Is Anne Frank in Hell?

[Derek]

When referring to hell in a 21st century way one things of flames and fire. However, the word hell comes from the Hebrew word "hinnam" as in Hinnam Valley where the Canaanites practiced child sacrifice to the God Molech. The non-believers were literally burning in hell. That's where the notion came from. The meaning of the word hell or hinnam actually refers to nothingness. So if one is in hell they cease to exist. Therefore, by definition, being dead and ceasing to exist would put Anne Frank in hell. Actually it would put every dead person in hell. Whether or not their soul is in heaven is up for debate.

[Derek]

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.

You have the belief that Jesus was for the Jews only or only for those who converted to Christianity? I don't see the point in the divine choosing a religion. Yes, Jesus took on the religion of the culture around him and if not he would have been viewed as an outcast. No nothing can earn going to heaven because humans are sinful and imperfect. This is why Christ HAD TO die for our sins. Only arrogance assumes it was for one particular group of people.

[Derek]

No, she isn't in Hell. If there is a Heaven and Hell (which I believe there is), people would be judged by the content of their character rather than by their religious devotion and affiliation. Thus, Anne Frank would be in Heaven, since she didn't do anything wrong or evil.

For once I agree with you Rochambeau. As far as I know Anne Frank was a good person. By definition God would forgiving as God would be the most good. By most good I mean there is what we consider is good and then there is Good which is goodness in actuality.

[Derek]

The concept of heaven and hell is so infantile it can only be manmade.  People are the product of their genetics and environment.  The idea that any person deserves to suffer or be rewarded for eternity based on how their genetics and environment shape who they are (or even more asinine; based on their belief or lack thereof in poorly written bronze age scriptures) demonstrates a complete lack of understanding in human nature and sense of moral judgment.

The scriptures weren't just poorly written. That was the thought process back then. People often wonder why they find 4 stories of the same thing right in a row and at times 2 stories woven together. However, the A B C D categorical thinking did not exist yet. That's more of an Aristotelian concept that started with animal classification. Today we think it's primitive but it's actually quite complex. It wasn't how a story was told or what version of it, but the moral lesson that occurs and that's true for alot of ancient mythologies.

[Derek]

I think you're misinterpreting me. I believe that the Bible is the word of the Lord. HOWEVER, certain parts were clearly left out that may also have been the word of God. These things are both very clear. Now if someone with a certain view point was assembling the Bible, then it is possible that certain parts were included or left out due to that view point. Also, while I believe it is the word of God it is also metaphorical, and to take it literally is to belittle God. After all, a large part of Christianity is a belief in mystery, so to claim a full understanding of God or the Bible is foolish. Translations also change the emphasis of certain things, as our previous debate over homosexuality exposed.

Anyway, I am a Christian who believes fully in Jesus Christ and his word. All I'm saying is don't pretend to know or understand everything in the Bible, or about God, Heaven, or Hell.

What, exactly, do you think was left out of the bible’s plan of salvation?  Does not the bible state that those who have not heard the gospel are in darkness and under the power of Satan? And doesn’t the bible state the message of the gospel is being spread in order to that those same people might believe in order to  receive forgiveness of their sins?  And doesn’t the bible state that as of right now, belief in Jesus is the only way to receive forgiveness of sins?

It seems you think something was left out simply because you disagree with what the bible/ already has iin it.  But anything you attempt to bring in is going to contradict both the OT and NT, for even Moses warned the Jews concerning their acceptance of the Messiah;

Dt 18:15 “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him.”

Also, you’ll have to refresh my memory regarding our previous debate over homosexuality, because I am able to take the scripture exactly how it is written in regard to those passages and view the bible being in total harmony on this issue from cover to cover.

Jesus died for your forgiveness. No amount of believing or good works can save you. As a Christian you should know that. The only reason the Bible opposes homosexuality is because it was written by Jews who despised other cultures who accepted it. Belief in Jesus can't save you buddy. Only Jesus can save you and he did it by dying on the cross.

[Derek]

I think you're misinterpreting me. I believe that the Bible is the word of the Lord. HOWEVER, certain parts were clearly left out that may also have been the word of God. These things are both very clear. Now if someone with a certain view point was assembling the Bible, then it is possible that certain parts were included or left out due to that view point. Also, while I believe it is the word of God it is also metaphorical, and to take it literally is to belittle God. After all, a large part of Christianity is a belief in mystery, so to claim a full understanding of God or the Bible is foolish. Translations also change the emphasis of certain things, as our previous debate over homosexuality exposed.

Anyway, I am a Christian who believes fully in Jesus Christ and his word. All I'm saying is don't pretend to know or understand everything in the Bible, or about God, Heaven, or Hell.

What, exactly, do you think was left out of the bible’s plan of salvation?  Does not the bible state that those who have not heard the gospel are in darkness and under the power of Satan? And doesn’t the bible state the message of the gospel is being spread in order to that those same people might believe in order to  receive forgiveness of their sins?  And doesn’t the bible state that as of right now, belief in Jesus is the only way to receive forgiveness of sins?

It seems you think something was left out simply because you disagree with what the bible/ already has iin it.  But anything you attempt to bring in is going to contradict both the OT and NT, for even Moses warned the Jews concerning their acceptance of the Messiah;

Dt 18:15 “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him.”

Also, you’ll have to refresh my memory regarding our previous debate over homosexuality, because I am able to take the scripture exactly how it is written in regard to those passages and view the bible being in total harmony on this issue from cover to cover.

Deuteronomy was forged by Baruch. If you read Jeremiah 8:8 it even says so.

[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 died for the Jews. You didn't learn that in Sunday school?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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. 

[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?

[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?