Why Did Christ Descend into Hades?

[Outrider]

Evidence in a court of law is witnesses accounts.

Much of it, yes, and there are well-documented studies showing that it's not nearly as reliable as people think it, yet we still have a culture that values it.

In a court witnesses who witness things are producing EVIDENCE.

And, in a court of law, a claim that Jesus was real would be thrown out in moments as, at best, hearsay - it would be inadmissible in evidence. Eye-witness testimony, delivered in person, is permitted (and, for cultural reasons, given undue weight) but the allegation that someone told you they'd seen it, without the opportunity to cross-examine them to determine how accurate their memory is or trustworthy their contribution is would be thrown out.

It's hearsay. At best.

O.

[Red Giant]

In any case, none of the gospel writers told us his name or made any claim to be an eyewitness.  The authorship claims were invented later.

PS Actually that's not true - the gospel of Thomas, for instance, has a name on it.  But the Church doesn't accept those.

The other problem with "we have the eyewitnesses" is that Christians never make any attempt to account for all the stuff they choose to ignore.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sassy,

Selective reasoning and cherry picking isn't my bag.

Any reasoning at all would be helpful though. It's a simple enough question - having committed the negative proof fallacy so beloved of Hope, how would you propose to get out of it? How even in principle do you think it's possible to prove that something didn't happen? 

And once you've done that, how then would you propose to go about demonstrating both that the accounts written decades after the claimed event were accurately recorded, and - even if they were - that what the "witnesses" think they saw was actually what they did see?

[Jack Knave]

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.

How does a God die?

If he defeated death then he didn't die?

The fact that the whole resurrection thing is based on a total misunderstanding of death does seem to undermine it more than somewhat.

Aren't you a Christian? Doesn't that worry you a bit?

Also, iirc, JC was suppose to represent mankind, and take on all their foibles etc., and yet he only did what he did, as claimed, because he was more than just a mere human...? A bit of a paradox, yes?

[Jack Knave]

It's not down to personal judgment. You have to look at the whole, that is, you have to think with the mind of the Church. That is how you know it is of the Holy Spirit. Don't listen what the Protestants say.

ad_o, where did Jesus say that one would know if something was from the Holy Spirit if you thought with the mind of the Church?  I've always understood that one was to test everything (which of course includes the thinking of the church) by the Holy Spirit - not the other way round.

To be fair, ... - or they revert to the cultural expertise of the Jewish traditions, ...

Most of what Jesus taught (and Paul) is based on Jewish thinking.  It therefore makes sense to look at that body of thinking for an explanation of the background that Jesus and Paul was working from.

Essentially, then, there is no definitive - everyone can 'feel' for which bits they want to be literal and which figurative, and no-one can tell them they're wrong.

That sounds very similar to the approach taken by some non-Christians here, O.  ;-)

That opens the opportunities for people to pick the hate-riddled nonsense in there - the homophobia, the slavery-apologism, the racism, the tribalism, the misogyny - and claim it as God's will. That's really the best system an all-knowing, all-loving deity could come up with?

Isn't misrepresentation a human trait, O?  I'd suggest you have a word with ippy - he's a past-master of the skill.

Hope,

In his dicourse with the Apostles after the Last Supper our Lord said he would send the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth. Test we must but it is not a private thing. How were the holy councils judged to have been ecumenical? Because they were accepted by the whole Church and by the fruits there of. Not because a person said so but by the acts of the Church itself. Likewie we must have the same mind set. In the same way we do not look to the Fathers merely because they say so, but because they too think with the mind of the Church. Same with the ancient liturgies, because they have been approved by continuous use and the saint through the holiness of their lives.

And yet when they came to replace Judas they drew lots....very inspired!!!

Indeed! Not one man's whim!

BUT, not inspired by the HS either, just the luck of the draw. Very heathen!!!

[Nearly Sane]

Aren't you a Christian? Doesn't that worry you a bit?

Also, iirc, JC was suppose to represent mankind, and take on all their foibles etc., and yet he only did what he did, as claimed, because he was more than just a mere human...? A bit of a paradox, yes?

Don't think RG is a Christian

[Jack Knave]

How does a God die?

JK, one needs to go back a stage in the Christian calendar to answer this question.  Christians believe that God became human in the form of Jesus.  As such, he was able to experience all that humans experience - including death - which is why there is no suggestion that he raised himself from death but was raised from death (the difference between the active and passive modes of the verb).  In case you aren't aware, this coming to earth as a humnan being is what Christians celebrate towards the end/beginning of each year - the timing depending largely on the calendar one uses.

