So...did Jesus go to hell or not?

Great Debates
41

Not to tell others what’s permissible and not – that’s the Mods.’ job – but to suggest a bit of etiquette that may resolve the Priceguy/Artemius discussion here:

Great Debates has for years laid a great deal of store on taking positions based on facts – or at least on competent authority. It’s by no means incorrect to express opinions here – if it were, 75% of all posters and half the Mods. would be banned! :rolleyes: But every statement here should be documented, or able to be documented, by factual data.

Like this:

Fundy: Gays are going to hell.
The rest of us: Oh, yeah? Prove it. Here’s a string of logic that suggests quite otherwise…

vs.

Fundy:: The Bible says that gay sex is an abomination to God.
The rest of us: Oh, yeah? Prove it.
Fundy:: (Quotes Leviticus, Romans, etc.)

Or…

Me: The Supreme Court acted out of partisan motives in Bush v. Gore.
Various Republicans: You’re wrong; here’s the text of what they said, showing clearly that it’s founded in the equality of votes clause…

vs,

Me: It’s my belief that the Supreme Court acted out of partisan motives in Bush v. Gore, regardless of what interpretaton they placed on the constitution to bolster their decision.
Republican: I disagree, for these reasons.

The difference in the first set is an appeal to authority. Even if you don’t accept any part of the Bible, the Fundy. has placed a resaonable interpretation on a couple of Bible passages, which serve as an authority for him/her.

In the second set, my first assertion is a blatant accusation, which requires to be proven (and dozens of threads exist to show that it cannot be to the satisfaction of all debaters). But my second assertion is an expression of opinion, and I am the ultimate authority on what my own opinions are.

It was in this sort of difference that Priceguy challenged what you were saying, Artemius. You’re entitled to express opinion – but it makes for a smoother thread when assertions of fact and opinion are clearly distinguished.

On the other hand, Priceguy, no less an authority than Admin. C K Dexter Haven has made it clear that people are entitled to quote in any form they choose, so long as it’s clear what is quoted and what is response. While most people use the form:

My refutation of the above

…it’s quite acceptable to use the “e-mail/Usenet format”:

<<<some stuff posted by AnalGerbil>>>
My refutation of the above

… or even

(some stuff posted by AnalGerbil)

I disagree with this because…

I recall one poster who simply introduced quotes with ellipses, like this:

…quoted material

and that was truly annoying, because it was hard to distinguish betwen quote and response.

42

Polycarp wrote:

<<It was in this sort of difference that Priceguy challenged what you were saying, Artemius. You’re entitled to express opinion – but it makes for a smoother thread when assertions of fact and opinion are clearly distinguished.>>

A smoother thread? Is that your opinion or do you have the facts to back it up?

You both crack me up. I guess what I’m getting at is ALL these religious threads are riddled with opinions/beliefs posted as facts from the poster’s perspective. That is, after all, the nature of the beast. Yet what’s-his-name decided to single me out. I think I probably try to insert IMO, IMHO whenever I can remember to and have done so more than the average poster.

I will continue to post the way I have whether you or whats-his-name likes it or not. In a scientifically oriented forum I will present facts. If you can’t discern fact from opinion in a religious discussion or don’t care for the content of my post, then move on to one you like.

43

I think you’re missing the point, Artimus. I’m sure Polycarp understands that religious arguments rely a great deal on opinions, and that yours are cartainly not invalid just because they disagree with someone else’s. But when you state an opinion as if it were a proven fact you are disregarding the etiquette of debate in this forum. It isn’t up to other dopers to discern which of your statements is factual and which is unsupported opinion. That’s your job. Your “Oh yeah?” attitude is not likely to win you any friends here, nor sway anyone to your side of any argument. This is a place for friendly debate. If you like it down and dirty there’s always the pit.

