Did Jesus go to Hell when he died?

If anyone has already posted something like that I would like to know. Thanks for your help.

Man there is so many different stories about this and some even think he picked up a set of keys like you would start your car with while he was there.I personally think because he holds the keys to Life and Death meaning now that the battle has been won you now have a choice between everlasting life and death in Hell when before you had no choice.but he brought back no physical keysI personally think his spirit did go to the pits of hell but, I did find this and this is my belief:Some theologians believe that during the three days between Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection, He descended into Abraham's bosom3 (Luke 16:19-31), 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.

I don't know about Jesus going to hell, but I read in Ephesians 4:8-10:8Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. 9(Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? 10He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) What does it mean when he says Jesus descended into the lower parts of the earth?

Rev. 20:14 "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death."Christ descended into hell, but hell is temporal. History and popular concept distort two concepts into one, here, and it might just be safe to say "yes and no" to your question. Reading Revelation ch. 20 v. 12-15 might give you a little background in the differentiation.

[font=Arial]Luke 23:43 Verily I say unto thee today shalt thou be with me in Pardise.[/font]Jesus was speaking to the theif,who also was on the cross.

[font=Arial]Luke 23:43 Verily I say unto thee today shalt thou be with me in Pardise.[/font]Jesus was speaking to the theif,who also was on the cross.

brethrenthe place Christ went to when He died was to sheol which is (or was) the holding place of all the people (save for enoch and elijah) who lived before Christ came. it is made up on Abraham's bosom (the holding place of the righteous) and the holding place of the damned (where the rich man went in luke 16) there is also a place of holding for those angels who put on human bodies and had children (the nephilim)with human women. please note that luke 16 is not a parable but in fact an explanation of what happened to the righteous and unrighteous before Christ came. so Christ went there to free the righteous and take them to heaven. now this place is also called hades and will itsef be cast into the lake of fire along with the damned, the devil and his minions and this lake of fire burns forever. so when we speak of hell this i think is the place we should mean. Christ didn't go into the lake of fire coz whoever ends up there is not coming out coz that fire is forever...

1Pe 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; I believe that this event is Jesus preaching the gospel to the souls that were drowned in the flood. This group died without law, or grace, so God also sent the Savior to them (in prison) to share the gospel. Blessings Greg

Healingwaters wrote:Thats true Ironman, that Hell is not the lake of fire.Did the Son of God descend into hell, yes!!Psalms 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Peter is speaking the same scripture in it's fulfillment on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:27So did the son of God physically go or did his soul? this can be confusing. :-? In the spirit Jesus went and preached to the spirits I feel.

then why did Jesus say in luke23:43 we shall be in pardise today?

well i'm not sure if His body went, but the ones who were in hades/hell were souls. i think his soul went down there. i guess it's of no consequence he could have gone there in body or not, doesn't make any difference to me really.

bro G.Q.then why did Jesus say in luke23:43 we shall be in pardise today?because they were about to go there. on the other side there is no concept of time as we know it hence a thousand years being as a day and a day being as a thousand years, it makes no difference.perhaps the thief went to sheol with Christ and was then off to heaven with everyone else there or maybe he went straight to heaven, who knows these things? :-?

You know there is a lot of things left unturned in the word and I personally think God wanted it that way because maybe he felt we would have enough problem figuring out most of it anyway and if this is true my guess would be only the hard core Christians would find the answer to something that really has no answer. ;-)

Hi everyone. I hope that my limited understanding of this question will be of some benefit to us. Please take these explanations as from one lowly worker to others, who still see many things as through as glass darkly. Thank you. I do not believe that our Lord suffered in Hell after he died upon the cross. I believe rather that He suffered the full, complete, unrestrained measure of God's wrath against sin, beginning somewhere around(or possibly after) these moments... Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me. And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.and...And he left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words. Then cometh he to his disciples, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.from somewhere in those moments up to this...When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.I believe that when Christ said It is finishedthat this marks the final and complete end of His suffering for our sins in Atonement. I believe our Lord is saying here that the whole and complete debt of sin had been now fully and wholly paid.I also believe that the wrath of God against sin is unending in duration, however I belive this can be accounted for in view of the limted duration of these things by considering the eternal nature of Christ's being; that since Christ is eternal, He could while on earth, drink the eternal cup of God's wrath.Perhaps we should also pause to consider this from the prophet Isaiah Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin....and...He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied.....Back then to the eternal nature of the wrath, I also believe that this strange phenomenon testifies to this having occured during this time upon earthNow from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.I say that because Christ said of the future punishementAnd I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.the darkness that covered the land calls to mind this darkness that our Lord spoke of here.Also, it has already been said that Christ indicated the believing thief would be with Him in paradise that day, which I think also supports this understanding.Your's for His service,Chris

Part of the ancient creed is that after his death, Christ descended into hell. Christ does seem to have gone to hell to preach to those in prison according to the Scriptures. But if He did indeed do that (as exactly what happened isn't clear in Scripture), there is no indication that He actually suffered in hell. Some theologies require that Christ suffered in hell to make atonement, especially since He was made sin, and in order to full bear the wrath of God due to those who are sinners. But, the Scriptures make it perfectly clear that His suffering in the flesh the death of a sinner was sufficient. If He had to suffer in hell, then the question begs to be asked, how long would he have needed to suffer in hell to make atonement? If one really pushes the suffering in hell theology as needed for atonement, then in my opinion the logic requires that Christ needed to remain forever in hell in order to make atonement. But, His death upon the cross was sufficient.

Hello...The idea that Jesus "went to Hell" following his death on the cross is found in alot of the coptic "gospels" from between the second and sixth centuries A.D. Interestingly, many of these same New Testament apocryphal books also contain alot of heavily unscriptural doctines that were particular to the Roman Church (such as the concept of an "Immaculate Conception"). However, these pseudo-Scriptures were dismissed by many of the patriarchs of the early Church. I have not seen any evidence in the Word of God that would make me accept such a doctrine as any sort of evident truth. In fact, I believe that the victory that Christ gained was through his death on the cross -- and not through the popular modern idea that Jesus needed to go to Hell in order "to take the keys from Satan."I am also very hesitant to believe many of the popular concepts of "paradise" and "Abraham's bosom" as pseudo-purgatories. Those concepts just sound so...unBiblical. :-)

He also preached to the spirites in prison,those who are held captive, where is the prison for spirites?.So this is to me a Diven - mystery!To say yes or no, how can are answers be in black or white.remember we are still looking thur the smokey Glass of The diven nature of God who is everywhere! how are sins forgiven? we can explain what we know from the bible ,or the act of.,but truly this is a matter of faith,in the Diven mysterey of sins being forgiven,which is unseen, or invisble. How can we explain some of the things which happen in the natural world,which are unexplainable.

Hi Greenquality...I agree. To state such things are "doctrinal" is very misleading (and probably unwise). At most, such belief is speculation. Thus, all such ideas like this should be stated as speculation, rather than fact. :-)

bro Karl, Bro Karl, Bro Karl!!!This is true for the carnally minded, but for the Spiritually minded, we will eventually know all things as we give ourselves over to the Word and Prayer.amen bro, amen the Lord rewards those who dilligently seek Him. check this outJeremiah 33:3Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and shew thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not. now we can sit on our butts if we like (to our detriment ultimately) or we can seek the Lord in all dilligence. bro the Lord had you break down what happened to Christ after the crucifiction, man whoa!!! i asked who knows these things in my last post and i'm sure glad someone did!!!bro Billproi'm unsure what to make of yyour last post about hardcore Christians finding answers to things which have no answer (you said)so i'd like some clarity. should we not be hard core in our walk of Faith?

