Expert: Clifford H. Readout, Jr. - 4/12/2004

Question
-------------------------
Followup To
Question -
My question relates to the doctrine of heaven.  The widely accepted belief in modern Christianity is that genuine believers will immediately go to heaven after they die.  However, as I read the Bible, I have failed to find any verses that discuss this idea.  What I am able to discern from the Bible is that the early Christians had a basic belief on death that was fairly consistent with the ancient Hebrew view on death.  The early Christians believed that all people who died, whether believers or unbelievers, traveled to Sheol, the place of the dead.  The Christians believed that at some point in time, the Day of the Lord would commence and, at that point, the Messiah would raise the bodies of believers from the dead.  As mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:54 and 2 Corinthians 5:1-4, the dead body will not be revived by any reentry of the soul that had previously inhabited it, but the body will instead be clothed in spiritual life from God.  After the believers are revived in this way, they will begin to reign with Christ forever.  It is made clear in the Bible that this reign will occur on earth.  This reign is called the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven interchangeably.  I do not know where modern religion has gotten the idea that believers go to heaven immediately after death.  Matthew 6:20 and 19:21, Mark 10:21, Luke 12:33 and 18:22, Colossians 1:5, and 1 Peter 1:3-4 mention how believers have treasure in heaven; however, the Bible never indicates that this treasure will be handed over to them when they get to heaven.  In fact, according to Revelations 21:2-3, God will bring the New Jerusalem from heaven down to the earth; in other words, the treasure that was stored in heaven for believers will be brought to earth.  Furthermore, Yahweh, according to Revelations 21:3, will move out of heaven and will live among his people on earth.  By doing this, God moves heaven out of the heavens and places it on the new earth that he will someday create.  
Many people interpret John 14:2 as a statement by Jesus that there are mansions in heaven that believers will live in when they get there.  However, I believe this to be false.  Jesus says that “in my Father's house there are many mansions.”  First of all, heaven is not typically called the house of God, rather this epithet belongs to the Jewish temple.  Also, in John 2:19-21, Jesus implies that the temple (i.e., his father's house) is his own body.  Further, the word translated as “mansions” in most Bibles is an extreme exaggeration of the Greek word mone, which is a derivative of the word meno, which means “to stay” or “to abide.”  The New Interpreter's Study Bible substitutes “mansions” with “dwelling places.”  “Dwelling places” is also a more consistent antecedent to Jesus' later statement: “I go to prepare a place for you.”  Therefore, what Jesus is saying in John 14:2 is not that believers will have mansions in heaven but that Jesus is going to prepare a place inside of him for his disciples.  This interpretation is corroborated by Jesus' statements in John 15—“Abide in me, and I in you (:4),” “He who abides in me, and I in him, bears much fruit (:5),” “If anyone does not abide in me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered (:6),” and “If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you (:7).”  (To abide means the same thing as to dwell.)  
Jesus himself says in Matthew 5:5 that the meek “shall inherit the earth.”  Furthermore, Colossians 1:18 says that Jesus is the firstborn from among the dead, and 1 Corinthians 15:13-23 discusses how dead believers will be resurrected in the manner in which Christ was resurrected.  Jesus is the firstborn from among the dead, and the manner in which he died and was resurrected will be the model by which all other believers will die and be resurrected.  Thus, for someone to reasonably say that believers who die will immediately float up to heaven, they would have to assume that Jesus also did the same after he died.  But the Bible clearly tells us that this is not so; Jesus went to Hades, like everyone who dies will eventually do.  Acts 2:27 and Acts 2:31 both discuss how Jesus went to Hades, 1 Peter 3:18-20 talks about how Jesus preached to the souls in prison after he died, and in Matthew 12:40 Jesus says that he will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish.
Anyone who carefully and honestly reads 1 Corinthians 15, or any of the New Testament for that matter, will see that the reward that the Christians were looking forward to was to be granted after they were resurrected, not after they died.  In 1 Corinthians 15:29-30, the author is basically asking the rhetorical question, “Why bother being a Christian and devoting ourselves to Christ if we are not going to be resurrected someday?”  If the early Christians were indeed looking forward to bliss in heaven immediately after death, why should their Christian efforts be worthless if they merely failed to be resurrected?  In verse 16 of the same chapter, the author says, “For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised.”  What this means, by deduction, is that the resurrection of believers, not the entry of believers into heaven, was the goal of Jesus' crucifixion, death, and resurrection.
Philippians 1:21—which says, “For to me, living is Christ and dying is gain”—may be used by some to support the doctrine of immediate entry into heaven.  Here, Paul has difficulty deciding the better choice between living and “to depart and be with Christ.”  However, Paul does not clearly describe the span of time between departing and being with Christ, nor does he state the conditions under which he will be with Christ.  Because of the vagueness of his statements concerning these details, Paul could very well be saying that by dying, he will be separated from the troubles of the world and eventually wake up to be with Christ when Paul is resurrected.  Further, in Philippians 3:20, Paul says, “But our citizenship is in heaven. . .”  This does not necessarily mean that believers will become citizens of heaven.  Rather, this statement was probably written for contrast with the preceding statement that discusses the enemies of Christ and how their minds are set on earthly things.  In other words, whereas Christ's enemies have “citizenship” on earth—that is, their minds set on earthly affairs—, believers have their “citizenship” in heaven—that is, their minds set on heavenly or Godly affairs.  Citizenship is meant in the sense of the responsibilities of a citizen, not the residency of a citizen.
Some have used Jesus' parable of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16:19-31 to justify the doctrine of immediate entry into heaven.  First of all, this parable is just that—a parable, and it must not be taken as a literal description of the afterlife.  Also, the place that Lazarus goes to in the parable is not heaven but Abraham's bosom.  Honest readers of the Bible must not put words into the Bible to make it conform to their preconceived ideas—Abraham's bosom is not, necessarily, in heaven.
In Revelations 7:9-17, John describes a great multitude of people from every nation standing before the throne of God and before the Lamb.  This may also be construed to mean that believers will go to heaven.  However, the book of Revelations is filled with symbolic depictions, and the referents of the depictions are not always placed in chronological order throughout the book, so the account of the multitudes before the throne of God could actually be describing the reign of God on earth that is discussed in chapters 21 and 22.  In fact, the statements in Rev. 7:9-17 concerning the “water of life” and how God will “wipe away every tear from their eyes” are repeated in Rev. 22:1-2 and Rev. 21:4, respectively.
According to my understanding of the Bible, no one ever goes to heaven, neither immediately after they die nor after they are resurrected.  Heaven is strictly the dwelling place of God until he moves and relocates on earth; heaven was never meant for human beings.  The hope that the early Christians held was in the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies concerning the final vindication and victory of Israel by Yahweh.  The book of Isaiah is a prime source of these prophecies.  The Christians hoped for forgiveness of their sins (Is. 43:25 and Is. 53), the rule of the Messiah (Is. 9:1-7), and the establishment of immortality, eternal peace, and power (Isaiah 11:1-9; 54; 60; 62; and 65:17-25).  All of Christianity is simply a fulfillment of these promises, and the Old Testament presents no promises about going to heaven.  
I am writing this because it is somewhat disturbing to me how many Christians are looking forward to something after death that their scriptures don't even tell them that their going to get.  It seems to me that Christians have overlooked much of the Bible's contents in favor of a fabricated idea.  Am I right or wrong about my discussion?  Does any part of the Bible state explicitly and unambiguously that believers will immediately enter heaven after they die?  

