WHEN DID CHRIST GO INTO HELL?

[Eddie Ramos]

[Eddie Ramos]

[historia]

Given the above have been established by the Lord himself, there are only three options open upon his death.

I think there is at least a fourth option here. But we can return to that later.

What the Jews understood at the time is neither here nor there (how much less the pagans with their myriads of false doctrine stumbling about in complete spiritual ignorance).

I disagree completely. If we want to accurately understand what an historical source is saying, it is absolutely critical that we understand the historical context in which it was written.

Clearly, the early Christians had some new ideas -- and new twists on old ideas. But they had to communicate that to Jewish and Gentile audiences using language that would have been comprehensible to them.

However long it took the disciples to understand this, however ludicrous and unheard of this might have been to others, however unique in the history of all religious literature of the time this may have been : the Christian narrative is of a Christ that comes back to life from the dead and ascends to the heavens to be with God .

But that's just the thing: The claim that after his death Jesus became a spirit and went to be with God would not have been a "ludicrous" or "unheard of" idea in the first century. That was a perfectly understandable, and even acceptable, belief within Pharisaic Judaism.

If that is in fact what the earliest Christians believed, they could have just said that "Jesus became a spirit and went to heaven." There would have been no reason at all to call that "resurrection," and nobody at the time would have understood that to be "resurrection."

[JehovahsWitness]

.

What the Jews understood at the time is neither here nor there (how much less the pagans with their myriads of false doctrine stumbling about in complete spiritual ignorance).

I disagree completely. If we want to accurately understand what an historical source is saying, it is absolutely critical that we understand the historical context in which it was written.

Fair enough but the context in which the resurrection account was written is that 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.

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**.


If the Bible writers can establish with their own words that Christ returned to life as a spirit, then they and they ALONE have established the truth on what is a factual reality. The writings of their contempories (who were IGNORANT OF THE FACTS) is utterly, entirely and completely irrelevant.

I apologise for the use of capitals but our approaches are very different in this regard. Yours seems entirely academic which is fine for painting a general picture of life at the time. Mine is a search for what is divine truth and in the context if this conversation, what happened to Christ, which MUST center on what he said and what was written by those on a position to know through eye witness testimony.

Everything else is just gravy


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

[JehovahsWitness]

WHY DID THE BIBLE WRITERS USE WORDS THAT CARRIED FALSE OR PAGAN CONNOTATIONS OR MEANINGS AT THE TIME OF WRITING?

The bible writers aim was to communicate the gospel message effectively. They avoided confusion by explaining key ideas for the most part in as unambiguous terms as possible. For example that Christ died but was subsequently alive (not dead any more).

Since the Christian community still needed words for basic fundamental concepts such as death, life, the grave, spirit, person, heaven, earth, God .. even if divine truth was vastly different to what the world up to that time believed, the bible writers were faced with a choice

1. Avoid all these words completely, on favor of entire explanatory sentences or phrases

2. Invent new words ( fxzgung = God
R$szx = heaven gxw"^ = means being dead and coming back to life either as a human or a non human )

3. Or attach new or corrected meanings to existing words.

OPTION #1 would result in an overly wordy top heavy style which might be counterproductive to the aim of spreading the good news

GENESIS 1:1 "At the starting of whatever I'm refering to , the individual responsible for the creation of everything that exists hitherto unrevealed in detail, created out if nothing the stars, planets and other physical bodies that exist when you look up (some elements which you don't know about yet but you will in a couple of millenia), and the earth (which is not flat and supported by giant elephants)

A much less eloquent start to the bible I think most would agree.

OPTION #2 Although Paul did on occasion invent new composite words, for the most part this would also make communicating a message a laborious task


Leaving...OPTION #3

*Attaching new or corrected meanings to existing words is both labour efficient and practical*


The bible writers thus became their own universe of self contained truth. Any words adopted take on their own internal meaning which may or may not reflect popular usage depended on the internal "dictionary" . The message can be conveyed with ease and any misconceptions (ie what is meant by "hell" (hades), SOUL "nephesh", or ressurction) can be explained contextually.

Given human nature and the limitations of language, dealing with abstract or novel ideas was never going to be easy; the bible writers achieved their aims with an eloquence and a clarity which is apparent when the shackles relativism and inclusivism are discarded, in favor of accepting all 66 books as one complete work of divine origin.



