Why Did Christ Descend into Hades?

[Nearly Sane]

And Spud dies the No True Scotsman fallacy proud

[floo]

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

So there is no point in religion! As a human being we need to strive to be good enough, and do our bit to help others if we can.

[Spud]

 NS, they sure do

[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.

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

If it hadn't been written by Simon Peter, it wouldn't have been included in the New Testament canon because it would be dishonest since it claims to be by him. The issue is the integrity of the church itself.

[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!

See the bit in bold. "It's not made up". And we have the testimony of Matthew, Mark and Luke as to who the 'we' was. It was Peter, James and John who went up the mountain with Jesus. And the NT contains letters that the early church ascribed to James and John. So all three men make the same claims about Jesus.
As I've said before, if they were lying, they would not have been martyred since they would have admitted it thus avoiding execution.

[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!

See the bit in bold. "It's not made up".

You believe them, but you haven't explained how you know they aren't misleading you?

And we have the testimony of Matthew, Mark and Luke as to who the 'we' was. It was Peter, James and John who went up the mountain with Jesus. And the NT contains letters that the early church ascribed to James and John. So all three men make the same claims about Jesus.

Again, you may believe all these texts but you still haven't explained how you've assessed the risks of mistakes or lies. If this is collaborative propaganda then you are clearly the ideal target. 

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 all, since their deaths say nothing about the truth of their cause.

They might have been mistaken or had been misled by others, they might have knowingly misled others previously and would have been executed for their earlier actions even if they had later confessed to making it up, they might have been executed simply because they were part of a group targeted for persecution - so there are several possible alternatives you'd have to exclude before reaching for the supernatural, but it seems you haven't.

Even then, you can't be sure of the veracity of any of these claims from this distance from them, so that you accept these martyr stories on personal trust could mean you are falling into fallacious arguments from authority and tradition along with a large dollop of special pleading.

[floo]

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

If it hadn't been written by Simon Peter, it wouldn't have been included in the New Testament canon because it would be dishonest since it claims to be by him. The issue is the integrity of the church itself.

I would be highly surprised if Peter could write; he was a lowly fisherman who would probably not have been taught to read or write.

[Outrider]

If it hadn't been written by Simon Peter, it wouldn't have been included in the New Testament canon because it would be dishonest since it claims to be by him. The issue is the integrity of the church itself.

And you're starting form the position that the church must have had it's integrity because you have faith in the church, but that's not necessarily the case.

It may have been included because, at the time, the church needed to prop itself it, needed to give the impression of solid evidence. The editors might have genuinely believed that it was from Simon Peter, or they might have been lying. They may have had access to evidence we no longer have, or they might have been telling what they saw as a white lie.

We have no way of knowing, but with the evidence we have available it is far from proven that Simon Peter wrote those sections, that Simon Peter existed at all or that there's any validity to the claims at all.

That, in itself, isn't definitive proof that it's a fake either, I'm not claiming that, but it's not proven true just because it says its reliable, and nor because the church of the time is presumed to have thought it was reliable.

O.

[jeremyp]

2 Peter claims to be written by Simon Peter (1:1)

But it is almost certainly a forgery.

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.

That's somebody saying he heard a voice from heaven. Is it credible testimony (assuming it was Peter)?

I think, if I stood up and claimed that in a court of law, I'd be ripped to shreds under cross examination.

Not that it matters, historical debate is not a court of law. The rules of hearsay do not apply, Hearsay can be used as evidence but it is not as strong as eye witness accounts and when the person writing the hearsay is anonymous and you don't know who his source was and the events in question are clearly impossible, frankly it loses all credibility.

[Red Giant]

If it hadn't been written by Simon Peter, it wouldn't have been included in the New Testament canon because it would be dishonest since it claims to be by him. The issue is the integrity of the church itself.

Are you saying all 1st person fiction is dishonest?

[Red Giant]

It was Peter, James and John who went up the mountain with Jesus. And the NT contains letters that the early church ascribed to James and John.

Quite so, in the original version.  But of course Mark airbrushed James the Just out of the story and replaced him with James the son of Zebedee, who he invented for the purpose.  Interesting that you see through that little stunt.

[BashfulAnthony]

2 Peter claims to be written by Simon Peter (1:1)

But it is almost certainly a forgery.

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.

That's somebody saying he heard a voice from heaven. Is it credible testimony (assuming it was Peter)?

I think, if I stood up and claimed that in a court of law, I'd be ripped to shreds under cross examination.

Not that it matters, historical debate is not a court of law. The rules of hearsay do not apply, Hearsay can be used as evidence but it is not as strong as eye witness accounts and when the person writing the hearsay is anonymous and you don't know who his source was and the events in question are clearly impossible, frankly it loses all credibility.

