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

You might need to study that out a bit more.
The passage uses the term 'sheol'.. when does not mean just grave. In fact there are other Hebrew words that means just that (grave or tomb, ect..), however Sheol does mean more than 'just grave'. - Hades is it's counter part in the Greek.

 

You all can argue words all you want. The fact of the matter is this, if the punishment was intended for your sin, then Christ tasted it. If it wasn't, then He didn't.

 

Then you apparently haven't studied much on subject.
While yes, 'gehenna' refers to what we refer to as the burning side of hell.. you fail completely in understanding that 'sheol' does not simple or only mean grave. It never has and never will, well except when people want to redefine a term.

The term NEVER means only the grave, while grave can be INCLUDED, the term referred to the realm of the dead and departed. Even Reformed scholars note this (A.T. Robertson is an easy one to verify regarding sheol and/or hades) and many others. You can go and read a recent and posting on the subject here.
Here is one of those links I provide of my previous engagements of various previous threads:

Or here:

Or some other early church fathers view on the subject (including Augustine in his book - City of God)

This also from the Jewish Encyclopedia:

Read more: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...#ixzz0Tbi2T1Qu

You don't even seem to grasp the simple context that the word had a varied sense and usage among the Jews and maintained that usage in Christian understanding. I encourage you to actually study this out and stop making blanket statements that hold no water regarding the words UNDERSTOOD meaning

 

While I agree with a lot of what u just said---I couldn’t disagree with you more on this last statement! You are more than welcome to read my posts on other threads about why I say this--& why jude 6 does in fact refer to Gen 6. However, Chuck Missler has added more to the angelic view than I personally care for—but I don’t want 2 derail this thread—so as to your point about this thread---I think it is valid & should be considered!

 

If you studied it then you 'know' that neither Shoel nor Hades mean just the grave. Never has, never can. Again, while the definition can INCLUDE the grave as part of the full picture, it never means nor can mean, only the grave.

You do know there are words in the both languages that mean simply the grave or tomb, ect, right? The use of these two specific words have a specific meaning and to try to ascribe it such an overly simplistic one does so by trying to ignore it's historical usage for one that is more conducive to a theological point of view. Again, study the word's 'historical' meaning and usages as they will disagree with your view. I would suggest to not just read some select people who agree with you. You do realize that many reformers (even Augustine) agree with the 'meaning' I have given regarding sheol and hades - A.T. Robertson is one such noted Reformed scholar and theologian.

 

http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/eph4v9.htm

 

Did He say that while alive or dead?

 

I will show my age. As they use to say on Dragnet, Just the facts ma'am , just the facts.

And Jehovah God formeth the man -- dust from the ground, elements
and breatheth into his nostrils breath of life, life that comes from God and is God
and the man, what was formed from the ground plus life from God
becometh a living creature. (Soul) It the soul, the sum total of man immediately began to accumulate knowledge and put to memory from his surroundings and from the only one speaking to him, The LORD God. This is the living soul from before he was made was subject to death. He was told it was appointed unto him to die. In fact before he was created the one who spoke him into existence had agreed to give up his glory power and spirit life and be made flesh and die for him. And when I say die I mean to cease to exist unless there be intervention from another. Slain from the foundation of the world. Yet also before the world began God, who cannot lie, promised the hope of eternal life Titus 1:2 Who do you think this promise was made to? Who is the only one that has LIFE that will give it up for you and me? In another place this is said about hope. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Heb. 1:1 Now how is it that this is said about Jesus the Christ. And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation (LIFE) unto all them that obey him; Heb.2:9 the just shall live by his faith. Habakkuk 2:4 For by grace are ye saved through faith; Eph. 2:7 Just whose faith is it by which we are saved? Who only was an eternal being, (Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: ) and gave that up for those undeserving creatures he created because he first loved us, (But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.) Two places Paul speaks of obedience of faith. That is what is is talking about.

Did The Word made flesh Jesus the Christ die, spend some time in the realm of the dead (Hades, Sheol, Hell in the KJV) for us or not?

Did God the Father give him eternal life as promised or not?

Saved through/by? Another way Paul speaks of the faith by which we are saved.

he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit: Titus 3:5 It is through the regeneration of Christ that the blood of his death is able cleanse and bring us salvation by resurrection after he received the Holy Spirit he shed it upon us see next verse and also Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. Acts 2:33

 

There serious problems raised by those who insist that Christ had to do anything beyond the Cross. It goes counter to Scripture. This is excerpted from my article. I took out the parts that are not as relevant for this thread.

WHAT HAPPENED AT THE CROSS?
A closer look at 1st Peter 3:18

"For Christ also has once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:"

Notice these details from the verse:
1. Against those who say He suffered twice (since he "died" twice), the verse teaches Christ "suffered once for sins".

2. His suffering for sin was substitutionary ("the just for the unjust"). As an aside: This proves against the Word of Faith teachers (not the focus of this article) that there was no saving suffering of Christ in Hell.

3. His death (singular) is pointedly said to be "in the flesh", not "in the spirit". If Christ did indeed die spiritually, this verse would seem to have said something at this point. It doesn't. The argument of theirs is an argument from silence.

It is not surprising that we have often recourse to Peter's letter, and to Colossians, in combating this issue. Those letters were written to correct gnostic heresies, and the error facing us here is also a gnostic one. The teaching that Christ died spiritually (or that He died twice) is essentially Gnostic because it isn't part of explicit doctrine, it is (say some) implied. By contrast, all the verses that teach of the Lord Christ's death for us, use outward and visible concepts: Blood, stripes, cross, tree, etc.

5. CHRIST'S SAVING DEATH A PHYSICAL DEATH WITH SPIRITUAL IMPACT

" O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ has been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?"

Apparently, only the image of Christ's physical death (as preached by Paul) was all the Galatians needed to anchor their faith on. It was from this "hearing of faith" that they received the Spirit. I really believe the basis for our faith is as simple as this. We are the ones that complicate it by obscuring details and convoluted speculations. God purposely set forth a simple means, a humbling means, of forgiveness and entrance into life eternal, the simple and shameful cross of Christ.

There are many other verses that could be studied to show the importance of Christ’s physical death, and the saving benefits to the saints that came to us through that death. Another example is Eph. 2:15

“Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of two one new man, so making peace;”

Notice: Jews and Gentiles were alienated from each other (this is one of two estrangements spoken of in this passage, the other being man’s alienation from God). Where were Jew and Gentile brought together? In the spirit of Christ? No, “in His flesh”.

As stated earlier, He is our perfect, but not our total, substitute: He fulfilled all righteousness (Matt. 3:15), but did not partake of all sin. "He tasted death for every man" (Heb. 2:9), but did not sin unto death. Yet that is what merits the penalty of spiritual death! (James 1: 15)

 

And then He died, and took all that accompanied the death of sinners.

 

He was made to BE sin.

Whatever the wages of sin were, that is what He bore. If you say Christ didn't taste it, then it wasn't reserved for sinners.

 

The penalty for some sinners also includes judicial hardening and being given a reprobated mind. Clearly Christ did not "taste" any of this.

Also, many of Paul's great Christological passages (and that of other writers also) make it clear that forgiveness and redemption were effected at the cross.

 

Well, now you're saying that some don't merit hell. Again, whatever the wages of sin are, that is what He bore.

 

"... that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."

And yet you would not argue - would you? - that we have the actual, practical righteousness of God (with all that entails), as opposed to the imputed righteousness of Christ. This imputed righteousness, along with the supply of Gods grace, enables us to grow more and more like Christ in righteousness. Yet there will always be a gap, a great gap, between our righteousness and God's.

Likewise, our sins were imputed to Him - not infused into Him. Otherwise He would be ruined at the very point we need Him the most- at the cross.

 

Not at all what I am saying.