English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Hell was also not a literal place in Aramaic. In Matthew 5:22, "hell fire" is translated as "mental suffering." In Matthew 16:18, the "gates of hell" are translated as "evil forces, or opposition." Sheol was translated simply as "a resting place for the dead" but not a place of torment. Hell was used to refer to what one experiences on earth, the mental suffering that goes along with making wrong choices. In this way, the "punishment" for our sins is the consequences of our own actions. We needn't fear this will be held against us in the afterlife because we are receiving the punishment for it now.

Satan is from the Hebrew שטן satan or Aramaic שטנא satana meaning "accuser, adversary".

http://www.unhinderedliving.com/satan.html

I wonder to whose advantage was it to alter the true meaning of those words? Did the church desire to use control through fear?

2007-03-14 10:59:54 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

9 answers

The source that you cite is only half correct in its rendering of the Syriac Peshitta.

Matthew 5:22 reads "gehena d-noora" which literally means "pit of fire," gehena referring to the garbage pit outside of Jerusalem where fires often burned. In context, it would be (excusing the pun) a grave insult for one's bones (after they died) to be thrown into a garbage heap rather than respectfully placed in an ossuary and given a proper Jewish burial. The idea that it means "mental torment" comes from the works of the late George Lamsa, which academic scholarship believes to be spurious.

Matthew 16:18 reads "tar`e de-shyul" which literally means "gates of/to the grave."

"Shyul" (sheol) simply means "grave" or "trench."

"Satana" simply means "adversary" and was a common Aramaic device; hence, "Get behind me Satan!" talking to Peter. Peter was not the anthropomorphic embodiment of evil or possessed, he was merely on the opposing side of a Rabbinic dispute, which could (and did) get as heated as any religious debate is capable. Flavius Josephus records some knock-down drag-out Rabbinic disputes where even worse was said. :-)

As some of the New Testament stories drifted farther from their original context, things did get mixed up. Especially, in modern day: Where one reads a Bible in English, it's actually a game of telephone nearly 2000 years old that started in an oral Aramaic tradition, was then codified in Koine Greek, and then was translated into English using Latin commentaries as a guide.

2007-03-14 18:50:36 · answer #1 · answered by Steve Caruso 4 · 0 0

Aramaic Satan

2017-01-16 11:49:51 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

I agree with Steve Caruso..."gehena d'noora" is what Eashoa (Yeshua) said in Matthew...there is another curious phrase in Aramaic that is generally given to Satana and that is "Akel Quartza"...in Aramaic, this is understood as "the accuser". In the Aramaic NT Peshitta, this word is used several times to denote Satana and was and is today, understood to mean Satana-proper...
Shlama burkate!

2014-02-08 01:16:32 · answer #3 · answered by Jobe 1 · 0 0

The understanding of Satan/Devil or Hell changed as the culture developed.

The dualistic nature of the Hellenistic influence lead to these understanding that are actually seen in Jesus' teachings. During the intertestamental time before Jesus time on Earth is when the concept of Hell and a ruler over Hell was developed. You can find it both in pagan writings as well as Jewish writings.

Your right though in your interpretation of satan and shoel in Hebrew. God reveals himself and the truth through culture.

2007-03-14 11:07:34 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Of course the church desired to use control through fear, just read about the crusades. I totally agree.

2007-03-14 11:13:21 · answer #5 · answered by hrld_sleeper 5 · 1 1

Absolutely.

2007-03-14 11:07:06 · answer #6 · answered by Vivian D 4 · 0 0

Who's advantage to alter the true meaning? It would have to be someone who wants to distort the true character of God. I think that only leaves one option.

2007-03-14 11:09:37 · answer #7 · answered by Mr. E 7 · 0 0

Not bad.....I totally agree., (except with the "recieving punishment now" part.)

2007-03-14 11:03:23 · answer #8 · answered by Royal Racer Hell=Grave © 7 · 1 0

like heaven

2007-03-14 11:03:40 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers