end, and made him tolerably unscrupulous as to means he employed; that indifferentism is the true outcome of every view of the world which make infinity and continuity to be its sessence, and that pessimistic or optimistic attitudes pertain to the mere accidental subjectivity of the moment; finally, that the identification of contradictories, so far from being the self-developing process which Hegel supposes, is really a self-consuming process, passing from the less to the more abstract, and terminating either in a laugh at the ultimate nothingness, or in a mood of vertiginous amazement at a meaningless infinity.

Nice quote, Gatto. It has been many years since I've read William James, and I certainly can, and have, reduced all the seeming magnificence to a vast indifference regarding the survival of any particular living entity, and--who knows?--of the universe itself. I have never tried N2O on my own, and have no recollection of the couple of times I have awakened from it at the dentist's office following induction with IV thiopental. In any case, I feel there are layers just back from total annihilation into the infinite within which one's purest cultural ethics have a say (though I won't argue cause and effect), and these are ratified by the experience in a stew of relative egolessness; indeed, the ego needs a good boot in the arse now and again.

I maintain that what James is describing here is a category of consciousness--within which there is a wide range of variation and hue--which millennia ago gave rise to the experience of God. In the absence of sophisticated scientific knowledge about how life came to be (that exploration marches on, deep in the ocean trenches), and so on, people thought about it and came up with explanations which served at the time, and which have been preserved all over the world as venerable anachronism.

The interface between magnificence and indifference--or heaven and hell, to be more prosaic, is well worth describing, but a headbanger to communicate. I have encountered it in amazonian ceremonies with ayahuasca, and it lays bare my own human condition for me. It is also a communal one for sure, with everyone purging together :lol:. But I wince at the lines James brings back from N2O as "evidence" that the ride is fraught with drivel. I don't write stuff like that, ever. I make no attempt to write at all in the midst, and later, my reflections fill many pages, and they are at least as meaningful as my posts here (for what that is worth).

I have not read Hegel; perhaps I should. But I still see the mystical experience as a positive and integrative force within culture, washing the windows now and again, and giving the collective ego an overdue come-uppance.

[Shadow girl]

I believe I have missed a lot of questions from you guys on here. If you need one answered then either post it again or PM me (I'll get it this way).

Someone said I have be skipping them that's not the case I'm just unwittingly missing them and not really finding them in all the post.

I want to make sure none of these go unanswered.

If you also want to express anything to me I'm open for that as well.

No question or comment is stupid or anything I'm going to judge you on.

[osito]

I have a sincere and straightforward question for you, Shadow girl.

Over the last few days, this thread has received some detailed and heartfelt posts from Christian members who are not evangelicals or fundamentalists, who do not view the bible as inerrant, and who have expressed complex feelings of both doubt and loyalty toward their chosen religious paths.

What do you honestly think and feel about all of this? Are you willing to admit their testimonies of faith to be as valid as your own?

[Næt.]

Question: if the Old Testament, or Tanakh or Torah or whatever it's called, was written in the 'cultural context of the time' thus - quite conveniently, if I may add - allowing the dissmissal of all the nasty bits [Deut. 22:28-29, that sort of thing] why are the Ten Commandments still valid?

[Sally]

Question: if the Old Testament, or Tanakh or Torah or whatever it's called, was written in the 'cultural context of the time' thus - quite conveniently, if I may add - allowing the dissmissal of all the nasty bits [Deut. 22:28-29, that sort of thing] why are the Ten Commandments still valid?

I assume that's a serious question, although it sounded a little snarky.

Look at the Ten Commandments. Do they look like they're part of a particular culture? Do they look like they apply to 200 BCE but not today? Not really. They look like a good plan for just about anyone who doesn't want to seriously piss of your neighbors and friends. Which is why they were appropriated by the Christians (and perhaps the Muslims, I don't know).

All the nasty bits in the Tanakh were not reinterpreted (it wasn't dismissal) by later rabbis because they were part of a cultural context per se, but because they didn't add anything to being a good human, and we in fact actually detrimental to that. They were argued about for a period of 300 years, so it wasn't done in haste.

