Why Did Christ Descend into Hades?

[Shaker]

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.'

1. That was BeRational, not bluey, in post #79.

2. Evidenced was a mistyping made in haste - BR meant unevidenced, as he has already corrected in post #84. Either you haven't seen #84, or you have seen it but even now are still using a minor typo against BR to misrepresent his actual thoughts and intentions.

Which kind of bastard are you being over this point, a stupid bastard or a dishonest bastard?

[BeRational]

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?

Yes it also works for words in science books.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

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

Just out of interest, what would eye-witness evidence of something not happening look like exactly?   

[Aruntraveller]

Hope,

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

Just out of interest, what would eye-witness evidence of something not happening look like exactly?

Oh look there is a man not on a cross. Three days later - oh look the same man not on a cross has not re-appeared. Obviously.

[Hope]

Hope,

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

Just out of interest, what would eye-witness evidence of something not happening look like exactly?

Well, it could be a record produced the Jewish leaders and or 3rd party individuals'groups that the body had been shown to the public after the claims of Jesus' resurrection and corroborated by other 3rd party reports; it could be eye-witness accounts that the tomb in which he had been buried had not been opened but that a check had shown the body was actually still there.  There are plenty of things that the Jewish and Roman (if they'd been bothered) authorities could have done/produced to show that the resurrection hadn't happened.

[Hope]

Oh look there is a man not on a cross. Three days later - oh look the same man not on a cross has not re-appeared. Obviously.

Yes, Trent; I appreciate that your sense of contradictory evidence is less than fully developed in such a case.

[Aruntraveller]

Oh look there is a man not on a cross. Three days later - oh look the same man not on a cross has not re-appeared. Obviously.

Yes, Trent; I appreciate that your sense of contradictory evidence is less than fully developed in such a case.

What an old sourpuss you are.

[Hope]

What an old sourpuss you are.

No, not really - though I'll admit that I am currently somewhat below my usual level of enthusism.  All I was doing was to point out the childishness of your comment.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Well, it could be a record produced the Jewish leaders and or 3rd party individuals'groups that the body had been shown to the public after the claims of Jesus' resurrection and corroborated by other 3rd party reports; it could be eye-witness accounts that the tomb in which he had been buried had not been opened but that a check had shown the body was actually still there.  There are plenty of things that the Jewish and Roman (if they'd been bothered) authorities could have done/produced to show that the resurrection hadn't happened.

Actually that would be an account of something else happening, but ok. The basic point though is that my walking to the Post Office earlier and not seeing a Martian landing does not constitute eye-witness evidence that Martians didn't land.

Also worth noting that "eye-witness" accounts are notoriously some of the least reliable types of evidence available.

Remember too that as the resurrection claim wasn't written down until decades after the supposed event the authors would have had no way to go back to check whether anyone else did witness the things you describe.   

[Aruntraveller]

What an old sourpuss you are.

No, not really - though I'll admit that I am currently somewhat below my usual level of enthusism.  All I was doing was to point out the childishness of your comment.

Well maybe it was childish - it certainly wasn't meant to be taken seriously - as it was in response to other posts that were similarly chiildish and clearly not meant to be taken seriously either.

I'm aware of the reasons for your current state - maybe (and this is not facetious in anyway) you should give this place a miss for awhile and come back refreshed. Although it could be you are using it for distraction and entertainment, in which case, carry on.

[Outrider]

Hope,

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

Just out of interest, what would eye-witness evidence of something not happening look like exactly?

Well, it could be a record produced the Jewish leaders and or 3rd party individuals'groups that the body had been shown to the public after the claims of Jesus' resurrection and corroborated by other 3rd party reports; it could be eye-witness accounts that the tomb in which he had been buried had not been opened but that a check had shown the body was actually still there.  There are plenty of things that the Jewish and Roman (if they'd been bothered) authorities could have done/produced to show that the resurrection hadn't happened.

That would have involved there being some sort of contemporaneous record at all, though... wouldn't that make things a lot easier?

I'm impressed at the consistency required to blame the non-existence of hypothetical evidence for an event that most likely didn't happen in the first place on the disinterest of the local officials

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today,
I wish, I wish he'd go away...

[BeRational]

Hope,

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

Just out of interest, what would eye-witness evidence of something not happening look like exactly?

Well, it could be a record produced the Jewish leaders and or 3rd party individuals'groups that the body had been shown to the public after the claims of Jesus' resurrection and corroborated by other 3rd party reports; it could be eye-witness accounts that the tomb in which he had been buried had not been opened but that a check had shown the body was actually still there.  There are plenty of things that the Jewish and Roman (if they'd been bothered) authorities could have done/produced to show that the resurrection hadn't happened.

