Where did Jesus go when he died, hell burning with fire or paradise?

[Pastor Scott Markle]

2 hours ago, robycop3 said:

  Luke 23:43 answers that question beyond any doubt, as it's Jesus' own words. He went to the 'paradise' area of hades. His suffering was finished the instant His spirit left His human body.

Well, you are both correct and incorrect -

According to our Lord's own words in Luke 23:43, He most certainly DID go to "paradise."

However, our Lord's own words do NOT include the indication that this "paradise" was some "area of hades."  In fact, God's OWN Word in 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 indicates that "Biblical paradise" and the "the Third Heaven" are to be equated with one another.

[Ukulelemike]

On 10/15/2020 at 9:18 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Well, you are both correct and incorrect -

According to our Lord's own words in Luke 23:43, He most certainly DID go to "paradise."

However, our Lord's own words do NOT include the indication that this "paradise" was some "area of hades."  In fact, God's OWN Word in 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 indicates that "Biblical paradise" and the "the Third Heaven" are to be equated with one another.

How, then, did those of the OT ascend to the third Heaven without the benefit of the blood of Christ having cleansed them? If they had all ascended to Heaven, there was no need for Jesus to die for anyone, them or us, if we could make it on our own.

As well, how do we see this conversation between the rich man burning in torments of hell, and Abraham? 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

17 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

How, then, did those of the OT ascend to the third Heaven without the benefit of the blood of Christ having cleansed them?

Who ever said that Old Testament believers "ascended to the third Heaven without the benefit of the blood of Christ having cleansed them"?  I certainly have never said any such thing.  In fact, no believer ever ascends to Heaven apart from the shed blood and sacrificial death of our Savior Jesus the Christ.

17 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

If they had all ascended to Heaven, there was no need for Jesus to die for anyone, them or us, if we could make it on our own.

This is a false statement.  The ONLY way of salvation for any human sinner is by means of Christ's death.  Indeed, His death and resurrection were absolutely necessary; for no human sinner can "make it" on his or her own.

But then your response will be that our Savior Jesus the Christ did not actually die until the conclusion of the Old Testament period, which is certainly a historically accurate fact.  Thus you will contend that Christ's blood and death could not be applied to Old Testament believers until its historical reality, and thus they could not enter Heaven until that application occurred.  However, I will contend that GOD'S DIVINE perspective is different than the strict historically human perspective.  I would NOT contend this simply on my own conjecture.  Rather, I would contend this based upon an actual statement of GOD'S OWN WORD; for in Revelation 13:8 God's Word states, "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."  According to this statement of God's OWN Word, our Savior Jesus the Christ, the Lamb of God, was slain FROM the very foundation/founding of the world.  Yet we know that this is not in accord with the historically human perspective, as per the very revelation of God's Word.  Thus we conclude that this must be in accord with the eternally divine perspective.  Indeed, the Lord God of heaven and earth could apply that which was a CERTAIN REALITY from His eternally divine perspective, even though it had not yet occurred in the historically human perspective.

17 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

As well, how do we see this conversation between the rich man burning in torments of hell, and Abraham? 

I am sorry, for I do not quite understand your question.  I am not quite certain what you mean by the phrase, "How do we see this conversation."  I am not sure what you mean by the word "see."

Edited October 27, 2020 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Ukulelemike]

On 10/27/2020 at 8:09 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Who ever said that Old Testament believers "ascended to the third Heaven without the benefit of the blood of Christ having cleansed them"?  I certainly have never said any such thing.  In fact, no believer ever ascends to Heaven apart from the shed blood and sacrificial death of our Savior Jesus the Christ.

This is a false statement.  The ONLY way of salvation for any human sinner is by means of Christ's death.  Indeed, His death and resurrection were absolutely necessary; for no human sinner can "make it" on his or her own.