Nobody expects any to follow Judaism if you're not a Jew, by the way, so if you don't like any of this stuff, don't do it. We won't threaten you with not going to heaven.

[Næt.]

It was somewhat 'snarky' but a wholly serious question.

So, in Judaism, those bits in the Tanakh were 'revised', for lack of a better word (is that what the Talmud is?)? Did the same thing apply to Christianity? I assume some sects of Christianity have re-nounced those parts, but did anything 'official' happen?

[Shadow girl]

I have a sincere and straightforward question for you, Shadow girl.

Over the last few days, this thread has received some detailed and heartfelt posts from Christian members who are not evangelicals or fundamentalists, who do not view the bible as inerrant, and who have expressed complex feelings of both doubt and loyalty toward their chosen religious paths.

What do you honestly think and feel about all of this? Are you willing to admit their testimonies of faith to be as valid as your own?

I see the Bible as flawless due to all the evidence. There is more proof of accuracy of the Bible then any other one out there really. Its also the book that has stood the test of time despite that it has been criticized by many. Nothing has been able to destroy it so far.

This is what I believe personally.

If someone doesn't want to believe it then that is there own decision to believe as they will.

I'm not trying to sound narrow minded and I can see why you might think that however, I believe there is only one path of truth and the rest are lies by the devil.

John 14:6 (NIV) says

6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

If someone is of another faith and believe me I do get along with different faiths then that is there choice to make.

I can give them the Gospel all I want and many might not listen and its not up to me to make them convert, as I've said many times.

Faith is a choice everyone has it in some form. It takes faith to both believe or not believe. I try normally to show it in my actions which speak louder then words. But when you do this over the net words are all you have and its harder to see the writers intentions.

[Næt.]

The Bible is demonstrably not absolutely 100pc flawless.

Look, Gen. 30:37-39 (NIV):

³⁷Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches.³⁸Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, ³⁹they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted.

That's the main thing that's really stuck out to me as being so...bizarre in my reading so far [besides the first two chapters] (I'm up to Gen. 37).

[For context, but it is heavily implied that mating in front of the branches changes the coat-pattern of the goats]

[Shadow girl]

The Bible is demonstrably not absolutely 100pc flawless.

Look, Gen. 30:37-39 (NIV):

³⁷Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches.³⁸Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, ³⁹they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted.

That's the main thing that's really stuck out to me as being so...bizarre in my reading so far [besides the first two chapters] (I'm up to Gen. 37).

[For context, but it is heavily implied that mating in front of the branches changes the coat-pattern of the goats]

Thats not a really hard concept.

[Næt.]

Mating in front of 'branches from poplar, almond and plane trees [which have] white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches' having a direct influence on bearing 'young that were streaked or speckled or spotted' is not a hard concept?

It is to me.

The Bible might be accurate in portraying what civilisation and society was like at the various times the Bible takes place over, but as a hard history book...no. Honestly, I'm not even convinced that a man called Jesus/Yeshua actually existed 2ooo years ago, divine or otherwise.

[osito]

Mating in front of 'branches from poplar, almond and plane trees [which have] white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches' having a direct influence on bearing 'young that were streaked or speckled or spotted' is not a hard concept?

It is to me.

Obviously you are not a practitioner of sympathetic magic, Fish.

For people who are, there's no way to talk logically about such things as causality or proof. I have engaged in magic myself, and find its benefit to lie chiefly in the distilled harmonious aesthetic of intentions within the group performing a ritual--and I enjoy that, without further expectations. I've never plotted to stripe or speckle newborns, however; that does seem a bit far-fetched. :lol:

I see the Bible as flawless due to all the evidence. There is more proof of accuracy of the Bible then any other one out there really. Its also the book that has stood the test of time despite that it has been criticized by many. Nothing has been able to destroy it so far.

This is what I believe personally.

