Is Anne Frank in Hell?

[Derek]

First off, your version renders the story meaningless.  Lot's wife died in the incident.  She doesn't reappear in story.  Second, my Oxford Study Bible, an academic Bible painstakingly translated, has this: Genesis 19:26 "But Lot's wife looked back, and she turned into a pillar of salt.". The only footnote to the verse just points out that an oddly-shaped column in the area has been associated with Lot's wife straight to the present day.

That is a mistranslation. Most Bibles do not translate that properly. When you get into the academic circle things like this are highly debated because most of them are capable of translating languages to the point of changing the meanings of stories with just a word or 2. Perhaps she did die, but there is a literary argument based on ancient Hebrew to suggest Lot's wife turned for a pillar of salt rather than into.

[The Mikado]

Wasting my time arguing with you is casting pearls before swine, but if you go to http://biblegateway.com, you can search a verse in any translation you want.  Find a single translation that backs you up and I'll put the quote of your choice in my sig for a month.

Also, it's not just Christians.  Jews, whose religious leaders can speak Hebrew, render the Lot story the same way.

[useful idiot]

Jewish people sure do go to hell.  Because they have not had their sins washed away by the blood of our Savior, Christ Jesus. 

Jesus was Jewish.  Hurr hurr.

You're missing the point here.  From a Christian perspective, Jews would be condemned precisely because the Savior was sent to them and they ignored and rejected his message.

I'm not a Christian, but I have difficulty understanding how anyone could interpret Christianity as saying other than that only faith (sola fides) can save.  It's pretty clear in the text.

Some scholars interpret Jesus as dying for the Jews only though. Those who believe and did not first become Jewish are not part of the chosen people if you go by certain verses.

Interpret it that way based on what exactly? And who are these "scholars"?

Look for centuries the Jews believed that a messiah would save them and eventually along came Jesus. Most Jews rejected him to be the messiah. While the act of life coming from a death was not unique to the Jews, Jesus spoke of a new direction for the Jews. That is where the messianic Jewish philosophy comes from. I can't believe you've never heard of this and to name scholars would be a waste of time. Stop trying to pick at every little thing and argue your own ideas once in a while. Why do you disagree that Jesus wasn't exclusively for the Jews? Or do you agree and just have nothing better to do than come on here and ask for a scholar's name? http://www.messianicjews.info/general/faq.html Here is a link with some 101 facts about Messianic Judaism.

Nothing of what you just said means anything. Please give me some instance in the New Testament that confirms the idea that Christ mentioned, or that any of his apostles or the writers of the Epistles felt, that he died only for Jews. Yes Peter thought that converts must become circumsized, but Paul corrected him.

Messianic Judaism is a recent phenomenon, and a small one, that is slightly bananas. I don't see how the fact that "the Jews believed that a messiah would save them" has any bearing on what you said.

If it's a waste of time to ask you to cite the "scholars" you claim believe this, then surely it was a waste of time for you to have written it in the first place.

[Derek]

Wasting my time arguing with you is casting pearls before swine, but if you go to http://biblegateway.com, you can search a verse in any translation you want.  Find a single translation that backs you up and I'll put the quote of your choice in my sig for a month.

Also, it's not just Christians.  Jews, whose religious leaders can speak Hebrew, render the Lot story the same way.

I don't need a translation to back me up. I'm plenty capable of translating on my own with the amount of education I have in this area. The sad thing is that most people who are religious do not have this type of education or academic background. This is one of many areas where scholars love to sit around a fire and joke/nag at each other over one petty word. Perhaps not everyone enjoys that. I sent you a message about how and why some translate it that way too.

[Derek]

Jewish people sure do go to hell.  Because they have not had their sins washed away by the blood of our Savior, Christ Jesus. 

Jesus was Jewish.  Hurr hurr.

You're missing the point here.  From a Christian perspective, Jews would be condemned precisely because the Savior was sent to them and they ignored and rejected his message.

I'm not a Christian, but I have difficulty understanding how anyone could interpret Christianity as saying other than that only faith (sola fides) can save.  It's pretty clear in the text.