Brethren,I posted on this topic a while back after I heard Kent Hovind's interpretation:https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=8860&forum=36&4Hovind said that Christ moved in three capacities after He gave up the ghost. ----------1) His spirit went to heaven:Psalm 31:5 "Into thine hand I commit my spirit: thou hast redeemed me, O LORD God of truth."Luke 23:46 "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."----------2) His body went to the tomb Acts 13:29 "And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre."----------3) and His soul went to hell:Psalm 16:10 "For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption."Psalm 139:8b "if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there."----------I was shocked by this view, along with the idea that Christ led the captives to heaven after the atonement, that were waiting in Abraham's bosom. Hovind also went over the difference between hell and the lake of fire.Hell is like jail, where the lake of fire is like prison. Hell holds the damned until they are judged and cast into the lake of fire:Rev 20:[14] And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.[15] And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. The more I go over Hovind's view, the more I buy into it.

Hi letsgetbusy...Psalm 16:10 "For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption."Psalm 139:8b "if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there."I may open myself up to some strong criticism for writing this, but these verses are some of those places where the KJV may have been incorrect in the wording of its translation. The idea that Jesus went to Hell was well-regarded in early Roman Catholic tradition (thus appearing in the corrupt coptic and NT apocryphal "gospels") even though it was rejected by many early Church leaders during the same time period.The Hebrew word used in those verses is sheol. This word can be translated as the grave (or death, darkness, or great depth) -- since it obviously used as such in verses like Genesis 37:33-35; Genesis 42:37-38; I Samuel 2:6; II Samuel 22:5-6; I Kings 2:6-9; etc... Often, this is part of the confusion about whether or not Hell is in the "center of the earth." It is commonly realized now that Hell is obviously not in the "center of the Earth" (remember, you can see PARADISE from Hell - Luke 16:23). The NIV translates the aforementioned word as grave as do many of the other translations. Interestingly, other translations taken from the Textus Receptus (such as the older-than-the-KJV Reina-Valera Antiqua in Spanish) often translate the same word as "sepultura" (literally, the grave). On a side note, I find Kent Hovind's interpretation of this concept quite interesting (Hell being like jail and the Lake of Fire being like prison). However, the idea of Old Testament believers going to Hell seems (and were supposedly brought to Heaven by Jesus when he "led captivity captive" and "released the captives") seems a little too much like the Catholic concept of purgatory.Did Jesus go to Hell? There is definitely arguments both pro and con. However, an even more important question is whether or not such speculation should enter into doctrine -- or even whether it should be taught definitively. Remember, there are alot of doctrinal divisions in the Body of Christ as a result of individuals taking stands on issues like this which, with speculation, enters into defining doctrine. Even on this website, there are "hard core" believers that take stands on issues that serve to seperate us. There are arguments among many sincere believers about the end time prophecy, spiritual gifts, Bible versions, Biblical dress codes, music, etc... One "hard core" believer is convinced that "God told him/her the truth" about such doctrine -- which puts that believer at odds with another believer who feels that "God told him/her" the opposite.I believe that we should search out these matters. But we should also be careful about taking a "stand" on such ideas prematurely -- or whether we should even "take a definitive stand" on such issues to begin with. We should be very careful about what doctrines to consider as absolute truth when such doctrine is still highly debated. There are controversial concepts that we can know for certain -- but I don't know that this is one of them. :-)

the Lord Jesus deceneded into hades according to Acts. And on the cross the Lord said to the other thief, "This day you shall be with me in paradise".Our problem is that the King James version doesn not make distincions beteen hades, Gehenna, Tartarus, etc. It translates all these words into one english word, "Hell".But in the Greek, the New Testament word for the "abode of the dead" is Hades, not hell. And in the bible Hades consist of two sections, the bosom of Abraham which is the place of the spirits of the just, and torments which is the place of the spirits of the unjustified.The Lord Jesus deceneded into hades, the abode of the dead and He emerged with the keys of death and hades.Gehenah, the Lake of fire is reserved for the Devil and his angels and those who are his in the last day.Graftedbranch

Basically I guess I could care less were he went and all that won't get me saved if I were not already, and I don't think he wants us spending much time on the past my guess he would want us to look forward Faith moves forward Like Paul, our focus is to be on what “lies ahead,” not looking back but looking forward to the “upward call of God in Christ Jesus” (Phi. 3:12-14). as long as I know were he is now, and that would be at the right hand of the Father so I am good to go with that. :-)

bro ChrisChrist went down to hell/hades to free those who were there who died before He came. Hell was the holding place of the righteous (Abraham's bosom), the damned and there was also a mountain in which the angels who had children with women (nephilim) were held. it was a temporary holding place which itself will the thrown into the lake of fire:revelation 20:1414 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. now evidently this holding place will be used again in some measure in the future (see Rev 6)before being cast into the fire which is hell proper which burns forever and ever. 8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them F5 over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth. Christ says He has the keys of Hell in revelation 117 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: 18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.i don't know that the enemy had the keys to hell at any point but that part of hell in which the rich man went in luke chapt 16 was not a nice place to be and those souls there were in trouble big time. Perhaps this is where the concept of purgatory comes from the fact that there is this temporary holding place before going to heaven or hell (when one is here his fate is sealed it seems)so it is not like purgatory where one waits till someone prays you out.there is no mention of abraham's bosom in the rest of the word...it's there in the book of enoch though, and the secrets thereof which happen to be canon scripture in the Ethiopian orthodox church yet not in the western church...mmm...perhaps we westerners may be missing something?

From the KJV:The Hebrew1) "Sheol" is tranlated into: hell, the grave, and the pit in the Old Testament. The Greek 2) Geenna (or gehenna) is always translated "hell" in the NT. My take: Matthew and Luke used both "gehenna" and "hades." Mark only "gehenna." The Matthew 11 / Luke 10 reference of Capernaum has them falling from exaltation in heaven then down to "hades." It seems that "gehenna" is the very place of burning and flames, while "hades" includes the gates, and the speaking of the overall geographic area, as is the case with how Lazarus saw the man below. Like you wouldn't say, "Hades fire," but rather, "gehenna fire." And you wouldn't say that one, "refused heaven and ended up in gehenna," but rather he, "refused heaven and ended up in hades."3a) Hades is translated into "grave" in Corinthians. Paul wrote "O death (thanatos), where is thy sting? O grave (hades), where is thy victory?" This is a reference to Hosea 13, and in perfect line with Revelation (see below). This usage is obviously not speaking of the pit of the damned, because hell doesn't swallow the redeemed, and then they later receive victory over it. We, as Christians, either don't feel the sting of death, or we receive victory over bodily death. The first part is translated saints, the latter is resurrection saints. I am positive the KJV translators took all this into account. Remember they were considered head and shoulders above their peers.3b) Hades is translated into "hell" in every case in the NT except for Paul's use in 1 Cor 15. So if one is to say that the word was translated wrong in 1 Cor, they are really saying that Paul either wrote "hades" when he should have written "Mnemeion" (grave), or that the correct word was lost in copying manuscripts. Paul said the word "hades" while describing the grave that a corpse lies in. If Paul had used the word "gehenna" in the latter part of 1 Cor 15, he would have been saying that God redeems us from hell, not the grave. Hosea says we are ransomed from Sheol. A ransom is a return. So if Paul said we are returned from hell, he would be making doctrinal error. Paul was right, and so were the KJV translators.Hades is translated into "hell" four times in Revelation, but always with "hell and death" or "death and hell." Death (thanatos) is riding a horse in this reference, and hell (hades) is following him. Seems that both are persons. Makes perfect sense why Paul would say, ""O death (thanatos), where is thy sting? O grave (hades), where is thy victory?" This is enough to keep anyone from forming too solid of an understanding. Death and hell are persons and places. One follows the other, and they are judged simultaneously with the damned. 3c) Tartaroo (or tartarus) is translated "hell" in 2 Peter. This is considered the lowest depth of hell. So tartaroo is always translated "hell." If we had a common word in English for the lowest part of hell, my guess is they would have used it.

