> Isn't that "Hassidic?"-Yes, and there are several sub-groups.


> > I... hate to be a bother, but when the Christian Bible mentions Sheol explicitly (and Sheol again, is an aspect of the "punishing" afterlife) I find it quite hard to deny that Judaism as a whole when taken with Rabbinic literature abandons the concept of "hell." Filtering to Balance_Maintained's insistence that there is no hell in Christianity, I'm forced to be skeptical. If the phrase (which in the OT is translated merely as "Grave" became something more powerful to the 2nd temple Jews (a very pessimistic and apocalyptic (in the modern sense) lot--it is quite difficult to deny hell. But when we consider that Kabbalism can easily be extended to exist back in Solomon's time--"Solomon's Seal" has had mystical importance to more than just Jewis mystics. I would posit (from the Spanish Shepardic Jews that wrote the Zohar) that Kabbalic mysticism was more prevalent than one would think...
> 
> I have no idea about Judaism as a whole. I know what I was taught. You are delving back into Jewish mysticism. From what I have experienced most Jews will not know what you are discussing.-I know you keep labeling it as "mystic," but I Enoch is actually a well known book--to scholars I'll admit--but Rabbi's and priests both are aware of it. When I was looking for deuterocanonical works Enoch was the first book recommended to me by local Priests and Rabbis. Enoch is supposed to be a great-grandfather to Noah, and his book tells the tale of what exactly happened in "The Fall." According to Enoch, Sheol and its precincts were used to punish the Watchers who sinned by mating with humans. It also goes at length to describe the kingdom of God. My point is, even if the general public isn't aware of it, there are "revealed" texts outside of canon that deal with Sheol/Hell. But it's not just apocryphal books; The Talmud can hardly be considered a non-mainstream text, and many of the references I provided here reference books within that great work. -This is a side note, but I have to say that without these books, a full understanding of the OT/NT is difficult, if not impossible. These books all contain the background mythology that put the more mundane works in a better light.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

I just read a Psalm last night, "18:4 The sorrows of Sheol surrounded me; the snares of death confronted me." 
> > 
> > Clearly Sheol and death are treated differently here. In the light of 1 Enoch--it becomes very clear what exactly "The Sorrows of Sheol" is meant to be. Alternatively we could alter the translation: 
> > 
> > "The sorrows of the grave surrounded me; the snares of death confronted me." 
> > This still makes sense, poetically. But what then is the difference between the sorrows of the grave and the snares of death? 
> > 
> > Or alternatively, mixed with the background of Maccabees
> > 
> > "The sorrows of purgatory surrounded me; the snares of death confronted me." This reading would also bring in Maccabees. 
> > 
> > But again, Sheol had more significance than the grave--all the other references I provided reference the Talmud, and a few other deuterocanonical books such as Jubilees. You may know your Canonical works well, but you clearly haven't delved into the apocryphal works, or I do not think we would be still having this discussion. Hell, as a place of torment for souls--is Gehenna, of which Sheol is a part of. Jewish Mysticism literally took this to another plane, but those systems had to be based on scripture to have developed at all.
 
All the above may be a true representation in some of the writings. Enoch is not in the Talmud, but the Ethiopian translation can be used to cross reference the meaning of the words. Shoel appears to mean, mainly 'underground', a gathering place for the dead. You pushed me into doing some research in my library. Sheol is in the Massoretic text. but in Psalm 18, the word Belial is ued for the 'netherworld', not Shoel. In Israel the ancient gravesites were in caves (underground), which I visited with our group. Important folks were buried in ossuaries, like the one that appeared a number of years ago and may be fake of James, brother of Jesus, son of Jospeh. Also remember that Hebrew in those days had only 2,500-3,000 base words and prefixes and suffixes to make a total vocabulary of 10,000 meanings. Meanings had to be inferred from the context surrouding the word of interest. -http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=614&letter=S
 
 The Dead Sea Scrolls enter here also. Fragments of Enoch were found, validating the acceptance of Enoch as a important writing. The fragments are very sketchy and not important in and of themselves I have translations of all). But Hershel Shanks puts Enoch in context.(The Mystery and Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1999) "Not until 1976,....did Milik (Dead Sea Scrolls Scholar) finally publish a 439-page commentary....entitled 'The Books ofEnoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4'. Awaiting this publicaton, scholars had hesitated, in the absense of Malik's text, to use Enoch as a basis for understanding contemporary Judaism." Note 2l: See Shanks, Debate on Enoch Stifled for 30 Years While One Scholar Studied Dead Sea Scrolls Fragment," Bible Review 3:2 (Summer 1987), p. 34.
 
 The discrepancy between Matt's interest and my declaration is obvious to me. b-m and Matt are rasied on an NT persepective. I'm totally Masoretic text. I frankly don't care what the NT scholars have said about the word Sheol. Christians have a vested interest in Hell, and have to push the concept, since the religion seems to me to be based on an adolescent concept of reward and punishment. Judaism, as presented to me, as a child, downplays that approach. You are to be good for goodness sake alone, and I have always tried to be. For me,there is NO HELL.
 
 Believe me, I'd read sections of Gospels, out of interest and to learn what other religions think, but with no vested interest. I'm glad we have gotten to this point in our discussions. I may not practice the religion, but I have a very Jewish outlook theologically.


> The discrepancy between Matt's interest and my declaration is obvious to me. b-m and Matt are rasied on an NT persepective. I'm totally Masoretic text. I frankly don't care what the NT scholars have said about the word Sheol. Christians have a vested interest in Hell, and have to push the concept, since the religion seems to me to be based on an adolescent concept of reward and punishment. Judaism, as presented to me, as a child, downplays that approach. You are to be good for goodness sake alone, and I have always tried to be. For me,there is NO HELL.
> -
Thank you for the research, it made for some interesting reading. My view has always been that there was no 'hell' such as described by the RCC. I am not sure if I have ever mentioned it here, but I have always thought that there should be a dividing line between the bible, spirituality, Christianity, and religion, particularly in educated debate. The reason is that one is a text, or group of texts, one is a state of awareness, one is a belief system, and one is an organization. They are not even in the same category, much less the same thing. Consequently, you can have one or two of these things together, in different combination, without the requirement of having the third or fourth. However, it seems that in average debate, the distinction between the four is often times lost completely, much to the detriment of the understanding of the debaters. -Likewise, I also feel that 'religious' people tend to make the mistake of trying to make the scientific world fit their beliefs. I know George probably thinks that is what I was attempting to do with the flood, by I look at it as trying to reconcile evidence with written history, regardless of any metaphysical connotation. Science, likewise, either tries to make religion fit the science, or ignores it completely as 'religidiot' mythical juju. (Phrase coined on R Dawkin's forums). Though generally I would say science actively tries to disprove spirituality because it is an affront to their weighed and measured view of the universe.-In the case of hell, as has been the case of many things that issued out of the RCC, it is a case of control, as DHW pointed out. Be good or be punished forever and ever. This, of course, runs counter to several of the themes of the bible, but as we all take from it what we will, I can see how some people would get the impression, even after the bible was translated into a language they could read. However, I also recognize the fact that many texts that should have been in the bible, like the apocryphal texts and the gnostic gospels were not included because they would have been extremely damaging to any form of Church. I mean, where would the RCC have been if it had come out that Jesus wasn't immaculately conceived or that he was married to the woman the labeled as a whore, or that he was resurrected before he died (a spiritual resurrection instead of a physical one)? Ultimately religion is not 'based' on the bible anymore than it is 'based' on the Talmud, Koran, Bagavhad-Gita, or any other manuscript. It is based on money, control, and power. -However, spirituality, even Christianity, if taken from the full range of sources instead of those voted in, is something different. It is based knowing yourself, much like Buddhism, and on the knowledge that the punishment we get in our lifetime is generally self-inflicted, and not the direct action of any maligned spirit. In all things in nature there is a balance, even if we do not understand it. Why should God be any different? If he is all things how could he not also be evil, which would mean that evil is good, or more likely a neutral illusion that only holds relevance in the material world. Mainstream Christianity is much like mainstream evolutionary theory, or the main BBT, in my humble opinion. It sees precisely what it wants to see, 'proves' itself with the tiniest of evidences while completely ignoring the glaring ineptitude of its standard, and maintains its hold on otherwise rational thinkers, not by the value or merit of its foundation, but by alternately raising its voice louder or simply gagging any opposing thought or disproving idea. -
sorry if I got off on a tangent there.