44

Artimius, I was neither looking to pick a fight nor criticize your posting your point of view, just attempting to stress my impression, based on experience, that we tend to focus on the topic at hand (presumably interesting to those posting to the thread) and not get bogged down in side arguments (such as, in this thread, the validity of posting opinions) when the people posting make that clear distinction between fact and opinion. You and I happen to have differing opinions on the subject under discussion in this thread, and we certainly can post our varying opinions. But, for example, it is a fact that the Nicene Creed says that Jesus rose from the dead. My opinion that the Nicene Creed is in general a statement of truth and yours that it is a pile of BS are not germane to that statement – it is reporting accurately what an ancient formulary says. In that sense, it is a statement of fact, regardless of your belief on whether what the Nicene Creed says bears any relation to reality or not.

If you wish to assert your views on matters religious as fact, that is your privilege. But I am certain from several years of being involved in this forum that you will be expected to prove them – and not by absence of evidence suggesting unlikelihood; we want factual references documenting what you say.

45

A fascinating topic!

If Jesus did go to hell (& then liberated the prophets), how did he (or they) get out? If he could simply leave anytime, it wasn’t much of a punishment.

And, why would he go to hell anyway, since he was supposedly a pure soul. Really stange this concept. Though, remember reading versions of the Nicene Creed that say he deecended in to hell.

Must have been even stanger for those devout Jewish prophets ;j to end up in hell when they died. Since Jews don’t believe in a hell! Judaism teaches, as I understand it, that if you were bad when you die you are just further away from God, not in Hell or purgatory or some godless place.

I have an interesting story related to this topic:
I was in Haiti one time over Easter. They have a really fascinating spin on this concept there. In Haiti nearly everyone is Catholic, though their version of Catholicism is liberally mixed with voodoo ceremonies. The tradition there is that YES Christ descended into hell & arose on Easter Sunday, but for 3 days the world was without him and the devils reigned on Earth.

So, on the Evening of Good Friday they begin playing conga drums at sunset when Christ died non-stop until Easter morning. (Though I think some drummers are relieved for a while, though I never saw any stop). And, everyone dances to the rhythm (and occasionally even go into trances as if possessed - I actually saw this), but mostly its more of a celebration like Mardi Gras. Young men dress in devil costumes and pretend to whip at the people - like torturers in hell. Other young men often taunt the devils. The guys with the whips are very well skilled & practiced at making it look real, often whipping within inches of the men that taunt them. (Interestingly the devil masks they wear are white - this is obviously an allusion to Haiti’s history - the world’s only successful slave revolt that led to a new nation. So, the whippers with the horns are also representative of former slave masters that used to whip them as well.)

Then there’s a big parade with the drummer & dancers leading the way along with another guy or priest carrying a big picture of St. Michael fighting a demon with a sword. People they pas either join in the dance or just cross themselves & say a prayer.

The drumming & dancing never stops, alway at least someone doing it. Then, finally when the sun rises on Easter morning, they all cheer & give thanks & sing & pray. It is said at this point that “Christ is risen”. And, the world is cleansed once again (at least for another 362 days). It was a wonderful ceremony & expression of faith. Very cathartic & even fun. I danced & they liked that I was joining in with them. It’s a deeply religious experience for those who are into it & just a fun parade & cultural event for those who are not as in to the religious aspects of the tradition. I don’t think American Catholics have anything half as moving as the tradition in Haiti - it was almost like a revival of Evangelicals.

BTW - I’m an atheist, though I find the traditions & mythology of many religious truly fascinating, though mostly from a cultural/anthropological standpoint. Plus, I’m always up for a good party, an excuse to sing & dance, or for seeing something truly unique. :slight_smile:

It’s always easiest to learn about another’s religion, if you drop your pre-conceptions & make a real effort to understand it. I’m a big J.C. fan - Joseph Campbell that is, not talking about the other guy. There are examples all throughout the world of mythical traditions that teach about heroes that descend into the underworld - usually to bring back knowledge or save the world. Read: ‘The Hero With A Thousand Faces’ by J.C.

46

One final thought on all this. If the prophets were in hell that would have to mean that everyone was in hell back then, no? Who was more devout or kept Jewish law better than the prophets themselves???

Why would God back then send everyone to hell?

