Did Jesus go to hell?

[Charlie24]

Charlie That was a nasty thing to say. Rhema is asking questioons and making opinions with an openness to learning. You make statements, make accusations and judgments against other Christians and give absolutely no proof of what you claim is true...Who are you to judge anybody or any thing?

Well, there's you and Rhema that demand precise Scripture verses for everything said on these forums!

In my previous posts I tried to explain that's not going to happen, pack her up if that's your demand.

And If I go into detail I know both of your responses. There's no pleasing some folks, just endless confrontation!

 

[Admon Mikha'el]

Well, there's you and Rhema that demand precise Scripture verses for everything said on these forums!

In my previous posts I tried to explain that's not going to happen, pack her up if that's your demand.

And If I go into detail I know both of your responses. There's no pleasing some folks, just endless confrontation!

Without scripture to back you up, you're just spittings our words, not caring how they splatter An empty drum, idle words

 

[Charlie24]

Without scripture to back you up, you're just spittings our words, not caring how they splatter An empty drum, idle words

I use Scripture to backup everything I say. But as the Scripture goes, sometimes the very best we can do is indirect Scripture to prove a point from the flow of Scripture. Then comes the demand for precise Scripture, and there is none!

That's why on this topic we have to go back to the beginning of the conflict with Christ and Satan, not to the Gospels, but back to Gen. 3 where it all began.

 

[Charlie24]

I use Scripture to backup everything I say. But as the Scripture goes, sometimes the very best we can do is indirect Scripture to prove a point from the flow of Scripture. Then comes the demand for precise Scripture, and there is none!

That's why on this topic we have to go back to the beginning of the conflict with Christ and Satan, not to the Gospels, but back to Gen. 3 where it all began.

The answers to the questions in this thread are not found in the NT, the NT provides the fillers to put together the answers.

The answers are in the OT where the conflict is taking place, with the NT Scripture providing the fill in's.

It has to be traced out through the entirety of the OT, it's long, many conflicts to cover and their purpose from both aspects of God's plan and Satan's plan.

 

[Admon Mikha'el]

I use Scripture to backup everything I say. But as the Scripture goes, sometimes the very best we can do is indirect Scripture to prove a point from the flow of Scripture. Then comes the demand for precise Scripture, and there is none!

That's why on this topic we have to go back to the beginning of the conflict with Christ and Satan, not to the Gospels, but back to Gen. 3 where it all began.

Now you ARE spitting out words to see how they splatter. And convincing nobody.

 

[Rhema]

Well, there's you and Rhema that demand precise Scripture verses for everything said on these forums!

Charlie,

If you describe ideas and beliefs that have no precise Scripture verses as GOSPEL TRUTH, then you're just making thing up... LIKE THE CATHOLIC Magisterium - like the Catholic fantasy of hell, and purgatory, and limbo, and indulgences, and transubstantiation (the list goes on and on and on and...)

My apologies, though. I had thought your faith to be BIBLE based rather than an "I have no scripture" base. So I stand corrected.

But if you're comfortable with beliefs that have no scriptures verses that precisely teach doctrine, then... hey... cult away.

Rhema

And If I go into detail I know both of your responses.

And now you're a mind reader. I am impressed.

 

[Rhema]

Satan's plan.

Charlie,

Without condescension, I can readily assure you that you have no idea what Satan's plan actually is. It scares ME so much, I can't speak of it in open forum.

Rhema

 

[KingJ]

It was a parable, @KingJ

Just a parable.

Rhema

I don't agree .

1. Jesus mentions actual names. No parable from Him has ever had actual names.
2. It is logical that there be an actual separation between unrepentant and repentant sinners. Imagine God placing Abraham in the same concentration camp as Pharoah.
3, It is logical that Jesus not try and woo over the heart of someone He has already ''given up on''. Exo 10:20 But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart.

I am all for God preaching to those who hate Him. But it is error to assume God mistreat in hell those who would accept Jesus and place Jesus with those who refused repentance even after 50-120 years it took to build the arc for example. God is not a fool that casts into a punishment of fire someone who would desire true repentance / accepting Jesus.

But whether parable or not, all have to concede to a fact on the topic of fire and hell. Namely, it is the only passage in the entirety of scripture that describes what a spiritual body experiences in fire. This is for me the bigger topic for discussion. Luke 16:19-31 speaks on an 'uncomfortable' fire as opposed to a torturous one.

 

[Charlie24]

Now you ARE spitting out words to see how they splatter. And convincing nobody.

To be honest, I don't care to discuss the Scripture with you and Rhema.

So you guys can count me out! Let the chips fall where they may, it's all the same to me!

 

[KingJ]

To be honest, I don't care to discuss the Scripture with you and Rhema.

So you guys can count me out! Let the chips fall where they may, it's all the same to me!

I don't know why others are getting upset with you .

You are correct in what you stating. We always have to consider all of scripture.

I am just dying to know what you actually believe on the topic when you do that.

The topic is a Rom 14:5 disagreement, it does not warrant any flaming. We should be able to discuss this civilly.

I think we all agree that God / Jesus would do whatever they can to get people into heaven. So preaching to all those in Hades makes perfect sense.

 

[Charlie24]

I don't know why others are getting upset with you .

You are correct in what you stating. We always have to consider all of scripture.

I am just dying to know what you actually believe on the topic when you do that.

The topic is a Rom 14:5 disagreement, it does not warrant any flaming. We should be able to discuss this civilly.

I think we all agree that God / Jesus would do whatever they can to get people into heaven. So preaching to all those in Hades makes perfect sense.

As far as who Christ was preaching to, Peter said these spirits were disobedient in the days of Noah.

Jude gives us more information concerning the angels who left their own habitation, not keeping in line with their creation and are kept in everlasting chains until the day of judgement.

Scholars take us back to Gen. 6:4, To the giants that walked the earth. "when the sons of God came unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them."

The scholars point out that it was these disobedient angels who transformed themselves into men and had sexual relations with human women.

They also point out that this was done to contaminate the blood line in order to stop the Messiah from being born.

But everything is an argument concerning all of this, hopefully you can see why I'm making no argument, I just don't want the backlash that's sure to come.

The scholars also point out that the word "preach" used by Peter (kerysso) can be used in the normal understanding of giving the gospel message, and to make a proclamation, as would a king.

The scholars say Christ went to Hades took the keys of death and Hell, released the righteous captives from Paridise, and made the victory proclamation the those disobedient angels in everlasting chains. They use Colossians 2:15 as the victory proclamation Christ made to these fallen angels.

"And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it."

 

[Charlie24]

As far as who Christ was preaching to, Peter said these spirits were disobedient in the days of Noah.

Jude gives us more information concerning the angels who left their own habitation, not keeping in line with their creation and are kept in everlasting chains until the day of judgement.

Scholars take us back to Gen. 6:4, To the giants that walked the earth. "when the sons of God came unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them."

The scholars point out that it was these disobedient angels who transformed themselves into men and had sexual relations with human women.

They also point out that this was done to contaminate the blood line in order to stop the Messiah from being born.

But everything is an argument concerning all of this, hopefully you can see why I'm making no argument, I just don't want the backlash that's sure to come.

The scholars also point out that the word "preach" used by Peter (kerysso) can be used in the normal understanding of giving the gospel message, and to make a proclamation, as would a king.

The scholars say Christ went to Hades took the keys of death and Hell, released the righteous captives from Paridise, and made the victory proclamation the those disobedient angels in everlasting chains. They use Colossians 2:15 as the victory proclamation Christ made to these fallen angels.

"And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it."

Can you imagine the reply I'll get from those 2 guys? I don't need that junk, King!

 

[Admon Mikha'el]

Well, there's you and Rhema that demand precise Scripture verses for everything said on these forums!

In my previous posts I tried to explain that's not going to happen, pack her up if that's your demand.

And If I go into detail I know both of your responses. There's no pleasing some folks, just endless confrontation!

Charlie...If we're going to discuss Word its only sensible to use Word in our discussions. Anything else is simply nonsense

 

[Admon Mikha'el]

To be honest, I don't care to discuss the Scripture with you and Rhema.

So you guys can count me out! Let the chips fall where they may, it's all the same to me!

Charlie If you got into the Word and allowed the Holy Spirit to teach you, then you would not have to run away at all.

 

[KingJ]

As far as who Christ was preaching to, Peter said these spirits were disobedient in the days of Noah.

Jude gives us more information concerning the angels who left their own habitation, not keeping in line with their creation and are kept in everlasting chains until the day of judgement.

Scholars take us back to Gen. 6:4, To the giants that walked the earth. "when the sons of God came unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them."

The scholars point out that it was these disobedient angels who transformed themselves into men and had sexual relations with human women.

They also point out that this was done to contaminate the blood line in order to stop the Messiah from being born.

But everything is an argument concerning all of this, hopefully you can see why I'm making no argument, I just don't want the backlash that's sure to come.

The scholars also point out that the word "preach" used by Peter (kerysso) can be used in the normal understanding of giving the gospel message, and to make a proclamation, as would a king.

The scholars say Christ went to Hades took the keys of death and Hell, released the righteous captives from Paridise, and made the victory proclamation the those disobedient angels in everlasting chains. They use Colossians 2:15 as the victory proclamation Christ made to these fallen angels.

"And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it."

Very interesting, thanks for sharing.

 

[Rhema]

I don't agree .

You don't agree with scripture?

The living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no more reward, and even the memory of them is lost.​

(Ecclesiastes 9:5 NRSV)​

That's why it's a parable. If the dead know nothing, they aren't going to be having any conversation with one another. Furthermore, who are you to declare that Jesus can't use actual names in a parable? Just because he hadn't otherwise, doesn't mean he can't.

And if there is an actual fixed great gulf how could they even speak to one another? What are the odds that these two men just happen to be within speaking distance? It only makes sense in a parable.

This is for me the bigger topic for discussion. Luke 16:19-31 speaks on an 'uncomfortable' fire as opposed to a torturous one.

