Christianity and eternal life

[Will B. Black]

I bet every Christian would abandon his faith soon after drinking an elixir of eternal life.

 

[blackjack50]

View attachment 67185692

:roll:

That is what I feel like I am dealing with. I'm not an atheist btw. I just don't fall lock step with logic

 

[blackjack50]

I bet every Christian would abandon his faith soon after drinking an elixir of eternal life.

Nope. Methinks you don't understand how strong faith is.

 

[blackjack50]

Wasn't meant to be. And neither is a lot of evidence in a courtroom scientific, but it's still classified as evidence.



Love your little twist there - 'undeniable.' But it is evidence nevertheless.



That's not what you said earlier. You said, "I got my information (about Jesus) from the Bible."

Yippee-ki-yay!

1) We are talking about the existence of someone/thing. Either you have the evidence or you do not.

2) When have we been talking anything other than undeniable evidence.

3) I got my information. That isn't evidence of existence. Is the movie Aladdin evidence of genies? NO! My faith in the Bible is why I believe it. Not because it told me too.

Sigh

 

[Radical]

We already established that the bible does not say that Jesus went to hell and even if we were to interpret the one passage that might support this claim in that way, it still doesn't say he went there immediately after dying for the entire period his body was dead. So, there is no paradox. You are right that the view that Jesus went to hell for the 3 days his body was in the grave while the thief went to paradise doesn't make sense. That's a great reason not to adopt a version of the harrowing of hell; it doesn't make sense!

You don't want that paradox? Then either choose an interpretation of those verses which doesn't include a version of the harrowing of hell, or stop claiming that Jesus must have been in hell for all 3 days his body was dead (a view found nowhere in the bible that you admitted to believe only because it would be more symbolic if it had occurred that way).

Let's take a look at a few simple ways we can read this without seeing any paradox. I'll start with two that use your preferred interpretation (that Jesus went to hell) so you can see how easy it is to read this without seeing any paradox, then I'll offer a third option which is more in line with contemporary views on the meaning of that passage:

1 Peter 3:19-21 After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ

Option 1:
We know from this verse that Jesus went to hell after his death. We also know that Jesus told the thief on the cross that he would see him in paradise that day. Therefore, either Jesus' trip to hell didn't take very long and so he did both things that day, or he went to hell after he saw the thief in paradise. The fact it says "after being made alive" is probably an allusion to the latter being the case.

Option 2:
The verse says "after he was made alive". So, that must mean that Jesus went to hell after he was resurrected.

Option 3:
Who are these disobedient spirits? The verse tells us they are the people from the time of Noah. Who were the 8 who were saved? We know who they are from a reading of Genesis 7:13, they are: Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, and their respective wives. So, what is this verse saying? It's illustrating what Christ accomplished through his death and resurrection by comparing it to the events in the time of Noah. During Noah's time, Jesus (through Noah) proclaimed to those who were doomed and saved 8 of them (Noah and his family) through the water that cleansed the world of evil. Now, he has acted again through his resurrection, and again invites us all to be saved from desctruction, but this time not through the destructive waters of a flood that would destroy all the evil around us, but through the cleansing waters of baptism that purify us...

*What you described as a paradox wouldn't actually be called a paradox but rather an inconsistency or a contradiction. I'm using the term paradox throughout the response because it's the word you chose.

No pretension necessary.

So "paradox" is a fine word because a paradox is when good premises add up to some absurd conclusion. Bilocating Jesus isn't totally absurd, but it's not what anyone wants.

Option three is inherently skeptical because of the lack of early church support. Everyone in the early church believed Jesus went to hell/hades/sheol. You'd have to say the entire early church immediately assumed and agreed simultaneously that Peter meant "Jesus went to hell" when that isn't what is communicated, and that Peter and his disciples never really talked about it so they were in the dark too. The question doesn't even look partly open. Jesus went to hell. The open questions are about how he arrived, why he went, etc. Nevertheless, most salvation theories include a kind of atonement where Jesus needs to go to hell, either as substitute for adam or as part of the sacrifice or as full submission to his human nature, that we may fully participate in the divine nature, etc.

Here's my main beef with most interpretations of this passage: death is death. If Jesus and the thief can interact while dead, that's not death. If Jesus can go to heaven, say hi to the Father, introduce the thief, go back to hell, shout triumph, then be Resurrected, I doubt he ever died. How does what is dead have life?

