Why Did Christ Descend into Hades?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

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?   

You might think it to be "widely known" but a_o it seems does not. Here for example is his rationale for not accepting that his understanding of the story even could be wrong:

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.

He is of course entitled as an article of personal faith to think that a quote from a book is inerrant, but so on the same basis am I. 

Neither of us however is entitled to have these personal faith beliefs taken seriously by anyone else.

[ad_orientem]

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.

For which you have never given any evidence. In fact I would go so far as to say there is no evidence that the early Church thought of it as allegory only. They most certainly believed it in the literal sense as well as the allegorical sense. They are not opposed to one another. Reading the Fathers you will find no indication that they understood it only allegorically.

[Hope]

I think that a very simple explanation of why Christ descended into hell has largely been missed (I seem to remember one or two posts making passing reference to this).  In order for the resurrection to have any value, Christ had to die first.  For the Jew, he therefore passed into Hades - from which he rose again on the 3rd day - not something that was a normal occurrence, thus showing that he had 'defeated' death.  Without descending to Hell (and note that the original word for descended didn't necessarily refer to physically downward action), he couldn't show this victory.

[ad_orientem]

I think that a very simple explanation of why Christ descended into hell has largely been missed (I seem to remember one or two posts making passing reference to this).  In order for the resurrection to have any value, Christ had to die first.  For the Jew, he therefore passed into Hades - from which he rose again on the 3rd day - not something that was a normal occurrence, thus showing that he had 'defeated' death.  Without descending to Hell (and note that the original word for descended didn't necessarily refer to physically downward action), he couldn't show this victory.

On this we can agree. Christ defeated death, sin and the devil; the proof of which is the resurrection, therefore those in Christ are no longer captive to them for the gates of hell are broken and Satan has been bound.

[BeRational]

The resurrection is of course NOT a fact.

It is a faith based in evidenced belief.

It most likely did not happen.

[bluehillside Retd.]

a_o,

On this we can agree. Christ defeated death, sin and the devil; the proof of which is the resurrection, therefore those in Christ are no longer captive to them for the gates of hell are broken and Satan has been bound.

You and Hope might want to think about looking up "reification fallacy" about now.

[Red Giant]

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.

They were only captive until the end time.  Then the messiah would come etc and the righteous dead would be raised to live in the Kingdom for 1,000 years.  The Christians thought the end time had already started.  The interesting new twist was that the messiah himself had turned out to be the first of the righteous dead to be raised.

After that of course the righteous living weren't supposed to die.  What's never been worked out is where they now go to wait, given that the messiah seems to be unavoidably detained.

[ad_orientem]

Eh? The thousand years was never a literal earthly kingdom. Our Lord confirms this when he says to Pilate "My kingdom is not of this world", which is why Chiliasm was condemned by the Constantinopolitan fathers. The thousand years is figurative of the time between Christ's first and second advent. Christ rules his kingdom at the right hand of the Father as the scriptures testify.

"The Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand: Until I make thy enemies thy footstool. The Lord will send forth the sceptre of thy power out of Sion: rule thou in the midst of thy enemies"

"Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God"

"And I saw seats; and they sat upon them; and judgment was given unto them; and the souls of them that were beheaded for the testimony of Jesus, and for the word of God, and who had not adored the beast nor his image, nor received his character on their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. The rest of the dead lived not, till the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection"

[Hope]

The resurrection is of course NOT a fact.

It is a faith based in evidenced belief.

It most likely did not happen.

BR, so glad that you have finally accepted that it is 'a faith based in evidenced belief'. 

[BeRational]

The resurrection is of course NOT a fact.

It is a faith based in evidenced belief.

It most likely did not happen.

BR, so glad that you have finally accepted that it is 'a faith based in evidenced belief'.

An Unevidenced belief.

I think you knew that!

[Hope]

a_o,

On this we can agree. Christ defeated death, sin and the devil; the proof of which is the resurrection, therefore those in Christ are no longer captive to them for the gates of hell are broken and Satan has been bound.

You and Hope might want to think about looking up "reification fallacy" about now.

Thanks for that heads-up, bhs.  The definition I found when I googled it seems to have no relevance to this issue.

I always find it amusing when you and others throw up these 'fallacy' titles which, when investigated, seem streets away from what we talking about.  Are they a sort of avoidance method that you think will exonerate you from explaining your disagreement with us for yourself?

[Hope]

An Unevidenced belief.

I think you knew that!

And your evidence for its being unevidenced?  Do you have eye-witness evidence that proves that it didn't occur?  The suggestion that you and others make that it wasn't a normal event doesn't mean that it didn't happen  After all, there are plenty of events that are one-offs which we take for granted.

[BeRational]

An Unevidenced belief.

I think you knew that!

And your evidence for its being unevidenced?

The lack of any evidence.

Words in a book do not count.

[Hope]

The lack of any evidence.

Words in a book do not count.