Some scholars interpret Jesus as dying for the Jews only though. Those who believe and did not first become Jewish are not part of the chosen people if you go by certain verses.

Interpret it that way based on what exactly? And who are these "scholars"?

Look for centuries the Jews believed that a messiah would save them and eventually along came Jesus. Most Jews rejected him to be the messiah. While the act of life coming from a death was not unique to the Jews, Jesus spoke of a new direction for the Jews. That is where the messianic Jewish philosophy comes from. I can't believe you've never heard of this and to name scholars would be a waste of time. Stop trying to pick at every little thing and argue your own ideas once in a while. Why do you disagree that Jesus wasn't exclusively for the Jews? Or do you agree and just have nothing better to do than come on here and ask for a scholar's name? http://www.messianicjews.info/general/faq.html Here is a link with some 101 facts about Messianic Judaism.

Nothing of what you just said means anything. Please give me some instance in the New Testament that confirms the idea that Christ mentioned, or that any of his apostles or the writers of the Epistles felt, that he died only for Jews. Yes Peter thought that converts must become circumsized, but Paul corrected him.

Messianic Judaism is a recent phenomenon, and a small one, that is slightly bananas. I don't see how the fact that "the Jews believed that a messiah would save them" has any bearing on what you said.

If it's a waste of time to ask you to cite the "scholars" you claim believe this, then surely it was a waste of time for you to have written it in the first place.

Paul corrected him or perverted his teachings? J.D. Crossan would strongly disagree with you on this. There were ancient Jews who sacrificed lambs to Yahweh and Jesus was seen to be the ultimate sacrifice. It's highly poetic to us, but it was a belief at that time. It's true that not too many of the actual Jews took up Christianity and that by the end of the first century it was mostly Gentiles who had converted. This doesn't mean that it was what Jesus intended. The Jews saw themselves as special. I'm not sure what you're getting at by waste of time. I've spent alot of my time bickering over these petty translations with professors and colleagues on this matter. I happen to disagree with Messianic Judaism on philosophical matters but that's a different topic all together. 

[Yamor]

First off, your version renders the story meaningless.  Lot's wife died in the incident.  She doesn't reappear in story.  Second, my Oxford Study Bible, an academic Bible painstakingly translated, has this: Genesis 19:26 "But Lot's wife looked back, and she turned into a pillar of salt.". The only footnote to the verse just points out that an oddly-shaped column in the area has been associated with Lot's wife straight to the present day.

That is a mistranslation. Most Bibles do not translate that properly. When you get into the academic circle things like this are highly debated because most of them are capable of translating languages to the point of changing the meanings of stories with just a word or 2. Perhaps she did die, but there is a literary argument based on ancient Hebrew to suggest Lot's wife turned for a pillar of salt rather than into.

The Hebrew word is "va'tehi" which means "and she became", "and she was", or something similar.


In fact, the use of the words "and she turned into" in any translation is just literary license, since the plain translation is simply "and she became" or "and she was". (This often happens because the vocabulary of Biblical Hebrew is so much smaller then that of English, so simpler words are used when in English you'd use more specific words. Translators try to take that into account).

I'm literally laughing at the fact you think "turned into" should really be "turned for". It's only in English that those two phrases happen to use the same word for completely different meanings!

By the way, I do have extensive knowledge of Biblical Hebrew - I'm not academically trained, but I know enough that I can actually speak in Biblical Hebrew fluently.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I've spent alot of my time bickering over these petty translations with professors and colleagues on this matter.

no doubt, and I am sure your professors celebrated the day you were out of their lives!!!

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I've spent alot of my time bickering over these petty translations with professors and colleagues on this matter.

no doubt, and I am sure your professors celebrated the day you were out of their lives!!!

AMEN!

[useful idiot]

Jewish people sure do go to hell.  Because they have not had their sins washed away by the blood of our Savior, Christ Jesus. 

Jesus was Jewish.  Hurr hurr.

You're missing the point here.  From a Christian perspective, Jews would be condemned precisely because the Savior was sent to them and they ignored and rejected his message.

