• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Christianity and eternal life

Umm...John Wesley...reformed?! hello....

Armenians aren't worth anything, so I ignored it entirely.

The people who promoted your preferred view didn't believe in substitutionary atonement. So, they would have disagreed with you. So, you need to take their view on Jesus' descent into hell but discard their view on atonement in order for your theology to work.

That's exactly what I do.

Jesus never said such a thing.

Matt 16:21 "From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised."

Christ suffered death. What is death? Is it total or does it grant us superpowers? What all does our death entail? This is the crux, and you don't want to talk about it.

Neither did at least one of those others you mentioned

I think you mean the Anglican catechism. But point 63 in the small catechism...

"63. What does the Creed mean by saying that Jesus descended to the dead?
That Jesus descended to the dead means that he truly died; his spirit did not remain with his body, but entered the realm of death. (1 Peter 3:19)"
 
Armenians aren't worth anything, so I ignored it entirely.

I see. So, "real Christians" to you, excludes: Methodists, Free Will Baptist, Wesleyans, etc...

That's exactly what I do.

That would be fine if you hadn't used the fact that the church fathers believed it as a major part of your argument about why we should. Now that leaves you looking inconsistent. When church fathers believe something you agree with, the fact they believe it is very strong evidence. When their beliefs are different from your own...just ignore the fact they believed it.

Matt 16:21 "From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised."

In other words, Jesus did not claim he would spend any time in hell (or hades or anywhere else).

That's twice now you have made claims that the bible says something and when challenged to show where, we discover that it doesn't actually say it but that if we first agree with other definitions and doctrines you want us to agree with then we might be able to read that into a passage which doesn't clearly say it.

The fact of the matter is that you have not presented any bible passages which say Jesus did not meet the thief on the cross in paradise the day he died, although you do know of bible passages wherein he makes the claim that he in fact will meet him in paradise that day. Neither have you presented any passages wherein Jesus claims he will go to hell or hades or anywhere else (yet you still claimed he said that).

Instead you have proposed systematic doctrines and definitions that, if we accept them, will help us read certain passages in the way you prefer instead of in the way they are typically understood.


In trying to make your points, you have also discarded all Wesleyans as well as minimized the importance of what reformed theologians had to say. You also disparaged progressive Christianity. Which leaves you with...what? With all reformed and arminian theologians having been cast aside you have...Catholic theology? Eastern Orthodox? maybe Jehovah's Witness?

It really seems that the more we learn about your views the more obvious it becomes that your theology is unique to yourself. That's the hallmark of cults and crackpots.
 
Last edited:
I see. So, "real Christians" to you, excludes: Methodists, Free Will Baptist, Wesleyans, etc...

I didn't say that. I said armenian theology is trash. Who cares what you choose? You're not important. Anyone that puts the emphasis on themselves is not worth listening to.

That would be fine if you hadn't used the fact that the church fathers believed it as a major part of your argument about why we should. Now that leaves you looking inconsistent. When church fathers believe something you agree with, the fact they believe it is very strong evidence. When their beliefs are different from your own...just ignore the fact they believed it.

They did believe in substitutionary atonement, noteably Athanasius.

In other words, Jesus did not claim he would spend any time in hell (or hades or anywhere else). That's twice now you have made claims that the bible says something and when challenged to show where, we discover that it doesn't actually say it...

He spent time in death. "Hades" literally means "place of the dead", as does "sheol". So Jesus spent time in hades/sheol/whatever. And this is scripture too. So what is death? But you don't want to talk about that.

I have to show you why it's rational to interpret it the way I did. Don't get your panties in a wad because of explanations of interpretation. We both have looked at the same passage and said it meant different things. So I've given support to say what it means X, and you get mad because I have to explain myself? I'm sorry it doesn't come to you naturally, but just because you don't initially agree doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Finally, the Romanists, the Easterns, the Lutherans, the Anglicans, and the Reformed all have a nice point every once in a while. Armenians and Charismatics in most regards are not theologians; they're egoists. I am much closer to the Reformed position on good works, closer to the Roman and Lutheran position on salvation, closer to the Easterns on church government, and closer to the conservative Lutherans on sacraments. I am a passive participant in God's grace. Anything that says otherwise is going to be dismissed very quickly.
 
I didn't say that. I said armenian theology is trash. Who cares what you choose? You're not important. Anyone that puts the emphasis on themselves is not worth listening to.



They did believe in substitutionary atonement, noteably Athanasius.



He spent time in death. "Hades" literally means "place of the dead", as does "sheol". So Jesus spent time in hades/sheol/whatever. And this is scripture too. So what is death? But you don't want to talk about that.

I have to show you why it's rational to interpret it the way I did. Don't get your panties in a wad because of explanations of interpretation. We both have looked at the same passage and said it meant different things. So I've given support to say what it means X, and you get mad because I have to explain myself? I'm sorry it doesn't come to you naturally, but just because you don't initially agree doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Finally, the Romanists, the Easterns, the Lutherans, the Anglicans, and the Reformed all have a nice point every once in a while. Armenians and Charismatics in most regards are not theologians; they're egoists. I am much closer to the Reformed position on good works, closer to the Roman and Lutheran position on salvation, closer to the Easterns on church government, and closer to the conservative Lutherans on sacraments. I am a passive participant in God's grace. Anything that says otherwise is going to be dismissed very quickly.

Not quite. Sheol means 'the grave', rather than 'the place of the dead'.
 
Not quite. Sheol means 'the grave', rather than 'the place of the dead'.

True. However, every biblical hermeneutic I've ever read equivilates the hebrew "sheol" and the greek "hades" to one extent or another.

