WHEN DID CHRIST GO INTO HELL?

[Eddie Ramos]

[historia]

Now we are obviously dealing with language, so we at any given time have to ask, in that language what does this word mean.

Agreed, which now brings us full-circle to my initial reply:

So, words have meanings according to how people use them.

Obviously, words don't inherently have meaning. The various definitions we see for a word in a Greek-English lexicon were derived from an examination of how ancient Greek writers (both inside and outside the New Testament) used that word in various contexts.

Take, for example the word GOD.

Let's go with this example. If you look-up the word theos in a Greek-English lexicon, like Thayers -- or, better, a more updated one like BDAG -- one of the definitions is "of the true God." Why? Because that is how Greek-speaking Jewish and Christian authors used the word theos. It reflects their beliefs about that word, surely, but that is what the word meant to them, so that is how it is defined in the lexicon.

Likewise, with the term anastasis, while it can broadly meaning "to rise," like from a nap or when erecting a statue, when used in the context of the dead coming back to life, it meant coming back to physical, bodily life, because that it how it was invariably used.

All we need from outside sources is tne basic root meanicng of the word

I don't think that's a tenable approach. When the New Testament authors refer to, say, "the Son of Man," "the day of judgement," "the seat of Moses," and so on, including "the resurrection of the dead," they are referencing fully-developed concepts known at that time, not just any idea that the root of those words could broadly entail.

Could Jesus have had Pan in mind when he told us to pray Our Father who art in heaven?

That's extremely unlikely. The gospels never describe Jesus as worshipping Pan. And, if we do a proper historical analysis here, examining Jewish and Christian sources surrounding the New Testament, we see that by 'God' or 'the Father' they are not referring to any Greco-Roman deity.

If anyone comes to me saying their interpretation of the New Testament requires us to assume a different definition for a key term -- like 'God' or 'resurrection' -- one that runs contrary to how both Jews and (later) Christians use that term, I'm immediately suspicious. Not because that, in and of itself, makes their interpretation impossible. But because the historical evidence makes it less likely.

At the very least -- and I hope maybe we can find agreement on this point so as to move onto a discussion about 1 Corinthians 15 itself -- we should approach the New Testament with the operating assumption that the authors are employing key words and concepts as those were normally understood by Jews (and perhaps others too) at the time. Unless, that is, there is strong evidence in the text itself that the author is putting a new twist on that word or concept. But we should be very careful in reaching such conclusions, lest we simply redefine their words to accommodate ideas we want to read into the text. Agreed?

[JehovahsWitness]

I appreciate that point, as this is an idea that has long existed within Judaism and Christianity. And if you want to confine your assertions to theological conclusions you draw from Scripture based on the special way Scripture is read, that's cool by me.

Yes, you have summed up the Jehovahs Witness position nicely. This is not to say we see no value in contempory literature

(1) If they agree with scripture, that's to the writers merit, they spoke truth
(2) If they do not harmonize with the inspired canon, we conclude they have been tainted by the emerging apostacy
(2) If they are entirely silent on the matter, then they had yet to properly understand inspired scripture, were negligent in their commentaries or we have yet to discover evidence of (1) or (2)

In every scenerio, it makes little or no difference to our conclusions but we will freely and happily reference any and all writings to support one of the above three positions as and when they emerge.



JW

[JehovahsWitness]

If anyone comes to me saying their interpretation of the New Testament requires us to assume a different definition for a key term -- like 'God' or 'resurrection' -- one that runs contrary to how both Jews and (later) Christians use that term, I'm immediately suspicious. Not because that, in and of itself, makes their interpretation impossible. But because the historical evidence makes it less likely.

If by "to how both Jews and (later) Christians use that term" you are refering to how Jewish and Christian inspired bible writers used it in scripture, then I agree! Thus we will consistantly refer ...

(1) The root meaning of the word
(2) How the writers in the bible canon used /adopted/adapted its use in their writing

So for example "God" (theos) is (in scripture ) , depending on context

(a) The True God YHWH
(b) Jesus Christ the Messiah
(c) Satan the Devil
(d) any powerful being (human or spirit) with a measure of influence
(e) anything in existence (or in ones imagination) that one makes an object of worship

Which is why our literaure GOD (El /theos) has the following entry : https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001729

You will notice the scholarship does reference contempory writings and commentaries as well as the root meaning of the word. But that the scope of the definition as used in scripture is defined entirely BY scripture.

This is why we run aground with the word RESURRECTION because as you correctly say the root meaning of the word simply means TO STAND UP [AGAIN] /TO RISE. That's all you get to say in our books. You don't get to say "rise up in a physical body" because "physical body" is not part of the root meaning of the word it simply means "TO STAND UP [RISE] " You dont get to say "... meaning to rise up .... in this form or that because XYZ believed [whatever contempory literature presents] as illustrated by this or that writer and believed by the majority living at this or that time. Because we stopped listening just after you said meaning .... The rest is white noise as far as we are concerned.