Answer -
Dear Mr.  Brown,

Thank you for your lengthy exposition and two simple questions.  It is not often that a questioner precedes his questions with a detailed and cogent summary of his beliefs about the issue.
Besides clearly stating your belief and some of the reasons for it, you also expose your motives for writing: “I am writing this because it is somewhat disturbing to me how many Christians are looking forward to something after death that their scriptures don't even tell them that [they're] going to get.”  I am always pleased to learn the thinking behind the questions, and discern the specific need of the questioner.  I agree that there is much error in common concepts of “heaven,” especially in the terminology used in most of Christendom to discuss it.  However, the way you present your question forces me to a corresponding presentation of my answers, both for the specific questions you ask, and for the questions you intended me to answer.  I must ask for your patience, since it will make my response much more complex than normal, and I've been told my answers are normally a bit more than requested.  Please don't judge me harshly for the complexity.  I believe I cannot fulfill my obligation to you with any less.

My obligation to AllExperts.com, and to you, is to provide an answer to the question, or sometimes multiple questions, asked.  However, this seldom satisfies either the questioner or me.  Often the question asked is not the question intended.  For example, you ask two questions:
1.  “Am I right or wrong about my discussion?”
2.  “Does any part of the Bible state explicitly and unambiguously that believers will immediately enter heaven after they die?”
Technically, and assuming the question is asked in an accurate manner, I could simply answer:
1.  Discussions are neither “right” or “wrong.”
2.  No.

These answers satisfy neither of us.  I doubt that you were so detailed in your writing just to get the simple answers to those two questions.  But neither would the simple explanation for these two answers satisfy:
1.  Discussions are neither “right” or “wrong.” (The ideas discussed may be either right or wrong, but the discussion itself is simply a method of communicating.)
2.  No.  (The limiting factor is not what the Bible states, but the mind set of the reader.  “explicitly and unambiguously” are subjective concepts.  Something obvious to me may be a mystery to you.)

Accordingly, the dimensions of the communication must be expanded to encompass the real questions, underlying assumptions, existing fallacies, and revealed truth.  If it were easy, you'd not have sent the question, and there'd be very little demand for this section of AllExperts.com.  I hope my method and reasoning will both enhance your understanding and satisfy your need.  My method will be quoting from your exposition, and responding to them, occasionally adding some exposition of my own.
To begin, I must make a clarification.  I am going to have to deal with your doctrine to answer this question.  I don't believe you merely want an opinion about the quality of your exposition.  So, I will give you both, but primarily focusing on the quality of your method, which is what your specific questions asks for.  Here we go:


Your question:  1.  “Am I right or wrong about my discussion?”

I agree with you that the common use of the word “heaven” is fallacious, but the idea intended by that use is based on some truth.  It is wrong to “discuss” issues without establishing a common terminology.  It is also wrong to dismiss conclusions due to the misuse of some of the terminology.  If I define “heaven” as the destination of the saved, then all of the saved go there sometime after they die. (I do not agree that “souls” are what get resurrected, since “souls” do not die, and are not planted.  “Bodies” get resurrected, but they get resurrected in a different form than that which was planted.)  If I define “heaven” in the strictest scriptural sense, I must define at least three of them, and accommodate all of them in my pronouncements.  It would be difficult to apply texts relating to the “dwelling place of God” (who is transcendent, beyond all time and space limitations, and absolutely omnipresent within them) to the atmosphere, and then to the canopy of the stars, and then even to the third, which are all called “heaven.”
While you intend to deny that apples (“heaven,” as commonly used, and oranges (“heaven” as scripturally used) are the same fruit, it appears that you are saying that because apples are not oranges, they aren't fruit.  You need to refine the methodology of your “discussion” to avoid this appearance.
I will repeat this comment later in this answer.


“I have failed to find any verses...”  “What I am able to discern from the Bible...”
There is an honesty here, intended or not, that I appreciate.  These statements allow for the possibility of there being verses you have failed to find, and point to a limitation needing exposure.  They also give you credit for whatever truth you have discovered, but also place the blame for any failure to discover the truth of the matter on your own ability to discern it.
Please don't be angered, these are not insults.  I commended your abilities in the opening paragraph, and am not disparaging them now.  I am pointing out what you are revealing in what you wrote.  It should help both of us.  My giving a brief answer, and depending on your own abilities to discern its validity, might be a more pleasing method, but it would not satisfy my integrity or your need for real answers.


The early Christians believed that all people who died, whether believers or unbelievers, traveled to Sheol, the place of the dead.  The Christians believed that at some point in time, the Day of the Lord would commence and, at that point, the Messiah would raise the bodies of believers from the dead.
If you review all the pertinent texts you may notice something interesting that many commentators miss.  Prior to the New Testament, any one, either righteous or unrighteous, who dies is spoken of as going “down,” but in the New Testament the righteous are always spoken of as going “up.”
The usual interpretation is that this is a result of the fulfilling of Psalms 68:18 as defined by Ephesians 4:8.  That there is a temporary dwelling place for the souls of men is obvious.  That it is not the grave is also obvious.  Beside Ecclesiastes 12:7, 1 Corinthians 15, and other passages detail that there is a difference between the body and the soul, and what happens to each at death.  The body that gets planted is not resurrected in the same form as it was planted.  In the New Testament, the righteous who have died do not share the same dwelling place as the unrighteous, but all the bodies return to dust.


“As mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:54 and 2 Corinthians 5:1-4, the dead body will not be revived by any reentry of the soul that had previously inhabited it, but the body will instead be clothed in spiritual life from God.”
This comment misses the facts of the text entirely.  It is not “the body” which will be “clothed in spiritual life from God.”  The body is the earthly house, the tabernacle, which clothes the human being in this life, and will be dissolved, and replaced with a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.  The fleshly body will not inherit the inheritance (1 Corinthians 15:50).
Here is a fact to include in your study.  Human beings are not bodies, neither are they spirits.  They are living souls, even after the death of the body that housed them in this life (Matthew 22:32; Mark 12:27; Luke 20:38).  Some texts deal with the body, and these cannot be applied to the human being, the soul.  Most problems in the study of the “afterlife” come from confusing the two.


“This reign is called the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven interchangeably.”
I wish this were as simple as it seems, and as simple as you claim.  However, I must suggest that the word “interchangeably” makes the statement wrong.  While an argument may be made that the two phrases often, but not always, refer to the same thing, it must also be noted that they refer to different aspects of the thing.  Only context provides the evidence needed to discern what is intended by the particular use of one phrase over the other.  If I had time, I would give you the whole study on this, but it is impossible in this forum.


“I do not know where modern religion has gotten the idea that believers go to heaven immediately after death.”
The assumption here is that it is only “modern religion” which has this idea.  In fact, the idea has existed, and been debated, from before the New Testament era.  Even very ancient expositors and commentators thought that 2 Corinthians 5:8 made being absent from the body equivalent to being present with the Lord.


“...however, the Bible never indicates that this treasure will be handed over to them when they get to heaven.”
This could be true, but only if your other assumptions are true.  It is the proliferation of comments like this one which demand that your motive for writing be questioned.  It makes it appear that you are not seeking any answers, but proclaiming your own conclusions.  And why do men disguise the proclamation of their conclusions as questions to “experts”?  Is it to boast of their superior understanding?  To expose the lack of the same in the “experts”?  To propagate the truth?  Again, I am not accusing, just revealing something.  It is difficult to express the parameters of an investigation without framing it within one's own beliefs about the subject.  It is the presuppositions, or even preliminary conclusions, which hinder proper investigation of scriptural truth.
Rather than give a detailed exposition of the texts, let me suggest that the absence of a direct and unmistakable statement does not justify the comment, “never indicates.”


“Revelations 21:2-3” and “Revelations 21:3” and “Revelations 7:9-17” and “the book of Revelations.”
There is no book in the Bible titled “Revelations.” There is one which includes the singular “Revelation” in it's title.  I suggest that missing this fact makes proper understanding of the purpose of the book very unlikely, and encourages misapplication of its texts.  This is not a comment opposing all of your conclusions, just a helpful hint for your future consideration.  I agree that the “heaven” in common theology does not exist, but that “heaven” is actually “New Jerusalem,” in whatever manifestation it will have.


“In fact, according to Revelations 21:2-3, God will bring the New Jerusalem from heaven down to the earth; in other words, the treasure that was stored in heaven for believers will be brought to earth.”
The “in other words” are followed by interpretation, not translation, and you do not support the interpretation. The text does not mention what happens or happened to the treasure. Neither does it eliminate the possibility that the believers already inhabit the city when it is brought down.  I mention this only to demonstrate that there is a fallacy in your exposition.  It has begun with a presupposition, and builds its arguments on the application of the presupposition to each considered text.  This is a methodology doomed to failure, even if it manages to arrive at a correct conclusion.


“First of all, heaven is not typically called the house of God, rather this epithet belongs to the Jewish temple.”
1 Corinthians 3:16; 2 Corinthians 6:16; and Revelation 21:22 may be relevant to demonstrate a fallacy in this reasoning.  Nevertheless, I must agree that mone (“mansions” in John 14:2) does not refer to a particular kind of physical housing in New Jerusalem (although there are scriptural reasons to believe the city does have physical dwellings), but is rather used as a metaphor for salvation. Do not ignore the context of John 14:2.  The words were spoken to a specific person, in a specific circumstance.  They were spoken to Simon (Peter) concluding the same conversation in which he was told of his upcoming denials of Christ.  The Lord was assuring Peter that his personal failure was already factored into the plan of God, and would be overcome by the victory of the Lord.


