Did Jesus go to hell? Ask NT Wright Anything Podcast

[@scottyfleming2203]

He went to Sheol. A place where the spirits of the good and ungodly wait for our beautiful resurrection. Try to think of the story of Lazerous and the rich man. He went to preach to the ungodly that he defeated death and their entire purpose of deceiving Gods beautiful creation was null and void! Thank you Jesus!! Yeshua!! Our eternal High priest interceding on our behalf to come to the Father!! What a beautiful thing!!!! Not to hell. The lake of fire is defined for the end of the 1000 years. If you read scripture as it explains God bless everyone!!!

[@mr.c2485]

How do you know that?

[@markusw.2690]

​@@mr.c2485 Scripture says it quite clearly. He is right.

[@intentionally-blank]

Hallelu Yah!

[@intentionally-blank]

@@mr.c2485 Here's a short primer I tossed together, hope it is helpful. Two compartments. Two outcomes. "So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. "And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. "Then he cried and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.' "But Abraham said, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. 'And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.' "Then he said, 'I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father's house, 'for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.' "Abraham said to him, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.' "And he said, 'No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' "But he said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.' " - Luke 16:22-31 There was Yeshua=Jesus speaking of his resurrection proof and disbelief of what the existing old testament scripture actually taught. Yeshua's descent into what is termed Paradise and then his ascension to the Father (Yom Kippur, the day of atonement). Jesus said to her, "Mary!" She turned and said to Him, "Rabboni!" (which is to say, Teacher). Jesus said to her, "Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.' " Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that He had spoken these things to her. - John 20:16-18 Therefore He says: "When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, And gave gifts to men." (Now this, "He ascended"--what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.) - Ephesians 4:8-10 Following Yeshua's death, what we might call old testament saints walked the streets of Jerusalem. And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many. - Matthew 27:50-53

[@trevornunn3285]

Since god is everywhere, Jesus went to hell. In fact, he's always been there

[@alex-qe8qn]

The so-called descent into Hell is an historical gaffe. The Old Roman Symbol, the earlier and better Apostles’ Creed, and the later Roman version of the Apostles’ Creed, did not have the clause but had the clauses about Jesus’ suffering under Pontus Pilate etc, and that he died / was dead. Conversely, the form of the Apostles’ Creed at Aqueleia went poetic and, for Jesus’ being dead, had him đescend to the region / the inhabitants below. Inevitably, the two Creeds were merged, and the Aqueleian poetic clause was retained. Inevitably, confusion arose, and the poetic clause had to be given a new meaning. erroneously attached to the passages in Peter’s epistles etc. Lazily, and/or for theological motives, the wrong modern form of the Apostles’ Creed has been allowed to stand - except among some who know the history of the matter. Rufinus of Aquileia wrote a commentary on the Creed, translated etc. by JND Kelly, a noted scholar; and it is worth reading.

[@Mercyme57]

Thank you. That’s interesting…so help me understand. Which creed is (would you say) accurately verbalises the truth we should be affirming..?

[@alex-qe8qn]

@@Mercyme57 Sorry about the delay in answering! The Old Roman Symbol (see the article mat Wikipedia) is good as far as the articles that it affirms. Personally, I think that we should start where Jesus started, when asked this, or similar, question -- at Mark 12:29-31. The unity of God is the bedrock foundation of all true belief, and love of Him is the first absolute duty. Then flows love in God for self, to root one's own identity. Finally emerges from an ego founded on God and rooted in Him the ability to love one's neighbour.

[@alex-qe8qn]

Additionally one could consider John 17:03, where Jesus sets out that the Father is the only true God, and that Jesus is His Apostle; and 1 Timothy 02:05, where Paul picks up these themes, that there is one God and there is one mediator between God and men, [the] man Christ Jesus.