Easy to say.  Can you substantiate that claim?

[Jack Knave]

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.

That's as naff as taro cards. How did the HS manage to get the correct longest straw in the right persons hand. Couldn't It speak to them, these men of such renown for such a deep holy faith?

[Jack Knave]

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!

See the bit in bold. "It's not made up". And we have the testimony of Matthew, Mark and Luke as to who the 'we' was. It was Peter, James and John who went up the mountain with Jesus. And the NT contains letters that the early church ascribed to James and John. So all three men make the same claims about Jesus.
As I've said before, if they were lying, they would not have been martyred since they would have admitted it thus avoiding execution.

How do you know they were executed?

[NicholasMarks]

Millions over the generations have proven the veracity of the Gospels...not because they are first hand witnesses of events but because in times of great distress they have put Jesus' word to the test and found the proof for themselves.

[Spud]

It was Peter, James and John who went up the mountain with Jesus. And the NT contains letters that the early church ascribed to James and John.

Quite so, in the original version.  But of course Mark airbrushed James the Just out of the story and replaced him with James the son of Zebedee, who he invented for the purpose.  Interesting that you see through that little stunt.

I understand what you mean, but I can't see any evidence for the stunt you mention. Though I did mistakenly assume that the author of the Epistle of James is the same James as in the Transfiguration account.

[floo]

Millions over the generations have proven the veracity of the Gospels...not because they are first hand witnesses of events but because in times of great distress they have put Jesus' word to the test and found the proof for themselves.

WELCOME BACK NM, you have been missed!

The veracity of the gospels has NEVER been proven.

[NicholasMarks]

Thanks for that Floo...but the veracity of the Gospels is proven to me...which is why I'm back.

[floo]

Thanks for that floo...but the veracity of the Gospels is proven to me...which is why I'm back.

You are entitled to your opinion, like everyone else, however you can offer no verifiable proof to substantiate your claim.

[NicholasMarks]

Thanks for that floo...but the veracity of the Gospels is proven to me...which is why I'm back.

You are entitled to your opinion, like everyone else, however you can offer no verifiable proof to substantiate your claim.

I think I can Floo...its just a question of faith...oh...and science...and study..if we want what is on offer from Jesus.

[BeRational]

Thanks for that floo...but the veracity of the Gospels is proven to me...which is why I'm back.

You are entitled to your opinion, like everyone else, however you can offer no verifiable proof to substantiate your claim.

I think I can Floo...its just a question of faith...oh...and science...and study..if we want what is on offer from Jesus.

Faith is the excuse people give themselves to believe things without sufficient evidence.
Faith is never a good idea, and no one should ever use faith for anything.

No scientific assessment of any evidence has ever concluded any god of any description.

[Sebastian Toe]

Thanks for that Floo...but the veracity of the Gospels is proven to me...which is why I'm back.

Looking forward to some electrifying debate? 

[Outrider]

Millions over the generations have proven the veracity of the Gospels...not because they are first hand witnesses of events but because in times of great distress they have put Jesus' word to the test and found the proof for themselves.

Millions over the generations have proven the veracity of the Gospels Qu'ran...not because they are first hand witnesses of events but because in times of great distress they have put Jesus' Mohammed's word to the test and found the proof for themselves...

Millions over the generations have proven the veracity of the Gospels Book of Mormon...not because they are first hand witnesses of events but because in times of great distress they have put Jesus' Joseph Smith's word to the test and found the proof for themselves...

Millions over the generations have proven the veracity of the Gospels Baghavad Gita...not because they are first hand witnesses of events but because in times of great distress they have put Jesus' Krishna's word to the test and found the proof for themselves...

It turns out millions of people can be wrong, particular if those people are desperate, superstitious and uneducated as the majority of these millions over the generations have been.

O.

[Outrider]

I think I can Floo...its just a question of faith...oh...and science...and study..if we want what is on offer from Jesus.

It cannot be a matter of faith and science, they are antithetical approaches. Science is the provisional acceptance of explanations in light of the evidence provided in support of them, whilst faith is the maintenance of a belief in the absence of, or contrary to, the evidence on offer.

O.

[NicholasMarks]

It would be a poor world without faith. We need faith in our families...in our doctors and scientists...we need faith in our governments...in our neighbours...in our judicial system...we need faith in the banking system...now though these often let us down they still try to give the impression that they deserve our faith...so it really depends who deserves the greatest faith...as I say...against aiil other faithful seeking institutions I prefer the veracity of the Holy Bible...and its spiritual/electric message.