I'll argue that the ancient Jews did not believe in any kind of life-after-death, but that the "soul" of a person went to "sheol". Essentially, if you were to ask Moses during the exodus "where is Abraham", I claim he would answer "Abraham is in Sheol". This answer is close enough for me to use sheol and hades as near-synonyms.
 
I didn't say that. I said armenian theology is trash. Who cares what you choose? You're not important. Anyone that puts the emphasis on themselves is not worth listening to.

Right. Seeing John Wesley on a list of people and then calling the list "a bunch of reformed dudes" was the result of your dismissal of Arminian (Wesley was Arminian, not Armenian) theology. A theology that, based on the above statement, I would venture to say you know little about.

I have to show you why it's rational to interpret it the way I did.

If you have to build up a case for it, rather than just point to a verse, then it's simply incorrect to state that Jesus said it; you should have said something along the lines of "I believe this to be the best explanation once we take into account..." and there would be nothing to argue about. The problem isn't your beliefs, it is how you've lied about the evidence for them. If Jesus said it you shouldn't have to show me why your interpretation of his views is rational. The fact is Jesus did not say what you claim he did. He did, however, clearly tell a dying man that he would be with him in paradise that very day. I don't need to build my case for it or show you why it's rational for me to interpret his words in that way, I can simply say "see Luke 23:43".

Basically, you are overstating your claims. Your point of view may wind up being worth considering (or maybe not...I don't know). But because of the way you have presented it, you're caught in a web of exagerations and lies that makes anything you had to say very difficult to take seriously.

Let's go through what happened in this thread again:
1. You stated that Jesus spent all three days his body was dead in hell. You included a scripture reference for that.
2. I pointed out that the scripture you used doesn't actually say that.
3. You responded by appealing to tradition.
4. I pointed out the origins of that tradition and why it no longer makes sense for us.
5. There was some minor back and forth after which you switched to just calling your view "undebateable" as if just saying that somehow strengthens your view.
6. I pointed out that your "undebateable" position is the minority position and that in fact, contemporary theologians have largely abandoned your "undebateable" view and even some of the most respected and influential church leaders going back to Augustine had abandoned this "undebateable" position.

Then you made a new claim, about Jesus saying something (which he never said) and then we go through this process again.

Don't you see what's going on? All of this could be avoided if you were simply honest in the way you present your view. You have certain doctrines you believe very strongly; that's fine, there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is to overstate the biblical support for your view. You are pretending that your position is something very clear and undebatable in the bible. The fact of the matter is that your position is not undebateable, it's a contested and indeed minority position which relies on a specific way of interpreting various scriptures (and even words) throughout the bible. If you were just more honest in your approach, there would be nothing to argue against. Instead, you're making bold claims about how undebateable the scriptural support for your fringe doctrine is.
We both have looked at the same passage and said it meant different things. So I've given support to say what it means X, and you get mad because I have to explain myself? I'm sorry it doesn't come to you naturally, but just because you don't initially agree doesn't mean I'm wrong.

No one's angry. I just find it necessary to call out your deceitfulness. Twice now you have made claims that the bible says something which it clearly does not. When challenged, you've had to admit that it doesn't actually say what you claimed directly but that if we first believe various definitions, look at the typology, seek out the founding fathers, etc.. we can eventually interpret certain things the bible says in that way. That's a dishonest way of engaging in discussions. If you need to build a case for your doctrine, you should freely admit that, you should not falsely claim that "Jesus said so" or that a certain scripture says so.
 
Last edited:
Lots of text...

Quit the pretentiousness. This is an internet forum, not an oxford debate. Calm down. No one cares I spelled something wrong. No one cares I say "hell" rather than the greek "hades" because one is more accurate. No one cares that I didn't address each of your theologians directly. No one cares that I have to explain my points (and it is ridiculous to think that explaining a point reduces it's validity). This isn't a formal debate. Stop nitpicking everything. It's all red herrings. Every bit of it. It does not take away from my argument, but those seem to be super important to you.

As for your "recap"...

1) I said Jesus spent three days in hell. I quoted scripture for it.
2) You said the scripture doesn't actually say that.
3) I gave reasons to support why scripture does say that, including other scripture, church tradition, and logic.
4a) You said my reasons were dumb.
4b) I told you my reasons were sound and to assert "Jesus did not go to hell" is ridiculous.
5) I said that Jesus' literal descent to the dead is undebateable.
6) You gave me a list of theologians I don't agree with that do debate it, all within the last 500 years or so.
7) I said those theologians are dumb.
8) You've continued to get hung up on the fact that those theologians hold no authority whatsoever.

I repeatedly have pointed out that the question "what is death" is pivotal, but you "don't wanna talk about that". So when pressed to show more scripture, I pull scripture that shows Jesus mentioning death because that is the fundamental basis for my claims. But you reject my understanding of death outright and then "don't want to talk about that".

But of course, you'll contradict me every time I bring it up, while not discussing it. You'll find something to pick at that is totally off topic.

There's no deceit. It's just text interpretation. When Jesus says "I will die and be raised up three days later", depending on the meaning of "death", there are dramatic differences. If death gives superpowers to the soul, then Jesus and all the other dead souls could do all sorts of weird stuff. Why not have Jesus fly to hell, preach the gospel, and then bring out the believers to heaven? There's nothing restricting anything once you grant the Platonic superpowers to the soul. But if the soul receives a death like the body, as is my interpretation, then Jesus just sat in death for three days (which has been my claim this whole time). He literally descended into the grave and died the death we would have. My understanding of death demands a literal descent to hell/hades/grave/whatever. I addressed other points of scripture that, even disregarding this understanding of death, still point to the same conclusion. I'm sorry that you don't get it.

But you'd rather red herring.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom