Oh i was looking though the pages and saw about that Winterband guy.

And there was a page about Jesus going to hell that was banned?


was confusing, i thought it was believed by every christian that Jesus went to hell to take the keys from hell and to save all the people who obviously weren't saved before jesus came.

I mean thats just what i always thought happened.

Any thoughts cause its confusing me haha

And btw im not stirring stuff up, im just generally confused about this subject

There is some confusion and odd thought about what occurred with Jesus during the days that he lay in the tomb. I think a lot of it centers around different understandings of the term "hell" used in various translations and catechisms. In the KJV for instance, the term "Hell" is used both for the lake of fire (place of eternal punishment) AND for "sheol" (translated in more modern translations as "the grave" or "place of the dead").

These beliefs hold different degrees of importance, depending on the faith tradition that people find themselves in. Some understandings (and mis-understandings) are inconsequential, while others may have more serious implications. Some hold the belief that Christ's suffering upon the cross wasn't complete (or sufficient), and that he therefore had to suffer and be tortured in Hell by Satan.

I don't want to immediately jump out (especially on a topic that may have been banned before) and say that "A" is right and "B" is just outright heresy (that's a backwards way of doing apologetics). But rather, if this is going to be discussed and not shut-down by moderation, I think it would serve any interested parties well to identify what they mean by "hell" in this sense, and be prepared to think long and hard about the implications of these things.

For example: If Christ *had* to suffer more than just the cross, why did he cry "it is finished"? If he went to the Lake-of-fire-hell, who was there, and why? If it was the Lake-of-fire-hell, and people were there, who else is being thrown in at the end of the age? If it was "sheol", who was there and why?

An interesting and thought-provoking topic to be sure.

Shamax wrote:

There is some confusion and odd thought about what occurred with Jesus during the days that he lay in the tomb. I think a lot of it centers around different understandings of the term "hell" used in various translations and catechisms. In the KJV for instance, the term "Hell" is used both for the lake of fire (place of eternal punishment) AND for "sheol" (translated in more modern translations as "the grave" or "place of the dead").

These beliefs hold different degrees of importance, depending on the faith tradition that people find themselves in. Some understandings (and mis-understandings) are inconsequential, while others may have more serious implications. Some hold the belief that Christ's suffering upon the cross wasn't complete (or sufficient), and that he therefore had to suffer and be tortured in Hell by Satan.

I don't want to immediately jump out (especially on a topic that may have been banned before) and say that "A" is right and "B" is just outright heresy (that's a backwards way of doing apologetics). But rather, if this is going to be discussed and not shut-down by moderation, I think it would serve any interested parties well to identify what they mean by "hell" in this sense, and be prepared to think long and hard about the implications of these things.

For example: If Christ *had* to suffer more than just the cross, why did he cry "it is finished"? If he went to the Lake-of-fire-hell, who was there, and why? If it was the Lake-of-fire-hell, and people were there, who else is being thrown in at the end of the age? If it was "sheol", who was there and why?

An interesting and thought-provoking topic to be sure.

not that i'm disagreeing with you,... but my question is this,...

Why did jesus tell the thief on the cross next to Him He would see him in Heaven THAT day?

that never made sense to me.

^ i think jesus went to Heaven the first day, his body was always in the tomb, but the bible says he went to gheaven, hell, and 1 other place while in the tomb

CorpulentCripple wrote:

not that i'm disagreeing with you,... but my question is this,...

Why did jesus tell the thief on the cross next to Him He would see him in Heaven THAT day?

that never made sense to me.

MetLHed4GZus wrote:

^ i think jesus went to Heaven the first day, his body was always in the tomb, but the bible says he went to gheaven, hell, and 1 other place while in the tomb

Again, we have to look at the terms involved. And not just in this passage, but we also have to consider other uses of such language (especially in the Old Testament, since we're talking pre-resurrection). Does Luke say "Heaven" at this particular point?

Luke 23:43 (NIV) wrote:

Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

Before I get accused of splitting hairs, this is one of those situations where we have to ask ourselves if we're bringing personal baggage into the reading of the passage. When we see "paradise" (Greek: "paradeisos") do our minds instantly think "Heaven" and all it entails? If so, we're bringing tradition into our exegesis. Here's the Strong's definition of the term used at this point: http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=3857

Strong's Concordance wrote:

3) the part of Hades which was thought by the later Jews to be
the abode of the souls of pious until the resurrection: but
some understand this to be a heavenly paradise
4) the upper regions of the heavens. According to the early
church Fathers, the paradise in which our first parents dwelt
before the fall still exists, neither on the earth or in the
heavens, but above and beyond the world
5) heaven

In contrast, the place where the Father dwells is referred to in the greek by the term "ouranos" as seen in Matthew 10:32.