Hi IRONMAN...Christ went down to hell/hades to free those who were there who died before He came. Hell was the holding place of the righteous (Abraham's bosom), the damned and there was also a mountain in which the angels who had children with women (nephilim) were held. it was a temporary holding place which itself will the thrown into the lake of fire:...there is no mention of abraham's bosom in the rest of the word...it's there in the book of enoch though, and the secrets thereof which happen to be canon scripture in the Ethiopian orthodox church yet not in the western church...mmm...perhaps we westerners may be missing something?I've heard this preached before. And yes, I have read much of the Book of Enoch. But let me make this clear, the Book of Enoch (at least, the "version" that we have today) is not inspired. Not only is it controversial -- it is really confusing. It fails the test that was used when determining what was cannon and what was fiction. And I definitely have very strong reservations about your "mountain in Hell" theory.As for the doctrine about Abraham's bosom -- I don't feel that there is a place called "Abraham's Bosom." I believe that Lazarus was literally being embraced by Abraham. There is another position on the topic of the whereabouts of our Lord during post-crucifixion/pre-resurrection period. Some of the individuals that believe in this pseudo-purgatory "holding area" for righteous people from the Old Covenant (the place often referred to as "Abraham's Bosom") believe that Christ went there. They teach that the grave ("sheol") is divided into both Hell and Paradise. "Hell," of course, is a place of torment while "Paradise" is a place of temporary bliss. The individuals that believe this feel that Jesus went to "preach" to those righteous people from the Old Covenant in the Paradise section of "Sheol" and not actually in Hell.My point is this: None of us know with any absolute certainty that any of this sort of speculation is true. So we should be very careful about spreading it to others as if it is truth. :-)

Hi everyone.My point is this: None of us know with any absolute certainty that any of this sort of speculation is true. So we should be very careful about spreading it to others as if it is truth. Chris, I agree brother. I also think the tendency for us to want to have answers for everything is strong. It has been a long and hard lesson for me to learn how to say 'I don't know' and not feel like I am somehow less of a Christian becuase of it.Unfortunately I think one of the reasons I have struggled with that the most is pride, and not wanting to appear to others as not knowing. This is a snare brothers.Now, some of you may indeed have the correct understanding of this question; that would be great! Chris gives us some excellent advice however.

ChrisJD wrote:Hi everyone.Chris, I agree brother. I also think the tendency for us to want to have answers for everything is strong. It has been a long and hard lesson for me to learn how to say 'I don't know' and not feel like I am somehow less of a Christian becuase of it.Amen! Amen! and can I get one more AMEN!! :-P

bro ChrisI've heard this preached before. And yes, I have read much of the Book of Enoch. But let me make this clear, the Book of Enoch (at least, the "version" that we have today) is not inspired. Not only is it controversial -- it is really confusing. It fails the test that was used when determining what was cannon and what was fiction. And I definitely have very strong reservations about your "mountain in Hell" theory.but bro, it is canon scripture in the eastern orthodox and the ethiopian orthodox. the western church seems to have some disdain for the eastern church in my opinion and i believe that the enemy hid the book of enoch for his own purposes. if it is canon scripture in the eastern churches i think we should seriously consider that the early church fathers were wrong in exluding it. these same men almost kept the revelation from the canon. why the Lord allowed it to be so if for His own glory..i've heard experts on ancient writings refute the book of enoch and say it is rubbish. then again experts have been wrong before and the Lord's tendancy is to use the foolish things to confound the wise...well we don't have to agree but if the Lord leads, check out "the Called" by bro Rahman, available on amazon.commuch broGod bless

bro Karlyou bring up and interesting point in that what is attributed to enoch in the book of jude doesn't appear in any of the o.t. books of the canon...i think that since the book of enoch is canon scripture in the eastern church, it has credibility. Also FYI, in the original KJV, the very first copies that were printed off (might be hundreds), the Apocrypha was apart of it. I believe it was about 100 years later that it was removed.So who gave them the right to vote these books out? One set of men voted them in, and then another set of men voted them out.it seems to me satan hid these books to keep the reality of hell under wraps. hell appears 54 times in the bible (KJV version) 23 of which are in the new testament. it seems to me though that the mention of hell in the new testament does confuse hell and the lake of fire because hell is cast into the lake of fire and Christ is speaking of the permanant hell. the hell which follows death in revelation is like a garbage dump, picking up all the dead that death has slain.

This quote comes from the book of Enoch. So how do we pick and choose what is inspired?One needs to ask, is Jude's epistle inspired?it seems to me satan hid these books to keep the reality of hell under wraps.The question of whether Jesus went to hell seems to be quickly swallowed by the greater question of whether or not we can trust our present day bible.We really do live in a post-modern era where no knowledge is certain and revisionism is the only credible discourse anymore. Yet this "enlightenment" is a devil's bargain, because once we start to unravel our church history...we find the thread goes all the way back to the beginning. Why stop with the King James bible? Why not agree with Celsus, the ancient Greek philosopher who questioned the selection process for the 4 gospels? In 170 he asked, in his treatise against Christianity titled True Doctrine, why should one give greater credibility to what is written in Mathew, Mark, Luke and John then to other stories about Jesus? How are the accounts that the Christians selected, verifiable in the first place?Yet if we take Pauls' promise "that all things work together..." seriously, then we must take it seriously historically before we can take it personally. If we allow our Arminianism to talk us out of the sovereignty of God we have gone too far and need to return to the road. If Satan really is capable of hiding God's word from us, then what good is bible study at all? What good is prayer? I'm just throwing out my own form of caution...I know we are tired of useless traditions but let's not rush to embrace all radical thinking too fast.Blessings,MC

I don't believe Enoch to be dangerous to any's TheologyThat may be sister...but questioning the credibility of our bible certainly is. If we open this discussion for one book, we can't close the discussion on the others. I think, if we can't find what were hoping to see in our present Canon, then it's sensible to abandon our hunt and move on. Making room for other books because they support some notion that is important to us is unnacceptable even in it's slightest form.Small vector changes lead to miles off course down the road...at least that's been my experience with everything in this life so far. ;-) MC

Well you raise a good point. Enoch certainly does have some attractive verses for discussing the prophetic. I wonder why our church fathers put it aside? Probably some 4th century squabble that had nothing to do with Christian scholarship or integrity...more then likely some ambitious Bishops were paid off by some special interest.Maybe our scriptures really are incomplete afterall...MC

Hi everyone.I found this qoute troublingIn fact, many of the key concepts used by Jesus Christ himself seem directly connected to terms and ideas in the Book of Enoch. Thus, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Jesus had not only studied the book, but also respected it highly enough to adopt and elaborate on its specific descriptions of the coming kingdom and its theme of inevitable judgment descending upon "the wicked" - the term most often used in the Old Testament to describe the Watchers. This statement seems nearly blasphemous considering Christ's declaration concerning His words and teachings...the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.Perhaps we should be certain that this book is indeed the very word of God before we imply that the Son of God 'adopted' and 'elaborated' on it's teachings?Also, what are the qualifications of the people being qouted concerning this book. Are they filled with God's Holy Spirit?

sis anniewhoa that's some interesting information there concerning that book of enoch...

bro ChrisJDThis statement seems nearly blasphemous considering Christ's declaration concerning His words and teachingsi guess we, or the experts have a tendancy to think that Christ had to study these things as we/they do. He knew all these things always as far as i'm concerned.the thing which still gets me is that Abraham's bosom isn't mentioned anywhere else in the word except when Christ mentions it in reference to Lazarus in luke 16. it is in the book of enoch though. obviously Christ had no need of studying these things since He Himself was present with God when all these things were being written.

