Did Jesus Actually Go To hell, as per The Creeds?

[annsni]

Annsni
all in whose nostrils [is] breath of a living spirit -- of all that [is] in the dry land -- have died. That is life from the living God. When Jesus placed that breath of a living spirit into the hands of the Father, Jesus the once living soul was dead and his soul at that moment was in the realm of the dead Hades for three days and three nights time.

His soul was not left in Hades. His soul not his spirit.

I do not believe that there are three parts to a person but two. However, we are speaking of the grave in this passage - not hell as in the place of torment. It is not even a waiting room next to the place of torment. It was the grave - the same as any of us will go to when we die.

 

[Allan]

I do not believe that there are three parts to a person but two. However, we are speaking of the grave in this passage - not hell as in the place of torment. It is not even a waiting room next to the place of torment. It was the grave - the same as any of us will go to when we die.

You might need to study that out a bit more.
The passage uses the term 'sheol'.. when does not mean just grave. In fact there are other Hebrew words that means just that (grave or tomb, ect..), however Sheol does mean more than 'just grave'. - Hades is it's counter part in the Greek.

 

[Aaron]

You all can argue words all you want. The fact of the matter is this, if the punishment was intended for your sin, then Christ tasted it. If it wasn't, then He didn't.

 

[annsni]

You all can argue words all you want. The fact of the matter is this, if the punishment was intended for your sin, then Christ tasted it. If it wasn't, then He didn't.

So "It is finished" was a lie?

 

[annsni]

You might need to study that out a bit more.
The passage uses the term 'sheol'.. when does not mean just grave. In fact there are other Hebrew words that means just that (grave or tomb, ect..), however Sheol does mean more than 'just grave'. - Hades is it's counter part in the Greek.

No actually, "geenna" would be the true hell as we know it in Greek. "Sheol" can absolutely mean the grave and in this context, that is what it is saying. Again, if Jesus Christ went to hell, then He lied.

 

[Allan]

No actually, "geenna" would be the true hell as we know it in Greek. "Sheol" can absolutely mean the grave and in this context, that is what it is saying. Again, if Jesus Christ went to hell, then He lied.

Then you apparently haven't studied much on subject.
While yes, 'gehenna' refers to what we refer to as the burning side of hell.. you fail completely in understanding that 'sheol' does not simple or only mean grave. It never has and never will, well except when people want to redefine a term.

The term NEVER means only the grave, while grave can be INCLUDED, the term referred to the realm of the dead and departed. Even Reformed scholars note this (A.T. Robertson is an easy one to verify regarding sheol and/or hades) and many others. You can go and read a recent and posting on the subject here.
Here is one of those links I provide of my previous engagements of various previous threads:

SHEOL [ISBE]
SHEOL - she'-ol (she'ol):
1. The Name

2. The Abode of the Dead

(1) Not a State of Unconsciousness

(2) Not Removed from God's Jurisdiction

(3) Relation to Immortality

3. Post-canonical Period

1. The Name:

This word is often translated in the King James Version "grave" (e.g. Gen 37:35; 1 Sam 2:6; Job 7:9; 14:13; Ps 6:5; 49:14; Isa 14:11, etc.) or "hell" (e.g. Dt 32:22; Ps 9:17; 18:5; Isa 14:9; Am 9:2, etc.); in 3 places by "pit" (Nu 16:30,33; Job 17:16). It means really the unseen world, the state or abode of the dead, and is the equivalent of the Greek Haides, by which word it is translated in Septuagint. The English Revisers have acted somewhat inconsistently in leaving "grave" or "pit" in the historical books and putting "Sheol" in the margin, while substituting "Sheol" in the poetical writings, and putting "grave" in the margin ("hell" is retained in Isa 14). Compare their "Preface." The American Revisers more properly use "Sheol" throughout. The etymology of the word is uncertain. A favorite derivation is from sha'al, "to ask" (compare Prov 1:12; 27:20; 30:15,16; Isa 5:14; Hab 2:5); others prefer the sha'al, "to be hollow." The Babylonians are said to have a similar word Sualu, though this is questioned by some.

....

See ESCHATOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

(3) Relation to Immortality.

To apprehend fully the Old Testament conception of Sheol one must view it in its relation to the idea of death as something unnatural and abnormal for man; a result of sin. The believer's hope for the future, so far as this had place, was not prolonged existence in Sheol, but deliverance from it and restoration to new life in God's presence (Job 14:13-15; 19:25-27; Ps 16:10,11; 17:15; 49:15; 73:24-26; see IMMORTALITY; ESCHATOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT; RESURRECTION). Dr. Charles probably goes too far in thinking of Sheol in Psalms 49 and 73 as "the future abode of the wicked only; heaven as that of the righteous" (op. cit., 74); but different destinies are clearly indicated.
3. Post-canonical Period:

There is no doubt, at all events, that in the postcanonical Jewish literature (the Apocrypha and apocalyptic writings) a very considerable development is manifest in the idea of Sheol. Distinction between good and bad in Israel is emphasized; Sheol becomes for certain classes an intermediate state between death and resurrection; for the wicked and for Gentiles it is nearly a synonym for Gehenna (hell). For the various views, with relevant literature on the whole subject, see ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT; also DEATH; HADES; HELL, etc.

Or here:

According to 1st century C.E. Jewish beliefs, the dead were gathered into a general tarrying-place, the sheol of the Old Testament, and the Hades of the New Testament writings (cf. Luke 16:22, in the Gr. 16:23). Here, the righteous occupied an abode or compartment of their own which was distinctly separated by a wall or a chasm from the abode or compartment to which the wicked were consigned. The latter was a place of torments usually spoken of as Gehenna (cf. Matthew 5:29-30; 18:9ff, Mark 9:42 sqq. in the Latin Vulgate)- the other, a place of bliss and security known under the names of "Paradise" (cf. Luke 23:43) or "the Bosom of Abraham" (Luke 16:22-23).

The happy part of the afterlife as portrayed in the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus fits this concept of the Bosom of Abraham.

In the 3rd century, Hippolytus of Rome referred to Abraham's bosom as the place in hades where the righteous await judgment day in delight.[1]

Augustine of Hippo likewise referred to the righteous dead as disembodied spirits blissfully awaiting Judgment Day in secret receptacles.[2]

Since the righteous dead are rewarded in the bosom of Abraham before Judgment Day, this belief represents a form of particular judgment
...
Tertullian, on the other hand, described the bosom of Abraham as that section of Hades in which the righteous dead await the day of the Lord
-^ Tertullian, A Treatise on the Soul, Chapter 7.

Or some other early church fathers view on the subject (including Augustine in his book - City of God)

Here are the citiations for the two earlier church fathers mentioned:
^ Hippolytus of Rome, Against Plato, on the Cause of the Universe, §1. As to the state of the righteous, he writes, "And there the righteous from the beginning dwell, not ruled by necessity, but enjoying always the contemplation of the blessings which are in their view, and delighting themselves with the expectation of others ever new, and deeming those ever better than these. And that place brings no toils to them. There, there is neither fierce heat, nor cold, nor thorn; but the face of the fathers and the righteous is seen to be always smiling, as they wait for the rest and eternal revival in heaven which succeed this location. And we call it by the name Abraham's bosom." Ibid.

^ Augustine of Hippo, City of God, Book XII (his statement is found therein)

This also from the Jewish Encyclopedia:

In the New Testament and in Jewish writings a term signifying the abodeof bliss in the other world. According to IV Macc. xiii. 17, the righteous who die for their faith are received by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in paradise (compare Matt. viii. 11: "Many shall come from the east and the west and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven"). In Ḳid. 72b, Adda bar Ahaba, a rabbi of the third century, is said to be "sitting in the bosom of Abraham," which means that he has entered paradise. With this should be compared the statement of R. Levi (Gen. R. xlviii.): "In the world to come Abraham sits at the gate of Gehenna, permitting none to enter who bears the seal of the covenant" (see Circumcision).

In the Hellenistic Testament of Abraham it is Adam, the representative of humanity, who sits at the gate of hell and paradise; the Jewish view of later times placed Abraham, the progenitor of Israel, in Adam's place. This was also the view of the New Testament writers as presented in Luke, xvi. 19-31, the story of Lazarus and the rich man. Lazarus, the beggar, died and was carried by the angels into Abraham's Bosom; the rich man died and was put into Gehenna, where he saw Lazarus in the Bosom of Abraham, full of joy, whereas he suffered great torment. Thereat he cried: "Father Abraham, have mercy on me!" and finally he asked Abraham to send Lazarus to his father's house to admonish his five brothers to lead lives characterized by repentance, in order not to meet the same fate as his own. Whereupon Abraham said: "They have the law of Moses and the teachings of the prophets; let them be mindful of these, and they will enter paradise as well as Lazarus." On Lazarus (Eliezer) and Abraham see Geiger's "Jüdische Zeitschrift für Wissenschaft und Leben," vii. 200. It is plain that Abraham is here viewed as the warden of paradise, like Michael in Jewish and St. Peter in Christian folk-lore ("Texts and Studies," v. 55, 69, Cambridge). Of Abraham as attorney pleading for Israel, R. Jonathan also speaks (Shab. 89b). K.