 

[CLAX1911]

Are there any real Christians here? How do you feel about eternal life? Just imagine that one day scientists will be able to create the elixir of life. Would you drink it to stay forever young? Is it ethical enough for you? I am Christian myself but recently my faith weakened greatly since there are too many terrible things happening in the world. I would've abandoned my faith if I had a chance to live forever (though I still stand for the Christian values).

I definitly would not want eternal life. The thing that makes life valuable is that it is finite. If i was eternal I think it would be very boring.

 

[zyzygy]

At my school they used to make us sing a hymn in which it was stated that after death we would all stand around god's throne singing his praises for eternity. That would be taking boredom to a whole new level.

 

[CrabCake]

Option three is inherently skeptical because of the lack of early church support. Everyone in the early church believed Jesus went to hell/hades/sheol. You'd have to say the entire early church immediately assumed and agreed simultaneously that Peter meant "Jesus went to hell" when that isn't what is communicated, and that Peter and his disciples never really talked about it so they were in the dark too.

There is a lot of debate about this in the early church. In fact, no one ever really reaches a conclusion about who Jesus was making proclamations to or what those proclamations were. The theories ranged from Jesus descending into hell to proclaim his victoy (to kind of gloat or throw it in the demon's faces), to Jesus breaking the gates of hades down to free the Old Testament saints.

The question doesn't even look partly open.

I can't imagine how you reach that conclusion. Are you familiar with what has been written on this topic at all?

Jesus went to hell.

It seems most contemporary theologians disagree. In fact, the early church fathers themselves (whose view on this you seem to value) would disagree with that statement. They would claim he went to hades, not hell.

most salvation theories include a kind of atonement where Jesus needs to go to hell, either as substitute for adam or as part of the sacrifice or as full submission to his human nature, that we may fully participate in the divine nature, etc.

Where are you getting this from?

I don't know of any theory of atonement that requires it. I know of theories of atonement which make this idea attractive (the Christus Victor theory benefits from the scene where Jesus breaks the gates of hell down), but no theory of atonement I know of requires it.

Here's my main beef with most interpretations of this passage: death is death. If Jesus and the thief can interact while dead, that's not death. If Jesus can go to heaven, say hi to the Father, introduce the thief, go back to hell, shout triumph, then be Resurrected, I doubt he ever died. How does what is dead have life?

The problem here is that your view of death is at odds with the Christian view of death.

 

[Radical]

There is a lot of debate about this in the early church. In fact, no one ever really reaches a conclusion about who Jesus was making proclamations to or what those proclamations were. The theories ranged from Jesus descending into hell to proclaim his victoy (to kind of gloat or throw it in the demon's faces), to Jesus breaking the gates of hades down to free the Old Testament saints.

I can't imagine how you reach that conclusion. Are you familiar with what has been written on this topic at all?

It seems most contemporary theologians disagree. In fact, the early church fathers themselves (whose view on this you seem to value) would disagree with that statement. They would claim he went to hades, not hell.

Where are you getting this from?

I don't know of any theory of atonement that requires it. I know of theories of atonement which make this idea attractive (the Christus Victor theory benefits from the scene where Jesus breaks the gates of hell down), but no theory of atonement I know of requires it.

The problem here is that your view of death is at odds with the Christian view of death.

Alright, get with the program. Your pretension isn't necessary. Hell is hades is sheol in regular normal-people speak. I have never adopted a high theological language in this discussion, you cannot criticize my word choice on theological grounds. Quit doing crap like that. The church fathers don't support your view. If "most contemporary theologians" also believe your view, then the church fathers are against the contemporary theologians.

Also, you're authority of "contemporary theologians" means nothing. Contemporary theologians want to say Paul was a homophobe or a homosexual or both. They want to say Jesus isn't really divine. They want to say that women are men. They want to say God is really a woman. They want to say that all religions are secretly Christianity. Contemporary theologians support means nothing at all. They say all sort of crazy crap.

Let's get to the real issue. What is death? You say my understanding of death is not the Christian view. That's totally wrong. What was Adam without the breath of life in the garden? He was a lump of clay. Did he even exist without life? Nope. When life leaves Adam, what happens? From dust to dust. That's what happens. Ecclesiastes 12:7. Not just Origen, but Ephrem and others from the Syrian tradition taught this view of death. The early Jews likely taught this kind of view of death. Common sense teaches this view of death. Man is not immortal. Death is a punishment. Your Platonist ideas say that death just of a physical tool, but we are really immortal and death is really a blessing.

