Jesus/God in Hell?

[Moriah]

It is not my explanation that is ridiculous.

Well, you are giving the explanation as your beliefs.

Many great theologians agree

Just because you think they were great does not mean they spoke God’s truth.

with the fact that it would be futile to preach the Gospel to dead people and to teach that God will have mercy on them that died without Christ.

If they have to hear the gospel, so they could live according to God and Jesus in the spirit, then how is that without Christ?

If it were possible to be saved from Hell once there, then Jesus Christ died in vain.

Again, explain your accusations. If they had to hear the gospel and live according to God in the spirit, how is that Jesus dying in vain?

 

[Moriah]

You totally twisted what I said....I was speaking of the PRE-INCARNATE Christ...the eternal Son of God, BEFORE HIS INCARNATION speaking through Noah. No "jumping" was done. But since your mind is made up that man has a second chance to be saved after death, there is no need for any more discussion with you.

Well, you gave a few different explanations as to what you believed could be the right one, and all of the explanations are a little strange. The one explanation that is a jump, you say Jesus died, made alive in the Spirit (this at the time of the crucifixion), then saying the scripture begins to talk about Jesus before he even came to earth when he spoke to Noah, or should I say “through Noah.” That is jumping with no connection. For God spoke in the Spirit through the mouths of many prophets, so why do you think that it makes sense now to speak of Noah in that scripture.

 

[Moriah]

1 Peter 4:6 contains a motive urging people to life, ‘to the will of God,’ No such motive appears in it if it is taken to mean, as you claim, that the gospel is preached after death to the dead. To say that ‘the gospel was preached also to them that are dead’ does not say that it was preached to them when dead.

They are spirits. They did not hear the true gospel.

Peter’s letter is of late enough date (31 years after the resurrection of Christ) to explain his looking back to a past generation now passed away, who had heard the Gospel in their lifetime. I cannot see how the meaning of ‘in the flesh,’ which belongs to the phrase in the frequent instances of its occurrence in this passage, can be preserved in the clause ‘that they might be judged according to men in the flesh,’ unless it refers to a judgment which takes place during the earthly life.

If they are no longer in their bodies they cannot live according to God in their body AND spirit anymore, since they do not have a body, but they can still live according to God in the spirit. It is like saying they did what they did in the body, they can do nothing about that anymore, since their body is gone.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

Well, you are giving the explanation as your beliefs.

Just because you think they were great does not mean they spoke God’s truth.

If they have to hear the gospel, so they could live according to God and Jesus in the spirit, then how is that without Christ?

Again, explain your accusations. If they had to hear the gospel and live according to God in the spirit, how is that Jesus dying in vain?

Just because you think you have the right interpretation doesn't mean you do.

As a matter of fact... you don't. You refuse to accept the right interpretation.

You claim that a person has to be dead to be "in the spirit", but the Word of God disproves your claim.

 

[Fred's Wife]

Well, you gave a few different explanations as to what you believed could be the right one, and all of the explanations are a little strange. The one explanation that is a jump, you say Jesus died, made alive in the Spirit (this at the time of the crucifixion), then saying the scripture begins to talk about Jesus before he even came to earth when he spoke to Noah, or should I say “through Noah.” That is jumping with no connection. For God spoke in the Spirit through the mouths of many prophets, so why do you think that it makes sense now to speak of Noah in that scripture.

One last time...I never stated that Jesus died and came alive in the Spirit and preached to or through anyone...YOU did. Not one word about the crucifixion was ever mentioned in any of my posts. All I said was that the PRE-INCARNATE (that means before the INCARNATION) Spirit of Christ preached THROUGH Noah ... remember those 120 years that Noah preached before the flood?. The Spirit of the Lord/Spirit of Christ spoke through the prophets all through the OT. Do you not believe that the PRE-INCARNATE Spirit of Christ was able to speak through Noah for those 120 years? Why do you keep reverting back to the crucifixiion and resurrection? And why do you keep on saying that is what I am doing? Therefore there is NO jumping on my part, but on yours. So again, you twist what I said into something I never said.

End of discussion...2 Timothy 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

What the early church believed and taught is very important. The Apostles Creed, already in written form by the late second century, shows that the early church interpreted the passage in its correct literal and grammatical sense -- Jesus descended into hell.

The belief of the early church should matter more than those which came later.

Anyone who knows sentence structure and correct grammatical usage -- which I do -- knows that the passage can be interpreted in only one way, and that's the way the early church interpreted it and codified it in the Apostles Creed.