Read more: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...#ixzz0Tbi2T1Qu

You don't even seem to grasp the simple context that the word had a varied sense and usage among the Jews and maintained that usage in Christian understanding. I encourage you to actually study this out and stop making blanket statements that hold no water regarding the words UNDERSTOOD meaning

 

[annsni]

Then you apparently haven't studied much on subject.
While yes, 'gehenna' refers to what we refer to as the burning side of hell.. you fail completely in understanding that 'sheol' does not simple or only mean grave. It never has and never will, well except when people want to redefine a term.

The term NEVER means only the grave, while grave can be INCLUDED, the term referred to the realm of the dead and departed. Even Reformed scholars note this (A.T. Robertson is an easy one to verify regarding sheol and/or hades) and many others. You can go and read a recent and posting on the subject here.
Here is one of those links I provide of my previous engagements of various previous threads:


Or here:


Or some other early church fathers view on the subject (including Augustine in his book - City of God)

This also from the Jewish Encyclopedia:




Read more: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...#ixzz0Tbi2T1Qu

You don't even seem to grasp the simple context that the word had a varied sense and usage among the Jews and maintained that usage in Christian understanding. I encourage you to actually study this out and stop making blanket statements that hold no water regarding the words UNDERSTOOD meaning

Hmmm - I already said that it could mean hell or else the grave and in the context of the verse, we see it is the grave. I HAVE studied this quite a bit because I grew up believing that Jesus went to hell. After study, I had to admit that it was not a Biblical concept.

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

This is a good example of not seeing the forest for the trees....The whole Jude 6 passage is another misconstruction on what the Bible actually states. People like Chuck Missler have really muddied the water on this passage by their sensationalistic slant on Jude (and Gen 6.) But that would be another thread altogether.

While I agree with a lot of what u just said---I couldn’t disagree with you more on this last statement! You are more than welcome to read my posts on other threads about why I say this--& why jude 6 does in fact refer to Gen 6. However, Chuck Missler has added more to the angelic view than I personally care for—but I don’t want 2 derail this thread—so as to your point about this thread---I think it is valid & should be considered!

 

[Allan]

Hmmm - I already said that it could mean hell or else the grave and in the context of the verse, we see it is the grave. I HAVE studied this quite a bit because I grew up believing that Jesus went to hell. After study, I had to admit that it was not a Biblical concept.

If you studied it then you 'know' that neither Shoel nor Hades mean just the grave. Never has, never can. Again, while the definition can INCLUDE the grave as part of the full picture, it never means nor can mean, only the grave.

You do know there are words in the both languages that mean simply the grave or tomb, ect, right? The use of these two specific words have a specific meaning and to try to ascribe it such an overly simplistic one does so by trying to ignore it's historical usage for one that is more conducive to a theological point of view. Again, study the word's 'historical' meaning and usages as they will disagree with your view. I would suggest to not just read some select people who agree with you. You do realize that many reformers (even Augustine) agree with the 'meaning' I have given regarding sheol and hades - A.T. Robertson is one such noted Reformed scholar and theologian.

 

[allinall]

a) HADES: A SCRIPTURAL VIEWPOINT

A key term in the biblical understanding of death and the afterlife is the Greek word Hades. This word forms a linguistic bridge which takes us from the Old Testament view of death, often expressed with the word Sheol to the New Testament Hades. The importance of a proper interpretation of this word cannot be overstressed.

In the Septuagint, Hades is found 71 times. It is the Greek equivalent for Sheol 64 times. The other seven times it is found in the Septuagint, it is the translation of other Hebrew words, some of which shed significant light on what Hades meant to the translators of the Septuagint.

In Job 33:22, Hades is the translation of the Hebrew word memeteim, or 'destroying angels [KJV] ... the angels who are commissioned by God to slay the man.' In this sense it refers to disincarnate spirit creatures.

It is also used in Job 38:17 as the translation of the Hebrew, 'the realm of ghosts or shades' (KJV).

It is used for 'the shades of the underworld' in Prov 2:18. This refers to the spirits of the departed in Sheol who are viewed as 'the dwellers in the Kingdom of the dead as in Homer and Virgil and like the Latin word Inferi, it stands for the realm of disembodied souls.'

