Why Did Christ Descend into Hades?

[Jack Knave]

Just a point in question, with reference to the bit I have highlighted. Isn't the Christian explanation a literal one with regards to souls, evil spirits and Christ himself, and other aspects, but not all of them.

JK, I tyhink that you could claim that it is a literal explanation - but only in terms of the understanding that existed at the time that Jesus was alive.  As he often did, he used ideas, understandings and situations that existed at the time to illustrate his teaching.  Whether the Jewish understanding was literal or allegorical is open to debate, but that it was the thinking of the Jews of the time is not.

I was also referring to Christ as being allegorical, as well. Where do you, Christians, draw the line in the Bible of what is just metaphor, and all that, and what is taken as being fact, events in history, and what proof do you have for your positions?

[Jack Knave]

I was just wondering what the reason our resident Christians would give for the reason for this action by Christ. How does it fit in with your theology?

I suppose the simple answer is that Jesus went to Hades because everybody did.  "Descended into Hades" was just another way of saying he died.  From the perspective of the time, there was nothing surprising about it, because they'd never heard any nonsense about people going to heaven when they die.  To have said Jesus went anywhere else at the point of death might have been tantamount to saying he wasn't really dead then.

But wasn't JC son of God? Where did God live except in heaven...?

But he had to be resurrected in his new glorified spiritual body before he could go to heaven.  Heaven was perfect, there was no place in it for dead people.  Death is earthly.  And it was important that Jesus died like everybody else.  You weren't allowed to say he was an immortal who had assumed human form like Zeus or an angel, or you wouldn't have a proper Resurrection.  Actually I suppose the return from Hades was the Resurrection.

That doesn't hold water. He went down there to sort Sheol out and free the captivates. The average dead person just went down there and was captive. If he was dead like them then he couldn't have done what he did; as claimed. So he must have been different and as you say immortal and transformed when he went down there, else he would have got caught up in it and chained up in sheol like the rest of them.

[ad_orientem]

I think for the most part the Christians have always taken the scriptures literally first. There are some parts, such as the Apocalypse, which are clearly allegorical. Literal and allegorical also overlap, so for instance one can believe Noah and the flood as not only literal but also an allegory of the Church and baptism.

[Jack Knave]

I think for the most part the Christians have always taken the scriptures literally first. There are some parts, such as the Apocalypse, which are clearly allegorical. Literal and allegorical also overlap, so for instance one can believe Noah and the flood as not only literal but also an allegory of the Church and baptism.

Baptism?    It killed most of the people on Earth.    

[ad_orientem]

I think for the most part the Christians have always taken the scriptures literally first. There are some parts, such as the Apocalypse, which are clearly allegorical. Literal and allegorical also overlap, so for instance one can believe Noah and the flood as not only literal but also an allegory of the Church and baptism.

Baptism?    It killed most of the people on Earth.    

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

[BeRational]

I think for the most part the Christians have always taken the scriptures literally first. There are some parts, such as the Apocalypse, which are clearly allegorical. Literal and allegorical also overlap, so for instance one can believe Noah and the flood as not only literal but also an allegory of the Church and baptism.

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.

[ad_orientem]

I think for the most part the Christians have always taken the scriptures literally first. There are some parts, such as the Apocalypse, which are clearly allegorical. Literal and allegorical also overlap, so for instance one can believe Noah and the flood as not only literal but also an allegory of the Church and baptism.

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.

That's not what the scriptures say.

[BeRational]

I think for the most part the Christians have always taken the scriptures literally first. There are some parts, such as the Apocalypse, which are clearly allegorical. Literal and allegorical also overlap, so for instance one can believe Noah and the flood as not only literal but also an allegory of the Church and baptism.

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.

That's not what the scriptures say.

But how would they know.

These could be people on the other side of the world.

Boats were around, they had not just been invented.

So people with boats may have survived.

You have to accept the possibility.

[floo]

I think for the most part the Christians have always taken the scriptures literally first. There are some parts, such as the Apocalypse, which are clearly allegorical. Literal and allegorical also overlap, so for instance one can believe Noah and the flood as not only literal but also an allegory of the Church and baptism.

I cannot understand how anyone can believe in the literal interpretation of Noah and the flood as the story is not credible on any level, imo.

[BeRational]

I think for the most part the Christians have always taken the scriptures literally first. There are some parts, such as the Apocalypse, which are clearly allegorical. Literal and allegorical also overlap, so for instance one can believe Noah and the flood as not only literal but also an allegory of the Church and baptism.

I cannot understand how anyone can believe in the literal interpretation of Noah and the flood as the story is not credible on any level, imo.

Exactly.

I don't think it's really possible to treat this sensibly in an adult way.

Anyone that believes it to be literally true, is not likely to be interested in evidence and reason.

I think they have to be ignored.

[ad_orientem]

I think for the most part the Christians have always taken the scriptures literally first. There are some parts, such as the Apocalypse, which are clearly allegorical. Literal and allegorical also overlap, so for instance one can believe Noah and the flood as not only literal but also an allegory of the Church and baptism.