This experiencing of his doesn't count because if you are strong or superhuman then it is a piece of piss. If I only experience the stresses of a child then life is going to be a joy ride. He was not human and therefore can't present mankind.

[Jack Knave]

Aren't you a Christian? Doesn't that worry you a bit?

Also, iirc, JC was suppose to represent mankind, and take on all their foibles etc., and yet he only did what he did, as claimed, because he was more than just a mere human...? A bit of a paradox, yes?

Don't think RG is a Christian

Just read some of his posts and that is the way it seems. He/she hasn't posted much over the years so had very little info on him/her.

[Nearly Sane]

Aren't you a Christian? Doesn't that worry you a bit?

Also, iirc, JC was suppose to represent mankind, and take on all their foibles etc., and yet he only did what he did, as claimed, because he was more than just a mere human...? A bit of a paradox, yes?

Don't think RG is a Christian

Just read some of his posts and that is the way it seems. He/she hasn't posted much over the years so had very little info on him/her.

which posts? All the ones on here that cover religion, including ones which refer to 'the Christians' put him outside of such.

[Jack Knave]

Aren't you a Christian? Doesn't that worry you a bit?

Also, iirc, JC was suppose to represent mankind, and take on all their foibles etc., and yet he only did what he did, as claimed, because he was more than just a mere human...? A bit of a paradox, yes?

Don't think RG is a Christian

Just read some of his posts and that is the way it seems. He/she hasn't posted much over the years so had very little info on him/her.

which posts? All the ones on here that cover religion, including ones which refer to 'the Christians' put him outside of such.

I'm talking about the overall feel and idea you get from someone over a long period of time. I can't remember what everyone's position is for those who only occasionally post on here, even if I've only read their posts recently.

[Nearly Sane]

Click on his profile and read his posts then. They don't show him as Christian.

[ad_orientem]

It's not down to personal judgment. You have to look at the whole, that is, you have to think with the mind of the Church. That is how you know it is of the Holy Spirit. Don't listen what the Protestants say.

ad_o, where did Jesus say that one would know if something was from the Holy Spirit if you thought with the mind of the Church?  I've always understood that one was to test everything (which of course includes the thinking of the church) by the Holy Spirit - not the other way round.

To be fair, ... - or they revert to the cultural expertise of the Jewish traditions, ...

Most of what Jesus taught (and Paul) is based on Jewish thinking.  It therefore makes sense to look at that body of thinking for an explanation of the background that Jesus and Paul was working from.

Essentially, then, there is no definitive - everyone can 'feel' for which bits they want to be literal and which figurative, and no-one can tell them they're wrong.

That sounds very similar to the approach taken by some non-Christians here, O.  ;-)

That opens the opportunities for people to pick the hate-riddled nonsense in there - the homophobia, the slavery-apologism, the racism, the tribalism, the misogyny - and claim it as God's will. That's really the best system an all-knowing, all-loving deity could come up with?

Isn't misrepresentation a human trait, O?  I'd suggest you have a word with ippy - he's a past-master of the skill.

Hope,

In his dicourse with the Apostles after the Last Supper our Lord said he would send the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth. Test we must but it is not a private thing. How were the holy councils judged to have been ecumenical? Because they were accepted by the whole Church and by the fruits there of. Not because a person said so but by the acts of the Church itself. Likewie we must have the same mind set. In the same way we do not look to the Fathers merely because they say so, but because they too think with the mind of the Church. Same with the ancient liturgies, because they have been approved by continuous use and the saint through the holiness of their lives.

And yet when they came to replace Judas they drew lots....very inspired!!!

Indeed! Not one man's whim!

BUT, not inspired by the HS either, just the luck of the draw. Very heathen!!!

On the contrary. By drawing lots they were trusting in the Holy Spirit.

[Nearly Sane]

Paraclete = Dice Man. All hail Luke Rheinhardt or rather Rhinehart in the rather less rococo spelling not from my memory

[Jack Knave]

It's not down to personal judgment. You have to look at the whole, that is, you have to think with the mind of the Church. That is how you know it is of the Holy Spirit. Don't listen what the Protestants say.

ad_o, where did Jesus say that one would know if something was from the Holy Spirit if you thought with the mind of the Church?  I've always understood that one was to test everything (which of course includes the thinking of the church) by the Holy Spirit - not the other way round.

To be fair, ... - or they revert to the cultural expertise of the Jewish traditions, ...

Most of what Jesus taught (and Paul) is based on Jewish thinking.  It therefore makes sense to look at that body of thinking for an explanation of the background that Jesus and Paul was working from.