Now since "to stand up/rise" doesnt answer the question " "stand up" How? rise In what form? " I'll give you three guesses where we turn to to get the answers to those questions. You will turn to non-canonical writings, archeological digs and historical annuals...We will turn to SCRIPTURE, confident because of 2 Tim 3:16 there will be enough in its pages to clarify definitively the answer to the question.

At the very least -- and I hope maybe we can find agreement on this point so as to move onto a discussion about 1 Corinthians 15 itself -- we should approach the New Testament with the operating assumption that the authors are employing key words and concepts as those were normally understood by Jews (and perhaps others too) at the time. ... Agreed?

No. Absolutely not. We establish truth by reference to what the root word means and more importantly how it is used in scripture. Once done, we use that truth to measure the truthfulness of every noncanonical writing and cultural, historical and secular detail. The writers themselves will tell us how they are using the word through context and explicit or implict explanation.




I appreciate the above must be frustrating for you and I do sympathise, but spare a thought for us for when we look at the result of your approach to scripture, we see so called intellectual giants, accepting the trinity, hellfire, the teaching if the immortality of the soul and the wholesale removal of the divine name from scripture to name just a few of the conclusions we find so abhorrant (but are usually polite enough not to say so out loud).


JW

[historia]

At the very least -- and I hope maybe we can find agreement on this point so as to move onto a discussion about 1 Corinthians 15 itself -- we should approach the New Testament with the operating assumption that the authors are employing key words and concepts as those were normally understood by Jews (and perhaps others too) at the time. Unless, that is, there is strong evidence in the text itself that the author is putting a new twist on that word or concept. But we should be very careful in reaching such conclusions, lest we simply redefine their words to accommodate ideas we want to read into the text. Agreed?

No. Absolutely not.

Even with the important caveat (in bold) that I previously included but you took out in your reply?

I feel like this is not a controversial statement I'm making here, and the way almost anyone would approach the Bible. The caveat allows you to find novel uses of terms and concepts using just the Bible as your reference.

But, surely, if we can't assume that even the most basic, mundane words of the text mean what they generally meant in Greek, how could anyone translate, let alone understand, the text?

Now since "to stand up/rise" doesnt answer the question " "stand up" How? rise In what form? " . . . You will turn to non-canonical writings, archeological digs and historical annuals...We will turn to SCRIPTURE

To be clear, though, I would look at both.

Obviously, if we want to understand Paul's view on the nature of the resurrected body, we have to first and foremost read what Paul wrote and try to understand, in context, what he's saying. But, secondarily, we should look at the broader historical context in which he lived, since that is critical background information for understanding any author.

It's also an important check on us. It's very easy for modern readers of the Bible to bring their own cultural assumptions and biases to the text. Having a good understanding of the historical background of the New Testament can mitigate against us just reading into the text whatever we want to see.

On the other hand, simply ignoring the historical background unless it confirms our interpretation of the text -- as you seem to be suggesting we do -- seems like a recipe for eisegesis.

when we look at the result of your approach to scripture, we see so called intellectual giants, accepting the trinity, hellfire, the teaching if the immortality of the soul

My approach -- taking the historical context into consideration when reading the Bible -- doesn't necessarily lead to any of those conclusions, though. Conversely, an idependent fundamental Baptist (to pick one of many examples) is going to take an approach similar to yours, and yet will arrive at all of those conclusions.

We're both describing very broad ways of approaching the Bible, and clearly the devil is in the details.

I appreciate the above must be frustrating for you

On the contrary, I always enjoy our conversations.

What I am weighing, though, is whether a further discussion between us on 1 Cor. 15 is going to be productive. Unfortunately, what's going to dominate the debate is terminology, which could be challenging given our discussion to date.

That being said, my interpretation is going to focus a lot on the root meaning of key terms, and will largely look to how those terms are used in Paul's writings and elsewhere in the New Testament, so maybe it wouldn't be a problem. But, especially on issues of Greek grammar, which will also play a role, we need to consult experts language resources. Would you object to that?

[JehovahsWitness]

At the very least -- and I hope maybe we can find agreement on this point so as to move onto a discussion about 1 Corinthians 15 itself -- we should approach the New Testament with the operating assumption that the authors are employing key words and concepts as those were normally understood by Jews (and perhaps others too) at the time. Unless, that is, there is strong evidence in the text itself that the author is putting a new twist on that word or concept. But we should be very careful in reaching such conclusions, lest we simply redefine their words to accommodate ideas we want to read into the text. Agreed?