I'm not a Christian, but I have difficulty understanding how anyone could interpret Christianity as saying other than that only faith (sola fides) can save.  It's pretty clear in the text.

Some scholars interpret Jesus as dying for the Jews only though. Those who believe and did not first become Jewish are not part of the chosen people if you go by certain verses.

Interpret it that way based on what exactly? And who are these "scholars"?

Look for centuries the Jews believed that a messiah would save them and eventually along came Jesus. Most Jews rejected him to be the messiah. While the act of life coming from a death was not unique to the Jews, Jesus spoke of a new direction for the Jews. That is where the messianic Jewish philosophy comes from. I can't believe you've never heard of this and to name scholars would be a waste of time. Stop trying to pick at every little thing and argue your own ideas once in a while. Why do you disagree that Jesus wasn't exclusively for the Jews? Or do you agree and just have nothing better to do than come on here and ask for a scholar's name? http://www.messianicjews.info/general/faq.html Here is a link with some 101 facts about Messianic Judaism.

Nothing of what you just said means anything. Please give me some instance in the New Testament that confirms the idea that Christ mentioned, or that any of his apostles or the writers of the Epistles felt, that he died only for Jews. Yes Peter thought that converts must become circumsized, but Paul corrected him.

Messianic Judaism is a recent phenomenon, and a small one, that is slightly bananas. I don't see how the fact that "the Jews believed that a messiah would save them" has any bearing on what you said.

If it's a waste of time to ask you to cite the "scholars" you claim believe this, then surely it was a waste of time for you to have written it in the first place.

Paul corrected him or perverted his teachings? J.D. Crossan would strongly disagree with you on this. There were ancient Jews who sacrificed lambs to Yahweh and Jesus was seen to be the ultimate sacrifice. It's highly poetic to us, but it was a belief at that time. It's true that not too many of the actual Jews took up Christianity and that by the end of the first century it was mostly Gentiles who had converted. This doesn't mean that it was what Jesus intended. The Jews saw themselves as special. I'm not sure what you're getting at by waste of time. I've spent alot of my time bickering over these petty translations with professors and colleagues on this matter. I happen to disagree with Messianic Judaism on philosophical matters but that's a different topic all together. 

I ask you for a legitimate scholar and you give me someone from THE JESUS SEMINAR???!!! To think, you went to the same seminary as Sproul*....


*Or so you claim

[Derek]

Jewish people sure do go to hell.  Because they have not had their sins washed away by the blood of our Savior, Christ Jesus. 

Jesus was Jewish.  Hurr hurr.

You're missing the point here.  From a Christian perspective, Jews would be condemned precisely because the Savior was sent to them and they ignored and rejected his message.

I'm not a Christian, but I have difficulty understanding how anyone could interpret Christianity as saying other than that only faith (sola fides) can save.  It's pretty clear in the text.

Some scholars interpret Jesus as dying for the Jews only though. Those who believe and did not first become Jewish are not part of the chosen people if you go by certain verses.

Interpret it that way based on what exactly? And who are these "scholars"?

Look for centuries the Jews believed that a messiah would save them and eventually along came Jesus. Most Jews rejected him to be the messiah. While the act of life coming from a death was not unique to the Jews, Jesus spoke of a new direction for the Jews. That is where the messianic Jewish philosophy comes from. I can't believe you've never heard of this and to name scholars would be a waste of time. Stop trying to pick at every little thing and argue your own ideas once in a while. Why do you disagree that Jesus wasn't exclusively for the Jews? Or do you agree and just have nothing better to do than come on here and ask for a scholar's name? http://www.messianicjews.info/general/faq.html Here is a link with some 101 facts about Messianic Judaism.

Nothing of what you just said means anything. Please give me some instance in the New Testament that confirms the idea that Christ mentioned, or that any of his apostles or the writers of the Epistles felt, that he died only for Jews. Yes Peter thought that converts must become circumsized, but Paul corrected him.