Matthew 10:32 (NASB) wrote:

"Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven.

Strong's Concordance wrote:

1) the vaulted expanse of the sky with all things visible in it
1a) the universe, the world
1b) the aerial heavens or sky, the region where the clouds and
the tempests gather, and where thunder and lightning are
produced
1c) the sidereal or starry heavens
2) the region above the sidereal heavens, the seat of order of
things eternal and consummately perfect where God dwells and
other heavenly beings

Just a little more food for thought. And just for the record, I haven't stated what I specifically hold to. I'm actually working through this myself!

I think this is a great question and that original thread was banned due the winterband being stubborn and insulting to the other members on the board and were banned.

I think this thread should be allowed to continue and I'll keep an eye to ensure nothing gets out of control.


Continue

Well i hope it doesn't get banned especially since im a mod as well haha, poopies!

well anyways its interesting hearing others views of this subject because like i said before i've never anything different.

I like to believe that when jesus wen't to hrll on purpose to help others in hell.

Then when he had finished he left to rise from the dead.

Some theologians believe that during the three days between Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection, He descended into Abraham's bosom (Luke 16:19-31),3 proclaimed to them the mystery of the gospel, and then led them into heaven to dwell with God. The belief is that they were not permitted to enter into the presence of God in heaven until after the atonement. Once that had happened, Jesus who had died, descended to Abraham's bosom, proclaimed the gospel, and then led its residents into heaven.

So, even though we cannot precisely determine where Jesus was and what He did during those three days, it seems apparent that He presented the gospel message (not to have them get saved) to those in spirit prison and possibly also to those in Abraham's bosom.

Long before the theological models of substitutionary atonement and penal substitution emerged, one of the prevailing theories of atonement was Christus Victor, the idea that by His death and resurrection Jesus had liberated souls from Hell. By His death, Jesus had paid the "ransom" to Satan for humanity, and upon His resurrection Satan would no longer have any claim to make. While I might tweak the terminology in my head a little, I quite like that way of thinking. I'm given to understand that this was how the early church understood it.

Shadowmancer Reborn wrote:

Long before the theological models of substitutionary atonement and penal substitution emerged, one of the prevailing theories of atonement was Christus Victor, the idea that by His death and resurrection Jesus had liberated souls from Hell. By His death, Jesus had paid the "ransom" to Satan for humanity, and upon His resurrection Satan would no longer have any claim to make. While I might tweak the terminology in my head a little, I quite like that way of thinking. I'm given to understand that this was how the early church understood it.

It wasn't so much that he "paid" a ransom to Satan with His Blood, but that through His death, descent into Hades, and Resurrection, Christ broke death's hold on us and liberated us from it, sin, and the powers of this world, including Satan and his angels.

St. Gregory of Nazianzus even says "Now we are to examine another fact and dogma, neglected by most people, but in my judgment well worth enquiring into. To Whom was that Blood offered that was shed for us, and why was it shed? We were detained in bondage by the Evil One, sold under sin, and receiving pleasure in exchange for wickedness. Now, since a ransom belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask to whom was this offered, and for what cause? If to the Evil One, fie upon the outrage! If the robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself, and has such an illustrious payment for his tyranny, a payment for whose sake it would have been right for him to have left us alone altogether. But if to the Father, I ask first, how? For it was not by Him that we were being oppressed; and next, On what principle did the Blood of His Only begotten Son delight the Father, Who would not receive even Isaac, when he was being offered by his Father, but changed the sacrifice, putting a ram in the place of the human victim?" (Oration 45:22)

Christ's death on the Cross in the Christus Victor model is neither a "payment" to either the Father or to Satan. Indeed, such a juridical and legally-orientated view did not exist in the early Church. Rather, we were detained in bondage to sin and death due to our sinful states, and we are freed from that by Christ's Incarnation, life, death and Resurrection. Another quote from St. Gregory is that "That which has not been assumed cannot be healed."

By God assuming human flesh, Christ redeemed our human natures and restored it back on the way towards theosis; during his life he assumed all of our weaknesses, our frailties and our infirmities; by entering into death, death ceased to be separation from God, but rather unity with Him; and when Death took into itself a human body but came upon God Himself, Death could do nothing else but spit Him back out again, breaking its hold and claim to us.

The Christus Victor model of the atonement depends upon an understanding of Christ's work being one that narrates a drama of Christ taking on our miseries and enslavement in order to rescue us, rather than paying a legal fine to a debtholder.

Jesus descended into Sheol for 3 days.

well, the thing is, winterband is a heretic by any orthodox Christian standards - and a loud rowdy pretentious scandalous one at that. That's why the thread was shut down.