This idea of the prophets being saved from hell by Jesus really makes no sense at all!

Maybe you could argue that all who died in the Great Flood or in Sodom & Gamorrah went to hell, but not the prophets! :j That’s ridiculous. Wow, I can’t believe anybody could believe that. Sounds very anti-Semitic to me. Probably taught by early Church leaders with an axe to grind against the Jews. So, they preached that the Jewish prophets all went to hell because they never heard the word of Christ - and by extension all modern Jews too, as I’m sure such early Christians would also claim.

Some modern Bible scholars today claim that Judas didn’t actually exist either. That he was a later invention by zealous early Christians to blame Christ’s death on the Jews or people of Judea. The story of his betrayal - selling Jesus to the Romans for 30 pieces of silver - exacly copies another Old Testament tale of another bad jewish guy (whose name I forget) who betrayed another for 30 pieces of silver.

47

DesertGeezer wrote:

<<I think you’re missing the point, Artimus.>>

I disagree, IMO, YOU are. And it’s Artemius, DesertGoober. He,He.

<<I’m sure Polycarp understands that religious arguments rely a great deal on opinions, and that yours are cartainly not invalid just because they disagree with someone else’s. But when you state an opinion as if it were a proven fact>>

Like 90% of the posts on this thread? I can’t even take you seriously.

<<you are disregarding the etiquette of debate in this forum.>>

I have just as much right as you to disagree.

<<It isn’t up to other dopers to discern which of your statements is factual and which is unsupported opinion. That’s your job.>>

And everyone elses that post opinions stated as facts on this thread. Sheesh

<<Your “Oh yeah?” attitude is not likely to win you any friends here, nor sway anyone to your side of any argument.>>

Boy, your attitude is certainly befriending me! You sure have as way about you! Keep cracking me up, please. And I could personally care less whether you believe my argument or not.

<<This is a place for friendly debate.>>

Then why don’t you drop your criticisms and move on?

<<If you like it down and dirty there’s always the pit.>>

Are you referring to yourself, perhaps?

48

Zenmaster Mojo, as mentioned several times before in the thread, the “hell” that Jesus descended into according to the Apostle’s Creed is Sheol/Hades, the Place of the Dead, the Netherworld: not all of it a punishment, but the place everyone went. The righteous unsaved dwelled in an environment that was only “hell” in the sense of being separated from the direct divine presence, which is a very big part of the Christian notion of Heaven (the standard catechism answer to what is best about Heaven was, for years, that you could See God). This status known for a many centuries traditionally as “limbo”.

And Jesus goes in and liberates the righteous in “Hades” (the Harrowing of Hell) because HE can pull it off – nobody else could or can.

Jus reportin’ how they say it goes, not pretending to have figured it out m’self… Unsatisfying? Take it up with Athanasius, Aquinas, Augustine, and the rest of the alphabet’s worth of Church Fathers…

49

Polycarp wrote:

<<Artimius, I was neither looking to pick a fight nor criticize your posting your point of view, just attempting to stress my impression, based on experience, that we tend to focus on the topic at hand (presumably interesting to those posting to the thread) and not get bogged down in side arguments (such as, in this thread, the validity of posting opinions) when the people posting make that clear distinction between fact and opinion.>>

Then why do you continue to bog things down? You are extremely mistaken if you think people are distinguishing between fact and opinion here when there are no facts proving the bible or whether Jesus went to hell or not. Only biblical documents continually used to prove biblical dogma. The facts you refer to are only fact insofar as people are using them to try and prove their opinions. But they remain opinions, never-the-less.

The difference between you, DesertGeezer,and myself is that you will not find me posting criticisms like you both have. If I don’t like or agree with someone’s post I’ll either skip it or reply. And I’ll stick to replying to what they posted, not trying to act like a schoolmarm. If it’s opinion stated as fact on this thread, so what? The title of this thread is, “But, did Jesus go to hell or not?” Fer chris’sakes, what evidence are you going to present if it ain’t opinion? Religion…can you understand why it should never be discussed?