[@timhaley3459]

Of "hell", it should interest sincere people who read the Bible that "hell" is NOT a place of fiery torment (and therefore no purgatory or what the Catholic church says where souls remain between "heaven and hell" until their sins are atoned for, a probationary period) and that those there can get out it. For example, at Revelation 20:13, the King James Bible reads: "And the (symbolic) sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell (Greek hades) delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works." Due to the Catholic Douay Version and King James Bible rendering three different Greek words as "hell", which are (1) Geenna, or Gehenna (that means everlasting destruction) at Matthew 5:22, 29, 30 and 10:28 as well as 18:9 and 23:33, (2) hades, or the Grave at Revelation 20:13, and (3) Tartarus at 2 Peter 2:4, that means to be imprisoned in spiritual darkness for the rebel angels (1 Pet 3:19), it is not surprising at all that so many people have the false belief that "hell" is a place of fiery torment for the wicked, especially at Matthew 5:22, 29, 30 and 23:33. At Jonah 2:2, the King James Bible reads: "And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the Lord, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell (Hebrew sheol) cried I, and thou heardest my voice." Where was Jonah when he said these words, that he was in "the belly of hell" ? Inside of a large fish and not in a fiery place. At Acts 2:31, the apostle Peter, quoting from Psalms 16:10, told the Jews according to the King James Bible: "He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell (Greek hades), neither his flesh did see corruption." Where was Jesus when Peter said that he went to "hell" "? In the grave for parts of three days and nights, and not in a place of fiery torment.(see Matt 12:39) So, when the King James Bible was published in 1611, what did the word "hell" mean ? This: "Old English hel(l) . Ultimately from an Indo-European word meaning “to conceal,” which is also the ancestor of English conceal, occult, eucalyptus, and apocalypse".(Microsoft Encarta Reference Library 2005) Thus, if sincere Bible readers were to dig deeper, and reason on 1 John 4:8, that "God is love", whereby love does NOT torment people, as well as having an accurate Bible and reasoning on it, then they could see for themselves that "hell" is NOT a place of fiery torment that God established, nor Satan "runs". Rather, it is either everlasting destruction (Greek gehenna), as at Matthew 10:28 or the grave (Greek hades) at Revelation 20:13 and Acts 2:27, 31, of which it will be emptied of all its "people" by means of a resurrection from the dead, or being in spiritual darkness (Greek tartarus) as at 2 Peter 2:4, being cut off from God, as are the angels who rebelled against him.(Note: God's name is Jehovah, see Isa 12:2, KJV) To further show this, see Jeremiah 7:31; 19:5 and 32:35, to see how God felt about the apostate Jews burning their sons and daughters in the fire to the Ammonite god Molech while worshiping Baal, calling it an "abomination" and "sin".

[@EmilyTodicescu]

These videos seem to attract the ire of atheistic materialists. And they become irrationally angry if you don’t fit their false dichotomy of faith versus reason.

[@onionbelly_]

Pointing to an absurdity is not necessarily an expression of anger. If you see anger in these comments, that says more about your personality than anything else.

[@jamespadilla7070]

What anger?

[@Outspoken.Humanist]

As an atheist, i'm incandescent with rage that people i will never meet belief something I don't. Except I'm not because that would be silly. I would suggest that honest debate on interesting subjects is of more use, to everyone, than foolish generalisations and misreprentations of an incredibly diverse group of people. But maybe that just me being irratonally angry 🤬. 😂

[@onionbelly_]

@@Outspoken.Humanist woah calm down dude!!!

[@Outspoken.Humanist]

@@onionbelly_ 😂👍

[@haddow777]