Hi Annie,There's an email address up in there somewhere's that you could ask. I just pulled this one off the net and there's another like it on yourgoingtohell.com/enoch.html. Ha.Since you are responsible for the content that you present here for your brothers and sisters to digest I think it would be more appropriate for you to address this.Did Jesus ever quote the O.T. ? I guess Jude shouldn't have quoted it then. Ha.The issue of concern is the suggestion that Christ used words found in the book of Enoch to form His teachings. Thanks for considering this.

Hi Ironman, I looked in e-sword and Vincent's word studies says that "Abraham's bosom" was a rabbinical phrase equivalent to being in paradise with Abraham. Appearantly it was a phrase that Jews of His day would have known and understood?Maybe then the Lord is using a phrase from the vernacular of the day to make His point more understandable? Just a thought.Take care.

bro Chriswell they would have known what that meant, hence the disciples didn't ask for an explanation. the thing still is though that it appears nowhere else in scripture or should i say western canon scripture but it is present in eastern canon scripture. i wonder if the sources you quoted think the book of enoch to be inspired, i would guess not hence their conclusion on this.evidently what the Lord was talking about was what happens after death and the disciples knew what abraham's bosom was.

Now I think I should have had a tranquilizer with my supper :-P Well, I guess I'm turning out to be a good ole' fashioned fundamentalist in my later years. I tend to have an allergic reaction whenever Christians start the discussion on the veracity of Canon. In my experience, no matter what fine point is at stake, it ultimately becomes a no-win discussion for the body.I think we just have to make a decision that Christian epistemology is different then secular epistemology as we make room for supernatural revelation. If we believe our revelation is of God, then we should believe it continues to be protected by God. Consider this point: just knowing when Charlemagne influenced scripture, and what he influenced about it, is not the same as knowing why and how he did so. Afterall, God moves Kings on His chessboard even if we can’t see His hands. Believing God has revealed His Word doesn’t mean much unless we also believe He has the ability to preserve His Word for us inspite of Kings, Bishops, and translators. I just don't see any alternative. The two go hand in hand...or hand in glove as it were.I trust you guys feel the same way...I'm only trying to articulate it.Blessings,MC

I still find it "interesting", what I read, but I no way say it's canon, but still very interesting.That's what I wondered if you were saying... Well if we move from the level of inspired down to merely interesting then there are a whole lot of early writings that we could discuss. I agree with you!BTW, I'm glad your day was a good one!Blessings,MC

Hello...Wow -- this thread has seemed to go in a completely new direction (now about the book of Enoch). I have read the book of Enoch several times. Yes, Enoch himself was quoted in the Epistle of Jude -- but that is the end of any quotation from Enoch. When I wrote that we do not know which version of Enoch that Jude was referring, it is quite possible that the current Book of Enoch is just a hodge-podge of some actual quotes from the original texts thrown together with alot of apocryphal and uninspired material. It contains several sub-books, and they seem to not be related at all.This seems to be the case with several of the other coptic gospels and books that were rejected in the established canon. Some of those books contain quotes that are remarkably similar (and sometimes, the same) as things recorded in the Four Gospels. However, upon closer inspection, we can easily reject those books because they contradict the character of Christ. In fact, we reject the books of the Apocrypha as being uninspired -- even if they are historically accurate. The New Testament mentions that Jesus went to the Temple during the Celebration of Hanukkah (the Feast of Dedication in John 10:22-23) -- which is spoken of in the Apocrypha. But we still reject those works. Why? Because it is clear that those works are not inspired.The book of Enoch is the same. Yes, the quote from Jude is contained in it. However, we don't know if it was just added from a previous portion of sayings and quotes. In fact, the book also speaks about angels held in prison for 10,000 years (from Enoch's Book of Watchers 21:6 -- when the earth's age from Adam to now is just about 6000 years), about angels (not demons) having sex with women and then receiving punishment, the subsequent order to destroy all of the descendents of these angels, Abel's spirit "making suit against" the descendents of Cain, and many angels actually making decisions without consulting God. All in all, while it is quite interesting -- it cannot be considered Scripture.Like the debate about whether or not Jesus went to Hell, any of this is pure speculation. We need to rightly divide the Word of Truth. It is interesting to remember that Sodom had no Bible. Neither did Noah. Neither did Adam, Enoch or Abraham. And throughout the ages (until the invention of the press), very few individuals owned a copy of Scriptures. Jews went to the synagogue to hear readings of Scripture. And the early church copied and shared the epistles with one another. For the early believers, they didn't have a written Bible. But they knew the Lord. It is by knowing the Spirit of the Lord that we are able to rightly divide what is undeniable truth from what is fiction. This being said, can anyone say with any sort of honest absolute certainty that Jesus went to Hell? Can anyone claim with absolute certainty that this current "Book of Enoch" is inspired? Of course not. :-) If you would like to read a copy of the Ethiopian "Book of Enoch," then visit this website. I believe that you will find it both interesting, but very suspect.

I agree that canon is decided by God.I also agree that God moves kings like pawns, Christian or not.We discussed canon quite a bit. Here were some things about canon and non-canonical books:A book can be true and good, but still not canon. If I reproduced an account of Jesus, and it was 100% historical and doctrinally correct, that does not make it canon. God decides that.A book that is not canon, and not 100% accurate is still valuable for study. Not for doctrine, reproof, and the like, but for information.My opinion on Enoch is that if God had wanted the 67th book in the Bible, it would be there today. That doesn't mean it cannot be quoted in Scripture. There are multiple works in Scripture that are quoted that are not canon. The Book of the Wars of the Lord, the Book of Jasher, the Book of Enoch, etc. Paul's quote of the Greek poets does not make their poems canon.God chooses the canon. Man discovers it. The apocrypha needed to be translated, not to be canon, but for the same reason you keep a copy of the Book of Jasher. You don't do your devotions by it, but it is still a valuable piece of literature. It is not God's love letter to His people, but that doesn't mean that it is junk.Mein Kampf, the Book of Mormon, and the Koran are not to be lived by, but being ignorant of them is silly to me. I think the fear of books is ungodly. God will protect His witness as he reads the enemy's playbook.So the fact that a book is around today that is related to Christ or the prophets, and it is not one of the 66 inspired books does not qualify it for burning. But neither does a book qualify for canon because God mentions it.(Demons are angels that are fallen. Maybe I am mis-reading you, though.)

Hi Healingwaters...But should a concept be taught as "doctrine" when it is merely speculation? That is the problem with teaching such things (like Jesus went to Hell, requiring women in your church to wear hats, and, gulp, "baptism for the dead" - I Corinthians 15:29-34). It is my personal opinion that established doctrine should NOT be based upon the speculation from a single passage. It seems that such speculation that becomes mandatory custom is what often divides the body of Christ the most. :-)

chris,I am not sure whether you were referring to the idea of Jesus going to hell, or Enoch being canonized.Here are the main verses (that I know of) that discuss Jesus going to hell:Pslam 16:10 "For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption."Acts 2:31 "He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption."If you don't believe Jesus went to hell, no problem. It seems pretty clear to me from this OT verse, and its confirmation in the NT, that Jesus did go to hell. More than one verse discusses this.

Hi letsgetbusy...I am not sure whether you were referring to the idea of Jesus going to hell, or Enoch being canonized.Actually, I am speaking about the danger of taking definitive stands on any doctrines or beliefs that are not completely validated by the Word of God.The Scriptures that you mention are taken from the word sheol -- which speaks of the grave. This has been mentioned before. In fact, there are versions older than the KJV that are also taken from the Received Text that are clear on this. For instance, many foreign language versions simply use the word "sheol" rather than try to interpret the verse inaccurately. But most versions (including older-than-the-KJV foreign translations also taken from the RT) simply use an equivalent to "grave," "death," or "utter darkness." Modern translations like the NIV make this distinction, even though the Hebrew and Greek words are the same in their sources. But my question is whether or not we should base doctrine on speculation that is quite controversial in any interpretation or scripturally debatable. Is it proper for individuals to declare something as fact that is actually speculation? :-)

Hi everyone.Chris,It is by knowing the Spirit of the Lord that we are able to rightly divide what is undeniable truth from what is fiction.Excellent point brother. Though perhaps we could refine this a bit more and include being led of and following closely to, the Holy Spirit? It also reminds me of this Scripture But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.and before this he wrote I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.So then it causes us to wonder why is there so much confusion and disagreement? It seems to me that many errors in judgement arise becuase of our sins. His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself, and he shall be holden with the cords of his sins. He shall die without instruction; and in the greatness of his folly he shall go astray.Our Lord saidThe light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.but... But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!and...Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.So often we are not aware of our sins and the effect upon our judgement is also obscured Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults. Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression.I say this looking back upon personal experience also, at times when I was so lifted up with pride that I had lost much sensitivity to things which before I would have shunned.And we err in thinking that only 'gross' sins really effect us. I do not believe it. I believe the most effective Christian life(and perhaps most opposed) is the one that is living in a greater degree of victory over sin, both outward AND inwardthe prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.Nothing.Someone told me one time that you cannot win in spiritual warfare without a pure heart. I do not doubt the weight of this statement. I have shared the Gospel in some really rotten places, with people who were horribly oppressed. I believe that when we enter into the Gospel fight for thier souls, the spirits that are either in them or are oppressing them will seek to test you and see if there is anything 'in you' that could give them a foothold. I can remember quite a few times being aware that satan was putting something before me to trip me up and get me out of the Gospel fight.So, what's the point and why did I digress? Maybe if we spend more time on our faces asking God to search us, we'd make fewer errors in judgement and have more agreements about the Truth.

chris,It's not just the word sheol, bro. I am showing you from the quote from Acts that Luke confirmed the Psalms quote by also saying Jesus went to hell "in Greek." I will post it again.Acts 2:31 "He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption."That Greek word is Hades. Luke used the same word when describing the falling of Capernaum into hell, and the location of the rich man in flames that was opposite Lazarus. If you don't want to believe that Jesus went to hell, okay. But it is not just one verse, it is not just in one language, and it is not just the Old Testament. I am not trying to beat anyone up, but I was trying to show this by quoting from Psalms and Acts about Jesus in hell.----------As far as the KJV being in error, please read the various version prior to 1611 on Psalm 16:10:1395 Wycliffe: For thou schalt not forsake my soule in helle1535 Miles Coverdale: thou shalt not leaue my soule in hell1568 Bishop's: For thou wylt not leaue my soule in hell1587 Geneva: For thou wilt not leaue my soule in the grauePrior to the KLV, three of the four major English versions translated the word "hell."----------Wesley on Acts 2:31 "his soul was not left in Hades"***Okay, so if you side with the Geneva and the NIV about Psalms 16, how do you explain Acts 2:31?***

Wow, by the time I find out here if Jesus did go to Hell when he died, I might already be in Heaven and can ask Jesus personally I bet he knows, but I bet even if I were able to send back the facts there would still be some Christian's that would want to debate what Jesus said, why not there doing it now. :-P

That's hilarious.

Hi letsgetbusy...I have already explained some of my personal beliefs about the translation. Even the Acts 2:31 passage is just reiterating the verse from Psalms 16:10. In that original verse, the Hebrew word is "sheol." Even the word used in Acts is the mythological word "hades." Hades can mean "the grave, death or hell." But much more importantly, I must ask whether you feel so safe and certain about this issue enough that you feel convinced of a need to state such speculation as an established FACT? What then if what you teach is not fact? It is dangerous to state things as doctrinal fact when it may indeed be speculation -- including educated or deduced speculation. To me, this illustrates one of the most terrible circumstances that divides the body of Christ. A group of individuals feel so strongly about an issue that is, at best, speculative. They end up forming congregations that will embrace this speculation as doctrinal fact -- even teaching that those who don't adhere to such teaching are immature or undiscerning (or even, misled). Of course, there are some things that are quite clear from the Word of God. But I truly believe that, in order to truly understand the heart of God, we must look past meaningless doctrinal divisions. Yes, we should continue to study and search. But we should never be so hard-hearted that we would be willing to distance ourselves from someone because they don't agree with our spiritual or scriptural speculation. This might mean that we should be careful to distinguish what is ultimately clear from the Word of God -- and what is merely speculation. I believe that Leonard Ravenhill was a wonderful example of this. I know that he held very strong beliefs on many matters. But I have yet to hear a message where he preached a sermon on an Scriptual interpretation about the horns of the beast in Revelation. While he probably had some strong beliefs about certain things, he was careful not to teach such things as fact. As a matter of fact, he seemed to be very careful about what he said when he spoke. Brother Ravenhill also held company with many believers from various denominational backgrounds. It seemed that he was concerned first and foremost with your relationship with Christ. Do you truly know Him? If not, do you want to? When I met Brother Ravenhill in his home as a young teen, he asked me alot of questions. I arrived to his door unannounced. His wife asked if I had an appointment. When I told her that I did not, she told me to please wait for a moment. She returned and let me in to the living room. For a few minutes, I was startled by his probing questions. It almost seemed like he was "checking me out." But after a while, I must have said something that made his eyes widen. He nodded to his wife, and she went to bring us some cookies, crackers and tea. Brother Ravenhill apologized for this, telling me that he does this to screen those who truly understand what it means to have a relationship with Jesus from those who are simply well-meaning people seeking a spiritual guru. We fellowshipped and shared for over an hour. He gave me some spiritual advice -- that I hold very dear. And afterward, we prayed. Brother Ravenhill never asked me questions about where I stood on doctrinal issues (like whether or not Jesus went to hell). He didn't ask me whether or not I spoke with tongues, believed in a pre-trib or post-trib rapture, what version of the Bible I read, or whether or not I believed in eternal security. He spoke primarily about the condition of the Church. And since I was so young, he spoke about the terrible condition of young people within the Church.I wish that we could all be so welcoming of one another. So again, I must ask whether or not we should be teaching doctrine that is speculation? Should we be forming churches where doctrines are based upon controversial interpretations of a particular passage or concept? While I believe that all of these matters can and should be taught -- we should be careful to mention that this is our own speculation. Sadly, most teachers and pastors today do not do this. They are so concerned about people lining up to their "vision" for the church (or agreeing with the official church position on precise matters) that they become inclusive institutions. It is so difficult to find a pastor that will encourage the congregation to search the Scriptures for themselves through much prayers before believing what is taught. Pastors and teachers need to know that it is okay to not know everything. It doesn't make me have less faith in their leadership. In fact, it makes them seem more real. Instead, we hear messages about how a congregation is "underneath the umbrella authority of the pastor and church leadership" -- chiding us to line up with the direction of the leadership without objection.On a personal note, I believe that there are alot of such "established practices" in many churches that truly needs to be questioned. Perhaps alot of our ecclesiatical customs and traditions are not based upon Scripture. Why does "revival" still tarry? Perhaps the question can only be answered intrinsically. :-)

Hi MeAgain...I do believe in discernment and apologetics. And I do believe that there are individuals that are gifted as such and thus better equipped for such tasks. And of course, I also believe that there are absolutes. Even this issue has an absolute answer -- either Christ went to Hell when he died or he did not. But does any of us know with absolute certainty the truth about this issue? If not, then why do we preach it as such? Undeniable absolutes from the Word of God should be the established doctrine of the Church. Many things are completely clear -- repentance, faith in God, baptisms, the laying on of hands, resurrection, judgment, etc... (Hebrews 6:1-2). And there are supposedly "controversial" issues that are also completely clear from the Word of God (like homosexuality is definitely a sin, abortion is murder, etc...). We should have no problem with preaching things that are clear from the Word of God.But the problem that I have is with preaching something as an absolute that cannot be confirmed as undeniable truth. Many churches have historically made doctrine out of speculation and assumption. Even in areas of discernment, it is typical to find two individuals that disagree. There are some things that are not elaborated upon in the Word of God. For instance, other than speaking in other tongues (and the subsequent preaching by Peter), what else did the believers on the day of Pentecost do? We really don't know. Modern charismatics often preach that they walked around like drunks (being "drunk in the Spirit" they often call it). However, the book of Acts states that they were accused of having too much wine because they were speaking with other tongues (Acts 2:6-13). Did they sing? Did they lift their hands? Did they kneel in prayer? Did they jump up and down? My point is that the Word of God did not specify many of the actions that day. Why? Perhaps it wasn't really that important. Perhaps it was so that we would not put our eyes on any sort of manifestation. Or perhaps we are not supposed to make a doctrine by resorting to such speculation.There are things that are ultimately clear from the Word of God. These things are BEYOND any sort of reasonable dispute. Such sound doctrine can be preached -- even if there are still individuals that disagree. Why? Because they are based solely on what is written in the Word of God. Yet I do believe that we should be able to discuss even debatable issues. We can even arrive at our own personal conclusions. We can even share those things when we teach. But should an individual preach such things as fact? I do believe that we should state speculation (and even refutable "discernment") as such. There are doctrines that define certain denominations. For instance, some churches are distinguished because they embrace the principles of Calvinism (or "eternal security," or "once saved/always saved"). When I am questioned by some fellow believers about this issue, I typically tell them, "Who cares?" I know that I have given my heart to the Lord, I fellowship with Him daily, and my heart will always long for Him. The highlight of my life is to spend time with God. But it is also evident to me from the Word that people that are living in sin will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Even many of the most devout Calvinists will state that if you are living in sin, then "you weren't really saved in the first place." I truly question whether or not such a doctrine -- even if you truly believe it -- should be taught in the first place? Again, it is pure speculation. Yet many churches have formed doctrine out of this sort of speculation. The same can be said of many other beliefs. There are churches that are split because an individual believes that they perceive some great "truth" from the Word of God, and then they create a church that makes such formed doctrine essential to the church teaching. I know of a Church that was split over the concept of tithing. A lay minister stated his doubt about the concept, and left the church over it. He stated that he was tired of being judged because he didn't believe in the concept. So he formed a church that met in the streets. And you know what? It grew to nearly a fifty members. But two years later, that church split because of another "doctrinal" conflict. I truly believe that we should be careful about making absolutes (in an establishment of doctrine and customary practice sense) out of issues that are not necessarily absolute. Such issues have historically served to divide the Body of Christ. Personally, I feel comfortable attending many churches -- even some of those where I do not fully embrace their doctrinal stands. I feel the liberty to ever-so-often attend a Calvary Chapel, Assembly of God, Baptist, Prebyterian, Christian Missionary Alliance or even non-denominational home meetings, etc... The small church that I now attend is non-denominational. While it preaches the undeniable doctrines of the Church -- it tends to avoid issues that are not so firmly established by the Word of God. While the pastor or teachers may share something that is speculation -- they treat it as such. I know some individuals that believe in "once saved/always saved" and those who do not. I know some who believe that speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, and some who do not believe it. And there are individuals that believe in tithing to the Church, tithing to the pastor, or not being confined to a tithe at all. But you know what, we are all believers.This is one of the wonderful things about the SermonIndex community. We all come from a variety of denominational backgrounds -- but we all have a hunger to know Christ, see Him magnified in our lives and in the lives of the Church, and to see this world come to truly know Him. While we don't all agree on alot of issues (thus, the disagreements in the forums), we mostly all agree on what is important. The things that are important (and clear) can be "shouted from the rooftops." The things that are not clear are discussed between fellow believers. Most of the conflict arrives when someone wants to "shout from the rooftops" something that isn't clearly a doctrinal fact. :-)

chris,First, brother, I am not dividing myself from you. We have a discussion area here so that we can debate and search for truth. I don't seperate myself from brothers and sister that disagree with me on tongues, Bible versions, and the like. However, I am looking for the truth in every doctrine. If God put it in the Bible, I want to know about it.I don't think that disagreeing about biblical topics is division. I think we mistake when we give up the debate just because we disagree. When we start name calling, we've gone too far. Otherwise, let us continue to sharpen swords.Ravenhill did bring up doctrinal issues. He made comments about how the dispensationalists forgot about Hebrews 11. He commented how tongues was NOT the initial baptism of the Holy Ghost. Spurgeon preached Calvanism from his pulpit, but asked God to "elect some more." Wesley and Whitefield debated by letter over freewill, but were longstanding friends.Yes, I really am saved. Yes, I pray for revival. Yes, I witness to the lost. But that does not mean I cannot search for doctrinal truth. I am looking to be proven wrong if I am. Do I want to be proven wrong by a brother in conversation, or after speaking to a group?If I have been unkind, please correct me. But the Scriptures were inspired "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." I have disagreed with people and then months later started to reconsider. I am not foolish enough to believe I am correct about all doctrine. But unless I talk about it with my brothers, how will I know if my understanding is correct. I want to make sure I am enduring sound doctrine. This is one reason I like to get outside the walls of my church to discuss doctrine. I want to make sure I have not fallen into this category:"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears"All this being said, if Hades is mythological, and I ask this to find the truth, how did John see him in the book of Revelation:Rev 6:8 "And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was (Thanatos), and (Hades) followed with him"Rev 20:14 "And (Thanantos) and (Hades) were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second (Thanatos)."As far as the canonization of Enoch, canon is not decided by who wrote the book. If Moses wrote a book about Israel, it is not automatically canon. If John wrote about the laying on of hands or something, that does not bring it immediately into place as a 67th book. Canon is decided by God. Each book is placed by God for "doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." But just because a book is not canon does not make it garbage, either.I go back to the topic by stating that it seems clear from Psalms 16, Acts 2 (with reference to Revelation) that Jesus' soul did enter hell.Reidhead seemed to be pretty open about this topic on "10 Shekels and a Shirt." I don't think he is in error for doing so.