<<You and I happen to have differing opinions on the subject under discussion in this thread, and we certainly can post our varying opinions. But, for example, it is a fact that the Nicene Creed says that Jesus rose from the dead. My opinion that the Nicene Creed is in general a statement of truth and yours that it is a pile of BS are not germane to that statement – it is reporting accurately what an ancient formulary says.>>

Ah! But is it the ORIGINAL ancient formulary? How do you know? Were you there? General statement of truth? Accurate reporting? (chuckle) Firstly, you cannot even prove that the Nicene creed wasn’t tampered with. Secondly, but most importantly,the decisions made in the creed are based on what? That’s right. Biblical books that are so fraught with suspicion as to authenticity/accuracy/unfettered editing as to make the creed laughable—IN MY HUMBLE OPINION (did you roger that?). (O.K. guys, let’s throw out this book 'coz it ain’t making our case too good. Hey, look at this one! Right here it says Jesus rose from the dead. O.K. That’s a keeper!) From what I’ve read, there were wildly differing factions of believers/followers in Jesus back then. Some didn’t even believe in the literal crucifixion/resurrection. The Nicene folks than all got together and had a big pow-wow and thru politiking, cajoling, and arm twisting (IMO fer chris’sakes!) they came up with the Bible as we more or less know it today. Boy, talk about a canon of truths. And you’re using it as a reference?

Besides, I wasn’t even discussing the Nicene Creed so I don’t know where you came up with that. So, I disagree, that it IS important what your ancient formulary says if, IMO, the formulary is a bunch of crap to begin with and therefore isn’t germane to the subject. Sort’a like heresay is inadmissable in a court and that you can’t use the Bible to prove the Biblical stories. You’re using the Nicene Creed which is the same argument. That’s why us non-Bible believers have such a hard time communicating with “your kind”. You keep using the Bible and biblical works to make your case, because that’s all you have and WE are going to call you on it. It all boils down to…yep…you guessed it right…OPINION. This is R-E-L-I-G-I-O-N, Polycarp, face it.

<<In that sense, it is a statement of fact, regardless of your belief on whether what the Nicene Creed says bears any relation to reality or not.>>

Nope, see above. Here’s your position. “It is a statement of fact that the leader of those people in California a few years back told his followers a spaceship was waiting to wisk their souls off to never, never land, so drink this cyanide”. See, it’s a fact he said that because we have a recording of him saying it. So what? The guy was a frickin’ lunatic.

(sidetrack) Think about it. Why would you need a Nicene Creed unless things were so screwed up and the Roman emperor needed all those Christian soldiers? “Get those Christians organized you Nicene _uckers! I needs me some legions!”

<<If you wish to assert your views on matters religious as fact, that is your privilege.>>

You mean like you and your “factual” Nicene Creed? Can I start quoting comic books if I find a useful reference? You continue to crack me up. You shouldn’t even be allowed to use it as a reference. What’s amusing about all this is how serious you are taking yourself.

<<But I am certain from several years of being involved in this forum that you will be expected to prove them – and not by absence of evidence suggesting unlikelihood; we want factual references documenting what you say.>>

Well, then perhaps you and your factoid biblical friends might want to start another scientific Bible thread. I’d love to follow that one! Until the meantime, perhaps you should practice what you preach while you remain on this one.

50

Well, Poycarp, it appears that Artemius (see, I spelled it correctly this time :stuck_out_tongue: ) just can’t wrap his mind around logic. I’m sorry I bogged the thread down by chiming in. Artemius, I was going to try again, but you clearly aren’t getting it. Maybe we will find common ground on some other topic or in some other forum.

DesertGoober (That’s Mr. Peanut to you, sonny!) :smiley:

51

Artemis: Quote tags, please.

And this is a discussion on whether or not Jesus went to hell. Not on who is right and who is wrong. Take it to PMs or the Pit, I don’t care. But I’m tired of it polluting my thread.

52

My apologies, 'Bot, for having advanced the hijack as I did. I felt that clarifying the difference between assertions of what had been historically taught (whether or not one holds to them oneself) and personal opinions would resolve the “it’s all a myth” ongoing hijack – and was, sadly, proven wrong.