But then your response will be that our Savior Jesus the Christ did not actually die until the conclusion of the Old Testament period, which is certainly a historically accurate fact.  Thus you will contend that Christ's blood and death could not be applied to Old Testament believers until its historical reality, and thus they could not enter Heaven until that application occurred.  However, I will contend that GOD'S DIVINE perspective is different than the strict historically human perspective.  I would NOT contend this simply on my own conjecture.  Rather, I would contend this based upon an actual statement of GOD'S OWN WORD; for in Revelation 13:8 God's Word states, "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."  According to this statement of God's OWN Word, our Savior Jesus the Christ, the Lamb of God, was slain FROM the very foundation/founding of the world.  Yet we know that this is not in accord with the historically human perspective, as per the very revelation of God's Word.  Thus we conclude that this must be in accord with the eternally divine perspective.  Indeed, the Lord God of heaven and earth could apply that which was a CERTAIN REALITY from His eternally divine perspective, even though it had not yet occurred in the historically human perspective.

I am sorry, for I do not quite understand your question.  I am not quite certain what you mean by the phrase, "How do we see this conversation."  I am not sure what you mean by the word "see."

Perhaps this is a situation where we think we're talking about the same thing, but we aren't.

When Jesus died, He went and preached to the spirits in prison: where was prison? Was it the same place as where Abraham and Lazarus and all OT saints went after they died, before Christ shed His blood?  See, in my understand, that is where they were, that was prison, but it was also paradise, the same paradise Jesus said that the thief killed next to Him would be with Jesus-it could not mean any aspect of the third heaven, though, because Jesus had to die and resurrect and bring His blood before the father to fully pay the sin debt-this is why Jesus had to ascend to His Father right after His resurrection, I would believe, to make the blood offering in Heaven to pay the debt. 

So, all the OT saints waited there in paradise/prison, for Jesus. Why would paradise also be called prison? because anything beautiful can still be a prison if you cannot leave it. 

[SureWord]

1 hour ago, Ukulelemike said:

Perhaps this is a situation where we think we're talking about the same thing, but we aren't.

When Jesus died, He went and preached to the spirits in prison: where was prison? Was it the same place as where Abraham and Lazarus and all OT saints went after they died, before Christ shed His blood?  See, in my understand, that is where they were, that was prison, but it was also paradise, the same paradise Jesus said that the thief killed next to Him would be with Jesus-it could not mean any aspect of the third heaven, though, because Jesus had to die and resurrect and bring His blood before the father to fully pay the sin debt-this is why Jesus had to ascend to His Father right after His resurrection, I would believe, to make the blood offering in Heaven to pay the debt. 

So, all the OT saints waited there in paradise/prison, for Jesus. Why would paradise also be called prison? because anything beautiful can still be a prison if you cannot leave it. 

Genesis 39:20-23

First time the word "prison" is used in the bible (law of first mention). Joseph was in prison but God was with him, blessed and prospered him, gave him favor in the eyes of his jailer who entrusted him with authority within the prison but he still was a captive.

Edited October 28, 2020 by SureWord

[Yeshuafan]

On 6/30/2020 at 8:20 PM, mbkjpreacher said:

Where did Jesus go when he died, hell burning with fire or paradise? 

Think that he went to region called Abrahams Bosum!

[Pastor Scott Markle]

20 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

When Jesus died, He went and preached to the spirits in prison: where was prison? Was it the same place as where Abraham and Lazarus and all OT saints went after they died, before Christ shed His blood? 

This is a reference to 1 Peter 3:18-20 -- "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit, by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water."

Let us take notice of that which verse 19 says and that which it does NOT say.  It says -- "By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison."  It does NOT say -- "When he died, he went and preached unto the spirits in prison."  Adding to the precise wording of Scripture is always problematic.