No. Absolutely not.

Even with the important caveat (in bold) that I previously included but you took out in your reply?

No because its the wrong way round. Unless by "Jewish and Christian use" you mean "Jewish and Christian use as established in the bible canon" I take it to mean we first see what these communities believed and how they used words and then turn to the bible and see if it matches. And unless specifically stated otherwise we allow Jewish and Christian community usage to hold sway. This is like saying we will buy what our three-year-old wants in the supermarket unless the shop assistant intervenes. You are going to have a shoppjng cart full of bunny rabbits and chocolate with the occasional carrot thrown in for decoration.

Bible comes first, bible has the authority.

But, surely, if we can't assume that even the most basic, mundane words of the text mean what they generally meant in Greek, how could anyone translate, let alone understand, the text?

Most words it's a non issue. The basic root meaning of the word and bible usage (from context) corresponds with the secular meaning and general usage at the time. The bible still comes first but no controversy arises from the majority of the inspired text. Thus, if we read "road" the bible usage is usually refering to some kind of leveled walkway (or some such definition) so now we can get any additional (complementary) information from various sources. What were Roman roads like? How would Jesus (as a typical traveller) used the roads at the time?

But that is not usually the case with abstract and/or theological concepts, here we must be careful that the base is not established by "toddlers" .

The focus here being hermeneutics not translation (the latter being what is the most appropriate word/the closest in a target language) and former what did the writer mean when he used the word. What idea was he trying to convey. The former , yes from comon usage, the latter from inspired teaching. Again I think I have addressed the point although he may have taken a word from common usage he may be using it to convey an uncommon or even unique idea.

Obviously, if we want to understand Paul's view on the nature of the resurrected body, we have to first and foremost read what Paul wrote and try to understand, in context, what he's saying. ...

Emphasis MINE


Well, the order is correct (first and foremost) , and if by "context" you mean the immediate context of the specific book/letter and the wider context of the other canonicle writings, I agree wholeheartedly.

...But, secondarily, we should look at the broader historical context in which he lived, since that is critical background information for understanding any author.

Emphasis MINE

It would be nice/ informative / educational but ...not critical. In other words, if we never looked at the broader historical context in which he lived, we could still obtain a full and accurate knowledge of essential bible truths. If all other books were destroyed in a fire, we could still obtain a full and accurate knowledge of essential bible truths. And of course, as I have stated several times already, if in the course of our wider examination, anything contradicts that which can and has been established within the bible canon, the individual, author or community was mistaken.

Again we are not talking about vocabulary or custom (..if "road" came to refer to a type of chicken soup, thats not a question of "right" or "wrong" its just the evolution of language. If there was a scripture where Jesus sat down to eat a roasted road, it would be self evident that bible usage reflected the common use of the word at the time... no problem)

[JehovahsWitness]

That being said, my interpretation is going to focus a lot on the root meaning of key terms, and will largely look to how those terms are used in Paul's writings and elsewhere in the New Testament, so maybe it wouldn't be a problem. But, especially on issues of Greek grammar, which will also play a role, we need to consult experts language resources. Would you object to that?

I'm interested in hearing what you have to say. If it centers on the Greek Paul used and the wider context of his and other biblical writings, it can only be informative. I often glean useful information from the more thoughtful posters on this site and appreciate their work, even if I dont agree with their conclusions.

Point in case, (correct me if I am mistaken) you implied that "in a physical body" was part of the basic root meaning of anastasis. It may have always meant that in popular usage, but Paul was kind enough to explain, illustrate and use explicit terms outside of the word itself, to explain what HE was talking about.

I am intersted in what and how you can argue otherwise from scripture.



JW

VINES

[ 1,,G386, anastasis ]
denotes
(I) a raising up," or "rising" (ana, "up," and histemi, "to cause to stand"), Luke 2:34, "the rising up;" the AV "again" obscures the meaning;

[Eloi]

[Eloi]

(...) Now we are obviously dealing with language, so we at any given time have to ask, in that language what does this word mean. But we are asking what the word means, not what did people believe about what the word meant. A subtle but important difference. (...)

All we need from outside sources is tne basic root meanicng of the word, which is not that difficult to find when it comes to scripture. All theological connotations must come from the inspired writings to be considered accurate. If a new /alternative /expanded meaning is superimposed on a word, it is for the inspired writer to explain himself to dispel confusion.

That is our position.

..But, since your comment here is about "first century Christians," and not just the New Testament, we should also look at other (non-canonical) early Christian sources...

We can do, I'm not adverse to a bit if history, its always enlightening. But being non-canonical it is not INSPIRED so it is never automatically considered religious truth, if it supports scripture then fine , we will use the reference. If not then the writer was mistaken in some way.

