I think it’s interesting that many Greek heroes descended into Hell, too. Orpheus went there to get his sweetheart back (and failed), Ulysses went there in the Odyssey, Aeneas went there in the Aeneid. I don’t know if a case can be made that the stories of Jesus’s descent derive from these older myths, but it doesn’t seem impossible.
Another person of Protestant background chiming in. It’s been a long time since Sunday School, but what I recall was that Jesus had to wait around somewhere over Saturday so as to not break the Sabbath by doing work on that day. (Remember that He and His followers were observant Jews.) There was a concern about getting Him down and into the tomb before sunset on Friday.
The statement of 3 days is also misleading and I think about it at times when I recite the Apostles Creed. It is not 3 days x 24 hours = 72 hours but instead “on the third day.” If you think it through, death may have occurred about 6 pm. That allows 6 hours on Friday and 24 on Saturday. The women went to the tomb early on Sunday and (for Christians) found it empty. Is 7 am a reasonable time to consider? 6 + 24 + 7 = 37 hours (give or take a few), not what I would generally consider three days, but still meets the statement of “on the third day.” I seem to recall being taught that Jesus going to hell for a while was an exercise in humility and “punishment” for the “sins of the world” which Christ took onto Himself and for doubting God. (“Why hast Thou forsaken Me?”) Part of this is what QuasiQubit said earlier. That, and the need to hang out somewhere on the Sabbath.
Could he have waited in heaven? Yes, (except for the humility and sins part) but that would have involved coming back to earth after being in heaven. I admit that I do not remember if these teachings were only from the layperson teaching the Sunday School class, from the pastor, or officially from our branch of the church. I never heard the possibility of bringing deserving souls from hell to heaven, but it makes as much sense as anything else.
Shodan:
quote polycarp:
Jesus did not promise the repentant thief that he would be with Him “this day” in Heaven, but rather in Paradise. The distinction is important to this discussion, because the “paradise” referred to is yet another name for the “abode of the righteous” in Sheol.
That’s what nearly 5 months of post hoc rationalization gets you:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=194603
Huh?
If this is supposed to be a dig at me, you are going to have to be clearer - I don’t know what you are talking about.
If this is post #422 in the ongoing “I have a hard-on for religion in general and Polycarp in particular” pattern, I will point out that Artemius in the linked thread seemed to have many of the same issues. And look at what happened to him.
IANAMod, but this is GQ. Not Great Debates, and not the Pit.
Regards,
Shodan
I grew up in a Reformed Church, based on the Heidelberg Catechism. Here is a link to a sermon that summarizes its stance on Jesus’ descension into hell. It also mentions the Lutheran and Catholic views on the subject.
Basically I was taught that ‘he descended into hell’ does not imply literal hell, rather that Jesus suffered the fullness of death. From the link:
"Jesus suffered the anguish, the pains, the terrors, hellish agonies, in all of His sufferings, but especially on the cross. There is no talk of a literal descent into the place of hell.
The expression, then, as it appears in the Apostles’ Creed in the fourth article, is not one of chronological order so much as it is of climactic order. That Jesus, having been crucified, dead, and buried, this was the depths of His suffering: That He also descended into hell, that is, suffered the torments of hell. "
Note that this differs from what your Lutheran friends would probably believe so I can’t speak for them, I just thought I would add another point of view.
Shodan:
I’m working right now and don’t have time to go into much detail. However it was not a dig at you, the link shows where Poly was quite suprized by the verse I posted and seemed unsure what to do with it. After going back and forth on that thread we now get a quite confident sounding answer from him regarding paradise and heaven being different places. Almost as if his answer were factual.
Well, having had a quick look, ISTM that Polycarp’s answer was, indeed, factual.
The word “paradise” in Luke 23:43 seems to refer to a specific part of the Jewish afterworld, reserved for the righteous. It is derived from a Persian concept of a grand enclosure. (The Strong number is 3857, if you care.)
This is different from the words used for “heaven”.
I still don’t see how this is “post-hoc rationalization”, as you assert. Perhaps Poly’s done some research.
FWIW, ideas of the afterlife seem to have been in flux around Jesus’ time. The Pharisees taught that there was an afterlife; the Sadducees said that there was not. See Matthew 22:22-24 (or the same episode described in Mark 12:18 and Luke 20:27) for a description of Jesus’ interactions with the Sadducees. Jesus came down pretty firmly on the Pharisee side.
Or, better still, see the delicious passage in Acts 23:6-10, where Paul deliberately starts an argument between the two parties which quickly gets out of hand. And the Roman centurion has to remove Paul from their midst. Think of it as a Great Debate that must be cast into the Pit.
I now think of the Roman centurion in the passage as Lynnus Bodonicus.
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan:
So are you now making the argument that this paradise and heaven are different places? If so, that sure minimizes the impact of the Resurection, if Jesus was only able to transport the souls of the righteous from the wonderful paradise to the wonderful heaven. I don’t see much difference, and you’ll have to think of one quick since your realization is less than a week old.
See my trophy sig line.
I don’t have a problem with what you say regarding these passages but I don’t see how they are particularly relevant regarding Jesus being hell for 3 days rather than heaven/paradise. Besides, who cares, isn’t it fashionable to allow the bible and or mans interpretation to be in error these days?
Apparently, it’s also the fashion to be facetious in GQ.