There's no logical argument against this, either, is there? In Shadow girl's mind, the only way that the bible's inerrancy can be disputed is for the bible to (1) be outdone by some other ancient tome (outdone how? by what criteria?), or (2) not have "stood the test of time"--i.e. to have been destroyed. The very fact of its existence proves its infallibility in her mind; it has nothing whatever to do with its appropriation by the remarkably successful Roman Empire. There's no room in this mindset for segregating its contents into allegories, primitive scientific theory, visionary transmissions, pan-human elder wisdom, transparent powermongering and manipulation, and plain old historical matters. It's still a fascinating read, though; bully for you, Fishie, for taking it on.

[Næt.]

It's still a fascinating read, though; bully for you, Fishie, for taking it on.

It will take me a long time. My copy (Revised English Bible, Cambridge University Press) is about an 1¹/₄ thick, wafer-thin paper, font about 2mm high and double columned.

Were I a Christian, I'd consider converting to Islam based solely on the fact that the Qur'an is a post-it note compared to that. However, no Holy Text I've read so far quite beats the Buddhist ones.

[Tikva]

I see the Bible as flawless due to all the evidence. There is more proof of accuracy of the Bible then any other one out there really. Its also the book that has stood the test of time despite that it has been criticized by many. Nothing has been able to destroy it so far.

This is what I believe personally.

There's no logical argument against this, either, is there? In Shadow girl's mind, the only way that the bible's inerrancy can be disputed is for the bible to (1) be outdone by some other ancient tome (outdone how? by what criteria?), or (2) not have "stood the test of time"--i.e. to have been destroyed. The very fact of its existence proves its infallibility in her mind; it has nothing whatever to do with its appropriation by the remarkably successful Roman Empire. There's no room in this mindset for segregating its contents into allegories, primitive scientific theory, visionary transmissions, pan-human elder wisdom, transparent powermongering and manipulation, and plain old historical matters. It's still a fascinating read, though; bully for you, Fishie, for taking it on.

Two thimbs up, osito! :D

[Tikva]

Question: if the Old Testament, or Tanakh or Torah or whatever it's called, was written in the 'cultural context of the time' thus - quite conveniently, if I may add - allowing the dissmissal of all the nasty bits [Deut. 22:28-29, that sort of thing] why are the Ten Commandments still valid?

Just for clarification, the 'Torah' is the 'Five Books of Moses', (although we all know Moses didn't actually write them) i.e., the first 5 books of the Tanakh. Christians refer to the 'Tanakh' as the "Old Testament" although they re-arranged the order of the (other) books, added the 'verse' system, and made some translation changes. 'Tanakh' is a Hebrew acronym for the three sections. #1 = Torah, #2 = Nevi'im (prophets), #3 = K(h)etuvim (writings, e.g., Psalms, Job, Chronicles, etc..). Jews never use the "Old Testament". The sacred scrolls in synagogues are only Torah. Not the Tanakh (the scrolls do not include the 'Prophets' and 'Writings').

There was not a "dissmissal" of the "nasty bits". Ancient Judaism was entirely centered around Temple worship, e.g. animal sacrifices could only be done at the Temple. Once the Temple was destroyed it was no longer possible to continue with those Laws which pertained to the Temple. Other Laws had to do with living in Eretz Israel (The Land of Israel). When most Jews (but not all) were expelled by the Romans, those Jews living in the Diaspora could no longer adhere to the Laws which were specific to The Land of Israel. In order to preserve the Jewish Nation, and their religion, what is called "Rabbinic Judaism" developed over several centuries. That is what we have today, and is quite different from the ancient ways, while still preserving those Laws that we are still able to, e.g., dietary, etc. Some Laws are still kept symbolically, to remember the Temple worship practices.

As far as the Ten Commandments, in Hebrew they are known as the Ten 'Statements" or 'Words' and are a part of our entire body of other Laws. You will need an answer from a Christian as to why Christianity decided to keep them (but not the other ones) because I really don't know. (Especially why 2 in particular are kept by Christianity, and yet are not part of their practice). All of the Laws were only meant for the Jewish Nation---no one else was expected to abide by them as other Nations had their own set of Laws. Visitors and non-Jewish residents were expected to abide by the basic social laws in the same way that anyone today is expected to abide by certain laws of whatever country they're in, but don't have to go by all the laws that a citizen would need to.