NOTE: when Jehovah's Witnesses refer to "first century Christians" we are nearly always refering to those that were contempories with the Apostles. Caution: even being a contemporary does not mean they might no have entertained mistaken ideas.

Exactly.

We find a few terms in the Bible that have very diferent meaning in the socio-cultural and philosophical-religious context of the time, like Hades, Tartarus, mystery, Logos, and a few others. The meaning of these terms in the Bible is very diferent of what a non-Christian will probably understand.

In fact, some researchers have concluded that Paul invented some Greek terms to express new ideas for which he surely couldn't find better words...considering that it was God's holy spirit that inspired the Scriptures, we can understand that ideas carry a special meaning that may or may not coincide with common understanding. Studying the entire Bible is what can help a Christian understand in what sense the spirit reflected the idea that Jehovah wanted to make understood in human language. That is very different from trying to subordinate the word of God to the religious or philosophical concepts of the world that Satan rules and not God. Human communication (with a language) is not a human invention; it was a gift from God to the first couple...

[historia]

I'm interested in hearing what you have to say. If it centers on the Greek Paul used and the wider context of his and other biblical writings, it can only be informative. I often glean useful information from the more thoughtful posters on this site and appreciate their work, even if I dont agree with their conclusions.

Cool. I'll look to set that up in a new thread as soon as we finish with the last of our preliminary discussion here, since we've been hijacking Eddie's thread for too long now.

At the very least -- and I hope maybe we can find agreement on this point so as to move onto a discussion about 1 Corinthians 15 itself -- we should approach the New Testament with the operating assumption that the authors are employing key words and concepts as those were normally understood by Jews (and perhaps others too) at the time. Unless, that is, there is strong evidence in the text itself that the author is putting a new twist on that word or concept. But we should be very careful in reaching such conclusions, lest we simply redefine their words to accommodate ideas we want to read into the text. Agreed?

No. Absolutely not.

Even with the important caveat (in bold) that I previously included but you took out in your reply?

No because its the wrong way round.

I fear we may be talking past each other here.

Perhaps this will help:

although [Paul] may have taken a word from common usage he may be using it to convey an uncommon or even unique idea.

Yes, I agree completely! Obviously, if we look at what Paul is saying and conclude that he is giving a unique meaning to a particular word, or giving a new twist to an old idea, then that takes precedence over what that word or idea would have generally meant.

But what happens when that's not the case? What if, after looking at what Paul is saying, we conclude he is not ascribing a unique meaning to a particular word or concept? Wouldn't we then conclude that he is employing that word or concept as it was commonly understood?

So, for example, Paul tells us he was previously a Pharisaios (a "Pharisee"). Unless we have some compelling reasons to think otherwise, shouldn't we conclude that what Paul means by "Pharisee" is what that term normally meant?

[Eloi]

(...) Perhaps this will help:

although [Paul] may have taken a word from common usage he may be using it to convey an uncommon or even unique idea.

Yes, I agree completely! Obviously, if we look at what Paul is saying and conclude that he is giving a unique meaning to a particular word, or giving a new twist to an old idea, then that takes precedence over what that word or idea would have generally meant.

But what happens when that's not the case? What if, after looking at what Paul is saying, we conclude he is not ascribing a unique meaning to a particular word or concept? Wouldn't we then conclude that he is employing that word or concept as it was commonly understood?

So, for example, Paul tells us he was previously a Pharisaios (a "Pharisee"). Unless we have some compelling reasons to think otherwise, shouldn't we conclude that what Paul means by "Pharisee" is what that term normally meant?

I think you are now saying the same thing that JW has been saying since the beginning of this thread. I agree with what you say, but...

The issue here is whether the resurrection of which Paul speaks has to do with "giving a physical body to a consciously living spirit" or simply giving life to someone who has ceased to live altogether.

Meditate on this words of Paul:

1 Cor. 15:17?Further, if Christ has not been raised up, your faith is useless; you remain in your sins. 18?Then also those who have fallen asleep in death in union with Christ have perished. 19?If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are to be pitied more than anyone.

Paul speaks of people who have perished and that if it were not for the fact that the resurrection would bring them back to life, their dedication to Christ to the point of perishing would have been utterly futile. So Paul is not talking about a living spirit coming out of a person who dies who is then given a body of flesh, but rather a person who has perished and is given life again. And that is what Paul considers resurrection: bringing back to life someone who has perished.

About Christ Paul said:

Rom. 6:8?Moreover, if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9?For we know that Christ, now that he has been raised up from the dead, dies no more; death is no longer master over him. 10?For the death that he died, he died with reference to sin once for all time, but the life that he lives, he lives with reference to God.

And there again: to live versus to be dead. There is not life in death. Death is an enemy.