JW

[boatsnguitars]

[JehovahsWitness]

DID JESUS DIE TWO TIMES?

1 PETER 3:18

For Christ died once for all time for sins, a righteous person for unrighteous ones, in order to lead you to God. He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit

There is no question that Christ died once for sins, but the question is, how many times did Christ die?

COULD CHRIST HAVE DIED A SECOND TIME FOR A REASON OTHER THAN FOR AS A SACRIFICE FOR SIN.

The bible is clear, the wages of sin is death. If Jesus already died to atone for sin, then the only other reason to justify his subsequent death (a second time) would biblically be his own transgression. Otherwise he would still be alive. So since it is unthinkable that Jesus was resurrected as a human, sinned himself and was subsequently put to deat for his own sin... he is

a) a 2,000 year old human in hiding on earth or somewhere else in our physical realm
b) was resurrected as an immortal spirit and returned to his Fathers side.




JW

[onewithhim]

DID JESUS DIE TWO TIMES?

1 PETER 3:18

For Christ died once for all time for sins, a righteous person for unrighteous ones, in order to lead you to God. He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit

Which contradicts claims that he was bodily resurrected...

Exactly. The Scriptures show that Jesus was resurrected as a spirit person, the same as he was before he came to Earth.

"The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit." (I Corinthians 15:45)

How does spirit die? I thought he died for our sins?

He was a real flesh and blood man when on Earth, and when he died he gave up his physical body and was raised as a spirit person. If he took his physical body back he would not have really given up his life as a human for us. Giving up his fleshly body truly paid for our sins.

He gave up his life as a human, but he didn't give up his life. Where is the sacrifice? I'd give up my body for the world, if it didn't mean anything to my actual life?

You don't see how silly it sounds, do you?

Not at all. The sacrifice was giving up his physical body AND giving up, at the same time, his LIFE. He was truly dead for three days...not alive somewhere in the spirit world. After three days he was resurrected back to life.

[onewithhim]

The Bible says he was bodily resurrected.

Where does it say that?

This is entailed in the word resurrection itself. To a first-century Jew or pagan, "resurrection" meant a return to bodily life.

If an ancient person heard that someone had died and became a spirit, they simply would not have called that resurrection.

As Paul brings out in the 15th chapter of I Corinthians, there are two types of bodies---a physical one and a spirit one. He said that those who would reign with Christ would be raised with a spirit body. Those who are not chosen to reign with Christ will be raised with a physical body. There are 144,000 who will be given spirit bodies. There are millions if not billions that would be resurrected with physical bodies.

"Resurrection" truly was understood by the first-century Jews to be a physical bodily return to life. The spiritual resurrection was not known until Jesus came on the scene and explained who he was and what his Father's will was for the earth. No one was cognizant of the spirit resurrection until after Jesus came, and most Jews refused to accept that reality. (For thought: John 3:13.)

[Eloi]

There is not any GETTING A BODY BACK involved in the idea of resurrection, but GETTING THE LIFE BACK.

You keep repeating this oddly-worded assertion. But the rest of us have no reason to think this is what ancient pagans believed unless you can cite evidence to support your claim.

... or to support yours.

Jews knew about invisible angels who materialize bodies. Even if they need to see Jesus in a fleshly body to believe that he was alive, they didn't think necessarily that he had a fleshly body after his resurrection. They knew he was in heaven before, like the angels are.

... the examples I cited above, the ancient pagan authors clearly understood "resurrection" to refer to someone returning to life in their physical body. All of the stories of people being "resurrected" they reference are people returning to physical life here on earth.

Ancient pagans also thought people could become spirits or ghosts after they died. They didn't call that "resurrection."

If you have an example of an ancient pagan author using the term "resurrection" to refer to someone coming back to life but not in a physical body, provide it. If you can't, then you don't really have an argument.

I don't need any example of a pagan related with the resurrection because they didn't believe in that like none atheist believe in that today. A doctor today may call a medical revival as resuscitation, but I don't think they will call that resurrection (I am thinking in Spanish about this).

Jews and Christians know about spirit beings, and pagans believe most time in invisible souls or spirits, with their own invisible bodies.

It is you who is mentioning ancient medical experiments and comparing them to the resurrection... To me, hat comparison seems ridiculous ... Medical healing in those times was not always tied to religious beliefs; Luke was a physician.