As far as the verse you quoted, as one of the "nasty bits", it makes sense for the times. In ancient times people were considered married by the act of sexual intercourse. A ceremony didn't make people "married". A dowry was paid by a man to a woman's family, an agreement was made, a marriage ceremony took place, and then the sexual act which is what finalized it. That verse is actually a law for the protection of the woman/girl. It says if a man has sex with a virgin, they are considered married, and he must pay her father a dowry. Divorce was and is allowed in Jewish law. The husband and/or the wife have an equal right to ask for a divorce. This verse is saying that the man in this case has forfeited his right to divorce the woman, however, the woman will retain her right to divorce him if she chooses.

It's still a fascinating read, though; bully for you, Fishie, for taking it on.

It will take me a long time. My copy (Revised English Bible, Cambridge University Press) is about an 1¹/₄ thick, wafer-thin paper, font about 2mm high and double columned.

Were I a Christian, I'd consider converting to Islam based solely on the fact that the Qur'an is a post-it note compared to that. However, no Holy Text I've read so far quite beats the Buddhist ones.

If you decided to study the Bahai faith, you'd have ALOT of reading! ;)

I know very little about Buddhism, but I have a friend who was paralyzed from the neck down at the age of 21 in a boating accident. He is now in his fifties and has been bedridden for 3 decades now. He is so amazing to me, I can't even begin to imagine what it would be like in his place. He told me he tried to commit suicide about a year after the accident. Then he began studying Buddhism and he said that is what saved his life and has given him the courage to continue. Conversation with him is endlessly fascinating----although enigmatic at times. He's very spiritual, and has most certainly tapped into a 'higher power'. He said it took years of studying Buddhism to reach the place he has now. He is truly an inspiration. I think I'll call him tonight....

[Næt.]

The Old Testament-Tanakh makes so much more sense when it's being explained by a Jew. I mean, it would, it being their principle book and all, but still. The history of all these holy books, and whatnot, is quite fascinating.

[Sally]

A somewhat popularized but still interesting book is "Walking the Bible" by Bruce Feiler. One caveat to Tikva's analysis: Some Jews do believe that Moses wrote the Five Books: orthodox/ultraorthodox Jews. We have our fundamentalists also. But the Feiler book talks quite a bit about the archeological findings and folk history of the areas in the Middle East which Abraham and his descendants lived in and their relationship to what's found in the Torah and other writings. Some of that is as disturbing to orthodox Jews as it is to Shadow Girl. However, it's reality, not wishful thinking. All Bibles are literature, not literal history, although most have some history intermixed in with the theology.

The Talmudic writings were commentary on the Torah, set down over several hundred yearsof discussion -- not only theological exegesis, but more importantly for the several millenia the Talmud has been used as a reference, specific indications of how Jews should live their lives. They are important only to Jews; however, if Christians are going to quote and depend upon the writings previous to the New Testament, they should at least read some Jewish commentary. The Tanakh does not exist in a vacuum.

[Shadow girl]

A somewhat popularized but still interesting book is "Walking the Bible" by Bruce Feiler. One caveat to Tikva's analysis: Some Jews do believe that Moses wrote the Five Books: orthodox/ultraorthodox Jews. We have our fundamentalists also. But the Feiler book talks quite a bit about the archeological findings and folk history of the areas in the Middle East which Abraham and his descendants lived in and their relationship to what's found in the Torah and other writings. Some of that is as disturbing to orthodox Jews as it is to Shadow Girl. However, it's reality, not wishful thinking. All Bibles are literature, not literal history, although most have some history intermixed in with the theology.

The Talmudic writings were commentary on the Torah, set down over several hundred years

of discussion -- not only theological exegesis, but more importantly for the several millenia the Talmud has been used as a reference, specific indications of how Jews should live their lives. They are important only to Jews; however, if Christians are going to quote and depend upon the writings previous to the New Testament, they should at least read some Jewish commentary. The Tanakh does not exist in a vacuum.

Have you ever tried reading The New Testament even once before you make that judgment?

[Pentachromacy]

If you don't like Christianity don't read forward this is just for those that are interested and to help find other Christians so we can chat and what not.