Letsgetbusy, how are you? I want to share with you my understanding of the verse that you qouted concerning Christ entering Hell. Let me know what you think, alright? First,I go back to the topic by stating that it seems clear from Psalms 16, Acts 2 (with reference to Revelation) that Jesus' soul did enter hell.And agian the specific verse, from Acts...Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.Alright. Let's look again at the context. Peter is preaching to the Jews and is setting forth Christ. And at this point he is setting forth a particular part of Christ's work, the resurrection, see also verse 24 prior to this.He points them to David's ministry as a prophet and the revelation God had given him concerning the resurrection from the dead. The force of Peter's application of this verse to Christ is found in verse 29Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.his point being then that these words in verse 27 could not have been speaking of David himself, becuase David's body was still in his sepulchre, it saw corruption. Verses 30-32 go on to say this specifically.So, I think the doctrine that Peter is setting forth by applying Psalm 16:10 is the resurrection from the dead. In doing so he is saying that Christ was raised from the dead according to the scriptures. In verse 31, when we read of His soul not being left in Hell, musn't we understand this in connection with the rest of this verse, that His body did not see corruption. It did not stay in the grave!While it may(I do not know) have been true of the patriarchs and David(and other believers), that thier souls went to a holding place after death, I do not think this verse is teaching the same about Christ, but rather is emphasising that He was raised from the dead(did not see corruption).Consider this from Isaiah 53:10thou shalt make his soul an offering for sinI believe this was wholly accomplished before and up to the Lord's death, or during His passion as we call it. The idea that Christ was in Hell(or a holding place) or anywhere else other than Paradise, seems to imply that His work of Atonement was not complete at His death, however I do understand that this being in Hell may be understood by some as having some other purpose besides suffering, such as retrieving the keys of death(this seems more like a metaphor for authority over death however). And remember Christ said It is finishedSo, to reiterate I beleive that Peter's application of verse 29 is to establish the teaching of the resurrection of Christ from the scripture.I also found this from Wesly's explanatory notes on Acts 2: 27 Thou wilt not leave my soul in hades - The invisible world. But it does not appear, that ever our Lord went into hell. His soul, when it was separated from the body, did not go thither, but to paradise, Luk_23:43. The meaning is, Thou wilt not leave my soul in its separate state, nor suffer my body to be corrupted.Let me know what you all think.

ChrisJD,Let me make sure I am reading you correctly. You are saying then that the words Sheol and Hades are speaking of the grave in OT and NT. If this is the case, what is the difference in Thanatos and Hades:1 Cor 15:55 "O (thanatos), where is thy sting? O (hades), where is thy victory?"Rev 6:8 "And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was (Thanatos), and (Hades) followed with him."I would assume that you would say the following:thanatos=deathhades=graveIf hades means grave, how do you apply the following:Luke 16:23 "And in (hades) he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom."

ccchhhrrriiisss wrote:Hi MeAgain...I do believe in discernment and apologetics. And I do believe that there are individuals that are gifted as such and thus better equipped for such tasks. And of course, I also believe that there are absolutes. Even this issue has an absolute answer -- either Christ went to Hell when he died or he did not. But does any of us know with absolute certainty the truth about this issue? If not, then why do we preach it as such? Can I get another Amen!! :-P

prayerbone wrote:man 9 pages on this question geeze who cares i know where he is nowaj I totally understand were you coming from and just for this exact reason is why I have dropped out of my Bible Study group, they wanted to do this I mean they would even do this on just one word in a scripture not a whole scripture rather than move on and just worship the King. When I left I said this is not a Bible study this is a Bible debate group, you would be surprised how many have called me to tell me they wished I would come back and I was right about the group and that they did get a little carried away.Someone said it in an earlier post on this thread that for some reason we as Christians feel like we need closure on every scripture and personally I feel there are some that only God can offer you closure on. I love a good debate but I refuse to debate my Fathers word until it gets so blown out of proportion you wonder if your debating the Word or the New York Times. :-P

Hi Letsgetbusy, hope you are doing well. First, thanks for setting those different terms(thanatos and hades) out like that. It was helpfull.Let me make sure I am reading you correctly. You are saying then that the words Sheol and Hades are speaking of the grave in OT and NT. If this is the case, what is the difference in Thanatos and Hades:No, I think I see your point, but I wasn't trying to deal with the terms at all. I don't think we have to in this case, becuase Peter is teaching that this verse establishes the doctrine of the resurrection in scripture, not so much that it teaches anything specific about the nature of death or hades. I hope that make sense.Maybe it was the case that everyone else that died before Christ went to hades and their bodies decayed, but I think this case is different becuase our Lord is here destroying the power of death through His sinless sacrifice and resurrection. It might seem like I am trying to avoid the issue of the definition of these terms, but I am not. I just believe they are a non-issue here. In other words, what I understand that this verse is teaching is that whatever or wherever hades is, Christ did not go there, no, His body did not even decay, becuase God raised Him from the dead. Maybe if I pull up that qoute from Wesley on this again it will be helpfull to our understanding too...Thou wilt not leave my soul in hades - The invisible world. But it does not appear, that ever our Lord went into hell. His soul, when it was separated from the body, did not go thither, but to paradise, Luk_23:43. The meaning is, Thou wilt not leave my soul in its separate state, nor suffer my body to be corrupted.Let me know if this helps to clarify or not.Peace be with you.

Hi letsgetbusy and MeAgain...I apologize if it seemed like my words were directed at you (or anyone in particular). That was definitely NOT my intent. Nor do I attempt to "talk down" to anyone with my posts. If it seems that way, I hope that you know that it has never been my intent. For clarity: I do not believe that any sort of Biblical discussion is wrong -- even if two or more parties disagree (unless of course, it turns into something ugly). Such debates can indeed be healthy and can serve to encourage us to search the Scriptures for the truth of a matter. As believers, we can discuss alot of controversial issues -- even if this may lead to debate or disagreement. This is a wonderful right as long as we are not trying to pass judgment about the spiritual condition of those that do not accept our own persuasion or speculation as fact (concerning issues that are not completely clear from the Word). However, my point from the beginning concerns whether or not we (or more precisely, local churches) should even take firm positions on doctrine that is really mere speculation. It is this type of "doctrinal division" that often seperates rather than unites true believers. And when an individual is convinced about a matter (that is still mere speculation), they often feel inclined to defend their belief with great tenacity. How often are feelings hurt in the SI forums when one brother or sister is "chastised" by another brother or sister that knows that they're "right" (but in reality, they are simply convinced)? The fact remains that many denominations were formed because of such differences in doctrinal persuasion. But what if we did not feel the need to "push" such speculative issues upon one another? Granted, there are doctrines that are harmful and need to be addressed. But many of those doctrines themselves began out of such discussions concerning an individual's or group's speculation (or persuasion) over a particular issue that is not completely clear from the Word of God. Did Jesus go to Hell when he died? This is a great topic for discussion among believers. The only danger is when someone begins to state as doctrinal fact what is merely speculation. This danger is not limited to this topic. It covers all manners of conversations in the Body of Christ. Too often, people forget to mention that they are persuaded or convinced about an issue. Instead, they mention it as a fact that cannot be ignored by others. They rely on their own understanding, their spiritual and Scriptural education and their ability to hear (or discern) from God about what they are convinced of. The problem is that there are often many others that use the same criteria that arrive at a seperate opinion. Please don't confuse what I am saying with a disbelief in absolutes. The Word is truth. In fact, it is the only undeniable and indisputable truth we have. But the fact remains that many people see the Word through different sets of eyes. We are all at different areas of spiritual growth and understanding. I say this from firsthand experience. There have been things that I actually shared with others as fact in the past, that I am now convinced was simply my own persuasion based upon what I was taught or learned through personal study. At times (as a younger believer), I even questioned in my heart the spiritual condition of some that didn't agree with me. I have repented and prayed that the Lord would remove such suspicion and pride from my heart. I simply believe now that we should be slow to speak about matters that are not clearly established by the Word of God. Should a belief that "Jesus went to Hell" be preached as a fact from the rooftops? Or should it simply be discussed amongst brothers as an issue in which we should, through prayer and study, draw our own conclusions? In some churches, if you do not accept the status quo doctrine of the Church (including the most peculiar practices and customs), then you can be ostracized or even disfellowshipped. I have met individuals kicked out of some churches for simply not agreeing with "holy laughter" or being perpetually "drunk in the Spirit." I am a very non-confrontational guy (usually). But I have actually been confronted by church leaders that didn't like the fact that I did not simply accept their teachings as undeniably sound. For instance, I personally believe in tithing. I do my best to cheerfully give my tithes and offerings to the Lord. I don't judge those who do not, and I am not totally convinced that the Lord even requires a tenth. But I also give it secretly. I do not write it on an envelope for tax or legal purposes. I don't want anyone to know what I give, when I give, or how often I give. I usually drop it into the top of our church safe. One day, a former pastor confronted me about my "giving." He said that he looked at the contribution roll sheet in order to determine who was giving -- and who was not. He said that he did this to determine whether those who give the most get blessed the most (he had recently attended a Kenneth Hagin/Kenneth Copeland/Jesse Duplantis seminar in Tulsa). He noticed that my name seldom appeared on this roll (in fact, it only appeared when I forgot to bring cash and had to write a check). Very nicely, I told him that it really wasn't anyone's business whether or not I gave to the Lord, and that the matter was simply between myself and the Lord. This was so foreign to him that he almost became enraged. He accused me of trying to be "more spiritual" than himself. I honestly and wholeheartedly apologized to him if he perceived it in that way, but I was going to simply continue giving the way that I felt was the best from my understanding of the Word of God. The very next Sunday, he asked the Church to hold their tithe and offering over our heads. He asked everyone to look around and see what we were all giving. He then asked, "Are you embarrassed of what you are giving to the Lord?" (He learned this at the seminar). I simply didn't hold up anything. I also noticed alot of embarrassment on the faces of many people -- including those who were giving "alot." But I felt content because it really didn't matter to me.My point is that there are so many churches that try to enforce their own peculiar or particular doctrinal beliefs upon a congregation. And sometimes, this drifts to our own personal relationships. Sometimes we are completely convinced on certain issues. But often, there is alot of room for debate about such issues. However, some churches (or individuals) are willing to disfellowship with other believers (or dismiss their brotherly love and trust) over some of the most peculiar doctrinal issues. Some churches will throw you out for forgetting to cover your head. Some churches will throw you out for not tithing. Some churches will throw you out for drinking a cup of wine. Some churches will throw you out for speaking in tongues. Some churches will throw you out for not speaking in tongues. Some churches will throw you out for wearing pants or jeans. Some churches will throw you out for not using the KJV. Some churches will even throw you out for actually being physically sick (lack of prosperity, they said). And of course, this list could go on and on. We probably all have experienced this, or know of others that have experienced such ostracization due to doctrinal disagreement.My question is this: Should ANY Church (or individual) be forcing such doctrinal persuasions and speculative positions on the rest of their congregations (or fellow believers)??? I suppose that is really the heart of what I am trying to say. Remember, there is still reason to heal on the Sabbath. :-)

ccchhhrrriiisss wrote:For instance, I personally believe in tithing. I do my best to cheerfully give my tithes and offerings to the Lord. :-) To the Lord? would that mean to the Church? because the word says when you give to the least of me that you have given to me, My personal belief is if I give to anyone that is in need that I am giving to the Lord that is my form of tithing, because the tithe belongs to the Lord and I don't think the Church is the Lord. :-)

Hi MrBillPro...To the Lord? would that mean to the Church? because the word says when you give to the least of me that you have given to me, My personal belief is if I give to anyone that is in need that I am giving to the Lord that is my form of tithing, because the tithe belongs to the Lord and I don't think the Church is the Lord. You make a great point. And this is a great example of the idea that I am trying to convey. I have often wrestled with the concept of Biblical tithing -- including whether or not we are still required to give a tenth at all. Currently, I feel impressed to give my tithe to the Lord, through the local church "storehouse" where I currently fellowship with believers. This way, I leave the choice of distribution to the individuals that are appointed to see "over this business" of serving tables (Acts 6:1-7). I am not limited to the tithe, however. The Church that I attend is quite small. During some months, the need is greater than another. Thus, many of us feel impressed to give more during those months. Typically, I also try to give to overseas evangelists and pastors that I know are faithfully serving the Lord there. And I also work with the poor in my community. Right now, I do not have alot. But I have seen the Lord increase the little that I have given in order to meet alot of need. However, I am not convinced about the issue of tithing enough to actually be "immovable" in it. I have never heard the Lord speak to me about this issue -- even after much prayer. And I have heard alot of great arguments from believers that stand on the other side of this issue. Thus, I would not feel comfortable preaching my belief to others as a doctrinal fact. I feel liberty to share my opinions and speculations about this concept with others. But it is not firmly established in my heart enough to "shout it from the rooftops." Nor do I judge any other views with even the least bit of suspicion. Should a church preach such a concept that is not clearly established by the Word of God? Should such a church force this issue on their "members?" Should individual believers attempt to "force" such speculative beliefs on others? It is my opinion that, in order for a doctrine to be impressed upon others, it needs to be completely and clearly established by the Word. :-)

I just looked up store house in my strongs exhaustive concordance with greek and hebrew dictionaries and store house means "Owtsar" Armory, Cellar, Garner, or Store, but no word about a Church, were is a scripture I can go to that say's The Church is also the Store House? Thanks Bill

Hi MrBillPro...Again, this is a valid point. I'm not certain about how the word "storehouse" should be translated. Here is a link about the origins of the word. However, the question remains whether such a doctrine of mandatory tithing should be preached to people -- when the doctrine itself is still quite questionable. While it is a good thing to discuss the issue, one might question whether this should be a requirement at local churches? If not, then why should we also preach so many other questionable doctrines as if they are fact? :-)

Hello my name is Jubilee and I just happened in on your discussion and wanted to share a thought that has been studied a lot by me. I believe that the new testament church is not required to give a 10% tithe but a 100% tithe. The word says that we are not our own, but we are bought with a price and that we should no longer live unto ourselve. We are servants of the Lord and therefore the only thing we are required to do is to get up each morning and ask God what He would have us to do with all that He has entrusted to us. I believe in giving a minimum of 10% but to be fully aware that nothing we posesses is our own but a trust that we are to be stewards over for God's purposes. We give our lives and substance to Him to do with as He chooses. This is the place of safety where He meets our every needs. If I give my all to Him He gives His all to me. I am secure in His moment by moment provision. Just a thought to ponder :-) The early church had all things in common and didn't count anything they possessed as their own.Jubilee :-D

Brothers,Could we stick to the topic? No, I would not shun or kick you out because you disagree with me about whether or not Jesus went to hell. I will put this back out there and if no one answers I will leave it alone.If you believe that Acts 2:31 is speaking of the grave with the word Hades here:"He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption."...then how do you reconcile that the rich man was "in torments" when in Hades in Luke 16:23:"And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom."Both verses use the word Hades, and both are written by Luke.I am not asking for your overall stance on whether or not Jesus went to hell or not, I am asking for an explanation of what Hades means, and it's usage in the two verses. If Hades is "the grave," then what are the torments that the rich man is experiencing in "the grave?"

letsgetbusy wrote:Brothers,Could we stick to the topic? What if we said no? :-P