Essentially, then, there is no definitive - everyone can 'feel' for which bits they want to be literal and which figurative, and no-one can tell them they're wrong.

That sounds very similar to the approach taken by some non-Christians here, O.  ;-)

That opens the opportunities for people to pick the hate-riddled nonsense in there - the homophobia, the slavery-apologism, the racism, the tribalism, the misogyny - and claim it as God's will. That's really the best system an all-knowing, all-loving deity could come up with?

Isn't misrepresentation a human trait, O?  I'd suggest you have a word with ippy - he's a past-master of the skill.

Hope,

In his dicourse with the Apostles after the Last Supper our Lord said he would send the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth. Test we must but it is not a private thing. How were the holy councils judged to have been ecumenical? Because they were accepted by the whole Church and by the fruits there of. Not because a person said so but by the acts of the Church itself. Likewie we must have the same mind set. In the same way we do not look to the Fathers merely because they say so, but because they too think with the mind of the Church. Same with the ancient liturgies, because they have been approved by continuous use and the saint through the holiness of their lives.

And yet when they came to replace Judas they drew lots....very inspired!!!

Indeed! Not one man's whim!

BUT, not inspired by the HS either, just the luck of the draw. Very heathen!!!

On the contrary. By drawing lots they were trusting in the Holy Spirit.

And that's the power of God, is it, pure luck!!! Come on, what a cop out.

[ad_orientem]

And that's the power of God, is it, pure luck!!! Come on, what a cop out.

Not at all. The Holy Spirit was guiding them.

[Spud]

Evidence in a court of law is witnesses accounts.

Much of it, yes, and there are well-documented studies showing that it's not nearly as reliable as people think it, yet we still have a culture that values it.

In a court witnesses who witness things are producing EVIDENCE.

And, in a court of law, a claim that Jesus was real would be thrown out in moments as, at best, hearsay - it would be inadmissible in evidence. Eye-witness testimony, delivered in person, is permitted (and, for cultural reasons, given undue weight) but the allegation that someone told you they'd seen it, without the opportunity to cross-examine them to determine how accurate their memory is or trustworthy their contribution is would be thrown out.

It's hearsay. At best.

O.

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.

[Outrider]

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.

No, it really doesn't. An allegation within a hearsay document suggesting that it's written by an eyewitness does not somehow elevate it to no longer being hearsay any more than the fact that the Old Testament suggests Moses wrote the some of the books means that Moses either existed or wrote some of the books.

You can't use the claims within the work as evidence that the work is credible, you need something external to validate it. Otherwise criminals would leave notes at the scene saying 'I did it, signed Jeff' and the courts would round up anyone called Jeff.

O.

[Gordon]

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!

[floo]

Evidence in a court of law is witnesses accounts.

Much of it, yes, and there are well-documented studies showing that it's not nearly as reliable as people think it, yet we still have a culture that values it.

In a court witnesses who witness things are producing EVIDENCE.

And, in a court of law, a claim that Jesus was real would be thrown out in moments as, at best, hearsay - it would be inadmissible in evidence. Eye-witness testimony, delivered in person, is permitted (and, for cultural reasons, given undue weight) but the allegation that someone told you they'd seen it, without the opportunity to cross-examine them to determine how accurate their memory is or trustworthy their contribution is would be thrown out.

It's hearsay. At best.

O.

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.

"My neighbour saw fairies dancing in his garden". Oh come on if someone made a statement like that do you really think a court of law would accept it? The resurrection myth is no more credible!

[Spud]

Floo,
Apart from dancing, what did the fairies do that helped your neighbor? Is he/she a better person having seen them?

[Shaker]

Floo,
Apart from dancing, what did the fairies do that helped your neighbor? Is he/she a better person having seen them?

Sounds just like special pleading ... nothing to do with being 'better' for having seen them, which is a state incapable of measurement.

[floo]

Floo,
Apart from dancing, what did the fairies do that helped your neighbor? Is he/she a better person having seen them?

And are people better for thinking they know Jesus? The answer to that is a definite NO in many cases!

On another forum someone said that getting 'saved' was all a matter of having your sins forgiven, not about making you a better person! PATHETIC there is absolutely no point in a faith which doesn't make you a better person.

[Spud]

Shaker, if we couldn't measure betterness we wouldn't have words like better. Floo, being saved involves both.

[Nearly Sane]

Shaker, if we couldn't measure betterness we wouldn't have words like better. Floo, being saved involves both.

Unicorns exist

[Spud]

Also, floo, thinking they know jesus will not make someone a better person.