The Non-Existence of Hell (Religion)

by David Turell , Thursday, September 30, 2010, 18:33 (5166 days ago) @ David Turell

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.