Why Did Christ Descend into Hades?

[BashfulAnthony]

Off you pop, then.

No, I'll do it from my window.  I don't want to miss any of your "pearls," and fortunately there are thousands of bricks to count from here; so plenty of time:  I'll need it!   

[Spud]

2 Peter claims to be written by Simon Peter (1:1)
2 Peter 1:16-18
For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”— 18and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
The eyewitness statement underlined corroborates the same statement found in the gospels where it it hearsay.
In law today there are circumstances in which hearsay can be relied upon as credible evidence. The above example suggests that the gospels are credible.

Only if you can exclude the possibility of mistake or lies - can you?

I somehow doubt that a UK court today would accept an 'utterance made from heaven' as being credible evidence, and aren't you even a tad suspicious that this apparent corroboration (since you don't know the exact details of when this stuff was written) might be deliberately contrived?

At the very least there are risks of mistakes and/or lies here, so how have you assessed these risks? The burden of proof is yours!

Perhaps I have been barking up the wrong tree with the martyrdom argument.

It may be that the risks you mention are eliminated by internal evidence. For example, in 1 Peter the author  talks about it being near the time when he will die. This is consistent with what we know about Peter's fate, and so this detail  adds to the evidence for the letter not having been made up.

[Nearly Sane]

Kings Cross exists so Harry Potter is true

[Gordon]

Perhaps I have been barking up the wrong tree with the martyrdom argument.

You have indeed.

It may be that the risks you mention are eliminated by internal evidence. For example, in 1 Peter the author  talks about it being near the time when he will die. This is consistent with what we know about Peter's fate, and so this detail  adds to the evidence for the letter not having been made up.

This approach is hopelessly self-referential, since if there is a risk of mistakes or lies in these accounts then the details contained in them are the most likely elements to be wrong.

So, for instance, how do you know that the point you highlight here (that Peter refers to his imminent death and then soon afterwards is executed) wasn't added retrospectively well after his fate was known? If so, then your point about Peter being aware of his impending demise being somehow significant is weakened given there is a risk of fabrication that, from this distance, you probably can't exclude.

As such, and while the stories in the NT might chime with you on a personal basis, the details (such as what Jesus is alleged to have actually said) can't be demonstrated to be factually true to the extent of being historical fact (even allowing for translation issues): after all, if someone decades later decided to put certain words into the mouth of Jesus for effect while writing up the NT accounts ('Blessed are the' etc) how would you ever know?

At the very least this is a risk, since it is known that humans can make mistakes, exaggerate and tell lies, and since this is a risk that you can't demonstrably exclude then it weakens the case for the contents of the NT being historical fact/literally true even if you do find these stories to be personally inspiring.

[Spud]

Gordon, yes there were lots of forgeries but there was clearly a consensus that 1  peter was genuine.

[floo]

Gordon, yes there were lots of forgeries but there was clearly a consensus that 1  peter was genuine.

A consensus of whom?

[Jack Knave]

As I've said before, if they were lying, they would not have been martyred since they would have admitted it thus avoiding execution.

It doesn't mean that [at] all, since their deaths say nothing about the truth of their cause.

Nothing? They were killed because Jewish leaders didn't want them preaching about Jesus. If they knew it would cost them their lives, why didn't they stop preaching? Surely that says something about the truth of their cause? Have a read of Acts 4.

People have died for all manner of reasons and causes, many of then non-religious and/or political. So that counts that one out.

No it doesn't.

Well yes it does because it shows how stupid and gullible people are about all manner of beliefs and ideologies.

[Gordon]

Gordon, yes there were lots of forgeries but there was clearly a consensus that 1  peter was genuine.

A consensus involving whom?

[Jack Knave]

As I've said before, if they were lying, they would not have been martyred since they would have admitted it thus avoiding execution.

It doesn't mean that [at] all, since their deaths say nothing about the truth of their cause.

Nothing? They were killed because Jewish leaders didn't want them preaching about Jesus. If they knew it would cost them their lives, why didn't they stop preaching? Surely that says something about the truth of their cause? Have a read of Acts 4.

People have died for all manner of reasons and causes, many of them non-religious and/or political.

And some of those reasons and causes would have been good ones.

I note your word 'some'. So how do you discern the good ones from the bad ones?

[Spud]

Jack, I can recommend a book that will tell you.

[Spud]

Gordon, yes there were lots of forgeries but there was clearly a consensus that 1  peter was genuine.