“Therefore, what Jesus is saying in John 14:2 is not that believers will have mansions in heaven but that Jesus is going to prepare a place inside of him for his disciples.  This interpretation is corroborated by Jesus‚ statements in John 15.”
This conclusion is wrong.  The words “inside of him,” may be justified in another context, they are altogether misapplied here.  John 14:3 “And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.”  The dwelling place is not “inside of him,” but “where he is.” They are not received “into him” but “unto him.”  The entire imagery of being “in Christ” concerns time and events prior to those Jesus speaks about in John 14.  One must be “in Christ” before he will be received into that place Jesus prepared.  Proper timing of the soteriology is crucial.  Accordingly, I also refute the idea that Jesus corroborated your interpretation of John 14:2.


“Jesus is the firstborn from among the dead, and the manner in which he died and was resurrected will be the model by which all other believers will die and be resurrected.”
If the fact that He is the “firstborn from the dead” (prototokos ek ton nekron) can be applied in this way, His being the “only begotten” could also be applied to refute your assumption.
Also, John 12:32-34 and 18:31-32 specify the manner in which he would die, and the biblical and historical accounts of that death are precise.  The manner of His death was crucifixion.  Yet this is not the manner of death of all believers.  If we demand a literal interpretation of the terminology, your argument is nullified.  If we allow the metaphorical use, your argument is destroyed.
Additionally, 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 eliminates the possibility of your “model” being applied to those who are “alive and remain” unto the coming of the Lord.  I cannot include a significant treatment of eschatology in this answer, but this is enough to prove the point.


“But the Bible clearly tells us that this is not so; Jesus went to Hades, like everyone who dies will eventually do.  Acts 2:27 and Acts 2:31 both discuss how Jesus went to Hades, 1 Peter 3:18-20 talks about how Jesus preached to the souls in prison after he died, and in Matthew 12:40 Jesus says that he will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish.”
...“like everyone who dies will eventually do.” This assumption has already been proven wrong.  And, if it was still an operative assumption, it could not be used as an interpretive limitation.  Any falsehood can be supported if we are allowed to read our assumptions into the evidence.  This is the most significant fault in the “discussion” you asked me to judge right or wrong.  Even if some of your conclusions are correct (and I have stated my agreement with some of them), the “discussion” is fatally flawed by the use and abuse of assumptions, some of which are manifestly in error.


“Anyone who carefully and honestly reads 1 Corinthians 15, or any of the New Testament for that matter, will see that the reward that the Christians were looking forward to was to be granted after they were resurrected, not after they died.
Here, again, you expose yourself in an uncomplimentary manner, one unworthy of your intellect and purpose.  How would you react to my writing to you, “Anyone with any intellectual honesty must conclude that the soul of a Christian is immediately translated into the presence of the Lord at the time of their death.”?  This is a repeated failure in your “discussion” of the issue.  If you are unable to acknowledge that your own understanding may be in error, don't dishonestly ask a question about it.  Simply declare your truth openly.  But, I advise a different approach altogether.  Ask the questions, but do so with an awareness that you may not have a perfect understanding yourself, and that careful and honest scholars may know something you don't.  Otherwise, ask the question with the clearly understood purpose of using it as a teaching technique.


In 1 Corinthians 15:29-30, the author is basically asking the rhetorical question, ‘Why bother being a Christian and devoting ourselves to Christ if we are not going to be resurrected someday?'  If the early Christians were indeed looking forward to bliss in heaven immediately after death, why should their Christian efforts be worthless if they merely failed to be resurrected?”
This is a complete misapplication of the text.  It has nothing to do with your subject, and forcing it into the mold of your subject dishonors the text.  I am not accusing you of any malicious intent. I am answering your question, “Am I right or wrong about my discussion?”  such discussions are wrong if they misapply texts in an effort to support the assumptions they are trying to prove.


“In verse 16 of the same chapter, the author says, ‘For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised.'  What this means, by deduction, is that the resurrection of believers, not the entry of believers into heaven, was the goal of Jesus‚ crucifixion, death, and resurrection.”
I disagree with your “deduction.”  I think the text does not relate to your subject except in the most shallow manner.  The point of Paul's teaching is found in :17, where the sentence ends: “And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.” The issue he is addressing is the escape from sin provided by Christ.  That a real escape from sins was provided by Christ is confirmed only by His resurrection, which was the proof of His claims to be God manifest in flesh.  The gospel, the good news or glad tidings, is that men can now escape the bondage of sin.  I cannot go into this as fully as I'd like to, but I will include a few verses for you to consider: Luke 24:44-49; Acts 10:43; 13:32-38; 1 Peter 1:9-16.  I will also include a modified portion of one of my copyrighted studies, titled “The Timetable and the Tomb.”  It follows:

<begin quote> Christianity is totally dependent upon the identity of Jesus of Nazareth, who is called Christ.  The historical evidence of His life and death is overwhelming.  However, many people question the truth of the claims He made, and that were made by those who knew Him, concerning his identity.  The Jews, for the most part, rejected Him because of the identity He claimed.  The gentiles who were exposed to his gospel, for the most part, forsook all other gods for Him.  The identity of Jesus Christ is the issue upon which Christianity is either established or exposed.  Paul expressed it this way: “For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.”  1 Corinthians 2:2.
Notice that Paul did not write in this context, “Jesus Christ crucified,” but rather “Jesus Christ, and him crucified.”  Paul identified the “and him” a few verses later as “the Lord of glory,” and also “the Lord from heaven.”  The emphasis is totally upon the identity of the man Christ Jesus.  To Paul the issue of the validity of Christianity was simply settled in the fact that, to him, Jesus Christ is the Lord of glory.  But the real issue is not who men, even the great Apostle Paul, believe Jesus Christ to be.  Men can believe lies.  Men can make claims based on assumption and ignorance.  Men can declare error to be truth.  The focus of any serious investigation into the validity of Christianity must be who Jesus Christ really is.  For if men believe Him to be something or someone He is not, they have believed a lie.  Such believing is merely another subjective religion and not Biblical Christianity.
If the claims of Jesus Christ can be proven false He must properly be declared a madman at best, or a charlatan, a horrible, deceiving liar at worst.  Christianity would then be forced to take its place on the slag heap of vain religions.  But if his claims can be proven true, reasonable men must accept Him for who He claimed to be and adopt Christianity as the one valid and reliable system of understanding Truth.
Resurrection is not the primary issue here, either.  Resurrection touches the issue only when the focus is upon the identity of the One that arose from the dead!  “And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.”  1 Corinthians 15:17.
The resurrection becomes part of the issue only because Jesus made it the proof of the identity He claimed!  Resurrection would never have become an issue if Jesus had not made his claims dependent upon the proof of his resurrection from the dead.  It is not likely that men would have made such an uncontrollable and impossible event the proof of their claims.  Jesus forced it upon them.  He chose the one event that would be totally beyond his control, unless He was who He claimed to be, to be the only sign of the truth of his claim!
As difficult a proof as that may have seemed to be, Jesus was even more precise and specific.  He also promised an exacting timetable for His resurrection.  Not only would He rise from the dead, but this resurrection had to come on a precise and specific schedule.  There is no resemblance to anything subjective here.
The claims He made that were to be proven by that resurrection are found in Matthew 12:1-45.  Jesus made eight claims in this passage that concern his identity.
1.  Matthew 12:6:  That He is One greater than the Temple!  Please consider this claim with a view to Matthew 23:16-22!
2.  Matthew 12:7:  That He is “the guiltless!”  Please consider this claim with a view to Romans 3:9-10, 23!
3.  Matthew 12:8:  That He is the LORD of the Sabbath!  Please consider this claim with a view to Genesis 2:1 —3 and Exodus 20:8-11!
4.  Matthew 12:9-13:  That He is the One who owns men as righteously as a shepherd owns sheep!  Please consider this claim with a view to Ezekiel 18:4 and Romans 14:8!
5.  Matthew 12:14-21:  That He is the promised Christ!  This is only one of his identity claims!  Please consider this claim with a view to Exodus 15:2 and Isaiah 12:1-3!
6.  Matthew 12:22-37:  That He is the One who judges devils and men!  Please consider this claim with a view to Genesis 18:25 and Hebrews 12:23!
7.  Matthew 12:38-41:  That He is greater than Jonah, who converted Ninevah's gentiles with the Word of the LORD!  Please consider this claim with a view to John 13:16 and John 15:20!
8.  Matthew 12:42-45:  That He is greater than Solomon, whose kingdom was the most glorious ever known on earth!  Please consider this claim with a view to 2 Chronicles 1:1, 7-12!
Jesus Christ claimed to be the God of Israel incarnate to save the souls of men!  And it was this claim that drew the challenge for proof.  It is this claim that must be validated or exposed.  Here are the challenges and His response:
“The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would show them a sign from heaven.  :4  A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.”  Matthew 16:1, 4.
“And others, tempting him, sought of him a sign from heaven.  :29  And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.  For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation.”  Luke 11:16, 29—30.
“Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.  But He answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.  The men of Ninevah shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.”  Matthew 12:38—41.
To establish the identity of Jesus Christ and, hence, to validate Christianity, the exact fulfillment of this sign must be confirmed. <end quote>

So, Paul's comments are not focusing on the issue of the resurrection of Christians, but the escape from sin provided by Christ.  Again, ignoring the context of the verse discredits your “discussion.”


“Philippians 1:21 - which says, “For to me, living is Christ and dying is gain” may be used by some to support the doctrine of immediate entry into heaven.  Here, Paul has difficulty deciding the better choice between living and “to depart and be with Christ.”  However, Paul does not clearly describe the span of time between departing and being with Christ, nor does he state the conditions under which he will be with Christ.  Because of the vagueness of his statements
2 Corinthians 5:8 is useful in interpreting Philippians 1:21-23.  And notice what evidence is presented in Philippians.
:21 “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.”  Living this life is fleshly suffering, but the result of death is gain.  Do you wish to argue that 1900 or more years in Hades prior to getting to be with Christ is better, and a gain over living Christ in this life?
:23 “For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:”  What makes it such a difficult decision? What makes it so desirable? And what makes it “far better”?  It is unlikely that a millennium or two in Hades is as good as the same amount of time in Christ in this life.
Additionally, the argument about the absence of a clearly described span of time is worthless.  The responding argument is this, “Because Paul does not specify a span of time between departing and being with Christ, we must conclude that it is immediate.”  Both arguments are wrong, regardless of the truth of the conclusion.


“Philippians 3:20, Paul says, ‘But our citizenship is in heaven.  .  .'  This does not necessarily mean that believers will become citizens of heaven.  Rather, this statement was probably written for contrast with the preceding statement that discusses the enemies of Christ and how their minds are set on earthly things.”
My objection concerns your use of the word “probably,” even though the meaning of “citizenship” (politeuma; community, lifestyle) is somewhat abused in this paragraph.  I agree that the word does not referring to citizenship according to the modern political understanding of the word.  But it does include the connotations of societal association which are implicit in language used in other texts (1 Peter 2:9 coming immediately to mind).


