Talk:Bosom of Abraham

Untitled

The article talks about the phrase as it's used within Christianity and especially Roman Catholicism, but it seems to make it clear enough that it's talking about their views, not espousing it as wikipedia's own. So, I'm taking off the NPOV tag, at least until someone else raises a more specific objection. Wesley 15:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Modern Judaism

What is the modern Jewish view on this concept and afterlife in general. Jewish Encyclopedia is not very helpful. --84.20.17.84 09:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Belief?

This article claims that this concept is a belief of first century Jewish beliefs. And then cites the Gospel of Luke. If this is a Jewish belief, shouldn't the text cite a Jewish or neutral source?

Further, the first line of this article implies that Jews believe Sheol and Hades are the same thing (which isn't true) and then actually links Hades to Hades in Christianity. So if I understand this correctly, first century Jews believed in this thing called Bosom of Abraham which is the same as the Greek belief in Hades which can be defined by what Christians (many living after the 1st century) believe Hades is? That just doesn't make any sense.

I've never heard a Jew talk about the Bosom of Abraham or any of the stuff in this article (maybe some Jews believe it, but I've never heard it). This article is about a Christian belief based on something in the New Testament and should so state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.53.124 (talk) 03:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Jesus was not giving a parable, but was citing a Jewish tradition that was passed down probably from their time in Babylon, a place from which, according to the prophets, they took to themselves many strange teachings. The Talmud thus makes mention of the bosom of Abraham, various sets of angels for carrying away the dead, being able to speak with a counterpart after death, etc., all of which are being mentioned in these verses by Jesus to illustrate their tradition's being explicitly contrary to the canon of scriptures.

I'm compiling some edits and will submit them for the community's approval soon. Thanks for your time.CalebPM (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge

Yes - this article is much fuller, and clearer. Not that much needs to be added. Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User 172.163.76.28

User_talk:172.163.76.28, please note this edit reverted again. Please see Wikipedia:Citing_sources, WP:OR. You need an academic source for this "single flame" thing. Thanks.In ictu oculi (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Work

The sentence "In the Latin Vulgate..." needs a lot of work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.109.117 (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Meister des Codex Aureus Epternacensis 001.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Meister des Codex Aureus Epternacensis 001.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This article contains too much error

There are too many statements in this article that have no sources cited and that are flat out wrong. I could not get through the first 2 paragraphs before I labeled this article as complete trash.

The statements in this article that do have sources are weak or irrelevant at best.

An example of this is the following statement,

"This relates to the Second Temple period practice of reclining and eating meals in proximity to other guests, the closest of whom physically was said to lie on the bosom (chest) of the host. "

The Jewish belief during The Second temple period would have nothing to do with John 1:18 and John 13:23 which are the citations for the source of the statement.

The quote from Maccabees does not even talk about "Abraham's bosom" as a separate place in Sheol.

""after our death in this fashion Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will receive us and all our forefathers will praise us" (4 Maccabees 13:17)"

Another example is the statement about the book of Enoch. The article says,

"The pseudepigraphic Book of Enoch describes travels through the cosmos and divides Sheol into four sections: for the truly righteous, the good, the wicked awaiting judgment at the resurrection, and the wicked that will not even be resurrected."

The book of Enoch says nothing about the resurrection of the dead This is clearly an insertion of a theological belief into the Book of Enoch. The Book of Enoch does not teach that Sheol is divided into four sections either.

I cannot continue reading this article because it contains so much error in the first two paragraphs alone. The article is based off the writers own theological perspective and not on verified historical facts. It needs to be wiped out and rewritten.

The idea of Hades having a Paradise in it comes from Greek mythology.

"In the classical period the mystic religions and mystic prophets (e.g. the Orphics and Pythagoreans), as well as the philosophers, modified the realm of the dead to include an Elysian paradise for the good, and a Tartarean hell for the wicked. Souls were judged and assigned a suitable afterlife, and in some versions cast into cycles of purgatory and reincarnation. (See Haides II, the Mystics' Land of the Dead--still under construction, Sep. 2007.)"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jat91 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

References