So, what do we learn about this preaching by our Lord from this passage?  I have answered in a previous posting of this thread discussion as follows:

On 9/25/2020 at 2:33 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Herein 1 Peter 3:19 actually tells us HOW our Lord Jesus Christ preached unto "the spirits in prison" when it uses the phrase "BY WHICH ALSO he went and preached unto the spirits in prison."  This phrase "by which also" employs the pronoun "which," and grammatically the antecedent for this pronoun in this context is found in the immediately preceding prepositional phrase, "by the Spirit."  The word "Spirit" in that prepositional phrase contains the capital "S," indicating a reference to the Person of the Holy Spirit.  Thus our Lord Jesus Christ did not preach unto the "spirits in prison" by His own personal presence per se, but BY the Person of the Holy Spirit.

When did our Lord Jesus Christ preach unto these "spirits in prison" by the Person of the Holy Spirit?  First, we must ask -- Who are these "spirits in prison?"  Again, the passage itself gives answer -- They are those "which sometime [in past time] were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah."  This is a fairly clear reference to Genesis 6:1-13.  Who are they?  They are all of the disobedient during the time of Noah, that is -- ALL of humanity alive on the earth at that time except Noah and his family.  When were they disobedient?  During that period of time wherein "the longsuffering of God waited during the time of Noah" as Noah was building the ark.  It is that 120 years to which the Lord God made reference in Genesis 6:3.  Where are these disobedient ones now?  Having perished in the flood, they are now in the "prison" punishment and torment of hell.  How did our Lord Jesus Christ preach unto them?  By the striving of His Holy Spirit as referenced in Genesis 6:3, as per 1 Peter 3:19.  So then, when did our Lord Jesus Christ preach unto them by the striving of His Holy Spirit?  During the 120 years of the Lord God's longsuffering until the destruction of the flood.

Thus the "spirits in prison" are NOT Old Testament believers, but are the disobedient and unbelieving who died during the time of Noah and through the judgment of the flood.  Thus the "prison" is indeed that place of their eternal judgment and torment under the wrath of God, the place called hell.  Thus our Lord Jesus Christ did NOT preach to them by His own personal presence, but as 1 Peter 3:19 directly reveals, by the person of the Holy Spirit.  

____________________________________

20 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

It could not mean any aspect of the third heaven, though, because Jesus had to die and resurrect and bring His blood before the father to fully pay the sin debt-this is why Jesus had to ascend to His Father right after His resurrection, I would believe, to make the blood offering in Heaven to pay the debt. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Where does God's Word teach us that our Savior Jesus the Christ HAD to historically "die and resurrect and bring His blood before the Father to fully pay the sin debt" BEFORE any believer could enter Heaven?  I DO INDEED believe that His death, His resurrection, and His blood offering are factually necessary for any lost sinner's salvation.  Thus I am NOT asking where God's Word teaches us that these things had to be a FACT of reality, and thus had to actually occur at some time in actual history.  Rather, I am asking where God's Word teaches us that from God's divine perspective He could not accept any believer's salvation as complete UNTIL these things actually happened in human history.  

In addition, I would ask for you to explain your understanding of the teaching in Revelation 13:8 that our Savior Jesus the Christ as the Lamb of God was "slain FROM the foundation of the world."

(Note: Throughout this thread discussion I am finding that the same arguments and ideas are being presented over and over again.  Even though I have handled various of these arguments and ideas through actual grammatical and Biblical exegesis, the same arguments and ideas are repeated without anyone actually responding to the actual exegesis that I have presented.)

[Pastor Scott Markle]

On 10/28/2020 at 1:03 PM, Ukulelemike said:

So, all the OT saints waited there in paradise/prison, for Jesus. Why would paradise also be called prison? because anything beautiful can still be a prison if you cannot leave it. 

Some further thoughts:

1.  1 Peter 3:19-20 does NOT apply the word "prison" in relation to Old Testament believers, but only to the disobedient and unbelieving of Noah's day.