Some have used Jesus‚ parable of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16:19-31 to justify the doctrine of immediate entry into heaven.  First of all, this parable is just that - a parable, and it must not be taken as a literal description of the afterlife.
That Luke 16:19-31 is a parable is powerfully refuted by two often overlooked facts.  1. Jesus never used a falsehood as the illustration of the truth.  The account of Lazarus does not misrepresent the facts of the afterlife to establish other facts.  2. Jesus names one of the characters in this account. Luke 16:20 “And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus...”  Is there an example in any parable of Jesus naming one of the characters?  Was Jesus speaking truth when he said, “there was a certain beggar named Lazarus”?  Was there a certain beggar named Lazarus?  Branding this story a parable creates some very serious problems.
Also, there is another incident in the Scripture which must be considered, and it does specify a timing.  I will refer to it at the end.


Honest readers of the Bible must not put words into the Bible to make it conform to their preconceived ideas - Abraham's bosom is not, necessarily, in heaven.
I agree with both parts of this statement, yet I do not agree with some of the conclusions you use them to support.  I also must say with equal force that Abraham's bosom is certainly the opposite of Hades.  It is certainly a place of comfort and awareness to which the souls of the righteous go after death.
The power of your complaint is the misunderstanding of the nature of ‘heaven” in the cosmology of Christendom.  And that cosmology is erroneous, as you contend.  Nevertheless, some aspects of it are based in truth.  One shouldn't destroy the wheat along with the tares.  Let's rather provide correction for the error, keep the truth, and come to a right conclusion.


However, the book of Revelations is filled with symbolic depictions, and the referents of the depictions are not always placed in chronological order throughout the book, so the account of the multitudes before the throne of God could actually be describing the reign of God on earth that is discussed in chapters 21 and 22.
There is, in fact, a specific chronological order to the events in the Book of Revelation.  But, it is not recorded in a purely linear fashion.  The writing uses “reviews” (closer examination of time periods and events already written about) and “previews” (overviews of time periods and events to be written about).  It may be easy to miss the chronology, but this is most likely a disadvantage of reading with presuppositions.
Neither is your “discussion” strengthened by the use of “possibilities” created by a denial of absolutely conclusive proofs.  Suffice it to say that I do not agree with your “could” in the statement above. Revelation 7 does not describe the reign of God discusses in chapters 21 and 22.


According to my understanding of the Bible, no one ever goes to heaven, neither immediately after they die nor after they are resurrected.  Heaven is strictly the dwelling place of God until he moves and relocates on earth; heaven was never meant for human beings.
Actually, it is according to your understanding of “heaven” as you see it depicted in the Bible.  I agree with you that the common use of the word “heaven” is fallacious, but it is based on some truth.  It is wrong to discuss issues without establishing a common terminology.  It is also wrong to dismiss conclusions due to the misuse of some of the terminology.  If I define “heaven” as the destination of the saved, then all of the saved go there sometime after they die. (I do not agree that “souls” are what get resurrected, since “souls” do not die, and are not planted.  “Bodies” get resurrected.)  If I define “heaven” in the strictest scriptural sense, I must define at least three of them, and accommodate all of them in my pronouncements.  It would be difficult to apply texts relating to the “dwelling place of God” (who is omnipresent within creation, and transcendent beyond it) to the atmosphere, and the canopy of the stars, and even the third, which are all called “heaven.”
While you intend to deny that apples and oranges are the same fruit, it appears that you are saying that because apples are not oranges, they aren't fruit.  You need to refine the methodology of your “discussion” to avoid this appearance.


All of Christianity is simply a fulfillment of these promises, and the Old Testament presents no promises about going to heaven.
Genesis 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.
This is directly interpreted in the New Testament:
Hebrews 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
Where did God take him?  If you missed this obvious signpost, what else might you have missed?  Do you really intend to tell me that you have studied the texts enough to categorically state that there are no Old Testament promises about the destination of the righteous?  Or are you again limiting your comments to “heaven” as the rhetorical abode of the omnipresent?


It seems to me that Christians have overlooked much of the Bible's contents in favor of a fabricated idea.
I agree with this comment.  But it is to be expected.  Roman Catholicism has always done its best to keep the Scriptures out of the hands and minds of its subjects.  Almost all of the Protestant churches prefer their peoples to honor God's Word without becoming personally involved with it.  Could it be because the churches derive their power from the ignorance of the people, and use extra-biblical sources to substantiate their authority?
I agree that the common use of the word “heaven” is not technically correct, but the idea of an afterlife blessed in the presence of the Lord Jesus Christ, to which a saved soul goes at death, is an idea that I find sufficient support in Scripture to endorse.


Your question:  2.  “Does any part of the Bible state explicitly and unambiguously that believers will immediately enter heaven after they die?”

If nothing in the comments above are to be allowed, I submit Luke 23:43 as a likely candidate.  “And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.”  I don't think paradeisos (“paradise”) is the same as hades (“hell”).  Neither do I think semeron (“To day”) means “in a few thousand years.”


Again, please forgive the length and complexity of the answers to your two questions.  Your discussions are neither right or wrong, but they could use refining.  Your conclusions about the abode and location of the righteous after the death of the body, I think are incorrect.  Your complaint about the failure of the churches and people to accurately read and apply the truth revealed in the Bible is justified and correct.  The fact that you consider many texts in your analysis is commendable.  I enjoyed it enough to have given you ten hours of my time in the preparation of this answer.  I hope it helps.  I am willing to discuss the issues further as you might wish, and my difficult schedule permits.

Yours for Truth,

CR









I appreciate your response to my previous question.  

Some of your responses to my previous discussion, I agree with; and some of the responses, I disagree with, but to try to justify myself concerning some of them in the present discussion would be to engage in worthless nitpicking.  In my present discussion, I have given a defense for some of points that I made in my first discussion.  This will be done in the same format as your answer to my first discussion.        