Here's another easy example. The wages of sin is death, ya? Does your body sin? Then it dies. Does your soul sin? Then it dies. Do you sin? Then you die. Every bit of you is dead. It's not as if death only applies to the body.

 

[CrabCake]

Hell is hades is sheol in regular normal-people speak.

No. Most people view hell as a place of punishment and hades as merely a waiting room for the afterlife.

I have never adopted a high theological language in this discussion, you cannot criticize my word choice on theological grounds. Quit doing crap like that.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Hades and hell are not "high theological language". I've avoided using such language. About the only latin phrase I've used is Christus Victor because it's the only term that fully describes that view.

The church fathers don't support your view.

I haven't shared my view. I've pointed out the problems with yours.

If "most contemporary theologians" also believe your view, then the church fathers are against the contemporary theologians.

No, that would imply that they knew about that view and opposed it. The view has evolved, just like the atonement has. The church fathers weren't against substitutionary atonement, they just hadn't developed that theology yet. The same applies here.

Also, you're authority of "contemporary theologians" means nothing. Contemporary theologians want to say Paul was a homophobe or a homosexual or both.

What theologians are you reading?

There's been excellent work on Paul lately from those in the "New Perspectives on Paul" camp. There's been rebuttals against that from defenders of the traditional view. But homosexuality hasn't really entered into that debate. What theologians are you reading?

They want to say Jesus isn't really divine. They want to say that women are men. They want to say God is really a woman. They want to say that all religions are secretly Christianity. Contemporary theologians support means nothing at all. They say all sort of crazy crap.

I was referring to Conservative Christian theology, not Progressive Christianity. That's a whole different movement and a whole different topic.

I could do the same thing you just did and say "who cares what ancient Christians thought? they also taught that Jesus murdered and then resurrected people as a child and that only women who have transformed into men can get into heaven!". I would be technically correct, there was a large "Christian" movement that made such claims around the time of the church fathers. But they were gnostics, not orthodox Christians; they were part of a completely different tradition of "Christianity". It would be incorrect for me to bring that movement up in order to discredit the church fathers. It is equally incorrect for you to bring up contemporary alternative Christian movements to discredit contemporary theologians.

Let's get to the real issue. What is death? You say my understanding of death is not the Christian view. That's totally wrong.

Actually, that wasn't an opinion. It is a fact. Your view on death is at odds with Christian teaching. You could argue that the Christian understanding is incorrect, and you might even be right. But it is still a fact that your view of death is at odds with the Christian view as understood through the ages. About the only place you can find support for your view is within the Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists.

Not just Origen, but Ephrem and others from the Syrian tradition taught this view of death.

I'm not sure where you are getting this from. Origen firmly argued against the idea of "soul sleep" (your view of death) and taught that, upon death, you either go straight to paradise or you go to what we now call purgatory, to have your remaining sins burned away. If Origen is going to be your authority...you best start believing in purgatory, he basically invented it.

You are right about Ephrem but he is a dissenting voice in what the church has always considered a heresy. Belief in soul sleep would have upended a great number of church teachings. This issue was tied to the issue of the veneration of the saints. Veneration of saints began as early as 250AD based on the idea that they are already in heaven and can intercede for us. Thus the church fought against the heresy of "soul sleep" throughout its history.

Here's another easy example. The wages of sin is death, ya? Does your body sin? Then it dies. Does your soul sin? Then it dies. Do you sin? Then you die. Every bit of you is dead. It's not as if death only applies to the body.

I don't have a big problem with this view (though I consider it incorrect). I have no interest in debating it.

What I was debating against was your claim that Jesus went to hell and more specifically, your use of a verse that doesn't support your case as evidence.

 

[Radical]

No. Most people view hell as a place of punishment and hades as merely a waiting room for the afterlife.

No. Most people view hades as the scene in Disney's Hercules where the dead go and swirl around in a big green vortex. No one readily think hades as the waiting place for the dead. They either think Greek gods or have no idea what you're talking about.

I don't have a big problem with this view (though I consider it incorrect). I have no interest in debating it.

That is the crux of my belief of what Jesus did while dead.

What I was debating against was your claim that Jesus went to hell and more specifically, your use of a verse that doesn't support your case as evidence.

If you really want to call me out on the fact I don't use perfect word choice, then sure, I concede. Hell is not technically hades is not technicaly sheol is not technically gehennah. Congrats, you win.

 

[CrabCake]

If you really want to call me out on the fact I don't use perfect word choice, then sure, I concede. Hell is not technically hades is not technicaly sheol is not technically gehennah. Congrats, you win.