What accounts are you keeping now in case something is written much later about your area.

What if someone writes that that aliens landed in you town or village, and held a conference.

Will you need to write down (an infinite) number of things that are NOT happening?

Surely, we can rely on there being many accounts of this happening from many sources.

All of which of course will NOT be sufficient to conclude that aliens actually landed.

[Spud]

Surely, we can rely on there being many accounts of this happening from many sources.

There were lots of gnostic gospels. Do they count?

[Outrider]

Surely, we can rely on there being many accounts of this happening from many sources.

There were lots of gnostic gospels. Do they count?

Were any of them written at the time of the events, or are they documents produced by adherents of the growing church after the fact?

That vested interest, whilst not definitive, does call into question the motivation of the authors to remain true to the facts of the event, and the time elapsed calls into question their ability to accurately recall the events.

O.

[Dicky Underpants]

Hope,

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

Just out of interest, what would eye-witness evidence of something not happening look like exactly?

You should have asked old BA that, when he was around, blue. He said I "should get out more" in order not to see women breast-feeding in public (something I have seen many times).

According to 2000 year-old records, bloke rises from the dead - easy to believe. Women breast-feeding in public, never!

[BeRational]

Surely, we can rely on there being many accounts of this happening from many sources.

There were lots of gnostic gospels. Do they count?

For a miracle there is no amount of eye witness testimony that will be sufficient.

Do we know who wrote the gospels, and that they did not copy or have a vested interest?

[Dicky Underpants]

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!

Oh dear. Perhaps to clarify some inconsistencies in your own position regarding the divine inerrancy of scripture and your belief that "Christ preached to the souls in Sheol", you could explain the 'inerrant' view of Ecclesiastes chapter 9. It states there that the dead have no thought or knowledge. I can't help thinking that any preaching would be rather lost on those who had "no thought" and were "conscious of nothing at all".

[Dicky Underpants]

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 scriptures also testify that "The son of man will come in glory with all his angels and judge each man according to his works. Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the son of man coming into his kingdom".
Well, those "standing there" must have lived a very long time. Or maybe we need a little more carefully chosen allegory, metaphor or whatever non-literalism suits you to apply to the texts that don't fit.

[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.

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.

Are you ever going to stop wheeling out the negative proof fallacy? Ever?

[ad_orientem]

Dicky,

Obviously you have to look at the scriptures as a whole. Anyone fool can proof text but that's not the same as understanding them, which only happens within the life of the Church as guided by the Holy Spirit, that same Holy Spirit through which the scriptures were written.

[Dicky Underpants]

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.

As far as I can tell, the early Hebrews believed that when you were dead you were dead, and any 'rewards' you might receive would come in your earthly life, if you kept the covenants. With the course of time, it became apparent that this simplistic explanation just didn't hold water, so by the time of a late scripture such as the Book of Daniel, the idea of future rewards is put forward. Daniel's reward is to be "at the end of days". But questions about heaven and the immediate fate of the just are confused in the NT, and Christians still have very conflicting ideas about them.

[Dicky Underpants]

Dicky,

Obviously you have to look at the scriptures as a whole. Anyone fool can proof text but that's not the same as understanding them, which only happens within the life of the Church as guided by the Holy Spirit, that same Holy Spirit through which the scriptures were written.

I'm afraid such texts as I've quoted above have always caused the Church, from the earliest fathers onwards, acute embarrassment; and the explainings away certainly do not give any impression of divine guidance - rather the desperate scrabblings and egregious intellectual sleight of hand to try and avoid certain rather obvious conclusions.
As for Christ's "Kingdom", the explanations for what that might be are even more diverse than the contradictory references we have to it in the gospels and the epistles.

[Outrider]

Dicky,

Obviously you have to look at the scriptures as a whole. Anyone fool can proof text but that's not the same as understanding them, which only happens within the life of the Church as guided by the Holy Spirit, that same Holy Spirit through which the scriptures were written.

When you say 'guided by the Holy Spirit', does he send you a coin to flip to decide if a given passage is meant to be taken literally or figuratively or do you literally just pick and choose to suit your preconception?

O.

[ad_orientem]

Dicky,

Obviously you have to look at the scriptures as a whole. Anyone fool can proof text but that's not the same as understanding them, which only happens within the life of the Church as guided by the Holy Spirit, that same Holy Spirit through which the scriptures were written.

When you say 'guided by the Holy Spirit', does he send you a coin to flip to decide if a given passage is meant to be taken literally or figuratively or do you literally just pick and choose to suit your preconception?

O.

The life of the Church, that is not only the sacred scriptures but the ancient liturgies, the holy councils, the fathers, the lives of the saints etc.