To get us back on track, may I ask that we address whether the words on the Cross to the repentant thief coupled with the information on what the “Elysium” part of Sheol was called, may help to clarify how this doctrine may have come to arise?

53

first. let’s eliminate the word “hell” from the discussion. The Apostles Creed says that Jesus descended into Hades (Greek NT counterpart to Hebrew Sheol), basically- He spent three days (or parts of 3 days) in the Box*- there was a nice part of the Box- Paradise (which means “the Garden”) aka Abraham’s Bosom; and am unpleasant part of the Box, which was usually just called Sheol or Hades (Gehenna, Tophet, the Lake of Fire while sharing some aspects of Bad Hades seems to be limited to the Final Judgement). And how this relates to Tartarus, where I Peter & Jude have the fallen angels chained, I have no idea.

What do I believe? That at Jesus’s death- He went to announce salvation to those in Paradise, including the Repentant Thief; AND
to evangelize those in Bad Hades & maybe even Tartarus.

Interesting bit of trivia- the natural place for crucified criminals bodies to go would have been the flaming trash dump of Gehenna. The intervention of Joseph of Arimathea got Jesus buried in the Garden Tomb. The word Paradise means Garden- so Jesus’s promise to the Thief was poignant in that while their physical destination would differ with Jesus having a respectable burial & the Thief dumped on a burning garbage pile, They’d still be together. sniff

54

Tartarus was the deepest part of Hades in Greek mythology. It was the BAD part of Hades.

55

A really nice, and probably very much accurate, answer, Friar Ted. I’m only posting to compliment you on it, and to give you a chuckle:

You said "…And how this relates to Tartarus, where I Peter & Jude have the fallen angels chained… " Now what you were referring to in the last capitalized words was of course two epistles in the New Testament. But how I read it was “…I, Peter and Jude…”

:smiley:

56

DesertGeezer wrote:

<<Well, Poycarp, it appears that Artemius (see, I spelled it correctly this time ) just can’t wrap his mind around logic. I’m sorry I bogged the thread down by chiming in. Artemius, I was going to try again, but you clearly aren’t getting it. Maybe we will find common ground on some other topic or in some other forum. >>

I am sure you see yourself as a legend in your own mind. And I wouldn’t count logic as one of your greater capacities. You seem to want to discuss facts concerning the validity of Jesus, the miraculous birth, the miracles, and the resurrection. Perhaps you will eventually come to realize there are not facts validating your positon. You do appear to have a sort of logic, what we would refer to as self-deluded logic, similar to that used by David koresh and Jim Jones. I don’t seriously if we will find common ground on another forum considering your mental limitations.

57

You know, Artemius, despite our indulgence in superstition, most of us are at least capable enough of reading to get the point about the third or fourth time it’s made. We get the message: you think the accounts of Jesus are supersitious nonsense. Now go explain to the people discussing intelligently what would have happened if the U.S. had not entered World War II that in fact it did enter the war.

Some of us have mastered the if-then concept. And not all of us happen to share your certitude about the topic under discussion.

And, by the way, the verb in your last sentence probably should have been “doubt.” It’s a useful verb for people with your view point; you might add it to your vocabulary. Or it may have been that you did indeed say that you “don’t” – you certainly don’t in my opinion!

58

Polycarp~

Hmmm- Peter, Jude & Ted’s Excellent Adventure!

It would have to be better than that awful TV version of Bill & Ted, heck-it’d probably be better than their Bogus Journey.

Tho I gotta admit, I would like to see a third B&T film.

59

DesertGeezer wrote:

<<Well, Poycarp, it appears that Artemius (see, I spelled it correctly this time ) just can’t wrap his mind around logic.>>

He, he. That’s a good admission of judgmental error which I accept.

60

DesertGeezer wrote:

<<Well, Poycarp, it appears that Artemius (see, I spelled it correctly this time ) just can’t wrap his mind around logic.>>

He, he. That’s a good admission of judgmental error which I accept.