A consensus involving whom?

Whoever put the NT together.

[Gordon]

Gordon, yes there were lots of forgeries but there was clearly a consensus that 1  peter was genuine.

A consensus involving whom?

Whoever put the NT together.

There you go then - you have unknown provenance and no way to assess for possible biases and/or propaganda by whoever the authors were.

That should be sufficient to conclude there are very real risks in treating the NT as if it were historical fact: anecdotal claims is, I'd say, about as far as it goes and even then, given the risk of bias/propaganda from unknown authors, all the naturally impossible miraculous/divine stuff isn't a serious proposition.   

[Shaker]

Jack, I can recommend a book that will tell you.

By which methodology is this book supposed to be trustworthy?

[floo]

Gordon, yes there were lots of forgeries but there was clearly a consensus that 1  peter was genuine.

A consensus involving whom?

Whoever put the NT together.

And that means absolutely zilch!

[Jack Knave]

Jack, I can recommend a book that will tell you.

You think a book can tell us? 

We have no sure way of knowing, but if you think you have one do tell us all and 'enlighten' us!!!

[Jack Knave]

Gordon, yes there were lots of forgeries but there was clearly a consensus that 1  peter was genuine.

A consensus involving whom?

Whoever put the NT together.

The term 'whoever' implies you have no idea who did this and you have no way of meeting them to see if they were remotely good enough. So the NT is left in the air and devoid of any really meaning for us today.

[Jack Knave]

Now that you lot have finished with your childish noise...

As we see in Daniel 3 : 23.... fire is not always associated with punishment but with cleansing and purification, and therefore, wholeness and completion.

[Spud]

Baptism?    It killed most of the people on Earth.    


But those in the ark (or the Church) were saved. Everyone else did indeed perish.


How can you be sure it killed everyone else?

Other people may have had boats.

Other boats would have been flooded by the rain and sank. Or they ran out of food or died from exposure.

[floo]

Other boats would have been flooded by the rain and sank. Or they ran out of food or died from exposure.

As credible as the silly Noah and his mythical flood garbage!

[Ricky Spanish]

Having been brought up reading the KJV there was only really one version of hell, anything that evoked the realm of the dead was called hell by the translators of the KJV.

Growing up reading about the various greek/roman/norse gods Hades to me was the Greek God of the Underworld, you know the guy with the three headed dog.

Makes me wonder what word the Aramaic speaking Jesus would have really used in his discourses and if they had the same connotations?

[Outrider]

Now that you lot have finished with your childish noise...

As we see in Daniel 3 : 23.... fire is not always associated with punishment but with cleansing and purification, and therefore, wholeness and completion.

Which is why burns units don't need to worry about infection or reconstructive surgery...     

O.

[Jack Knave]

Having been brought up reading the KJV there was only really one version of hell, anything that evoked the realm of the dead was called hell by the translators of the KJV.

Growing up reading about the various greek/roman/norse gods Hades to me was the Greek God of the Underworld, you know the guy with the three headed dog.

Makes me wonder what word the Aramaic speaking Jesus would have really used in his discourses and if they had the same connotations?

And that's all you Christians can do is wonder about what they meant in their writings because you haven't got the cultural or idiom context now.

The reason why the KJV writers did what they did by throwing in the word hell at every point they came across the implication of death was because of the attitude and cultural context of their time, and nothing to do with the outlook or position the early Christians had. The quintessential essence of what the Christians of 2000 years ago was about has been lost for ever. What you Christians are doing today has more to do with the cultural legacy that has morphed over time because of changing attitudes, and reflects modern moral perspectives of recent times than anything of those who initiated this whole Christian thing off. All spiced up with the symbolism and jargon contained in the Bible.

None of you really know if you are born again and all that than whether aliens are sending us positive thoughts all rapped up in pretty little bows.

[Ricky Spanish]

I also have to wonder that in his accurate teachings would Jesus have used "She'ol" or "Ge Hinnom" to represent his flawless Greek understanding?

[Jack Knave]

I also have to wonder that in his accurate teachings would Jesus have used "She'ol" or "Ge Hinnom" to represent his flawless Greek understanding?

I keep mistaking you for Vlad, until I see the number of posts you have done. You're Farmer aren't you?

[Ricky Spanish]

It's all relative dude.. 

Hades :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hades#Christian_Hades

She'ol: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol

Ge Hinnom:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehenna