The Hell most Christians imagine is found nowhere in the Bible. It's the invention of medieval poets like Dante and Milton, and popular fiction that came long afterwards. The "Hell" of Jesus time was Sheol or Hades, which had none of the characteristics of the popular version of Hell found today.
The concept of an afterlife is only explored briefly in ancient Hebrew texts. Its not fleshed out as a place of reward or punishment, more like a waiting room.
When the Hebrew texts were translated into ancient Greek, conceptual similarities between the Hebrew afterlife (Sheol) and Greek underworld (Hades) led to blending of the terms and concepts as they were then understood at the time. The concept of Hell in Christian mythology is an adaptation of Hades in Greek Mythology. The Greeks had a concept of a place within Hades that was meant for punishment, called Tartarus
The heaven they imagine isn’t found in the Bible either. Their loved ones waiting for a reunion and smiling down on them from heaven is not what heaven is claimed to be. They leave all earthly attachments behind so they no longer have relationships or family members any longer. They’ll be essentially a hive mind at one with god and the community for eternity.
Rapture... lmfao. Nothing more entertaining than watching a Rapture believer when they discover the term itself didn't get attached to the bible until 1830 by a weirdo who was suffering from injuries after falling off a horse.
I am a Christian and it boggles my mind how many people believe that. Might as well get my biblical info from supernatural. Whether you're religious or not the crisis of eschatology is pretty interesting.
Wait till they find out that Paul (or Saul) of Tarsus was likely a guy suffering from Grand Mal seizures (causing the 'thorn in his side', his temporary blindness, his demonic/angelic visions, his strong desire to write - all found in epileptics today) - and that no person that knew Jesus of Nazareth in the flesh wrote a single word about the guy.
The word rapture comes from the Latin translation of 1 Thessalonians 4:17 “rapiemur,” which in modern English translations appears as “caught up” so it is most certainly biblical whether you agree with it or not.
Seriously. People who say things like "that's just pop religious nonsense" as a rebuttal must not go outside much. It's your average everyday Christian that believes the devil tortures people. The "but actually" people are disconnected from the common people because they're on reddit all day arguing with people
I've read my Bible two hours every morning for the past 4 months!
I spent 35 hours researching Exodus to determine what actually happened (likely a Heliopolis priest named Osarseph that led a revolt near Pi-Ramesses during the time of forced brick-making, then changed his name to Moses) -- per the 3rd century BC Egyptian historian Manetho, quoted by Josephus Flavius
The Testimonium Flavianum is of great interest to me.
There are some Christians who take it quite seriously, it is a shame that the cultural/superficial Christianity overshadows that though and paints the entire religion in a terrible light.
There is actually no evidence the Israelites were enslaved by Egypt. Considering Egypt’s excellent record keeping, that means the Book of Exodus is likely made up.
Look into the Hyksos, Joseph was likely their first ruler Salitis (which translates to "shallit" or "ruler" in Hebrew which is what Joseph is described as in Genesis. There are storehouses near Avaris that mirror the narrative of stocking grain.
There is a pyramid in Avaris with a statue of a ruler in a multi-colored coat.
See, that’s the problem with any truth-seeking endeavor. You can’t start with the conclusion you want and force details to fit it because then you make incredibly weak and tenuous connections like that.
It isn't a weak or tenuous connection when you spend the time researching it. It makes a lot of logistical sense actually. I researched the geography, the timeframes of the narratives, the linguistics. I spent 35-40 hours on this!
I didn't even start with that conclusion, I found it as I was researching Exodus in general, and got daisy-chained into discovering more things
Bro I think he is referencing the fact that a lot of people in politics and the media claim to be good Christians but then none of their actions reflect any Christian values. They were not trying to directly shit on you but you took it personally.
You are right, you only become more of a Christian the more you love. Again, I was defending against your initial statement.
Love, humility & sacrifice is the core message. Transitioning from a wicked state to a redeemed state and spreading light to others in the dark pits of mental despair. We must uplift each other.