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.

That's not what the scriptures say.

But how would they know.

These could be people on the other side of the world.

Boats were around, they had not just been invented.

So people with boats may have survived.

You have to accept the possibility.

No I don't for the scriptures were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the scriptures say that only those on the ark survived.

[BeRational]

I think for the most part the Christians have always taken the scriptures literally first. There are some parts, such as the Apocalypse, which are clearly allegorical. Literal and allegorical also overlap, so for instance one can believe Noah and the flood as not only literal but also an allegory of the Church and baptism.

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.

That's not what the scriptures say.

But how would they know.

These could be people on the other side of the world.

Boats were around, they had not just been invented.

So people with boats may have survived.

You have to accept the possibility.

No I don't for the scriptures were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

OOOKAAAAAAY.

I think there is nothing serious to discuss here.

Perhaps come back when you are not being silly.

[Shaker]

Never, then.

[floo]

I think for the most part the Christians have always taken the scriptures literally first. There are some parts, such as the Apocalypse, which are clearly allegorical. Literal and allegorical also overlap, so for instance one can believe Noah and the flood as not only literal but also an allegory of the Church and baptism.

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.

That's not what the scriptures say.

But how would they know.

These could be people on the other side of the world.

Boats were around, they had not just been invented.

So people with boats may have survived.

You have to accept the possibility.

No I don't for the scriptures were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the scriptures say that only those on the ark survived.

The Bible says a lot of things which aren't credible!

[bluehillside Retd.]

a_o,

No I don't for the scriptures were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the scriptures say that only those on the ark survived.

It's rarely expressed so bluntly, but that says it all really. Once someone has un-reasoned his way into this understanding of the world, no amount of reason could even in principle reason him out of it. It's the same defence used by people who would do any manner of wickedness - the 9/11 hijackers for example - and it's precisely the reason the rest of us need to be vigilant about holding the line against those who think their faith beliefs should be privileged or treated seriously in the public domain.

[ad_orientem]

"In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison: Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also".

[bluehillside Retd.]

a_o,

"In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison: Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also".

“Harry was speeding toward the ground when the crowd saw him clap his hand to his mouth as though he was going to be sick-he hit the field on all fours-coughed-and something gold fell into his hand.

'I've got the snitch!' he shouted, waving it above his head, and the game ended in complete confusion."

Your turn.

[Shaker]

Excellent 

I've done the same before myself 

[Hope]

People who hold nonsensical beliefs and know it (the knowing it is the important bit for this point) are always the ones who get touchy when challenged/criticised, aren't they?

Oh, that's why you get touchy so often, Shakes   

[Shaker]

People who hold nonsensical beliefs and know it (the knowing it is the important bit for this point) are always the ones who get touchy when challenged/criticised, aren't they?

Oh, that's why you get touchy so often, Shakes   

No. I could of course ask for examples, but given that I'm still waiting after what now must be four or five months for you to substantiate at least two earlier bald assertions of yours, what would be the point?

[Hope]

I think for the most part the Christians have always taken the scriptures literally first. There are some parts, such as the Apocalypse, which are clearly allegorical. Literal and allegorical also overlap, so for instance one can believe Noah and the flood as not only literal but also an allegory of the Church and baptism.

The problem with this position is that few leaders of the early church believed it was literal.  Most Jews didn't either because of the literary genre in which it was written in the original language.  As I think I pointed earlier on this thread, it wasn't read literally until the 15th or 16th centuries.  I'm not an expert on Orthodox doctrine, but I've always been led to believe that the Orthodox reading was non-literal - ie that it was allegory.  In fact, I understood that the Orthodox view of Genesis 1-11 was that it was a theological document - as many Jews believed it to be.

[Hope]

No. I could of course ask for examples, but given that I'm still waiting after what now must be four or five months for you to substantiate at least two earlier bald assertions of yours, what would be the point?

So that makes 2 of us awaiting such substantiation, Shakes.

[Hope]

a_o,

"In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison: Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also".

“Harry was speeding toward the ground when the crowd saw him clap his hand to his mouth as though he was going to be sick-he hit the field on all fours-coughed-and something gold fell into his hand.

'I've got the snitch!' he shouted, waving it above his head, and the game ended in complete confusion."

Your turn.

bhs, it is widely known that the Flood story was allegorical - so what is your point?  What's the allegory included in your Harry Potter quote?  By the way, did you quote that from memory?   

[Shaker]

No. I could of course ask for examples, but given that I'm still waiting after what now must be four or five months for you to substantiate at least two earlier bald assertions of yours, what would be the point?

So that makes 2 of us awaiting such substantiation, Shakes.

The substantiation of what are you supposed to be waiting for?

And if you are in fact supposedly waiting for such, are you saying that that's the reason you've dismally failed to answer at least two such points in several months and have run away every time the matter has been raised? Really? I never quite realised you were still in primary school, despite the reasoning skills or rather dearth thereof being a major giveaway.

[ad_orientem]

Very droll! Now do you have anything worthwhile to contribute to the thread?