WHEN DID CHRIST GO INTO HELL?

[Eddie Ramos]

[boatsnguitars]

So, have we come to an answer about this? It's been 2000 years. Seems Christians should be getting close to a consensus on whether Jesus rose bodily or not....

[onewithhim]

So, have we come to an answer about this? It's been 2000 years. Seems Christians should be getting close to a consensus on whether Jesus rose bodily or not....

We have a consensus. Please read posts 53, 54, 55, 58 and 59. The issue is very well explained.

[boatsnguitars]

So, have we come to an answer about this? It's been 2000 years. Seems Christians should be getting close to a consensus on whether Jesus rose bodily or not....

We have a consensus. Please read posts 53, 54, 55, 58 and 59. The issue is very well explained.

So, you all agree that Jesus rose bodily, in decayable flesh?

Where is this flesh body now?

[Eddie Ramos]

[Eddie Ramos]

[boatsnguitars]

Christ had the same body until the time he ascended into heaven. It was at that point that he changed into his spiritual body, typifying what will take place at the catching up of the saints in the last day.

Where is that body now? The bones?

[Eddie Ramos]

Christ had the same body until the time he ascended into heaven. It was at that point that he changed into his spiritual body, typifying what will take place at the catching up of the saints in the last day.

Where is that body now? The bones?

When Christ rose from the dead in his same physical body, he ascended up to heaven 40 days later. Whenever the Bible talks about a body going into heaven, it undergoes a change, a transformation, if you will, where the corruptible earthly body of flesh and bones, transforms into a spiritual body, of which, we're norepinephrine given too much information about in the Bible, but we do know that this incorruptible spiritual body, is an actual body indeed.

Job records the resurrection of the saints this way:

Job 19:25-26 (KJV)
For I know that my redeemer liveth,
and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body,
yet in my flesh shall I see God:

The transformation of the corruptible body into its incorruptible body, for those who are changed while they are still alive (like Christ and Enoch and Elijah), means that they don't actually die in order to be changed.

Hebrews 11:5 (KJV) 5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

So this miraculous change that takes place doesn't mean that this physical body is left somewhere and another body is inhabited, it means that it's changed from one body to another.

1 Corinthians 15:51-54 (KJV) 51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

[onewithhim]

So, have we come to an answer about this? It's been 2000 years. Seems Christians should be getting close to a consensus on whether Jesus rose bodily or not....

We have a consensus. Please read posts 53, 54, 55, 58 and 59. The issue is very well explained.

So, you all agree that Jesus rose bodily, in decayable flesh?

Where is this flesh body now?

How can you say that when we have been saying that he was resurrected with a spirit body? Do you actually read our posts?

[historia]

the pagans at the time of the resurrection had zero knowledge of the facts and wrote (if not from a cultural perspective from a religious one ) a truckload of garbage.

Okay, but you're running well past my point here, which again was this simple observation:

To a first-century Jew or pagan, "resurrection" meant a return to bodily life.

You (post #49) and onewithhim (post #59) have already acknowledged that Jews at the time understood "resurrection" to mean a return to bodily life. As it happens, pagans also knew what "resurrection" meant (post #33), they just didn't generally believe in it. Further still, the early Church Fathers and the Rabbis also understood "resurrection" to mean a return to bodily life.

So, pretty much everyone before, during, and after the writing of the New Testament -- whether they were a Jew, a Christian, or even a pagan -- understood that "resurrection" referred to someone coming back to physical, bodily life. That's simply what that term meant.

I feel like we should all be able to agree on that, right?

If an in depth analysis established every single available pagan text in existence pointed to the word resurrection meaning coming back from Mars as a goldfish, that might be interesting from a cultural point of view but that would have absolutely no bearing on religious TRUTH in general and have **zero bearing on what happened to Christ**.

Let's go with this example. Let's say there was a term in koine Greek that meant "coming back from Mars as a goldfish." Would the early Christians have used that term to describe what happened to Jesus after his death? Clearly not, since that doesn't reflect what they believed about Jesus.

Likewise, if the early Christians believed Jesus became a spirit after he died, they wouldn't have used the term "resurrection" to describe that either. "Resurrection" refers to coming back to physical, bodily life, and so wouldn't reflect what they believed about Jesus.

Given human nature and the limitations of language, dealing with abstract or novel ideas was never going to be easy

But again, the belief that Jesus became a spirit after he died would not have been a "novel" or "abstract" idea to first-century audiences. That was a perfectly understandable, and even acceptable, belief within Pharisaic Judaism.

The early Christians wouldn't need to come up with new terms or need to redefine existing terms to articulate that idea, either. They could have just said "Jesus became a spirit." Easy!

So either one of two things is true here: (a) the New Testament authors used the term "resurrection" in a completely different way from everyone else before, during, and after them, including later Christians, or (b) your interpretation of Paul and other New Testament authors is wrong.

All things being equal, we would have to suspect that (b) is more likely the case.

[JehovahsWitness]

the pagans at the time of the resurrection had zero knowledge of the facts and wrote (if not from a cultural perspective from a religious one ) a truckload of garbage.

Okay, but you're running well past my point here, which again was this simple observation:

To a first-century Jew or pagan, "resurrection" meant a return to bodily life.

You (post #49) and onewithhim (post #59) have already acknowledged that Jews at the time understood "resurrection" to mean a return to bodily life. As it happens, pagans also knew what "resurrection" meant (post #33), they just didn't generally believe in it. Further still, the early Church Fathers and the Rabbis also understood "resurrection" to mean a return to bodily life.

So, pretty much everyone before, during, and after the writing of the New Testament -- whether they were a Jew, a Christian, or even a pagan -- understood that "resurrection" referred to someone coming back to physical, bodily life. That's simply what that term meant.

I feel like we should all be able to agree on that, right?

If an in depth analysis established every single available pagan text in existence pointed to the word resurrection meaning coming back from Mars as a goldfish, that might be interesting from a cultural point of view but that would have absolutely no bearing on religious TRUTH in general and have **zero bearing on what happened to Christ**.

Let's go with this example. Let's say there was a term in koine Greek that meant "coming back from Mars as a goldfish." Would the early Christians have used that term to describe what happened to Jesus after his death? Clearly not, since that doesn't reflect what they believed about Jesus.

Likewise, if the early Christians believed Jesus became a spirit after he died, they wouldn't have used the term "resurrection" to describe that either. "Resurrection" refers to coming back to physical, bodily life, and so wouldn't reflect what they believed about Jesus.

Given human nature and the limitations of language, dealing with abstract or novel ideas was never going to be easy

But again, the belief that Jesus became a spirit after he died would not have been a "novel" or "abstract" idea to first-century audiences. That was a perfectly understandable, and even acceptable, belief within Pharisaic Judaism.

The early Christians wouldn't need to come up with new terms or need to redefine existing terms to articulate that idea, either. They could have just said "Jesus became a spirit." Easy!

So either one of two things is true here: (a) the New Testament authors used the term "resurrection" in a completely different way from everyone else before, during, and after them, including later Christians, or (b) your interpretation of Paul and other New Testament authors is wrong.

All things being equal, we would have to suspect that (b) is more likely the case.

Historia, I feel the points you raise here have been addressed in my two subsequent posts POST #54 (They could have just said "Jesus became a spirit." )
viewtopic.php?p=1114971#p1114971

and POST #55 (Would the early Christians have used that term to describe what happened to Jesus after his death? Clearly not, since that doesn't reflect what they believed about Jesus.).
viewtopic.php?p=1114973#p1114973


...Did you read them?