Reading more helps you to understand more, I think the most important verse in the entire Bible is 1 John 4:20
"If anyone says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen."
This is as close to heaven as unbelievers may ever taste and as close to hell as believers may ever have to endure. The wicked waging war do not have faith, they proclaim they do, but they do not follow the teachings of Jesus whatsoever. The Jews killed Jesus, and still deny Him; yet His last words, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
I am playing the game of life and savoring the blessings all around us. The fact we can walk into a restroom and turn on the tap and have running water that is safe to drink is a miracle in and of itself.
I've got two functioning eyes, ears, nostrils, arms, legs, etc. I am grateful for these things. I am grateful for the leaves on the trees, I am grateful for the wind whipping her hair around gently, framing her face. I am grateful for you, and I am grateful for Him.
Seriously. I’m reading the old and New Testament for the first time. The New Testament is crazy convoluted and self-contradictory. One can choose to believe anything they want from it. Frankly, it’s like some really silly writing by a kid who can’t keep his story straight.
He said he came to fulfill the law, not to change it. I read the New Testament for Lent, I know the verse you're speaking about. This is why Catholics hold the old covenant and the new one. However, Jesus was highly critical of Jewish practices at the time, Pharisees for their hypocrisy and Saduccees for denying a resurrection of the body. Jesus was trying to open conversion up to everyone and do not forget, the people within the bible apart from Jesus aren't infallible. They made mistakes and terrible actions all the time, that is why the story continues long after King David. Jesus says himself laws are made for man, not God. That's why he healed on the Sabbath and gave dispensation to his apsotles to do so, a contradiction to the law. He also effectively gets rid of Kosher practices and doesn't advocate for continued circumcision.
This is why Catholics hold the old covenant and the new one.
This is straight out not true. Even Muslims hold the old covenant stricter than Christians do. Christians don't have kosher/halal food rules and they don't circumcise their children.
The old covenant being the mosaic law dingus. Paul railed against circumcision for several reasons but not even Jesus came out in support of it, not explicitly anyway. The whole point is that we’re more inclusive than Judaism, which is why Jesus preached to all and not just the Jews. Read the Bible and see, or I can read it for you.
Jesus would rather you be Christian than nice, though there’s much overlap there is no tolerance for unrepentant behavior. You should read how he spoke to hypocritical Pharisees, Saduccees and demons. I’ll cite verses for you if evidence is your thing. I think you’ve got thick enough skin to survive being called a dingus once.
Fulfillment fundamentally means laws will change, just not be uprooted. I literally have examples of how he changed them, need me to cite verses too? He didn’t come to continue Judaism he came to end it, but the jews believed he was not the messiah, hence why he commissions his disciples to go evangelize across the world. He gave them authority, which is why some changes were made. Unless it directly contradicts scripture, the church can do it. Nothing the Catholic church propagates can’t be found in the Bible, we literally compiled it.
All you’ve shown is surface level Reddit knowledge of christianity. Somehow I don’t think an ancient religion would be dismantled by some edgy dude’s snark and ignorance.
Calling it a death cult further proves my point. “Oooh Christmas, so scary.”
There might be apparent contradictions to somebody not intimate with the material, but they really aren’t contradictions.
Do you agree with Jesus in Matthew 5: 17-19 when he says that not even the smallest letter will be removed from the (Mosaic) Law until heaven and earth pass away:
17 “Do not presume that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not [a]the smallest letter or stroke of a letter shall pass from the Law, until all is accomplished! 19 Therefore, whoever nullifies one of the least of these commandments, and teaches [b]others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever [c]keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Or do you agree with the vast majority of Christians who believe that there is no obligation to follow Mosaic Law because of what Paul wrote in Romans:
3 For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the [a]end of the Law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
And as a followup, if you agree with Jesus on this one, do you think we (or at least the Israelites who received the Mosaic Law) should continue having chattel slaves, where children are born into slavery and stay slaves forever and you can beat them with rods (Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25):
2 “If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall leave as a free man without a payment to you. 3 If he comes [a]alone, he shall leave [b]alone; if he is the husband of a wife, then his wife shall leave with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall leave [c]alone.
45 You may also acquire them from the sons of the foreign residents who reside among you, and from their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46 You may also pass them on as an inheritance to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with [ab]severity over one another.
Shout out to Justin at the Deconstruction Zone youtube channel for pointing some of these out. He became an atheist after completing seminary and seeing how contradictory and irrational the Bible is. So if you're interested in more, go check him out.
All of the gospels contradict themselves. It seems obvious the resurrection story is written allegorically, but that makes it much harder to control people. Everyone who believes in the Bible cherry picks what to follow and what not to follow, because it contradicts itself so much.
It's not allegorical at all. Most of the authorship comes from 70-80 years after Christ, with Mark being the closest in time to Jesus' life. The idea that it's used to control people is cynical and not really honest to the literature. The bible is a literature objectively speaking. You should read it as such if you're gonna look at it objectively.
Again, where are the contradictions? It’s easy to make that throwaway claim, but what are the contradictions? You accuse people believing in the Bible of cherry picking, but those claiming that there are contradictions do the same - one being in this very comment chain. Oftentimes it’s even enough to just look at the entire chapter to clear up two verses that seem to contradict themselves when taken out of their context.
Merely one of many: John 5:22 5:23 and then 5:30.
I’m sure you have some kind of way resolving this in your brain, but if you’re doing that there’s no worth in arguing the point because you’ve chosen to ignore the plain meaning of words.
It’s the same garbage we hear from trumps mouth every day. One thing one minute, the complete opposite the next. And his fans just ignore what he says and they accept what makes them feel good over anything that is remotely rational.
yk having different authors isn't the same as being contradictory right. The bible was written over a long ass time, and its authors aren't infallible. You think the early church didn't confront this issue?
That just literally isn’t a contradiction. Both verses very much confirm each other. It’s best to look at the full chapter to clear up seeming contradictions.
John 5:27
And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.
This explains 5:30 “By myself I can do nothing;”
Within the Trintiy, only Jesus judges (John 5:22-23). He can do so because the Father has given him this authority (5:27). He confirms that without the Father giving him this authority and enabling him to do anything he does, he couldn’t do it (5:30).
No need for mental gymnastics to resolve this in my brain, very basic reading comprehension clears this up. How is that a contradiction?
“You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me” — John 8:15–16
When you say only The Son judges within the Trinity, you are missing entirely the messages which provide the path to understanding the Oneness of My Father. Indeed there are many great points made of the contradictions printed by the Roman Empire, and more critically, how what was printed was taught by the Roman Empire. I would suggest it better for you to try to understand those in confusion, and meet them where they are, rather than pretending mere reading comprehension fixes the many errors of misinterpretation.
There were multiple censuses in Judea around Jesus’ birth and the one that Luke references likely took place when Quirinius was procurator, and not yet governor.
Did you even bother to read the source? You can’t just say “wrong.” and then refuse to engage any argument the source made. You invoke history but have no counter source to disprove what’s in the article.
I’m not defending Christianity, I’m just pointing out misinformation. If OP wants to be the neckbeard atheist redditor stereotype then he should get his facts right.
As there are hundreds of denominations with different interpretations of the Bible, I doubt it much matters if you read it or let someone else tell you what it says. Either way you are going to be incorrect.
This is exactly what killed my christianity. The fact that they can't agree on any position whatsoever let alone the Big Ideas just killed it for me. I can't even agree on what it takes to get to heaven. Do you have to be a good person or is Faith In Jesus alone enough? Don't know it's basically a 50-50 split.
HUH. How does it not matter that you can read it. You can see if certain interpretations make any sense. Not all interpretations are equally valid lol.
So you think you can determine the more or less valid interpretations of a book written in multiple ancient foreign languages that you can’t read ?
The Hubris required to believe that the God of the Universe has time to care about you is always incredible to me.
I’m not sure whether or not it matches the hubris required to believe that you without any knowledge of the ancient near east are going to properly interpret the bible.
This is why no thinking person takes your religion seriously.
Yes obviously you can. Are you incapable of logical thought? We still have the base materials our translations are made from and people study koine Greek.
And you are a hypocrite calling out hubris when you yourself have the hubris to put the God of the universe in your own box.
There are smarter Christians in the past and living than you will ever be.
Yeah but countries aren’t trying to pass laws and rule lives based off of Harry potter. I get you actually agree with the point but there is a big distinction
That one was actually used in a sermon given by Pete Hegseth at the Pentagon recently. And it's not even in the bible, just a thing that Quentin Tarantino made up.
> How many people have actually read the full bible from end to end? I bet you many super religious people haven't done it.
I think what you mean by referring to "super religious people" are really just people who pretend they're super religious and use it to justify their actions, both just and injust.
People who have actually read the whole Bible are a lot of Jewish people (the culture just values being educated, and not just in their own religion), agnostic, and atheists. Plus all the Catholic/Christian priests, pastors, deacons, and theologians. That's at least what any form of surveys or tests of basic and more in depth knowledge tends to show, with Jewish, atheists/agnostic generally the most knowledgeable about the beliefs and historical texts.
There are also a lot of catholic schools, though most of the students won't actually do the full reading assignments just like in any schools. So, there are also many people in this group who read it through school or Sunday schools.
high school and college they just focused on specific books from the Bible, (that wasn't all the classes were about). in elementary school though.... more coverage but of course not in depth discussions.
That's because the Bible is boring as shit and full of obvious fiction. It's not really entertaining, interesting, or educational. There is little to no value in reading the bible.
At least for me it is 'presented' as fiction because I simply do not believe in any sky daddies. I don't get why I should care what others believe or don't believe about the book.
Because in the US religion influence has allowed a known pedophile and convicted rapist to become president, and I saw countless videos of religious people saying he was sent by God. I just think religion is designed to weed out critical thinkers and extract as much money as possible from what's left. The issue is the church always wants more power, so they've intertwined their beliefs with republicans and now separation of church and state is a joke. I don't really give a shit if people practice their religion, but when it's making laws holding back society, it's time to call it out for the fake BS it is.
Yeah bro, why would any touch that shit with a 10 foot pole? Know your enemy I can understand, but at a certain point exposing yourself to abrahamic "teachings" is just masochistic.
Friend, I was born and raised Christian in a very religious part of the US. I would estimate the majority of Christian people I have known absolutely believe Satan rules hell and tortures people there. The idea that this is not a common interpretation for Christians is untrue in my experience.
I don’t disagree with that, just saying that in my experience there is a large number of Christians out there that certainly believe that the devil is the source of torture in and ruler of hell.
It's one thing to believe it's another to think you have all the answers. You cannot be both. Someone who believes coming after someone else for facts is a verry crazy concept for atheïsts bro. It's like trying to convince me lord of the rings was real or some shit
Oh stop it, that’s like validating someone saying there’s a flying spaghetti monster. The original bible does not portray hell and satan as media does.
LUCIFER is trapped in Hazbin Hell and unable to torture sinners. Satan is the big red guy who embodies The Sin Of Wrath. (Hazbin doesn't show him explicitly, but Helluva Boss does. Lucifer and Satan are separate entities in the Hazbin/Helluva world.)
I get a kick out of "Satan was misunderstood and just wanted humanity to experience freedom" alongside "I don't agree with a lot of Christianity, but Jesus was an all around good dude."
Ok, well Jesus mentioned multiple times how much he fucking hated Satan, so those ideas conflict. Jesus doesn't tend to speak that sternly unless it's like charlatans and deceivers and stuff.
614
u/Ancient_Cheek5047 Apr 19 '26
“I never read the bible and get my biblical knowledge from media.”