No amount of fallacious, misguided, and twisted reasoning can undo that truth. No amount of trying to add words that are not there can change the fact of what the passage actually means.

As the creed says in perhaps the earliest confession of the Christian faith:

"I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended into hell.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead."

As the Anglican Church says in its Articles of religion: "VIII. Of the Creeds. The Nicene Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture."

It's quite amazing and amusing to see those who claim as a principle the following of the literal meaning of scripture and what the earliest churches taught, doing all kinds of contortions, additions, twistings, etc., to try and make the passage say something it doesn't; they would make a circus contortionist proud! I guess people like this only follow the scripture literally when it fits their preconceptions.

So much for the charge they like to make of denying the Word of God, not believing the truth of God's word, heresy, etc. Moral of this story: Be careful whom thou seekest to impale, lest thou shouldest be impaled on thine own sword.

The only justifiable conclusion: The literal and grammatical sense of the scripture passage, plus the witness of the early church, settles the matter.

So, all those opposed, twist away; it won't change scripture; early church history, belief, and teaching; or the truth.

(Sorry for just now posting again -- had to get students' Logic papers graded. As I caught up on the thread, I saw that Moriah has ably fought the good fight.)

 

[The Biblicist]

What the early church believed and taught is very important. The Apostles Creed, already in written form by the late second century, shows that the early church interpreted the passage in its correct literal and grammatical sense -- Jesus descended into hell.

The belief of the early church should matter more than those which came later.

Anyone who knows sentence structure and correct grammatical usage -- which I do -- knows that the passage can be interpreted in only one way, and that's the way the early church interpreted it and codified it in the Apostles Creed.

No amount of fallacious, misguided, and twisted reasoning can undo that truth. No amount of trying to add words that are not there can change the fact of what the passage actually means.

As the creed says in perhaps the earliest confession of the Christian faith:

"I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended into hell.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead."

As the Anglican Church says in its Articles of religion: "VIII. Of the Creeds. The Nicene Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture."

It's quite amazing and amusing to see those who claim as a principle the following of the literal meaning of scripture and what the earliest churches taught, doing all kinds of contortions, additions, twistings, etc., to try and make the passage say something it doesn't; they would make a circus contortionist proud! I guess people like this only follow the scripture literally when it fits their preconceptions.

So much for the charge they like to make of denying the Word of God, not believing the truth of God's word, heresy, etc. Moral of this story: Be careful whom thou seekest to impale, lest thou shouldest be impaled on thine own sword.

The only justifiable conclusion: The literal and grammatical sense of the scripture passage, plus the witness of the early church, settles the matter.

So, all those opposed, twist away; it won't change scripture; early church history, belief, and teaching; or the truth.

(Sorry for just now posting again -- had to get students' Logic papers graded. As I caught up on the thread, I saw that Moriah has ably fought the good fight.)

I don't think the grammar does settle it. An argument can be made that those who are now in hell due to just judgement in the time of Noah had the gospel preached to them by Noah in whom the Spirit of Christ was responsible for his preaching. This is consistent with Acts 10:43 and with Peter's own descriptive words in chapter one "the Spirit of Christ" which was in them. This is consistent with Noah being called a preacher of righteousness. This is consistent with the flow of the immediate context that warns Christians to be careful not to be the objects of just judgement and with the fact that Christ suffered unjustly by the hands of his enemies but suffered justly as a substitute for his people.

Furthermore, if your position were correct why is it limited to only those who are in hell due to the flood??? Why not to everyone in hell? Your interpretation is irrational.

However, let us suppose your theory is true. Let us suppose that Christ did descend into hell. There is nothing to support your conclusion that he went to hell to preach DELIVERANCE unto them and give them a second chance! In keeping with the context of JUST JUDGEMENT versus UNJUST JUDGEMENT he may have gone to hell to suffer the just judgement for his people as a substitute in their place in hell while preaching to those in hell their JUST condemnation for rejecting the preaching of Noah in whom the Spirit of Christ indwelt. His very presence was their just condemnation in hell.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't think the grammar does settle it. An argument can be made that those who are now in hell due to just judgement in the time of Noah had the gospel preached to them by Noah in whom the Spirit of Christ was responsible for his preaching. This is consistent with Acts 10:43 and with Peter's own descriptive words in chapter one "the Spirit of Christ" which was in them. This is consistent with Noah being called a preacher of righteousness. This is consistent with the flow of the immediate context that warns Christians to be careful not to be the objects of just judgement and with the fact that Christ suffered unjustly by the hands of his enemies but suffered justly as a substitute for his people.

