Did Jesus go to hell?

[Admon Mikha'el]

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


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.


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.)


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.

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."

That's why we ask for scripture to back up what you spew Charlie...The bible does NOT say those fallen angels turned themselves into men. They did not. I will agree though that it was a move to contaminate the blood line....Even your scholars can't get it all wrong

 

[Rhema]

scripture to back up what you spew Charlie...

Couldn't we dial back some of the ... colourful language? There are a LOT of people that have numerous doctrinal positions that are part of their personal identity, even though most of it is based on unsubstantiated presumptions. (Again, that's why I mentioned the Catholic Magisterium, and I might as well include the Dante's Inferno.)

Hopefully some of the scripture and definitions provided to Charlie can get him out of being so sure of himself and reconsider his position. I would, were he to present a well thought out viewpoint. Maybe nobody ever gave him a chance, or maybe he just feels overwhelmed at the evidence provided that contradicts his (likely long held) beliefs.

The bible does NOT say those fallen angels turned themselves into men.

Well that's true enough. But it looks like @Charlie24 isn't too worried about being precise, and is comfortable with extra-Biblical explanatory fables.

I will admit, though that that section of Genesis feels heavily edited (perhaps redacted is a better word).

Permit me to post the Brenton translation of the LXX here -

And Noe was five hundred years old, and he begot three sons, Sem, Cham, and Japheth. And it came to pass when men began to be numerous upon the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God having seen the daughters of men that they were beautiful, took to themselves wives of all whom they chose. And the Lord God said, My Spirit shall certainly not remain among these men for ever, because they are flesh, but their days shall be an hundred and twenty years. Now the giants were upon the earth in those days; and after that when the sons of God were wont to go in to the daughters of men, they bore children to them, those were the giants of old, the men of renown. And the Lord God, having seen that the wicked actions of men were multiplied upon the earth, and that every one in his heart was intently brooding over evil continually,​

(Genesis 6:1-6 Brenton)​

It seems rather clear that the sons of God were the sons of Noe (God's people). YET... please note that the text doesn't say that the Lord God wasn't upset with these sons of God OR those "giants" who are MEN of renown, but rather with the wicked actions of men in general, those "every one" who "in his heart was brooding over evil continually." (Although I most likely have a rather different idea of "evil" than most Christians.)

Rhema

 

[Rhema]

It seems rather clear that the sons of God were the sons of Noe (God's people).

I'll allow that the sons of God could have been those of the line of Adam that still followed and worshiped the LORD, but became ... "distracted"(?) with women outside the tribe, and God finally decided after much longsuffering that only Noe and his family were worth saving.

Rhema

 

[Rhema]

That's why we ask for scripture to back up what you spew Charlie...

I would say that my concern is more with @Charlie24 's process of exegesis. (Methods?)

But he might just be here to hold hands and sing Kum-ba-yah, and that should be okay with us.

Rhema

 

[Admon Mikha'el]

Couldn't we dial back some of the ... colourful language? There are a LOT of people that have numerous doctrinal positions that are part of their personal identity, even though most of it is based on unsubstantiated presumptions. (Again, that's why I mentioned the Catholic Magisterium, and I might as well include the Dante's Inferno.)

Hopefully some of the scripture and definitions provided to Charlie can get him out of being so sure of himself and reconsider his position. I would, were he to present a well thought out viewpoint. Maybe nobody ever gave him a chance, or maybe he just feels overwhelmed at the evidence provided that contradicts his (likely long held) beliefs.


Well that's true enough. But it looks like @Charlie24 isn't too worried about being precise, and is comfortable with extra-Biblical explanatory fables.

I will admit, though that that section of Genesis feels heavily edited (perhaps redacted is a better word).

Permit me to post the Brenton translation of the LXX here -

And Noe was five hundred years old, and he begot three sons, Sem, Cham, and Japheth. And it came to pass when men began to be numerous upon the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God having seen the daughters of men that they were beautiful, took to themselves wives of all whom they chose. And the Lord God said, My Spirit shall certainly not remain among these men for ever, because they are flesh, but their days shall be an hundred and twenty years. Now the giants were upon the earth in those days; and after that when the sons of God were wont to go in to the daughters of men, they bore children to them, those were the giants of old, the men of renown. And the Lord God, having seen that the wicked actions of men were multiplied upon the earth, and that every one in his heart was intently brooding over evil continually,​

(Genesis 6:1-6 Brenton)​

It seems rather clear that the sons of God were the sons of Noe (God's people). YET... please note that the text doesn't say that the Lord God wasn't upset with these sons of God OR those "giants" who are MEN of renown, but rather with the wicked actions of men in general, those "every one" who "in his heart was brooding over evil continually." (Although I most likely have a rather different idea of "evil" than most Christians.)