Not once is Hades the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word for grave (kever). Not once does it mean nonexistence or unconsciousness. The times it is used for words other than Sheol, it clearly means the world of spirits. There is, therefore, no way to escape the conclusion that the translators of the Septuagint clearly understood that Hades referred to the realm of disembodied souls or spirits; and, we must also emphasize, that the translators of the Septuagint did not obtain this concept from Platonic Greek thought but from the Hebrew concept of Sheol itself.

THE LEXICOGRAPHICAL EVIDENCE

When we turn to the lexicographical material, we find that the authors of the Septuagint were correct in their usage of Hades as the Greek equivalent for the Hebrew Sheol.

Arndt and Gingrich... A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament... define Hades as 'the underworld ... the place of the dead' (p. 16). Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon (p. 11) states that Hades comes from two words which joined together [which] mean 'invisible,' or 'unseen.' Thus it refers to 'the common receptacle of disembodied spirits.'

The KJV mistranslated the word Hades in every occurrence just as it did with the word Sheol. It is found ten times in the Greek New Testament. The Greek text underlying the KJV [the Textus Receptus] has it an eleventh time in 1 Cor 15:55, but this is a corrupt reading.

Perhaps the best way to clarify what the New Testament teaches about Hades is to first of all state what Hades does not mean. Once we have cleared away any misconceptions of this word, then we can present its meaning in the New Testament.

First, Hades does not mean death, because the Greek word thanatos is the word for death in the New Testament. Also, Hades and death appear together in such passages as Rev 1:18 where they cannot be viewed as synonyms...

i) [Rev 1:18]:

"I am the Loving One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades."

Second, Hades is not the grave, because the Greek word mneema is the word for grave in the New Testament. Also, all the arguments which demonstrated that Sheol cannot mean the grave apply equally to Hades seeing that Hades is the equivalent for the Hebrew word Sheol. The New Testament's dependence upon the Septuagint demonstrates this point.

Third, Hades is not 'hell,' i.e., the place of final punishment for the wicked, because the Greek word Gehenna is the word for 'hell' in the New Testament.

Fourth, Hades is not 'heaven,' i.e., the place where the soul of the righteous goes at death to await the coming resurrection, because the Greek word ouranos is the word for heaven in the New Testament.

Fifth, Hades is not the place of eternal bliss for the righteous after the resurrection, because the new heavens and the new earth or the everlasting kingdom refer to this place (Matt 24:34; Rev 21:1).

Having clarified what Hades does not mean, we can now state the New Testament meaning of this crucial word.

First, we must once again emphasize the importance of the principle of progressive revelation....

...The New Testament picks up where the Old Testament left off by progressively developing the concept of what happens to the soul of man after death....

http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/eph4v9.htm

 

[Aaron]

So "It is finished" was a lie?

Did He say that while alive or dead?

 

[percho]

I do not believe that there are three parts to a person but two. However, we are speaking of the grave in this passage - not hell as in the place of torment. It is not even a waiting room next to the place of torment. It was the grave - the same as any of us will go to when we die.

I will show my age. As they use to say on Dragnet, Just the facts ma'am , just the facts.

And Jehovah God formeth the man -- dust from the ground, elements
and breatheth into his nostrils breath of life, life that comes from God and is God
and the man, what was formed from the ground plus life from God
becometh a living creature. (Soul) It the soul, the sum total of man immediately began to accumulate knowledge and put to memory from his surroundings and from the only one speaking to him, The LORD God. This is the living soul from before he was made was subject to death. He was told it was appointed unto him to die. In fact before he was created the one who spoke him into existence had agreed to give up his glory power and spirit life and be made flesh and die for him. And when I say die I mean to cease to exist unless there be intervention from another. Slain from the foundation of the world. Yet also before the world began God, who cannot lie, promised the hope of eternal life Titus 1:2 Who do you think this promise was made to? Who is the only one that has LIFE that will give it up for you and me? In another place this is said about hope. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Heb. 1:1 Now how is it that this is said about Jesus the Christ. And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation (LIFE) unto all them that obey him; Heb.2:9 the just shall live by his faith. Habakkuk 2:4 For by grace are ye saved through faith; Eph. 2:7 Just whose faith is it by which we are saved? Who only was an eternal being, (Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: ) and gave that up for those undeserving creatures he created because he first loved us, (But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.) Two places Paul speaks of obedience of faith. That is what is is talking about.

Did The Word made flesh Jesus the Christ die, spend some time in the realm of the dead (Hades, Sheol, Hell in the KJV) for us or not?

Did God the Father give him eternal life as promised or not?

Saved through/by? Another way Paul speaks of the faith by which we are saved.

he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit: Titus 3:5 It is through the regeneration of Christ that the blood of his death is able cleanse and bring us salvation by resurrection after he received the Holy Spirit he shed it upon us see next verse and also Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. Acts 2:33

 

[asterisktom]

Did He say that while alive or dead?