Furthermore, if your position were correct why is it limited to only those who are in hell due to the flood??? Why not to everyone in hell? Your interpretation is irrational.

However, let us suppose your theory is true. Let us suppose that Christ did descend into hell. There is nothing to support your conclusion that he went to hell to preach DELIVERANCE unto them and give them a second chance! In keeping with the context of JUST JUDGEMENT versus UNJUST JUDGEMENT he may have gone to hell to suffer the just judgement for his people as a substitute in their place in hell while preaching to those in hell their JUST condemnation for rejecting the preaching of Noah in whom the Spirit of Christ indwelt. His very presence was their just condemnation in hell.

Did peter preach that David speaking as a prophet, spoke that the christ would NOT abide/remain in hades/Sheoul... the grave...

isn't it held that jesus went to hell because of how the KJV calls the place 'hell?"

 

[Steadfast Fred]

I don't think the grammar does settle it. An argument can be made that those who are now in hell due to just judgement in the time of Noah had the gospel preached to them by Noah in whom the Spirit of Christ was responsible for his preaching. This is consistent with Acts 10:43 and with Peter's own descriptive words in chapter one "the Spirit of Christ" which was in them. This is consistent with Noah being called a preacher of righteousness. This is consistent with the flow of the immediate context that warns Christians to be careful not to be the objects of just judgement and with the fact that Christ suffered unjustly by the hands of his enemies but suffered justly as a substitute for his people.

Furthermore, if your position were correct why is it limited to only those who are in hell due to the flood??? Why not to everyone in hell? Your interpretation is irrational.

However, let us suppose your theory is true. Let us suppose that Christ did descend into hell. There is nothing to support your conclusion that he went to hell to preach DELIVERANCE unto them and give them a second chance! In keeping with the context of JUST JUDGEMENT versus UNJUST JUDGEMENT he may have gone to hell to suffer the just judgement for his people as a substitute in their place in hell while preaching to those in hell their JUST condemnation for rejecting the preaching of Noah in whom the Spirit of Christ indwelt. His very presence was their just condemnation in hell.

Correct. And notice not even the Apostles creed says that Christ preached deliverance or that He preached the Gospel to those in hell.

I have no problem with saying Christ descended into the heart of the Earth, for the Bible tells us He did. I have no problem with saying that Christ led captivity captive, for the Bible says He did. What I have a problem with is the doctrine that Christ descended into hell to preach the Gospel to a lost people in order that they might believe and be saved, because the Bible does not teach that doctrine at all.

 

[The Biblicist]

Did peter preach that David speaking as a prophet, spoke that the christ would NOT abide/remain in hades/Sheoul... the grave...

isn't it held that jesus went to hell because of how the KJV calls the place 'hell?"

Many believe that David was using Hebrew parallelism in Psalm 16 (which Peter quoted in Acts 2) and that he was simply saying that Christ's body would not see corruption or be left in "sheol" translated "hades" in the New Testament.

Many believe that sheol was the "place of the dead" and was referred to as "lowest" versus upper sheol. The place of dead bodies was upper sheol and the place of dead spirits was lowest sheol.

Hence, Christ's body, as well as, the bodies of all the saints go to upper sheol or the grave. Paul implies this when he speaks of the victory of the body of the saints in the resurrection from the grave:

1 Cor. 15:55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave,[lit. hades] where is thy victory?

 

[Yeshua1]

Many believe that David was using Hebrew parallelism in Psalm 16 (which Peter quoted in Acts 2) and that he was simply saying that Christ's body would not see corruption or be left in "sheol" translated "hades" in the New Testament.

Many believe that sheol was the "place of the dead" and was referred to as "lowest" versus upper sheol. The place of dead bodies was upper sheol and the place of dead spirits was lowest sheol.

Hence, Christ's body, as well as, the bodies of all the saints go to upper sheol or the grave. Paul implies this when he speaks of the victory of the body of the saints in the resurrection from the grave:

1 Cor. 15:55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave,[lit. hades] where is thy victory?

In a technical sense...

is there ANY in hell right now even, isn't that the lake of Fire, awaiting after Great White Throne!

 

[Steadfast Fred]

Here is a great sermon that reveals the final estate of the man who dies without Christ.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

In a technical sense...

is there ANY in hell right now even, isn't that the lake of Fire, awaiting after Great White Throne!