Yet, verse 23 in the KJV states "tormented" (same word base as torture). And the actual Greek word is βάσανος (G931). A simple pop-on-over to Strong's gives a direct definition of Torture. Check it out. I'd provide a link to the Liddell Scott Greek Lexicon, but Tuft's University is having a lot of server problems right now.

it is the only passage in the entirety of scripture that describes ...

And that, in itself, should tell you something.

Rhema

 

[Rhema]

We should be able to discuss this civilly.

Well, ... we have been. No? But if someone is going to portray a personal viewpoint as proven undisputed doctrine without having any possibility of being wrong, then one should be ready and able to provide both scripture and solid reasoning for such assertions. It doesn't look like @Charlie24 has ever been "called out" to do so (and just gets upset).

And I gave you both reason and scripture for why Luke 16:19-31 is a parable.

(Was that uncivil?)

Thanks,
Rhema

 

[Rhema]

Peter said these spirits were disobedient in the days of Noah.

But you substitute the word "spirits" with angels. And that's not what was written. If Peter meant "disobedient angels" then why didn't he directly say so here in First Peter? (He did in Second Peter.)

Isn't possible that dead humans are also "spirits"? Spirits in the prison of Hades?

So again, what's the purpose of Jesus' sojourn into this prison? Just some ego trip he was on? Why would Jesus waste his time?

I think it's obvious that Peter and Jude were not talking about the same thing. I encourage you to read the text again:

By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.​

(1 Peter 3:19-20 KJV)​

There was no longsuffering for disobedient "angels which kept not their first estate." Jude says that God hath reserved (them) in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." Even Peter himself denied any longsuffering for those creatures:

For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;​

(2 Peter 2:4 KJV)​

And besides, Peter even uses the word angels here in Second Peter. But he hadn't in First Peter. There's a reason for that. And there's a reason why Jesus would not have preached to angels that sinned. There's no purpose in doing so. And I don't think Jesus would do something that had no purpose. But there is, however, a purpose in preaching to (dead human) spirits in the prison (of Hades) who didn't even have the possibility of knowing Abraham or the Word of God given through Moses.

Rhema

Can you imagine the reply I'll get from those 2 guys? I don't need that junk, King!

You mean reason and scripture?

 

[Rhema]

The scholars point out that it was these disobedient angels who transformed themselves into men and had sexual relations with human women.

Might I ask what scholars? (Can you name some, or give a book title?) Perhaps my seminary was ... second rate.

But everything is an argument concerning all of this, hopefully you can see why I'm making no argument, I just don't want the backlash that's sure to come.

It's a discussion Charlie... a Discussion. And there's nothing wrong in asking for reasons and scripture that actually support your view point.

If you think my posts are a "backlash," you've never had to defend a PhD thesis.

The scholars also point out that the word "preach" used by Peter (kerysso) can be used in the normal understanding of giving the gospel message, and to make a proclamation, as would a king.

Indeed. !!

It would be of great benefit and purpose to give the Gospel message to (dead human) spirits off in the prison (of Hades) who never had a chance to hear the Gospel. (And I'm glad to see you using a Strong's Concordance.)

The scholars say Christ went to Hades took the keys of death and Hell, released the righteous captives from Paridise, and made the victory proclamation the those disobedient angels in everlasting chains. They use Colossians 2:15 as the victory proclamation Christ made to these fallen angels.

Not any scholars that I know of. (And I know a lot, but not every one.) That's why I asked for a name or a book title - something that might actually have been peer-reviewed. So let's look at the text:

And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:​

(Colossians 2:15-16 KJV)​

And those principalities and powers would be the Jewish theologians. Let no man THEREFORE judge you (about Jewish ordinances in the Torah... the ones "nailed to the cross" cf. v. 14). The word "therefore" (οὖν : G3767) indicates a summation of connection. Don't let people judge you about your non-Jewish behaviour because Jesus made a shew of them (Jewish doctrines and theologians) openly. Both when alive and resurrected.

The passage in Colossians is all one thought:

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities (rulers) and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: (Colossians 2:14-16 KJV)​

And yes, it bothers me when people slice up scripture and stitch these pieces parts here and there to weave a fantastic Frankenstein fiction that couldn't possibly have been meant by the author.

Rhema

Then again, I'm starting to run into people who are adamant that the Book of Enoch should be in the Bible.

PS: As a scholar, it would be remiss of me to omit the fact that the word ἀρχή (arche) G746 means "ruler" or "king," not "principality" in any sense of a supernatural creature. (I encourage anyone to do an in-depth word study.) Jesus in the ARCHE, ... in the same book -

(Colossians 1:18 KJV) And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the ARCHE (king), the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.​

ἐξουσία (G1849), typically translated "powers" are those people who exercise the authority of the ARCHE (rulers). So in this context, Jesus made a "shew" of the High Priest and any of those (powers) who operated under their authority. He made a shew of them in what he taught, and in his Resurrection.

 

[Charlie24]

Very interesting, thanks for sharing.

King, I'm sure you found something in my outline that you question.

I'll be happy to discuss it with someone who knows how to discuss.