Hell is just the english word for Hades, which was the Greek word used for the Hebrew word Sheol. Sheol, as viewed by the Hebrew scriptures, was the place all people went to after they died. In the Hebrew scriptures there was no concept of immortal souls, hellfire, or heaven. The good and the bad ended up in the same state. Sheol is merely a symbolic place of the dead. The scriptures described death as being in a deep sleep where one thought or felt nothing. Bascially, the Hebrew scriptures taught that we cease to exist after death. Its concept of a soul was somethng linked to the body. Not as something that could exist separate from the body. As such, the soul died with the body. There are a lot of things in the christian Greek scriptures that make it seem to disagree with the Hebrew scriptures. The secret to understanding that it didn't change its view on death is in Revelations chapter 20. There it clearly speaks of many of the dead being taken out of the sea, death, and Hades. Then death and Hades, both symbolic places commonly thought of as being were the dead go, are destroyed in a lake of fire. Clearly, as they are symbolic places, they aren't really thrown or destroyed. It is conveying the idea that no more will anyone dying go to those places. Without going into a lot, they were signifying the first death, or a death where God keeps each person in his memory, so he can have them brought back to life later. If you were dead and in one of those places, you were going to be brought back to life again. When those places are destroyed, it signifies that anyone dying from that point on will not be remembered by God and will have no chance to be brought back again. From there, it says the dead will be judged by the book of life, by their deeds. First, note how those beought back to life aren't the bad of bad of the world, as the wording surrounding being judged shows that there were good amongst the dead. This all agrees with the Hebrew scriptures so far. Why are thay said to be the dead though, weren't they just brough out of death? This is a tricky part. It takes understanding that this is God's view of humans. Ultimately, in God's eyes, we are not actually alive if we are sinful. The term, the wages sin pays is death, speaks to this. The moment someone sins, they are bonded to death. Death owns them and will collect them. They are still alive, but in God's eyes, they are already dead, because their death is guaranteed. God told Adam that in the day he ate from the fruit he would die, yet it said he lived for hundreds of years. In God's eyes though, Adam died that day. He was no longer a sinless man. Adam's offspring inherited Adam's defect, so sinful action wasn't even necessary. Earlier in Revelation 20, it speaks of another group coming to life. It then says that over those the second death has no authority, power, dominion, etc. The bible describes these ones as coming to life, not because they were brought out from death, but because they were changed into sinless beings, of which death has no hold on them. The distinction here is that the term life used here is not one of the life and death we humans experience, but their status of being alive in God's eyes. So, later on, when it speaks of the dead being judged, it isn't speaking of some immortal souls pulled out of some place, but actualy living people brought back to life in new bodies, but still with their same sinful bodies as before. Notice how during this chapter it speaks of Jesus thousand year reign. To reign, one has to reign over people. Also notice, before the book of life is used to judge people, scrolls were opened that are clearly spoken of separately from the book of life. Adding to this, keep in mind what it means when the bible says the wages sin pays is death. When anyone sins, they earned death. Death was Adam's punishment and is the same punishment we all face. Nothing more, nothing less. So, when the dead are brought out from the sea, death, and Hades, they've already faced the concequences for their sins during their life. They died. After death, those sins cannot be used against them again. You cannot die twice for the same death. This is why the bible describes sin and death in the context of prices and values. Sin buys death, not two deaths. Adding a second death to the scales would imbalance them and make it unjust. So, these people are brough back to life, live during the thousand year reign under Jesus, without the devil, and get a real chance to learn about God and how to live the live he claims is the best one for humans. The scrolls being opened will be telling everyone about God and how to live in that era. Then, once the thousand year reign ended, Satan will be released and everyone will have the choice to choose to live the way of life God recommends or another way. That is when everyone will be judged by the book of life. The actions they are judged by are those they made during the thousand year reign, not the ones in their first life. Any not making it there will experience the second death. The permanent death. It is claimed to be torturous, but the whole bible claims the dead are not able to think or feel. This torture is easily explained by the modern saying, someone is spinning in their grave. In the bible, it was very significant how one was remembered after they died. It even claimed the day of a person's death was better than the day of their birth, because at their dearh, they had given meaning to their name. They're record for faith and actions was set. For those who die the second death, the only rememberance of them will be that they failed and sided against God. Their names become infamous. Hilter is a name like that. In a way, it can be said that they way most of the world remembers hitler tortures him, because that is how he would have liked to have been remembered. Just to add a little more biblical evidence to this, look at all fhe resurrections of the dead in the bible. They span from the Hebrew to the Christian greek scriptures. One was a personal friend of Jesus and some others were young children, so few would claim they were brought back from hellfire. Yet, think about what it would mean if things like immortal souls and heaven as the place all good go were teachings in the bible. All the resurrections were spoken of as wonderous miracles and how happy everyone was. Yet, how happy would someone be to be taken out of heaven and put back into a sinful body in a world filled with suffering? How happy would they be, if they had been judged worthy of being in heaven, to have that judgement undone, and be open to failing and losing heaven altogether? It would be like a form of torture. No, during the Hebrew and christian Greek scriptures, the bible held that death was a state of not existing anymore. So, Jesus, after his death, ceased to exist at all, except in God's memory.