There serious problems raised by those who insist that Christ had to do anything beyond the Cross. It goes counter to Scripture. This is excerpted from my article. I took out the parts that are not as relevant for this thread.

WHAT HAPPENED AT THE CROSS?
A closer look at 1st Peter 3:18

"For Christ also has once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:"

Notice these details from the verse:
1. Against those who say He suffered twice (since he "died" twice), the verse teaches Christ "suffered once for sins".

2. His suffering for sin was substitutionary ("the just for the unjust"). As an aside: This proves against the Word of Faith teachers (not the focus of this article) that there was no saving suffering of Christ in Hell.

3. His death (singular) is pointedly said to be "in the flesh", not "in the spirit". If Christ did indeed die spiritually, this verse would seem to have said something at this point. It doesn't. The argument of theirs is an argument from silence.

It is not surprising that we have often recourse to Peter's letter, and to Colossians, in combating this issue. Those letters were written to correct gnostic heresies, and the error facing us here is also a gnostic one. The teaching that Christ died spiritually (or that He died twice) is essentially Gnostic because it isn't part of explicit doctrine, it is (say some) implied. By contrast, all the verses that teach of the Lord Christ's death for us, use outward and visible concepts: Blood, stripes, cross, tree, etc.

5. CHRIST'S SAVING DEATH A PHYSICAL DEATH WITH SPIRITUAL IMPACT

" O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ has been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?"

Apparently, only the image of Christ's physical death (as preached by Paul) was all the Galatians needed to anchor their faith on. It was from this "hearing of faith" that they received the Spirit. I really believe the basis for our faith is as simple as this. We are the ones that complicate it by obscuring details and convoluted speculations. God purposely set forth a simple means, a humbling means, of forgiveness and entrance into life eternal, the simple and shameful cross of Christ.

There are many other verses that could be studied to show the importance of Christ’s physical death, and the saving benefits to the saints that came to us through that death. Another example is Eph. 2:15

“Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of two one new man, so making peace;”

Notice: Jews and Gentiles were alienated from each other (this is one of two estrangements spoken of in this passage, the other being man’s alienation from God). Where were Jew and Gentile brought together? In the spirit of Christ? No, “in His flesh”.

As stated earlier, He is our perfect, but not our total, substitute: He fulfilled all righteousness (Matt. 3:15), but did not partake of all sin. "He tasted death for every man" (Heb. 2:9), but did not sin unto death. Yet that is what merits the penalty of spiritual death! (James 1: 15)

 

[annsni]

Did He say that while alive or dead?

Just as He died. Of course He could not speak in the flesh when He was dead.

 

[Aaron]

And then He died, and took all that accompanied the death of sinners.

 

[Aaron]

There serious problems raised by those who insist that Christ had to do anything beyond the Cross. It goes counter to Scripture. This is excerpted from my article. I took out the parts that are not as relevant for this thread . . . As stated earlier, He is our perfect, but not our total, substitute: He fulfilled all righteousness (Matt. 3:15), but did not partake of all sin. "He tasted death for every man" (Heb. 2:9), but did not sin unto death. Yet that is what merits the penalty of spiritual death! (James 1: 15)

He was made to BE sin.

Whatever the wages of sin were, that is what He bore. If you say Christ didn't taste it, then it wasn't reserved for sinners.

 

[asterisktom]

Whatever the wages of sin were, that is what He bore. If you say Christ didn't taste it, then it wasn't reserved for sinners.

The penalty for some sinners also includes judicial hardening and being given a reprobated mind. Clearly Christ did not "taste" any of this.

Also, many of Paul's great Christological passages (and that of other writers also) make it clear that forgiveness and redemption were effected at the cross.

 

[Aaron]

Well, now you're saying that some don't merit hell. Again, whatever the wages of sin are, that is what He bore.

 

[asterisktom]

He was made to BE sin.

"... that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."

And yet you would not argue - would you? - that we have the actual, practical righteousness of God (with all that entails), as opposed to the imputed righteousness of Christ. This imputed righteousness, along with the supply of Gods grace, enables us to grow more and more like Christ in righteousness. Yet there will always be a gap, a great gap, between our righteousness and God's.

Likewise, our sins were imputed to Him - not infused into Him. Otherwise He would be ruined at the very point we need Him the most- at the cross.

 

[asterisktom]

Well, now you're saying that some don't merit hell. Again, whatever the wages of sin are, that is what He bore.

Not at all what I am saying.