Did Jesus Actually Go To hell, as per The Creeds?

I just re-read my post and could not find the word spirit in it anywhere and do not believe it is in any of the scriptures quoted.

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.

Where does this scripture say the SOUL (g5590
ψυχή psychē) of Jesus was raised from?

into thy hands I commend my spirit: (g4151
πνεῦμα pneuma)

And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;(spirit, what Jesus but in the hands of the Father) and man became a living soul. (What was raised from hell.)

Septuagint: The Greek Old Testament2:7 καὶ ἔπλασεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον χοῦν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐνεφύσησεν εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ πνοὴν(Spirit) ζωῆς καὶ ἐγένετο ὁ ἄνθρωπος εἰς ψυχὴν(Soul) ζῶσαν

 

OK, I am glad that you are not saying Christ died in Hell.

As I am thinking over this post of yours, and over my article (which I originally wrote in 2004) I think I need to do some rethinking. Thank you for your questions, Aaron. I will get back with you. I think I will need to rewrite part of that article.

However let me for now state that, as a Preterist, I am convinced that spiritual death is separation from God. This is what Adam suffered, per God's warning, on the very day that he sinned - separation from God. Christ, the Second Adam, recovered what Adam had lost for us. He became separated from God ("My God, Why have you forsaken Me?) to reconcile us to God.

So much for now.

 

The Apostles' Creed that has "he descended into Hell" is largely not used today. See Schaff's Creeds of Christendom or the explanation offered by Wayne Grudem in his Systematic Theology for full reasons. the line appears to be a an addition with no real support.

 

Can't get it to play. What does he say?

 

so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Would you say the heart of the earth and the lowest parts of the earth could be the same?

and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection. Does this imply birth from the earth?

the firstborn from the dead; Does this imply birth from the earth?

Isa. 66:8 Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? [or] shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children. Does this imply birth from the earth?

Isa 26:19 Thy dead [men] shall live, [together with] my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew [is as] the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead. Is birth from the earth not implied here?

In Isa. 66 it is Zion giving birth also. Where is Zion when she gives birth?
I will build my church;(Zion) and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Because in one day she shall give birth to the kingdom of God because death the gate in to hell shall not prevail over her just as it could not of her head Christ. Acts 2:24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the (Birth) pains of death (Should have said hell) because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

And last but not least Psalm 139:14-16 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully [and] wonderfully made: marvellous [are] thy works; and [that] my soul knoweth right well. (Where was it resurrected from) My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, [and] curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all [my members] were written, [which] in continuance were fashioned, when [as yet there was] none of them.

This was speaking of the dead Jesus the Christ and his members the church.

Compare with Hebrews 5:7-9 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

 

Sproul decrees that His hell was on the cross.

I guess you can claim to "hold" to the Creed, just shuffle the order from death-burial-hell to hell-death-burial.

Nifty, huh?

 

Why do we find the need to qualify death? I searched in Blue Letter Bible KJV only, meaning I only searched in KJV not that KJV is the only, spiritual death and physical death and came up with zero hits. Is this because it is a figment of our imagination to qualify death? This I believe if partly KJV'S fault.
In the day thou eat thereof thou shall surely die. And we know he did not.
Is the correct translation, dying thou shall die or as Young's has it, dying thou dost die? Also we believe more highly of man than we should and do not believe what the word says about the Word made flesh.

Nothing about the man God place in the Garden of Eden that is him is said to be immortal.

God the Word was made flesh (a man).

Therefore we qualify death because of what we believe.

 

I think that's overstating.

That said, the "hell" of the death on the cross (specifically, the abdication of the Father necessary for the same) is one interpretation of the "descended into hell."

 

The Hebrew tachti translated lower also means under and the word for earth adamah means ground, soil, land so that the verse is "under parts ground." Which the writers translated lower parts of the earth, signifying he went beneath the ground. If this refernces His soul His soul went to the "under parts of the ground" or into the lower parts of the earth, again nothing to do with lower to heaven but under ground.

Again not going to the original language andit seems you are using your interpretation of the verse or what you were taught.

 

By the terminology we can tell the type death. Why qualify the type death to know what the text is actually telling us. If we were dead in trasspasses and sins how were we dead? Spiritually or physically? That is why the need to qualify the type of death.

 

Sproul's view would also be mine, and I dare say it was the view of those who wrote the Creed.

[Taken from http://marprelate.wordpress.com/2011/04/08/the-cry-of-desolation/ The last part is an adaptation of a Puritan prayer]

Steve

 

When Adam partook of the fruit that is exactly what he became, dead in trespass and sin, then dying he did die just as God had told him. If the KJV guys had translated it literally dying you will be dead then we would not have had to figure how he was dead not having died when he sinned. The wages of sin is death. Period. Dying thou dost die or dead in trespass and sin came upon all men because of the sin of Adam. When we are born we are subject to this. Those that are born yet die not being in Christ Paul says have no hope. They died in trespass and sin not being in Christ but those that are asleep in Christ have assurance by the gift of the Holy Spirit of being in the kingdom of God by resurrection from the dead just as Christ was raised from the dead.

 

So Adam died spirtiually when he sinned and later physically.

 

If that's the way you want to put it but is one or the other or both the wages of sin?

Was Christ paid the wages for the sin of the elect and not for them only but also for the sin of the whole world and was that price death in the realm of the dead Hades ie hell in the KJV for three days and three nights from wince his soul was raised with his body which did not see corruption and no more to return to corruption?

1 Cor. 15:3
1 John 2:2
1 Cor. 15:4
Matt. 12:40
Matt. 16:18
Acts 2:31
Acts 13:34

 

The Apostles Creed is our oldest Christian creed outside of the Bible. Its author is unknown, if indeed it had a single author, and the etiology of this controversial line cannot be traced precisely.

“He descended into Hell” has not been dropped from modern versions of the Creed. However, it has been changed in some versions to say, “He descended to the dead.” They mean the same thing, i.e., that Jesus did not go to a place of torment but rather to the abode of the righteous dead. These people were stuck in a kind of purgatory (not going to Hell but unable to enter Heaven without Jesus). So, in a manner of speaking Jesus descended to the dead to rescue them from prison and lead them to Heaven. We know for certain that He did enter the underworld and He did make a proclamation to the departed spirits. If you don’t believe this, you can mark 1 Peter 3:19 out of your Bible.

 

If that is the case, I don't quite see how He could say on the cross to the penitent thief, "Today you will be with Me in Paradise."

Steve

 

Paradise is Abraham's Bosom described in Luke 16. In Luke 16 we see the rich man who died and was in a place of torments. But what could he see? He could see both Abraham and poor Lazarus in his bosom. What did he ask of Abraham? That Lazarus would dip his finger in water and cool his tongue. So obviously there was water where Lazarus was, this was paradise. This is where Jesus went.

And as shown in Luke 16, both sections of hell could not just see each other, they could also hear each other, so Jesus could preach to all.

 

I have gone over Luke 16 time and again and do not see any indication that the rich man was seen by either Abraham or Lazarus.

Also, Luke's passage does not indicate water where Lazarus was. The rich man asked that Abraham "send Lazarus" "that he might dip his finger in water"

The rich man apparently believed there was water somewhere, but the implication that the water is in an entirely different location.

 

Whatever death was waiting for me as an unconverted sinner, that is the death that Christ died. Whatever curse I was under, that is the curse He took. Whatever torment, whatever pains, whatever indignation, whatever justice and judgment awaited me, that is the punishment He bore.

 

Abraham did not answer the rich man there was no water, which he could have easily done. No, he answered there was a great gulf between them that no one could cross.

Abraham also told us the poor beggar was comforted, so obviously he was not tormented by the flame nor by thirst as the rich man was.

It is also illogical to believe the rich man could see Abraham and Lazarus but they could not see him. They clearly could converse across this gulf and did, so why couldn't Abraham and Lazarus see the rich man? Luk 16:23 cleary says the rich man could see Abraham and Lazarus.