2.  I am NOT aware of ANY Scriptural passage that calls "paradise" a "prison."

3.  If your definition of a "prison" is accurate, then Heaven at present is also a "prison" for all of the believing dead, since they cannot leave it of their own free will.
 

On 10/28/2020 at 2:29 PM, SureWord said:

Genesis 39:20-23

First time the word "prison" is used in the bible (law of first mention). Joseph was in prison but God was with him, blessed and prospered him, gave him favor in the eyes of his jailer who entrusted him with authority within the prison but he still was a captive.

Concerning this passage (and your usage of "the law of first mention"), it would also reveal that "prison" is a place of punishment for criminals, since Joseph was placed there because he was condemned as a criminal (whether falsely or not), and since he was placed there as a form of punishment for his (supposed) crime.  Thus "prison" is not simply a place of "captivity," but is more fully a place of captivity as punishment for a crime.  Indeed, this is precisely my understanding concerning the word "prison" in 1 Peter 3:19-20 - since the passage specifically applies it to those who "were disobedient . . . in the days of Noah," who thus were destroyed in the flood, and who thus were cast into the "prison" of God's eternal wrath and judgment for their sinful disobedience (crime).

[robycop3]

  We see from Jesus' parable of the rich man & the beggar Lazarus that the temporary abode of the souls of the dead is divided into areas called 'Abraham's bosom' or 'paradise', & an area called 'torments'. Jesus plainly said He & the repentant thief would be in PARADISE that day.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

4 hours ago, robycop3 said:

  We see from Jesus' parable of the rich man & the beggar Lazarus that the temporary abode of the souls of the dead is divided into areas called 'Abraham's bosom' or 'paradise', & an area called 'torments'. Jesus plainly said He & the repentant thief would be in PARADISE that day.

We see no such thing.  

1.  Our Lord's account in Luke 16:19-31 is NOT a parable.

2.  In our Lord's account of Luke 16:19-31, He never said anything about a "temporary abode of the souls of the dead."  That is your addition to the account.

3.  In our Lord's account of Luke 16:19-31, He never once used the name "Paradise" for anything in the account.  That is also your addition to the account.

4.  It is uncertain that in our Lord's account of Luke 16:19-31 He employed the phrase "Abraham's bosom" as the official name for a "place."  It is quite possible that in our Lord's account of Luke 16:19-31 He was simply using the phrase "Abraham's bosom" actually to refer unto Abraham's own bosom/chest, in/upon which Lazarus was laying.  (It may be noticed that when describing the place wherein Abraham and Lazarus were located, our Lord never indicated that Abraham was in a place that was named Abraham's bosom.  In fact, the descriptive reads as follows -- "And seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his [Abraham's] bosom [chest]."

5.  In our Lord's account of Luke 16:19-31, He employed the term "hell" for the place wherein the rich man was after his death; but never employed the term "hell" for the place wherein Abraham and Lazarus were.  In fact, in our Lord's account of Luke 16:19-31, He did NOT employ the term "torments" as the name for a place, but as a descriptive of the place that He called "hell."  ("And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments . . . .)

5.  It is also quite possible that both Abraham and Lazarus (who was laying in/upon Abraham's bosom) were in heaven, with a "great gulf" fixed between heaven and hell (the place of torment); for Revelation 14:10 does indeed indicate that the torments of those in hell can be observed by the inhabitants of heaven.  ("And he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone IN THE PRESENCE of the holy angels, and IN THE PRESENCE of the Lamb.")

(Note: Making claims for a passage of Scripture that are not actually found in that passage of Scripture is NOT "rightly dividing the word of truth.")

On the other hand, it is completely correct that "Jesus plainly said [in Luke 23:43] He and the repentant thief would be in PARADISE that day."  Furthermore, 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 indicates that "the third Heaven" and "Paradise" are equivalent.