[@a-rock-712]

Do you have other sources or links that expand on this viewpoint? Thanks!

[@Mercyme57]

That’s a lot to take in and in the end I’m a person of simple trusting faith in the person and work of Yeshua. The last statement you wrote is not clear to me however… ” After Jesus death He ceased to exist except in God’s memory.” So who was on the road to Emmaus, and who ate with, spoke to, and appeared both to the disciples and the many others that scripture refers to..?

[@haddow777]

@@Mercyme57 he ceased to exist while dead. Then God raised him from the dead. Only, when he was raised from the dead, it was as am angel again, not a human. He appeared like a human, but so have angels in the past in the bible. Going back to Abraham, a few of them sat and ate with him.

[@Mercyme57]

@@haddow777 Thanks for your reply: Just reading it again. So what you’re saying is that post resurrection Jesus is an angel…have I understood you correctly there..? How does this fit with: 1 John. 4. 1-3. “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come IN THE FLESH is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is COME IN THE FLESH is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.”

[@haddow777]

@@Mercyme57 not sure how you don't see how that scripture fits. I never claimed Jesus wasn't flesh while on Earth, in fact I claim that I see him as more in flesh than many others. Doctrins that Jesus is The God crept in sometime after the first century. This would mean that Jesus was God while on Earth in a fleshly body. I don't think that is what this scripture claims at all. There are many examples of devine beings, or angels, being on Earth in human bodies in the bible. Abraham is said to have attended to some and fed them. Same with Lot. Of course, there are the angels that came down and took wives, which angered God. That is not what the bible describes Jesus doing. Jesus was an angel, but he gave up his heavenly existence and started life as a fully human being. He was born and had to grow up as a human. Every other instance of a devine being taking on human form was just as a fully formed adult for the purpose they were there for. If their body was killed, they wouldn't die, because their physical body wasn't them, it was more of a puppet. Jesus being just a human while alive on Earth was pointed to in other areas. God prophesied to the serpent, which was the devil, that the man would crush his head, while the serpent would bruise the man's heel. This prophesy was about multiple things. One was God's plan to destroy rhe devil through an agent, Jesus. Another was God's plan to save Adam and Eve's offspring. Jesus was bruised in the heel by the serpent when he was killed. The part where this applies to saving Adam and Eve's offspring is that Jesus is called the new Adam. There is a lot of focus on sacrifices, justice, balancing the scales, and the value assigned to life in the bible. The Law clearly said a life for a life. No price could be paid if a life was taken to make up for it other than a life. While the Israelites sacrificed many animals, none of them paid for their sins ultimately. An animal's life is so far lower in value to a human's life that no amount of animal sacrifices could pay the price, the value, of a human life. The scriptures claim Adam was different from the rest of mankind, he and his wife were sinless. Perfect beings. It claims that to God, the value of a sinless person's life is worth so much more than a sinful human's life that no amount of sinful human lives could pay the price, or equal in value, or balance the scales, to Adam's life. The bible speaks of sin as a cost. The wages sin pays is death. In a way, when we sin, we create a debt with death. It owns us. When we die, it is collecting on that debt. When Adam sinned, he created a debt so large no man could pay it. So, Jesus came to Earth, became a sinless human, and died without sin. Why? To pay the ransom, or price, or debt Adam created when he sinned. One sinless, or perfect human life for another. With how much the bible emphasized equality of value in justice, balancing of scales, Jesus could not be a devine being when he died. He had to be Adam's exact equal, with the addition of having died in a sinless state. This means that Jesus could never have been God Almighty either. God would having been involved would have perverted justice so far out of whack that ot would have destroyed the scales of justice. First, God is far greater value than a simple sinless man. Next, God cannot legitimately die. It's nonsense later christians perverted their doctrine with that the Roman leadership liked and elevated. They liked Jesus as God because he was more relatable than God himself. How does this fit with scriptures that call Jesus a god? Easily. The judges in Israel were rightly called gods. God in the bible was a title anyone who had authority over the lives of others could hold. As judges in Israel could hand out death sentences, they were gods. Jesus is called God because after returning to heaven as an angel again, God assigned much authority to him. One aspect of that authority is as king. As such, he has been assigned waging God's battles. He's also been handed the keys to death. This means he will bring out all those who have died. Further, God has assigned authority to judge to him, so he will judge those worthy of the second death and destroy them. All this authority gives him responsibility for taking and giving life. This makes him a god by the Bible's definition. This does not mean he is God Almighty.

[@jeredmckenna]

After reading much Greco Roman literature, it seems like the "He descended into hell" would have most strongly been associated with the necessary hero trope of the time: the hero must go down into the depths and do battle with death/hades/rescue his lover/etc. A few examples of this "Descent" trope: Persephone, Orpheus, Heracles, Theseus, Aeneas, and of course Dionysus, Osiris, Ishtar. All can be anthropologically traced back to the general idea of representing the cycle of death and rebirth, darkness into light, pain transmuting into peace, etc. For example: Ishtar, the Mesopotamian goddess of love, beauty, sex, desire, fertility, war, justice, and political power, descends into the underworld in the Sumerian myth of "Inanna's Descent to the Underworld." In this myth, Ishtar seeks to confront her sister Ereshkigal, the queen of the underworld, but she is ultimately subjected to various trials and challenges before being allowed to return to the world above. Dionysus (Bacchus): Dionysus, the Greek god of wine, vegetation, pleasure, and festivity, is associated with several myths involving journeys to the underworld. One of the most notable is his descent to rescue his mother Semele, who was killed by Zeus's lightning bolt while pregnant with Dionysus. Orpheus (Orphic Mysteries): In addition to the mainstream Greek myth of Orpheus, there is also the Orphic tradition, which involves a more mystical interpretation of his story. In the Orphic tradition, Orpheus's descent into the underworld represents a spiritual journey to attain knowledge and salvation. This being the milieu of the day, Jesus' "descent into hell" would probably have been seen in this light. Also, this explains the confusion with the poetic version and the more historical version.

[@fcastellanos57]

No, Jesus did not go anywhere besides the tomb when he died. Did he not say in Matthew 12:40 where he was going to be for three days and three night? In the heart of the earth, in other words dead in the tomb, so he could not have gone anywhere. 1 Peter 3:19 has to be interpreted differently.

[@PC-vg8vn]

he could have been referring to his body.

[@trevornunn3285]

Did you hear about the dude who read a book and believed it? Yeah, he read Harry Potter, a book full of fantasy and supernatural, and believed it What an idiot

[@onionbelly_]

So did Jesus go to hell or not? "Some say he did and others say he didn't" is not really an answer to the question is it...

[@inquisitiveferret5690]

But it is.

[@robertlee8519]

The thing is is that the debate is very complex, because it depends on how you define certain concepts and words. Are you defining hell as the domain of the dead, which is basically just the grave but not the eternal conscious torment like a fire type of place? Yeah a lot of people would say that Jesus went there and preached to not only with the dead spirits but specifically dead evil unrighteous spirits.

[@onionbelly_]

@@inquisitiveferret5690 Nope, it isn't. If some people say you've been to France and some say you didn't, that doesn't tell us whether you actually been to France.

[@onionbelly_]

​@@robertlee8519 It's up to the author of the book or the English translators to carefully define their terms so there's no confusion in interpretation. "Some Christians interpret it this way, some Christians interpret it a different way" is not really a helpful answer.