Really? Your strategy now is to edit my post in such a way that it sounds like I'm saying something else?

The point is, as has already been demonstrated, the bible does not say Jesus went to any of those places.

Certain doctrines included such an idea, but the idea is not actually found in the bible. We've established this already, why are you switching the subject and then pretending the conversation was about something else?

 

[Radical]

Really? Your strategy now is to edit my post in such a way that it sounds like I'm saying something else?

The point is, as has already been demonstrated, the bible does not say Jesus went to any of those places.

Certain doctrines included such an idea, but the idea is not actually found in the bible. We've established this already, why are you switching the subject and then pretending the conversation was about something else?

The bible clearly says Jesus went to hades. That is 1 Peter 3. Undebatable. You didn't like my word choice, since I was using hell and hades as a synonym.

 

[Paralogic]

Are there any real Christians here?

No.

Christianity is a failed religion. It's false, like all religions are. We know that now.

 

[Ironfist17]

Christianity is a failed religion. It's false, like all religions are. We know that now.

Maybe religion is a thing of the past but I still stand for Christian values. Maybe there is no God but I like the way Christianity deals with things. Tolerance, honesty, mutual aid. These are the things which defined our civilization and which led us to prosperity.

 

[tosca1]

No.

Christianity is a failed religion. It's false, like all religions are. We know that now.

Why do you say it's a so-called "failed" religion" when it had survived for thousands of years, and is still very much alive today?

 

[zyzygy]

Maybe religion is a thing of the past but I still stand for Christian values. Maybe there is no God but I like the way Christianity deals with things. Tolerance, honesty, mutual aid. These are the things which defined our civilization and which led us to prosperity.

Like the tolerance between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland.

 

[Paralogic]

Maybe religion is a thing of the past but I still stand for Christian values.

Legitimate point, but all Christian "values" are ethics mostly developed and established by Greek philosophers. They invented ethics as an idea of social cohesion and behavior and practice.

Christianity has no claim on ethics or morals. Moreover, based on the history of the past 2,000 years, Christianity is a major cause and justification for mass death, destruction and suffering.

 

[Paralogic]

Why do you say it's a so-called "failed" religion" when it had survived for thousands of years, and is still very much alive today?

Failed in an intellectual sense. Everything it stands for is either false, pretentious, misleading and/or designed for manipulation.

2,000 years is a long time but it's nothing compared to other living and social structures around us. The direct mass destructive influence of Christianity -- see: US Evangelicals active influence in the persecution and putting to death of homosexuals in African countries -- is still with us, and that fact alone does not make a religion successful - in a moral sense.

 

[CrabCake]

The bible clearly says Jesus went to hades. That is 1 Peter 3. Undebatable. You didn't like my word choice, since I was using hell and hades as a synonym.

Sure, it's undebateable. That's why everyone from: St. Augustine to Wayne Grudem and N.T. Wright and John Piper, and Charles Spurgeon and John Wesley* disagree(d) with you.

So, yeah....it's undebateable except that some of the foremost experts in the field disagree with your view.

Sorry, but you can't switch my argument to be about your use of the word hell vs hades. That wasn't my argument. My argument was that the bible doesn't say Jesus went to hell. I have demonstrated it doesn't. You are now doubling down by calling it undebateable. Unfortunately for you, this "undebateable" position you hold is not the dominant position among contemporary evangelicals and is rejected by most outside of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox circles.

For the record those names are:
St. Augustine - Bishop of Hippo, church father, and one of the most influential theologians of all time.
Dr. Wayne Grudem- Evangelical theologian and author, most notably of "Systematic Theology", one of the two most widely used theology textbooks among evangelical Christian seminaries.
N.T. Wright - Dean of Lichfield, Canon Theologian of Westminster Abbey, Bishop of Durham, and one of the most respected voices in contemporary New Testament studies and theology.
John Piper - Dean of Bethlehem College and Seminary, noted writer, one of the leading voices of contemporary reformed evangelical theology.
Charles Spurgeon - Nicknamed "Prince of Preachers" for his tremendous reach and influence.
John Wesley - Founder of the methodist movement and second only to John Calvin in his impact on modern theology.

 

[Northern Light]

Are there any real Christians here? How do you feel about eternal life? Just imagine that one day scientists will be able to create the elixir of life. Would you drink it to stay forever young? Is it ethical enough for you? I am Christian myself but recently my faith weakened greatly since there are too many terrible things happening in the world. I would've abandoned my faith if I had a chance to live forever (though I still stand for the Christian values).

I would not want to be this ego forever. No way, no how. If I dissolve into some kind of blissful dimension forever after death, then great. Otherwise, just give me annihilation or even reincarnation.

People idealize immortality way too much. You'd eventually do it all, then suffer from extreme ennui, and then probably want to off yourself. Unless of course Enlightenment is a real thing, then there would be an out, if you bother to look into it.

 

[iguanaman]

I would not want to be this ego forever. No way, no how. If I dissolve into some kind of blissful dimension forever after death, then great. Otherwise, just give me annihilation or even reincarnation.

People idealize immortality way too much. You'd eventually do it all, then suffer from extreme ennui, and then probably want to off yourself. Unless of course Enlightenment is a real thing, then there would be an out, if you bother to look into it.

Immortality is the kind of thing that people don't think about rationally because if they did they would realize how ridiculous it is. The idea that 90 to 110 billion human "souls" are out there somewhere in space doing who knows what for eternity is actually a frightening thing. We evolved on this planet along with all other animals and we are no more "entitled" to live forever than a frog is.

 

[Radical]

Sure, it's undebateable. That's why everyone from: St. Augustine to Wayne Grudem and N.T. Wright and John Piper, and Charles Spurgeon and John Wesley* disagree(d) with you.

So, yeah....it's undebateable except that some of the foremost experts in the field disagree with your view.

Sorry, but you can't switch my argument to be about your use of the word hell vs hades. That wasn't my argument. My argument was that the bible doesn't say Jesus went to hell. I have demonstrated it doesn't. You are now doubling down by calling it undebateable. Unfortunately for you, this "undebateable" position you hold is not the dominant position among contemporary evangelicals and is rejected by most outside of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox circles.

For the record those names are:
St. Augustine - Bishop of Hippo, church father, and one of the most influential theologians of all time.
Dr. Wayne Grudem- Evangelical theologian and author, most notably of "Systematic Theology", one of the two most widely used theology textbooks among evangelical Christian seminaries.
N.T. Wright - Dean of Lichfield, Canon Theologian of Westminster Abbey, Bishop of Durham, and one of the most respected voices in contemporary New Testament studies and theology.
John Piper - Dean of Bethlehem College and Seminary, noted writer, one of the leading voices of contemporary reformed evangelical theology.
Charles Spurgeon - Nicknamed "Prince of Preachers" for his tremendous reach and influence.
John Wesley - Founder of the methodist movement and second only to John Calvin in his impact on modern theology.

So you cite St. Augustine and a bunch of reformed dudes. K.

So Calvin believed that the "descent" was not literal. That's fine, but let's be logical with this. If Christ did not literally take our place, did not literally descend to our just resting place, then he did not literally redeem us. As for my citations, I'll reference Aquinas, Luther, Newman, and the Anglican catechism. Oh, and Jesus. He's a good reference.

P.S. I'm a two and a half point Calvinist.

 

[Radical]

Immortality is the kind of thing that people don't think about rationally because if they did they would realize how ridiculous it is. The idea that 90 to 110 billion human "souls" are out there somewhere in space doing who knows what for eternity is actually a frightening thing. We evolved on this planet along with all other animals and we are no more "entitled" to live forever than a frog is.

Ya, Platonism was a huge downfall in Christianity... Everyone believed in souls, but we didn't have to maintain that they had superpowers like the rest of the world. Plus, our message was focused upon the resurrection of the body, so why did we need to say anything about the existence of souls?

 

[CrabCake]

So you cite St. Augustine and a bunch of reformed dudes. K.

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

If Christ did not literally take our place, did not literally descend to our just resting place, then he did not literally redeem us.

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.

As for my citations, I'll reference Aquinas, Luther, Newman, and the Anglican catechism. Oh, and Jesus. He's a good reference.

Jesus never said such a thing.

Neither did at least one of those others you mentioned, though I'm not going to bother pointing out which. The point of bringing up top theologians who disagree with your view was to disprove your claim that your particular way of reading that passage is "undebateable". Not only is it debateable but it is not a popular way of reading that passage anymore and has been read differently by top theologians and church leaders through the ages.

P.S. I'm a two and a half point Calvinist.

....and failed to recognize the name of Calvinisms most ardent and influential opponent, John Wesley, the founder of methodism, the most anti-calvinist movement to date, in a list of people you called "reformed"? Or is it that you don't know that reformed means Calvinist?