It occurred to me, while pondering religion today, that since Christianity is supposed to be a continuation of pre-Jesus Judaism, that any major concepts embraced by Christianity must have been similarly embraced by the Jews. However, as I understand it, Judaism didn’t/doesn’t place much significance in heaven or especially, hell. How do Christians justify the appearance of heaven and hell in their theology, if it was absent from the beliefs of pre-Jesus Jews? It seems that if God created hell, he would have made its existence clear to the Jews, since it is an important concept. Otherwise, we are to believe that God just wasn’t very good at getting his point across about this whole hell thing until Christianity came around.
Judaism at the time of JC had evolved a bit from the time of David. There was a “heaven” and a “hell”. The early Church vision of both was similar to the Jewish one. However after that point they diverged quite a bit. We have (in GQ) discussed the Jewish “sheol”, which certainly was not a pleasant place. So, as of, say 70AD, there was not a huge difference. After that, well…
have looked up “sheol” in Cruden’s concordance, encyclopedia brittanica and random house dictionary. the basically concur that it means “dwelling place of the dead, or spirits” doesn’t say anything about the place being good or bad. it looks like the “heaven and hell” concepts came from roman paganism. the christians that merged with the roman empire, not all did, chose to corrupt christianity to assimilate the pagans. so much of, so called, christian beliefs come from the romans not the jews. going to church on SUNDAY comes from the romans, the word easter comes from Esther, a pagan goddess.
the christians are PAGANS they just don’t know it. LOL!
Dal Timgar
Actually, the RCC is pretty well aware of how much it has borrowed from the pagan world. (One of the criticisms of the RCC by some varieties of Protestants is that they borrowed anything at all, but that is a different fight.)
The concepts that Christianity has been using did not come directly from paganism, but from ideas current in Judaism at the time that Christianity began. (The ideas were not mainstream Jewish beliefs. How much they were “off-center” vs “fringe” has been discussed before and I’ll try to find the link.)
Heaven as paradise and hell as a place of eternal fiery punishment both appear in various non-Scriptural Jewish works written between the second century BCE and the first century CE. The pagans actually had concepts closer to (not identical to) mainstream Judaism, in which the dead simply went into hades/sheol and sat in gloom.
You know, Dal, your research skills are excelled only by your syntactic ability! 
Most everyone on the board who cares is perfectly well aware that the Jewish concept of “sheol” originated in an undefined nebulous afterlife shared by all, good or bad. Eventually it got transformed into a “rewards and punishments” concept where “Abraham’s bosom” was the destiny of the good and “the fires” that of the evil. In this it is akin to, though probably not a direct derivation from, the Greek and Roman conceptions. (See Odysseus’ visit to Hades in Homer vs. the much more detailed concepts of Classical times.) Both may have borrowed from some earlier Middle Eastern mythos that we don’t have details on; what was believed in Ugarit, for example, is only slowly comihg to light as archaeological explorations continue.
In short, both Jewish and Greco-Roman conceptions of the afterlife moved from a nebulous shadowy spirit area to a crystallized rewards-and-punishments Heaven/Hell conception at similar times but evidently independently.
Would you be so kind as to make your case as to what “corruptions” occurred and what the uncorrupted beliefs were, or retract this? Obviously things like setting the feast commemorating Jesus’ birth at the time of the festival of Sol Invictus were done with an eye towards assimilation of the old pagan culture. That hardly seems “corrupt” to me – just scheduling one early winter celebration at the time another was already being held.
And here I had always thought that St. Luke had the straight dope on this in attributing it to Christians gathering to celebrate the weekly “anniversary” of Jesus’s Resurrection, well before Paul got to Rome. The idea of Tiberius in his toga going down to First Jupitertarian Church for Sunday morning service and a rousing sermon, preferably Hades-fire and brimstone, is a rather intriguing one, I must admit!
Well, I was given to understand it derived from Eostre, supposedly an Anglo-Saxon spring/fertility goddess, though I’ve found no references to her beyond her giving her name to Easter. Anybody with pagan/Early English expertise want to attack that. (A minority report suggests that she was a Celtic goddess, but not in any pantheon I know of, and the question of what the Anglo-Saxons were doing borrowing a Celtic goddess into their pantheon is interesting anyway.
Esther, by the way, is the throne name, supposedly Persian, borrowed by Hadassah (namesake of Mrs. Lieberman), the heroine of the Book of Esther. Comparative mythologists find interesting parallels between the Babylonian myths of Marduk and Ishtar and the lead characters of that book, Mordechai and Esther, but none of the above had a whole lot to do with the English term Easter. And, of course, the whole Easter celebration was called Pascha after Passover in Hebrew back while the Angles and Saxons were hanging out in the swamps of coastal Germany.
In defense of the faith I share with Tris., Lib., and a bunch of other posters, and the other one held by Matt, Sqrl, Freyr, and a bunch of other posters, which I don’t share but respect, my only comment would be: Not true, and not funny.
Tzel:
Not necessarily. Much of modern Cristian practice and doctrine was developed to spite Judaism. The best example of this is the doctrines developed at the Council of Niceia (sp?) circa 325 convened by the Roman Emperor Constantine, where, just to give one example, Easter, which had once been celebrated at the time of the Jewish Passover was changed to being dependent on a more traditionally Roman solar calendar. But, regarding specific beliefs you mention:
Those concepts certainly did (and do) exist in Judaic theology. JC and the Christians merely placed greater emphasis on them.
Well, much of Jewish theology that cannot be understood from a cursory reading of the Tanakh (“Old” Testament) is present in the Talmud and Midrash, which are written compilations of statements (legal, moral, theological and historical) that existed well before JC’s time and, according to (Orthodox) Jewish belief, actually date back to Moses at Sinai. These are explanations of finer points in the Tanakh which, at the time they were originally authored, were understood simply from the text, but which needed clarification in later generations.
Not that I’m defending anyone, I don’t think dal’s comment was meant to be offensive, but rather ironic given there are connections between paganism and Christianity, if only in holiday nomenclature. And I’m certainly not keen on insulting others beliefs. But, to play devil’s advocate so to speak, I think a case can be made for more of a connection between paganism and Christianity.
-
Polytheistic: while you may not see the Trinity (if you are a trinitarian) as polytheistic, others can define this as three gods.
-
Human sacrifice: The sacrificing of a life to appease the god(s) to appease him and avoid his wrath. J.C. sacrifice can be seen in this light.
-
Dualism: The stuggle of deities for the people of the world, the fight of good versus evil, or in Christianity, God vs. Satan.
You could even make a case for certain “fringe” beliefs in Christianity (as those held by certain Pentecostals and Charasmatics to be specific) that even border on the occult, such as demonic influences on geographical regions (which is animism), the ecstatic dancing to bring in the spirit of a god (done by many, many religions that Christianity defines as cults), the speaking in tongues (also done by various “cults” before Pentecost) and even faith healing. Some Christians have recognized these “modern” corruptions and have come out against them (Vandergraaf’s “Christianity in Crisis” comes to mind).
This was in no way to be insulting or an attack, but just another perspective.
And to keep with the OP, some reasons I’ve heard why Jews don’t convert to Christianity.
Thanks, El Guapo. Anyone who’s done any anthropology or comparative religion can see some obvious parallels in the doctrines, and I don’t find it offensive to point them out. Heck, Genesis 1 shows a lot of parallelism with the Babylonian creation myth. But even on a fundy. viewpoint (which I don’t have), that’s easy to explain: What one says takes into account what other people have already said, so that Genesis 1 becomes oneupsmanship: “So your god Marduk subdued Tiamat, the monster of the abyss? Big deal! My god made Tiamat, and in his spare time on the third day, more or less as an afterthought. My god’s bigger than your god, nyah, nyah!”
My own posts address the salvation/doomed to Hell unless you repent BWAHAHAHA fundy. scenario, not because I believe in it, but because it keeps getting brought up, usually as something thoughtful people have rejected – and the rest of the Christian message along with it.
What bothered me about Dal_Timgar’s post, and provoked a less-than-charitable response from me, was the overall tone of superciliously having come across some data that would tend to reflect negatively on a literalist reading of Christian doctrine (which any literate fundamentalist, much less the Christians that regularly post here, would consider trivial – of course Paul dealt with the Gnostic beliefs in Ephesians; he was writing to a city where Christianity and Gnosticism were fighting, and used their imagery to show Christ as the fulfillment of their mythos), scattergunning them online without confirming his “facts,” and hence taking the attitude of “You idiots, you are believing this bunch of garbage that got stolen from pagan thinking” – missing the key points that (a) we know there were borrowings of concepts, festivals, and so on, (b) they are quite different worldviews and “systematizations” of belief (since at least modern pagans are notoriously loath to systematize – it restricts the freedom of belief that is core to their message), and (c) what he has to say, even if he had his facts right, does not affect the core beliefs of either faith. Add to this the idea that this is for him a flip “LOL” situation when others of us are serious about what we believe – Matt and Sqrl are as devout people as I know, just not devout in my faith – and the result becomes a thinly disguised flame.
From Polycarp, the most mild-mannered guy in the land, the following admonishment:
… Translates into “Lick my bag” from the likes of me!
If I may play devil’s advocate for a moment (and whom would be better suited? ;)) the quote is not THAT far from the truth in terms of many rituals, which were borrowed from Pagan religions and would be scarecely recognizable as even remotely close to Judaism to a pre-Christ Jew.
In attempting to convert everyone, when they weren’t simply saying “Convert or a) move b) die,” they were making the religion look good to Jews and non-believing gentiles alike, and that involved co-opting ceremony from all comers.
Anyway, that’s what I got out of that statement anyway. As usual, your mileage will vary…
Yer pal,
Satan
[sub]I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, two weeks, 18 hours, 3 minutes and 36 seconds.
5470 cigarettes not smoked, saving $683.76.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 4 days, 23 hours, 50 minutes.[/sub]
"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey![/sub]
for the most part i am not interested in insulting anyone, BUT, i am not interested in pampering anyones ego either.
the old testament says god rested on the SEVENTH day. that is SATURDAY on almost every calendar i’ve seen. the romans had sunday as a holy day.
i’ve read a lot since i was in grammar school but i didn’t run across the word sheol until i was over 40. there is a small minority of scholarly christians but the majority of them a dummies. i regard christianity as an anti-intellectual religion where the majority of believers are supposed to be dummies. with all these people showing up at church on sunday the christin leaders could tell a lot if they wanted to. BUT THEY DON’T! i’ve met ministers that i consider too dumb to talk to but they think they can lead me to GOD. looking for another dumb follower.
the pagans fed christians to the lions, and christians burned heretics at the stake. BIG DIFFERENCE.
to me that wasn’t insulting, just a statement of fact. take it as you wish.
Dal TimgarDal, I’m not at all interested in “having my ego pampered” – if you have facts to dispute anything I say, or can see a problem in the logic of what I say, feel free to point them out. And I won’t be offended. It was the implicit tone of your earlier post that struck me as snide. As for your assertion about lack of intelligent teaching in churches, two comments: (1) Either I’ve been intensely lucky or I’ve exercised a lot of judiciousness in going places where I will be taught – actually a bit of both – but I’ve found that most church leaders are very interested in teaching what they know. There are demagogues and other exceptions, to be sure – some with national followings! 
(2) Sturgeon’s Law: “Ninety percent of everything is crap.”
I’m sorry, but I don’t take your point. Roman leaders with minimal faith in anything but their own egos did the first, for the most part; people who called themselves Christians burned the heretics – most of them were what Lib. calls “religion politicans.” And you haven’t addressed today’s pagans, whom you implicitly tarred with the same brush as us Christians. Or were we supposed to read into your early remarks that you meant followers of the Roman state religion? I for one didn’t draw the linkage, but of course I may be one of those dummies.
However, a thread on comparative religion that deals with different theories on the origins of various beliefs and practices might be fascinating. Why don’t you put together more of your information and start one? I’d welcome it.
In addition, nobody ever starts a debate on reincarnation, which I recall is one of your strong interests (beliefs?). That would be another interesting thread – summarize a little of the evidence, and what “mechanism” it might use. Warning: David B. has some debunking evidence on the subject as well. But I think some worthwhile discussion could be generated.
you’re asking me to distinguish between CHRISTIANS and PEOPLE WHO CALL THEMSELVES CHRISTIANS? and i’m supposed to make this distinction when i am not a CHRISTIAN and am somewhat underwhelmed by CHRISTIANS?
Polycarp. to me a CHRISTIAN is nothing but a person that calls himself a CHRISTIAN. i don’t even try to distinguish between the denominations.
i have met some wiccans and participated in one of their ceremonies. it was a hoot. LOL!
i think of a person’s religion as just a set of ideas they have in their heads at that time. some people get more serious about it than others. i don’t get that serious about any metaphysical concepts. there is far too much variation in human beings to assume one label is meaningful about any large group. christians bug me sometimes with their need to save my soul.
i was walking near my mother’s house a few years ago and a man who was with a proselitizing group asked me “if you died right now do you think you would go to heaven?” i said “i don’t believe in heaven.” he gave me this look of confused amazement with his mouth hanging open. didn’t say another word while i walked away. like i want to spend eternity in heaven with that airhead. LOL!
actually i try not to debate, i prefer to discuss. i consider debates intellectual ego games. in fact, often they are pseudo-intellectual ego games. the players are concerned about WINNING not finding solutions or truth.
Dal TimgarCan you provide a citation for that? The Republican Romans had an 8-day period (not really a week) that they used to calculate market days. (By a fluke of Roman nomenclature, it was called the “nine days” because they counted the beginning and enday day of each period.) There was no religious significance to this 8-day market period since the ferial feasts were calculated on a fixed day of each month. (This gets trickier to calculate because the Romans did not number the days of the month from 1 to 30, calculating, instead, the days before or after the Kalends, Nones, and (if the month had one) Ides.)
Since the Greeks were using a ten-day cycle within each month and the Romans were using a widely mixed array of calculations for days, it seems more likely that the early Christians did, indeed, begin with the 7-day Jewish week, but transferred their worship to the first day of that week in honor of the Resurrection.
Ah, but why are our week days given Roman names (at least in the Romance languages)? Because in 321 Constantine set a week of seven days, placating his pagan subjects by giving the days the names of Roman gods while placating his Christian subjects by setting the Sun-day (corresponding to the Christian day of worship) to be a legal day of rest.
Polytheistic: Early Judaism had some aspects of poytheism. “Elohim” is a plural, and in several verses G-d refers to Himself as 'we", etc. In the early books, it is also clear that the other gods of the other peoples are considered real, just not as powerful as “Y”. (Actually, my guess about the polytheistic verbage referes to Y’s several aspects as a Sky gd, ie thunder, lightning, etc, not to separate beings)
Human Sacrifice: Abraham & his son (symbolic also)
Dualism: the “good vs evil” dualism had its roots in late BC Judiasm.
However, this is just to show any religion can be shown to have certain aspects that appear similar to other religions.
Now, as for the “borrowing” form Paganism, the early Celtic Christian Church did do so, unashamedly, and without hypocracy. Possibly where “eostre” cam from.
The romans had hundreds of holy days. Sunday was not particularly holy. The early Christians picked the day of JC’s res as their holy day, to differentiate themselves from the Jews, also. The early C were not interested in adapting to Roman customs.
Millions of folks have been killed in various horrible ways in the name every major religion.
It is interesting that the least literate posting, and the poorest scholarship is coming from someone who complains about others being “dumb”.