I don't want to deal with atheist on here right now so really just read if interested and if not don't read any farther.

ARE YOU 100% SURE THAT IF YOU DIED TODAY THAT YOU WOULD GO TO HEAVEN?

There are some things that you should know:

1. Realize that you are a sinner and in need of a Savior:

Ro 3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"

Ro 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:"

This all began with the story of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. God created them perfect, there was no death or sorrow. God told them not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They disobeyed God and as a result, sin entered into the world. The pain which this world sees is the result of sin.

2. Because of our sins, we die both spiritually and physically, but God sent His Son to die so that you can have a chance not to have to go to hell by accepting what He did on the cross for you:

Ro 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Ro 5:8 "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. for us."

Every person who has ever lived is a sinner and is not righteous because we do bad things. A sin is a crime against God, just as if you steal something at the store, it is punishable by going to jail. It's the same thing with sin. Even if we lie one time, the punishment is hell, which is a prison for those who commit crimes against God. No matter how well you live your life from then on, you have already committed a sin which will be punished if you are not pardoned. If you commit a crime, and then live as a good citizen you still will go to jail for the crime you committed. Right? Just as the president can pardon a crime so you won't go to jail, Jesus can pardon your sins so that you do not go to hell, and can go to heaven when you die.

3. If you will confess to Jesus Christ that you are a sinner and in need of a Savior, accept Him as Lord and Savior and believe in your heart that He died on the cross and rose from the dead you will be saved.

Ro 10:9,10 "that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.."

Joh 1:12 Joh 1:12 “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name”

You cannot get to heaven by being a good person, going to church, baptism or any other way other than by turning to Jesus and asking Him to forgive you for your sins and save you. While these are good things to do, some people believe that they will get to heaven if they do these things, but the bible says that there is only one way to heaven and that is through receiving what Jesus Christ did on the cross for you.

Will you do that today? If you will, you can be 100% sure that you will go to heaven when you die.

Do you believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross and rose from the dead for your sins? Are you willing to turn from your sins to Jesus Christ for Salvation?

4. If you are willing to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior please pray this prayer to God from your heart:

"Dear LORD JESUS, I believe that YOU died on the Cross and Rose from the dead for my sins. I ask you to come into my heart and forgive me for my sins, take me to heaven when I die. I now receive You as my Lord and Savior. Thank You for saving me. In Jesus holy name, Amen."

If you prayed that prayer from your heart to God, and meant it with all of your heart, you are now a child of God and will go to heaven when you die.

Now that you are on your way to heaven, you should attend a bible believing church and follow in baptism.

You may also download sermons on iTunes so here is a church I recommend www.brookwoodchurch.org

You may also get materials from the site on my signature.

Given that heaven existed have you yourself actually ever been there?

So where exactly do you come off telling other people how to live in order to get to your neverland?

[Sally]

A somewhat popularized but still interesting book is "Walking the Bible" by Bruce Feiler. One caveat to Tikva's analysis: Some Jews do believe that Moses wrote the Five Books: orthodox/ultraorthodox Jews. We have our fundamentalists also. But the Feiler book talks quite a bit about the archeological findings and folk history of the areas in the Middle East which Abraham and his descendants lived in and their relationship to what's found in the Torah and other writings. Some of that is as disturbing to orthodox Jews as it is to Shadow Girl. However, it's reality, not wishful thinking. All Bibles are literature, not literal history, although most have some history intermixed in with the theology.

The Talmudic writings were commentary on the Torah, set down over several hundred years

of discussion -- not only theological exegesis, but more importantly for the several millenia the Talmud has been used as a reference, specific indications of how Jews should live their lives. They are important only to Jews; however, if Christians are going to quote and depend upon the writings previous to the New Testament, they should at least read some Jewish commentary. The Tanakh does not exist in a vacuum.

Have you ever tried reading The New Testament even once before you make that judgment?

What? Your question makes no sense. I have looked at the New Testament, but why should I -- I'm a Jew. The point I made (and you ignored) is that if you as a Christian are going to use OUR Jewish book, you'd better read it intelligently and understand how we treat it. Because it ain't yours; you're just borrowing it.