Well personally, I would stay far away from that version......What colorful language? Did somebody cuss?

 

[Admon Mikha'el]

I'll allow that the sons of God could have been those of the line of Adam that still followed and worshiped the LORD, but became ... "distracted"(?) with women outside the tribe, and God finally decided after much longsuffering that only Noe and his family were worth saving.

Rhema

The sons of God were fallen angels

 

[Rhema]

What colorful language?

Spew?

Well personally, I would stay far away from that version...

The Septuagint is the text most often quoted word for word by authors of the New Testament when referencing the Old. I could post the Greek text for you and then provide a translation, but at this point I'm not going to waste the time.

The sons of God were fallen angels

And you just did the exact same thing as you accused @Charlie24 of doing.


Rhema

 

[KingJ]

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.

I can see why you arrive at your belief. Many would believe that.

For me personally, I just have a different belief of Nephilim. I believe they 'are' the fallen angels.

But, both yours or my position could be true. Fallen angels are clearly 'green lighted' to take part in a 'very' evil society.

I personally believe, some UFO's, green aliens, mermaids, vampires, werewolves and Nephilim are all creations of fallen angels. What are they busy doing if not 'creating' things.

Here in Africa, we have had people in our church and some friends of mine from the Congo who have some crazy stories. They can't all be false. As we see with UFO's in the USA .

Most are very ignorant of demonology.

 

[KingJ]

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.

Ecc 9:5 5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

I believe you are missing context in your interpretation.

''but the dead know not any thing'', the context to this line is that 'the dead' is a reference to those that are damned to Hades. Those in Hades are not aware of what takes place on earth. We see in verse 3 ''and after that they go to the dead''. The dead are in Sheol Psalm 88:3-5.

''the memory of them is lost''. This just means the living 'forget' them. It is a logical fact.

We read in Rev 6:10 that those who are in heaven have clearly not forgotten anything.

And if there is an actual fixed great gulf how could they even speak to one another?

Well the rich man was not just speaking to 'anyone'. It was Abraham. Paradise was called ''Abraham's bosom''.

What are the odds that these two men just happen to be within speaking distance? It only makes sense in a parable.

I feel you are not thinking on the topic. Think of the Mexican wall. Abraham probably walked to a gate in the divide. A gate most likely manned by angels. Does Jesus have to go into such detail? People would get distracted from the point He is trying to make.

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.


And that, in itself, should tell you something.

Rhema

Tormented can be an annoying teacher or it can be being placed in a brazen bull. As I discuss here Discussion on Torture.

The context in Luke 16 is 'not' a brazen bull. Therefore it is not 'torture'. If you want to move the goal posts on the meaning of the word, then just qualify what level of torture you believe in. The statement I am making is that we don't need to guess. Jesus Himself tells us in Luke 16 what one can expect in fire.

 

[Admon Mikha'el]

Spew?


The Septuagint is the text most often quoted word for word by authors of the New Testament when referencing the Old. I could post the Greek text for you and then provide a translation, but at this point I'm not going to waste the time.


And you just did the exact same thing as you accused @Charlie24 of doing.


Rhema

You took the word 'spew' as colorful? Ok I will apologize to you. I'm sorry you found that offensive.

I said that I will stay away from that version....I did not say you should.

What I said was based on much research....and scripture. I will ask you this....If the sons of God were the sons of Noah, how did they produce giants? Human +Human =Human How did they produce giants?
How did the sons of Noah get to heaven for that conference in Job 2

Job 2:1

Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord.

Job 38:7

When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? How were the sons of Noah there?

In the Old Covenant the angels were called the sons of God....Now, in the New Covenant WE are called the sons of God

So I did not spit our words from the top of my head..I did not speak of what I do not know...

 

[Rhema]

The sons of God were fallen angels

Was Adam a fallen angel? One would think not.

And yet Adam is called the son of God.

Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.​

(Luke 3:38 KJV)​

.If the sons of God were the sons of Noah, how did they produce giants? Human +Human =Human How did they produce giants?

I would gather, then that you don't think these people to be human:

And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.​

(Numbers 13:33 KJV)​

How did the sons of Noah get to heaven for that conference in Job 2

Unfortunately, the Jews have never considered the book of Job to be historic, but merely theological literature - a play of fiction meant for one to consider spiritual issues. Had you known that?

And I would have to agree with them. Job doesn't describe reality any more than the book of Enoch does.

Rhema

 

[KingJ]

Was Adam a fallen angel? One would think not.

And yet Adam is called the son of God.

Fallen angels were called sons of God. That Adam was also called that is a separate matter.

Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.​

(Luke 3:38 KJV)​

I would gather, then that you don't think these people to be human:

And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.​

(Numbers 13:33 KJV)​

There are mixed views on this There is a thread here discussing it. A lot of scripture to consider.

Unfortunately, the Jews have never considered the book of Job to be historic, but merely theological literature - a play of fiction meant for one to consider spiritual issues. Had you known that?

A minority believes that. Just like a minority believes in reincarnation.

You are creating a rabbit trail.

And I would have to agree with them. Job doesn't describe reality any more than the book of Enoch does.

Rhema

What denomination are you? No respected Christian denomination believes that.

 

[Admon Mikha'el]

Was Adam a fallen angel? One would think not.

And yet Adam is called the son of God.

Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.(Luke 3:38 KJV)

My mistake...I forgot about poor Adam. Yes he was called a son of God. He was the only man who was called so in the Old Covenant

I would gather, then that you don't think these people to be human:

And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.(Numbers 13:33 KJV)

No. The giants were not human and archeology proves that.

Unfortunately, the Jews have never considered the book of Job to be historic, but merely theological literature - a play of fiction meant for one to consider spiritual issues. Had you known that?

And I would have to agree with them. Job doesn't describe reality any more than the book of Enoch does.

Now you're telling the Jews what they believe?! Your lack of humility is amazing. I'm really getting tired of you being a know it all and being wrong so much. You should humble yourself a bit and open up to actual learning

 

[Rhema]

No. The giants were not human and archeology proves that.

I would be gobsmacked to know what archaeological proof you actually have that isn't a YouTube figment of wild imagination.

Now you're telling the Jews what they believe?!

NO. I told you what the Jews told ME they believe. The book of Job is placed in the literature section of the Hebrew Bible, along with the hymns and Song of Solomon, etc. Find a Jew (any Jew) and ask if they believe the book of Job to be historical fact, say, like the book of Kings or Samuel.

My mistake...I forgot about poor Adam. Yes he was called a son of God. He was the only man who was called so in the Old Covenant

Not according to Paul.

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.​

(Romans 8:14 KJV)​

None of your fallen angel demons are led by the Spirit of God. But Noe was.

I'm really getting tired of you being a know it all and being wrong so much.

I'm sorry that my erudition offends you. As to being wrong, I believe the same about you. The difference is that I'm pretty smart, and have an extensive education. I also don't post on anything about which I am unsure.

You should humble yourself a bit and open up to actual learning

Okay... what do you call "actual" learning? I've attended Moravian Seminary and took classes from Princeton Theological. I read Greek (but not fluently), and am conversant in a plethora of topics.

Your lack of humility is amazing.

False humility is a sin. But you are most welcome to use the ignore button if you get so triggered by people who do happen to know what they're talking about.

Rhema

 

[Admon Mikha'el]

I would be gobsmacked to know what archaeological proof you actually have that isn't a YouTube figment of wild imagination.

Do some real research, of your own

Not according to Paul.

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.(Romans 8:14 KJV)
None of your fallen angel demons are led by the Spirit of God. But Noe was.

Demons are not fallen angels. I said that in the New Covenant we are the sons of God Romans 8:14 so what are you arguing about?

Okay... what do you call "actual" learning? I've attended MWoravian Seminary and took classes from Princeton Theological. I read Greek (but not fluently), and am conversant in a plethora of topics

That's what I mean...Dump the crap you learn in "bible schools" and let the Holy Spirit teach you.

False humility is a sin. But you are most welcome to use the ignore button if you get so triggered by people who do happen to know what they're talking about.

I fervently pray that someday you will know what you're talking about