Late in the BC period, Sheol was indeed looked upon more as a place of punishment, even fires being mentioned (Isaiah 30:33). Early C just used this concept, which changed as the Religions grew apart.
Daniel:
Do you speak Hebrew? I know I don’t, so I defer to someone who does. The explanation found here. But I’ll try to sum it up. Plural word, singular tense, in no way implies plurality of number. My NIV even has this comment in the footnotes. The word “we” when used refers to G-d speaking to His heavenly court, not as some implied Trinity.
As for the other gods implication, I seem to remember hearing that arguement before, but never saw anything to back it up.
But there was no sacrifice, and I see no connection between this and a sacrifice to save the world from the wrath of the Almighty. But I wouldn’t be opposed to hearing one.
I think I was refering to Dualism on a higher level. as in the strugle for our souls between a purely good entity and a purely evil entity. Is there a personal struggle between doing good and doing evil? Well sure. But the idea of a force in opposition to G-d in competion for my soul, that is another matter. Do you have some references to these early Judaic beliefs. Again, I would be interested in hearing them (absolutely NO sarcasm here by the way).
Isaiah 30:33 may not be the best scripture to support this concept. Especially given that the fire refered to here is a place outside Jerusalem used by pagans to sacrifice their children to Molech. Fire has many different symbolic meanings, many of them good (pillar of fire, burning of the chaff (sp?), etc.) and many taken out of context to mean a literal burning Hell. And the early C just didn’t expound on the idea of Sheol being a place of punishment (a temporary place) they totally changed it to a place of eternal punishment dwelled in by Satan and the fallen angels in which those who don’t believe in Jesus are tortured for all of eternity. Well, in the most common definition. The aniahilist (sp?) theology always appealed to me, but doesn’t seem very popular with mainstream Christianity.
Polycarp:
Weren’t the first Christians killed as heretics? Because they only believed in one god and not the many gods of Rome. I’m not saying they didn’t have ulterior motives, but to say they had minimal faith may be a bit presumptious, no?
Tzel
There are 3 words used thru the bible to represent hell:
[ul]
[li]Sheol (OT) which was used as (1)a state of death [translated primarily as grave and pit] and (2) a place of conscious existance that was divided by a chasm into 2 areas. One was a place of suffering and torment as a punishment for misdeeds and the other being one of rest and contentment (Paradise)as a reward for righteousness [See Luke 16:19-31 and Deu 32:22] explained by Jesus in His story of the rich man and the beggar. Sheol was used 66 times through the bible.[/li][li]Gehenna (NT) is the Greek word used for the Valley of Hinnon which was the area origionally used by the Jews to sacrifice their children to the pagan god Molech. During the time of Christ, it was the area where garbage and other “unclean” material was constantly burning…hence the fires of hell. [See Matt 5:22, Matt 18:9, & James 3:6][/li][li]Hades (NT) is the Greek word primarily meaning the underworld or place of dead spirits.[/li][/ul]
According to some Christian scholars, after Jesus death on the cross, His soul descended into Paradise along with the repentant thief and all those souls were released into Heaven upon His resurrection leaving the tormented souls in hell (purgatory?). This is definately where the Jews would NOT have anything even remotely in common. Paul mentions also many times that the Christian would be with the Lord (in Heaven)after departing this life.
There are also many references in Revelation but since even some Christians find it to be allegorical at best, I will leave it alone I hope this helps answer the OP.
I go to a Catholic School so I know something on the subject.
Now Jews believe that when they die, they sort of sleep until God comes back. Then they live with Him. I am pretty sure that there were two ideas of Hell for Jews. One was mentioned in the bible as some physical place where many died. And the other was an unconcious state that lasted forever.
We mentioned SHEOL, but I dont remember what that was.
Some Christians called, “JEWS FOR JESUS” practice all of the Jewish customs, but believe that Jesus is the Messiah.
AFAIK, early Judaic dualism was more concerned with Fairness and compassion vs. justice and enforcing the law, rather than simple “Good vs. evil”.
-Sam