So, does that apply to scientific papers and journals?  After all, they are simply words in 'books' too.  Similarly, are you suggesting that - because it only exists on paper, that something like the Magna Carta isn't evidence of monarchy's duty to its subjects?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Thanks for that heads-up, bhs.  The definition I found when I googled it seems to have no relevance to this issue.

Then you need to look harder. The reification fallacy entails treating conjectures and hypotheses as if they were facts, which is just what you and a_o are doing with your "satans", "veils on hearts", "broken gates of hell" and the rest of the weird menagerie of spooks and ghoulies that inhabit your mental landscapes.

I always find it amusing when you and others throw up these 'fallacy' titles which, when investigated, seem streets away from what we talking about.  Are they a sort of avoidance method that you think will exonerate you from explaining your disagreement with us for yourself?

No - they (or in this case "it") describes exactly the fallacy you've fallen into. It's a bit like me having a heated debate about the contents of a Harry Potter book as if they were real, then asking you whether your raised eyebrow in reply was your attempt to "exonerate your from explaining your disagreement".

There's nothing to disagree with so far because all you have is your strange convictions about the factual truths of folklore and myth.

[Shaker]

So, does that apply to scientific papers and journals?  After all, they are simply words in 'books' too.

Based on real empirical evidence of experimentation from multiple sources multiple times.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

So, does that apply to scientific papers and journals?  After all, they are simply words in 'books' too.  Similarly, are you suggesting that - because it only exists on paper, that something like the Magna Carta isn't evidence of monarchy's duty to its subjects?

Do you genuinely not understand the epistemic difference between, say, a Hayne's car repair manual and the collected works of the Brothers Grimm?

Wow!

[Hope]

Do you genuinely not understand the epistemic difference between, say, a Hayne's car repair manual and the collected works of the Brothers Grimm?

Wow!

And what has that got to do with the price of fish, bhs.  I  realise that you believe that the Biblical record is no more than fable - but you have never produced any evidence to support that belief.  To quote from one of your own posts, 'It is a faith based in evidenced belief.' 

[Hope]

So, does that apply to scientific papers and journals?  After all, they are simply words in 'books' too.

Based on real empirical evidence of experimentation from multiple sources multiple times.

And of course there is plenty of real empirical evidence of experimentation from multiple sources multiple times that disproves the claims of Jesus, aren't there, Shaker.  And no, when someone like you or bhs categorically claim certain things for the Bible, it us not up to others to disprove you.  The burden of proof is on the claimant.

[ad_orientem]

This thread was started by an unbeliever who wanted to know why Christians believe Christ descended into Hades and some are still intent on deliberately derailing this thread.

Fuck the lot of you, you cunts! You don't have to fickng believe it to discuss it within the context of the original post. Get that into your fucking thick skull!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

And what has that got to do with the price of fish, bhs.

What it has to do with it is that you foolishly attempted to compare scientific journals etc with works of fiction. 

I  realise that you believe that the Biblical record is no more than fable - but you have never produced any evidence to support that belief.

You never have understood the burden of proof problem have you. There are lots of books of fantastical tales, and it's for those who think them to describe reality to "produce the evidence to support that belief", not for the rest of us to disprove it. 

To quote from one of your own posts, 'It is a faith based in evidenced belief.'

Doesn't sound like one of mine - it doesn't scan to start with. What do you think you're trying to say here?

[bluehillside Retd.]

a_o,

This thread was started by an unbeliever who wanted to know why Christians believe Christ descended into Hades and some are still intent on deliberately derailing this thread.

Fuck the lot of you, you cunts!

Well that escalated quickly didn't it. How very Christian of you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

And of course there is plenty of real empirical evidence of experimentation from multiple sources multiple times that disproves the claims of Jesus, aren't there, Shaker.  And no, when someone like you or bhs categorically claim certain things for the Bible, it us not up to others to disprove you.  The burden of proof is on the claimant.

Could you at least look up "burden of proof" before posting your mistake about it again?

Thanks.

[bluehillside Retd.]

a_o,

You don't have to fickng believe it to discuss it within the context of the original post. Get that into your fucking thick skull!

Actually I have more sympathy with that sentiment at least than you might expect, which is why I backed out earlier when some of you made clear that you wanted to take the content of these stories seriously. It would help you a lot to frame your replies in, "because they/we have personal faith beliefs that..." rather than going for full on reification, but that's your choice.   

[Outrider]

And your evidence for its being unevidenced?

The lack of reliable evidence.

Do you have eye-witness evidence that proves that it didn't occur?

That wouldn't be evidence it was an unevidenced event, that would be evidence it was a lie.

The suggestion that you and others make that it wasn't a normal event doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

You're absolutely right. What it means is, given the extraordinary nature of the claim, we're going to need extraordinary levels of evidence - one book from a genre that is at least partly allegorical does not constituted extraordinary evidence (at least, not in a good way).

After all, there are plenty of events that are one-offs which we take for granted.

I don't think we 'take them for granted', I think there are a number of incidents which we would otherwise be skeptical of for which we have a surprising quality of evidence.

O.