Messianic Judaism is a recent phenomenon, and a small one, that is slightly bananas. I don't see how the fact that "the Jews believed that a messiah would save them" has any bearing on what you said.

If it's a waste of time to ask you to cite the "scholars" you claim believe this, then surely it was a waste of time for you to have written it in the first place.

Paul corrected him or perverted his teachings? J.D. Crossan would strongly disagree with you on this. There were ancient Jews who sacrificed lambs to Yahweh and Jesus was seen to be the ultimate sacrifice. It's highly poetic to us, but it was a belief at that time. It's true that not too many of the actual Jews took up Christianity and that by the end of the first century it was mostly Gentiles who had converted. This doesn't mean that it was what Jesus intended. The Jews saw themselves as special. I'm not sure what you're getting at by waste of time. I've spent alot of my time bickering over these petty translations with professors and colleagues on this matter. I happen to disagree with Messianic Judaism on philosophical matters but that's a different topic all together. 

I ask you for a legitimate scholar and you give me someone from THE JESUS SEMINAR???!!! To think, you went to the same seminary as Sproul*....


*Or so you claim

Lol, I'm no fan of the Jesus seminar either. I'm actually very conservative on religious studies compared to my Division I counter parts who are my age. Who is Sproul?

[useful idiot]

Who is Sproul?

The most famous Presbyterian theologian of the last 40 years.

[Derek]

Who is Sproul?

The most famous Presbyterian theologian of the last 40 years.

Oh ok I thought you were talking about someone on this forum. Did you know that one of Karl Barth's desks is at our library at Pitt Seminary?

[pbrower2a]

Jewish people sure do go to hell.  Because they have not had their sins washed away by the blood of our Savior, Christ Jesus.  

In view of the Holocaust, Jews merit salvation by the ashes of their brethren.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In keeping with Jewish belief (assuming she was a devout Jew) she would be expecting to end up in Sheol which often gets mistranslated in Christian Bibles as Hell.  But the Christian Hell (as it is usually conceived) and the Jewish Sheol have very little to do with each other than both being places where dead people go.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

No because no one is, as far as we know.

[Blue3]

So Christians think the only way to heaven is to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior. Since the Jews don't do this is Anne and every other Jewish person in hell?

BTW, If God does sent people to hell for being Jewish I don't want to go to heaven.

so, let me get this straight:  you believe the sufferings of Anne Frank should have earned her a ticket to Heaven? 

Christianity views salvation as a gift of God, not as something than can be earned.  Period.  Sorry you don't accept such a basic premise.

Your views don't represent the views of all Christianity.

[DC Al Fine]

We can't peer into her soul, so we can't know for sure. That said, I doubt she was one of the elect.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Sadly I don't have a list of who's burning in hell for not having the same beliefs as me and who is not.  I think I left that in my other pants pocket.

EDIT: Just checked.  Yes, but she's getting out early for good behavior.

[7,052,770]

Hell is a fantasy made up by powerful people to scare peasants into behaving.

[DC Al Fine]

Hell is a fantasy made up by powerful people to scare peasants into behaving.

Citation needed.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Proposing to answer this question about specific individuals strikes me as really bad theology in general, and we at Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Forum don't have the artistic genius of a Dante to be doing it anyway.

[anvi]

As an atheist, I think the same end awaits us all at death. That news is no better for Anne Frank than it is for people of much less virtue than she.  But, having been a Catholic once many moons ago, I always thought that it was God's job to decide who goes to hell and who doesn't, not ours.  Our job; "judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven."  End of story.  The ledgers are not in our hands, and it's a very good thing they're not, because human beings tend to judge one another quite unfairly in general.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Hell is a fantasy made up by powerful people to scare peasants into behaving.

I feel bad for you. With that viewpoint in Mississippi, you must be some kind of social pariah.

[afleitch]

No. If she is I'd rather be there with her and people like her than the other place when I die.

[pbrower2a]

No. If she is I'd rather be there with her and people like her than the other place when I die.

The point. I would rather be where the innocent victims of Nazism ended up in the Afterlife than where the Nazis are. Being around Nazis would be Hell in itself.