Sheole has many souls in it today. The Old Testament reveals that

Isaiah 5:14 (KJV) Therefore hell (sheole) hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it.

 

[Yeshua1]

Sheole has many souls in it today. The Old Testament reveals that

Isaiah 5:14 (KJV) Therefore hell (sheole) hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it.

Agree, its just that we we say 'Hell", the one most of us mean doesn't have any in it, not even Satan yet!

thats because I link hell+lake of Fire, second death!

 

[Steadfast Fred]

Those who die without Christ are ungodly. Upon death, the ungodly go to hell to await judgment.

Although the ungodly are in hell, they are not being punished there. Why aren't they being punished" you may ask.

Because the place of torment is geenna, the lake of fire. Notice:

2 Peter 2:9 (KJV) The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

The punishment of the ungodly is future, at the Great White Throne judgment.

Job 31:3 (KJV) Is not destruction to the wicked? and a strange punishment to the workers of iniquity?

Further proof that the doctrine of souls being saved after death is a preposterous doctrine.

 

[Yeshua1]

Those who die without Christ are ungodly. Upon death, the ungodly go to hell to await judgment.

Although the ungodly are in hell, they are not being punished there. Why aren't they being punished" you may ask.

Because the place of torment is geenna, the lake of fire. Notice:

2 Peter 2:9 (KJV) The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

The punishment of the ungodly is future, at the Great White Throne judgment.

Job 31:3 (KJV) Is not destruction to the wicked? and a strange punishment to the workers of iniquity?

Further proof that the doctrine of souls being saved after death is a preposterous doctrine.

So what we call hell todasy, is the abode where sinners hold awaiting final judgement, and "hell" as we refer to it being, eternal punishment, is lake of Fire?

 

[Steadfast Fred]

So what we call hell todasy, is the abode where sinners hold awaiting final judgement, and "hell" as we refer to it being, eternal punishment, is lake of Fire?

I believe both to be "hell". In the New Testament, both hades and gehenna are translated as "hell".

The difference being that hades is merely a holding place, if you will... a place where the sinner awaits trial and sentencing. After trial, he will be cast into the lake of fire, where he will be tormented forever.

 

[Moriah]

Furthermore, if your position were correct why is it limited to only those who are in hell due to the flood??? Why not to everyone in hell? Your interpretation is irrational.

You cannot even handle the truth that Jesus went to those spirits in prison, so now you are ready to speak about why not the scriptures say to everyone in hell.

However, let us suppose your theory is true. Let us suppose that Christ did descend into hell. There is nothing to support your conclusion that he went to hell to preach DELIVERANCE unto them and give them a second chance!

Why do people keep calling it a second chance? It is not as if they knew the true gospel while they were alive, but then rejected it, but get another chance!

In keeping with the context of JUST JUDGEMENT versus UNJUST JUDGEMENT he may have gone to hell to suffer the just judgement for his people as a substitute in their place in hell while preaching to those in hell their JUST condemnation for rejecting the preaching of Noah in whom the Spirit of Christ indwelt. His very presence was their just condemnation in hell.

Do not go beyond what is written. The Bible says Jesus went and preached the gospel to those who had disobeyed. The Bible says so that they can live according to God in the spirit. The Bible says Jesus filled the whole universe by also descending.
Again, do not go beyond what is written.

 

[Moriah]

Correct. And notice not even the Apostles creed says that Christ preached deliverance or that He preached the Gospel to those in hell.

I have no problem with saying Christ descended into the heart of the Earth, for the Bible tells us He did. I have no problem with saying that Christ led captivity captive, for the Bible says He did. What I have a problem with is the doctrine that Christ descended into hell to preach the Gospel to a lost people in order that they might believe and be saved, because the Bible does not teach that doctrine at all.

The Bible does say so that they can live according to God in the spirit.

 

[Yeshua1]

You cannot even handle the truth that Jesus went to those spirits in prison, so now you are ready to speak about why not the scriptures say to everyone in hell.

Why do people keep calling it a second chance? It is not as if they knew the true gospel while they were alive, but then rejected it, but get another chance!


Do not go beyond what is written. The Bible says Jesus went and preached the gospel to those who had disobeyed. The Bible says so that they can live according to God in the spirit. The Bible says Jesus filled the whole universe by also descending.
Again, do not go beyond what is written.

Nor make a point of doctrine of a single verse, when entire rest of scripture denies it!