[@inquisitiveferret5690]

@@onionbelly_ It is an answer to the question. Besides those are answers to the question of whether or not I have been to France. That particular individual has given you an answer to the best of their recollection. It is an answer, but it might not be the direct one you want. So yes, Wright does answer it. He gives a very scholarly reply. Some traditions hold to X, some hold to Y. While he didn't answer his own beliefs on it, it was still in fact an answer. Just a read between the lines. Alot of scholars do that.

[@reesesmith1196]

Jesus bore our iniquities, became sin who knew no sin, and died. He went to to the place of the dead with our inquiries, sin, and with death…and He left them there coming out of the grave 3 days later. If his life is in us and we are in him..when our bodies die..where does those who have LIFE go…to be with the one they are 1 with. So yes..he went to hell/hades/sheol…but he didnt got to the “lake of fire”..which we try to make the same as Hades sometimes. In the lake of fire there is LIFE..only death

[@reesesmith1196]

Inquiries LOL!!!!! Iniquities..my bad

[@seanc.mcnally2118]

Yeah, Nah..It must mean that He went down there to 'flip em the bird' LOL!

[@kameelffarag]

A lot of the writings are man’s inspiration from within, not God’s revelation. Which is faith in unseen God manifested in a man Jesus, as the appearance of the logos , answering all the relevant questions. These answers are summarised in 3 things. The love of the father to his sinful son in the parable of the prodigal son. 2. The failure of religions , to save us from our spiritual degradation, in the parable of the Good Samaritan . 3. The humility and the sufferings of Jesus to means that God shares in our sufferings and sympathise to us. The last one needs a lot of explanation, because it may mean that God was not able to make a better world without suffering, but the scientific fact that all material creation is by its nature cannot be but infallible, not because of stupid sin or any such a thing. The answer is in Romans 8:20.

[@jessepelaez874]

The answer is that 1Peter, is taking that from Enoch and not original. As Bart ehrman explain in his rebuttal to James whites.

[@mr.c2485]

I can visualize NT as a sixth grader. Plump little kid sitting by himself at lunchtime self consciously munching on his pbj sandwich 🥪 in anticipation of thoroughly enjoying the hostess chocolate pie that his mom knows he loves.

[@loridyson569]

I'm soo sorry to pop your balloon but he is English & you described a American child. They do not eat PB&J sandwiches because they do not like the PB, but will eat some jam on bread. They also are not big chocolate lovers & do not care fore our Hostess treats so would have tea & biscuits (which is more like a boring plain dipping cookie).

[@MumT05]

As an older Brit that made me laugh. No no PBJ sandwiches are disgusting.. and we did not have 6th grade, we were year 5 in junior school, and we didn't have sandwiches, we had school dinners, in those days they were served family style at a table. I never saw chocolate pie till I came to the states.. ah but I still remember strawberry and rhubarb crumble with custard.. he looks to me like he was a boy that loved crumble pies and custard. ☺️

[@collin501]

What’s the point? That it’s wishful thinking, childish, and unhealthy?

[@mikebrown9850]

Jesus and the thief on the stake beside him both went to hades when they died. Jesus arose 72 hours later, the thief is still awaiting his resurrection.

[@Outspoken.Humanist]

No. He was just a man. He died and he rotted away to nothing. That's merely my opinion of course but it's as valid as any other because there is absolutely no evidence that anything supernatural even exists. I respect everyone's right to hold whatever beliefs suit them and, for all i know, some of them might be right (not all of them, of course) but i do have a question; what's the point of speculation regarding something for which no-one has any relevant information whatsoever? What are you seeking to gain that cannot be found in your holy book and church?

[@IgnacioAtenas]

You see it as pointless because of your worldview. In your naturalistic epistemology, yes, it doesn't make sense, but we christians don't believe that knowledge is limited to sense experience.

[@mr.c2485]

@@IgnacioAtenas There is a standing $2,000,000 dollar prize for anyone who can demonstrably prove by a pier reviewed consensus that the supernatural exists. Go get your money!

[@IgnacioAtenas]

@@mr.c2485 by what epistemological standards would my evidence be judged? It's a worldview issue more than an evidence problem.