(Again I note: Throughout this thread discussion I am finding that the same arguments and ideas are being presented over and over again.  Even though I have handled various of these arguments and ideas through actual grammatical and Biblical exegesis, the same arguments and ideas are repeated without anyone actually responding to the actual exegesis that I have presented.  Repetition of falsehood does not turn that falsehood into truth.)

Edited November 11, 2020 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Alan]

17 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Our Lord's account in Luke 16:19-31 is NOT a parable.

I appreciate your observation and bringing out that the account in Luke 16:19-31 is not a parable. The Jehovah's Witnesses try and sneak this teaching in a conversation every time they get the chance. 

As one example I will use the following quote from the Jehovah's Witnesses book, 'Let God Be True,. in the 1946 edition.' On page 78 we read, "(Luke 16:19-31) Doesn't this show that there is a fiery hell with conscious people in it? Not at all; for this is a parable, and a parable is a symbolic and figurative statement that pictures some reality."

Edited November 12, 2020 by Alan
added: is not a parable

[Ukulelemike]

On 11/11/2020 at 7:46 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

We see no such thing.  

1.  Our Lord's account in Luke 16:19-31 is NOT a parable.
 

Why is it not a parable? Do we assume parables are not actual, true events? Do we assume Jesus made up just-so stories to make His point? That the God of creation, who knows every event in history, and beyond, in perfect detail, needs to make up stories to make His points? 

Or does He use actual events, with actual people, to teach eternal truths, every time? Why would a story like the woman who lost one of ten coins, be less an actual event, than Lazarus and the rich man? A parable is simply an earthly story with a heavenly lesson to it-that doesn't mean they aren't true and factual, as well.

18 hours ago, Alan said:

I appreciate your observation and bringing out that the account in Luke 16:19-31 is not a parable. The Jehovah's Witnesses try and sneak this teaching in a conversation every time they get the chance. 

As one example I will use the following quote from the Jehovah's Witnesses book, 'Let God Be True,. in the 1946 edition.' On page 78 we read, "(Luke 16:19-31) Doesn't this show that there is a fiery hell with conscious people in it? Not at all; for this is a parable, and a parable is a symbolic and figurative statement that pictures some reality."

When the JW's say this, they miss the fact that Paul, in Galatians, used an actual, historical event, with actual, historic people, as an allegory to teach a biblical truth, being the story of Hagar and Ishmael, and Sarah and Isaac. Being used as allegories didn't change the fact that they were true people and events.

[SureWord]

I believe that the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man is both a parable and a true event. Just because it's a parable doesn't mean it's a made up story. But even if the two characters within the story are made up the doctrine itself is true.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

If we define "parable" as a story of illustration or allegory, then the details of that story (whether historically factual or illustratively fictional) must represent some principle of truth that is DIFFERENT (in some way) than the direct information of the "parable." 

So then, if our Lord's account in Luke 16:19-31 is parabolic, what principle(s) of truth is it illustrating/allegorizing that is/are DIFFERENT than the direct information of the parable?

[Ukulelemike]

1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

If we define "parable" as a story of illustration or allegory, then the details of that story (whether historically factual or illustratively fictional) must represent some principle of truth that is DIFFERENT (in some way) than the direct information of the "parable." 

So then, if our Lord's account in Luke 16:19-31 is parabolic, what principle(s) of truth is it illustrating/allegorizing that is/are DIFFERENT than the direct information of the parable?

Since the direct context of the speaking of the story, was in response to the Pharisees deriding Jesus due to their covetousness, it would seem to me that it was given to show that, like the rich man, who probably was a regular visitor to the temple, and seen as a pillar of the community, like them, went to hell, while the kind of person they would look down upon, the beggar, went to paradise, without the ability to go and bring sacrifices to the temple, and was viewed as less than human, particularly to the Pharisees who were covetous and loved to serve mammon, the parable would have been a testimony against them.

They loved riches, like the rich man, but his love for riches only brought damnation, and so it would them, if they did learn to reject such and simply trust in God, as did Lazarus.