[@Outspoken.Humanist]

@@IgnacioAtenas That is interesting. How else do you think knowledge is recieved and how are you able to judge its validity if you are unable to fact check? But my point was that a debate about a subject where the protagonists all have zero knowlege, must be a waste of time. Any number of hypotheses might be raised but with no possible way to determine their validity, no progress will be made, even if one of the ideas is true, because that truth will remain hidden.

[@IgnacioAtenas]

@@Outspoken.Humanist First of all, thank you for your kindness! The statement "all knowledge belongs to the reign of sense experience" is not known on the basis of sense experience, it is an universal and absolute claim, which you believe rather to have proven it. So, if you want to hold on to that as knowledge, you would have to resort to something other than sense experience, and therefore contradicting the same claim that you are trying to prove. If you want examples of things that are not known on the basis of experience, I'd list the following: Laws of logic, arithmetics, the uniformity of nature, values and human dignity, the validity of the senses and one's memory. And I bet you believe most of that. Answering the second question: If sense experience is the only way to know truth, then the guys in this video are just theorizing. But if the Christian worldview is true, and the Bible is the word of God, then it is perfectly reasonable to argue about what happened to Jesus after he died, because the Bible speaks about that. It is a matter of worldviews and what you presuppose. Testing the validity of worldviews and it's presupositions would require a different answer.

[@unripetheberrby6283]

That seems like a rather good idea to have about it. :)

[@rob-890]

In this edition of The Speculation Show

[@alexreid4131]

Roger that. So what do you think happened? It’s just a garbage nothing burger to you? No speculation required. State your opinion friend.

[@rob-890]

@@alexreid4131 why, we don't know and we can't know

[@alexreid4131]

@@rob-890 well some would argue that we can know and that there are reliable records. I appreciate that that would not be your contention but some can make a reasonable defense of it.

[@garycpriestley]

Cool story bro.... unsure why anyone believes it... but each to their credulous own I suppose.

[@mr.c2485]

Yup. All he’s managed to do is piss off mother goose.

[@inquisitiveferret5690]

There are vast collections of historical and philsiocphcal literature. As well as thinkers who expound on why they do. I'd recommend you look into. Especially if you're actually curious why people believe it.

[@garycpriestley]

@@inquisitiveferret5690 I was a little lazy with my wording. I actually think I understand why I believe it (as a former theist).... but it just all boils down to feelings, indoctrination and logical fallacies ultimately. I don't mind if people believe supernatural things but it does demonstrate how poor we humans are at determining truth from imagination.

[@inquisitiveferret5690]

@@garycpriestley No you weren't. Your meaning was well perceived. But you definitely tempered your wording better now. That's an incredibly reductive take, but to each their credulous own I suppose.

[@Truthseek72563]

Jesus went on picnic for 3 days to see his real estate(He’ll) which he created

[@edwardprokopchuk3264]

“They muddy the waters to make them seem deep.”

[@peterroberts4509]

Actualky , No one knows

[@inquisitiveferret5690]

How do you know?

[@TonyLouis9345]

Most likely his body began to decay like all human corpses.

[@alexreid4131]

That’s actually a really interesting take that I haven’t considered before. Now I’m wondering about Lazarus. Didn’t they also say that he “stinketh” but then Christ resurrected him and he seemed normal and ate food in front of witnesses?

[@PC-vg8vn]

@@alexreid4131 Lazarus was resurrected but just to his same body. He would have later died, perhaps years later, like everyone else. Jesus was resurrected, but to a resurrected body, a different level of existence. Non perishable. His resurrected body is a foretaste of what is to come for all believers.

[@alexreid4131]

@@PC-vg8vn totally agree with you. Still interesting that his body didn’t stink after three days. I’d just never really thought about that before. They expected it to stink. And it should have. So it wasn’t simply a reanimated decayed corpse.

[@vanishingpoint7411]

Nowhere , this fiction. It’s the same as asking what happened to harry potters wand or Spider-Mans webs . Grow up . More of NT wrongs verbal diarrhoea