“While you intend to deny that apples (“heaven,” as commonly used) and oranges (“heaven” as scripturally used) are the same fruit, it appears that you are saying that because apples are not oranges, they aren't fruit.”
I am not saying that apples are not oranges and are therefore not fruit.  I am saying that oranges (a human-receiving heaven as scripturally used) are a nonexistent fruit that people use to validate the identity of apples (a human-receiving heaven as commonly used).  I think that the basic thing that you've done is accused me of a fallacy that you yourself have committed.  You accuse me of having presuppositions about the bible's doctrine of heaven, when it seems to be you who have the presuppositions.  To illustrate this, I will give my own analogy.  Imagine for a moment that the bible is the story of Cinderella.  (Assume that there is only one version of the Cinderella story.)  In the story, Cinderella, at some point, leaves a glass slipper.  Some people who know about the story (but haven't read it closely) choose to believe that the glass slipper that Cinderella left behind was a green glass slipper.  On the other hand, you would disagree with them and agree with me that the story does not mention Cinderella's having a green glass slipper.  Nevertheless, you maintain that Cinderella's slipper did, in fact, have a certain color.  However, I would argue that the story simply does not say that Cinderella's glass slipper was green or that it had any color at all.  The story says that Cinderella had a glass slipper, and there is absolutely no justified reason to believe anything else about this aspect of the story.  However, you still claim that I am being illogical in refusing to ascribe a color to Cinderella's glass slipper.  
The fact is that I have never seen any scriptures that explicitly describe the idea of souls going to heaven, but I HAVE seen scriptures that explicitly describe people being resurrected from the dead.  I will admit that certain scriptures are worded in a way that may give someone with a previous belief in a human-receiving heaven the idea that that doctrine is biblical, but I am quite convinced that a non-Christian with no previous indoctrination who reads the bible will come to the conclusion that biblical Christianity believes in a doctrine of resurrection and that the idea of going to heaven immediately after death will not seriously be extracted from the scriptures.


“The text does not mention what happens or happened to the treasure.  Neither does it eliminate the possibility that the believers already inhabit the city when it is brought down.”
I believe you have misunderstood my point.  You may have been assuming that believers were promised some other kind of treasure such as money or jewelry.  But since the bible does not elaborate on what this treasure precisely is, I assumed that “treasure” is used as a metaphor for the New Jerusalem, eternal life, eternal peace, etc—the “eternal inheritance” mentioned in Hebrews 9:15, the “purchased possession” in Ephesians 1:14, and the promises in such OT verses as Isaiah 11:1-9; 54; 60; 62; and 65:17-25.  Furthermore, if believers already inhabited the New Jerusalem, then there would have been no reason for it to be taken down to earth to be among men; God would have already been among men.  Evidently, he had not already been among men or dwelt with men, else he could not have BEGUN to dwell among them.
All that I can assume is that the New Jerusalem, with all the bliss that lies within it, is the treasure that was spoken about.  And since the New Jerusalem had not since been inhabited by mortals, as proven previously, no mortal had ever been presented this treasure until the time discussed in Rev. 21:3.


“Also, John 12:32-34 and 18:31-32 specify the manner in which he would die, and the biblical and historical accounts of that death are precise. The manner of His death was crucifixion. Yet this is not the manner of death of all believers. If we demand a literal interpretation of the terminology, your argument is nullified. If we allow the metaphorical use, your argument is destroyed.”
When I said that believers die in the same manner as Christ, I meant that believers will go to Hades, as Christ did.  I should have been more specific on that point.   However, Galatians 2:19 could possibly be used to counter your argument, though—“I have been crucified with Christ.”  On your last point, what I should have said was, “Jesus is the firstborn from among the dead, and the manner in which he died and was resurrected will be the model by which all other believers WHO DIE will die and be resurrected.”



“...like everyone who dies will eventually do.' This assumption has already been proven wrong. And, if it was still an operative assumption, it could not be used as an interpretive limitation. Any falsehood can be supported if we are allowed to read our assumptions into the evidence. This is the most significant fault in the “discussion” you asked me to judge right or wrong. Even if some of your conclusions are correct (and I have stated my agreement with some of them), the “discussion” is fatally flawed by the use and abuse of assumptions, some of which are manifestly in error.”
I wrote “. . . like everyone who dies will eventually do” while keeping in mind the Hebrew conception of death.  Throughout the OT, people who die are described as “sleeping with their fathers” or going down to the grave, that is, Sheol or Hades.  My study of the bible gives me no reason to think that this conception had changed any in New Testament times.  In 2 Esdras 4:35 and 7:95 (an Apocryphal book), we see that Late Jewish and early Christian thought involved the righteous going to Hades after they died and eagerly awaiting their resurrection.  (2 Esdras 4:35—“Did not the souls of the righteous in their chambers ask about these matters, saying, ‘How long are we to remain here?  And when will the harvest of our reward come?'”  2 Esdras 7:95—The fourth order, they understand the rest that they now enjoy, being gathered into their chambers and guarded by angels in profound quiet, and the glory waiting for them in the last days.”)  Here, it seems that you have begged the question in a surreptitious way; you have advanced your idea of a human-receiving heaven by immediately assuming that something different from Hades is encountered, according to Jewish thought, by people who die.  
If, before Christ's resurrection, righteous people went to ecstasy in heaven after they died, then it seems as if Jesus' raising of Lazarus in John 11 and his resurrecting of the girl in Mark 5:21-43 were terribly cruel acts.  And if, after Christ's resurrection, the righteous went to heaven after death, then why would Paul say in 1 Corinthians 15:51, “We will not all die, but we will all be changed [on the Lord's coming].”  Verses 50-55 of this chapter make clear that on the day of the Lord, ALL believers will shed their perishable bodies and assume imperishable bodies.  Of course, if believers, whether dead or alive, will become imperishable on the day of the Lord, then believers who are now in heaven must be perishable in heaven.  I don't think any believer in the human-receiving heaven would accept that the righteous are capable of dying in heaven.


“This is a complete misapplication of the text. It has nothing to do with your subject, and forcing it into the mold of your subject dishonors the text. I am not accusing you of any malicious intent. I am answering your question, “Am I right or wrong about my discussion?” such discussions are wrong if they misapply texts in an effort to support the assumptions they are trying to prove.”
I do not understand why this is a misapplication of the text or irrelevant.  The way I see it, this was the best and most relevant point that I made in my whole discussion.  1 Corinthians 15:23 says that believers will be made alive AT CHRIST'S COMING.  One cannot say that being in heaven is to be dead, since heaven by anyone's description or definition, is not a place for dead people (which would make it Hades) but for living souls.  The only possible assumption is that the only way that believers can be made alive at Christ's coming is if they are dead at Christ's coming. How much more alive can a person in heaven become?  Further, Romans 8:22-23 states clearly what biblical Christianity is looking forward to after death: “We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for the adoption, THE REDEMPTION OF OUR BODIES.  “Adoption” refers to the revealing of the children of God (:19) on the Lord's coming.  Whether “redemption” of “bodies” means to have one's mortal body redeemed by life or to redeem a fresh, new body, I do not know; but what is apparent to me by this verse is that if Paul did, in fact, believe in a human-receiving heaven, it must not have been very important to him.


“I disagree with your “deduction.” I think the text does not relate to your subject except in the most shallow manner. The point of Paul's teaching is found in :17, where the sentence ends: “And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.” The issue he is addressing is the escape from sin provided by Christ. That a real escape from sins was provided by Christ is confirmed only by His resurrection, which was the proof of His claims to be God manifest in flesh. The gospel, the good news or glad tidings, is that men can now escape the bondage of sin.”
I think part of what has happened here is that you are refuting my argument with your argument while both of our arguments are identical.  The bible says that sin and death are fundamentally the same thing (Romans 5:12; 6:23; 8:6; and 1 Corinthians 15:17-18).  Therefore, forgiveness of sins and resurrection from the dead are, theologically speaking, the same thing.  They are equated because there is a causal relationship between them.  Further, it seems that verse 16 and 17 are actually premises of which verse 18 is the conclusion-- “THEN those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.”    If verse 18 is indeed the conclusion of Paul's point then the resurrection of the dead is indeed the goal of Christ's resurrection.  Forgiveness of sins was the means to an end—being resurrected into eternal life.  Also, 1 Corinthians 15:26 says that the last enemy to be destroyed is death, not sin.
Also, it seems to me that the “bondage of sin” is synonymous with the penalty of sin, which is death.  What else could the “bondage of sin” be?  The only bondage that I have seen associated with sin is the “bondage of corruption” in Romans 8:21, the “bondage” in Hebrews 2:15, and the bondage of sin as equated with death in Romans 6:20-21.  As James 2:21, 23, and 25 make clear, it is possible to be righteous in a provisional, pre-Christian sense without being a Christian, as neither Abraham nor Rahab were Christians.  Thus, believers in Christ do not become believers so that they can become incapable of sinning (which the account of a believer fornicating with his father's wife exemplifies [1 Corinthians 5:1]) but so that their sin would not be placed on their “permanent record,” so to speak.  Also, don't forget the famous verse John 3:16—God gave his son so that believers can have everlasting life.
At any rate, there are probably equal scriptures saying both that Jesus' goal was to forgive sins and that Jesus' goal was to grant eternal life.  I tend to make sense of this by saying that forgiveness of sins and the granting of eternal life is the same thing. Yet, it still seems to me that the granting of eternal life is more important since it is the end to which forgiveness of sins is the means—Romans 5:9.




“That Luke 16:19-31 is a parable is powerfully refuted by two often overlooked facts. 1. Jesus never used a falsehood as the illustration of the truth. The account of Lazarus does not misrepresent the facts of the afterlife to establish other facts. 2. Jesus names one of the characters in this account. Luke 16:20 “And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus...” Is there an example in any parable of Jesus naming one of the characters? Was Jesus speaking truth when he said, “there was a certain beggar named Lazarus”? Was there a certain beggar named Lazarus? Branding this story a parable creates some very serious problems.”
I am a little confused about your response here.  It seems that you are begging the question in your first “overlooked fact.”  You said that Jesus never used a falsehood as the illustration of the truth.  Of course, any analogy or parable can be defined as a falsehood as the illustration of the truth.  A parable is intentionally fictional—to be fictional is to be intentionally false.  Therefore, what you have done is said that Luke 16:19-31 is not a parable because Jesus never used parables. Of course, you cannot claim that Jesus never spoke a parable, in light of Luke 8:10 and Matt. 13:34.  Because a parable is an intentional falsehood as the illustration of the truth, I don't see any reason why Jesus could not have used a parable that skewed the facts of the afterlife.  
Further, even if you do believe Luke 16:19-31 to be a parable, there is no more reason to think that believers will literally be carried away by the angels to sit next to Abraham than there is to believe that the wicked will enter the kingdom of God and then be thrown out of it (Matthew 22:13) or that unbelievers will yell to God through a door, begging to be let into the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 25:11).  Also, you seem to be begging the question along another pattern.  You said that Jesus does not misrepresent the facts of the afterlife; however, it is my argument that the “afterlife” means nothing more than the departure from Sheol.  However, you have made your statement with the presupposition that the afterlife is something other than that, i.e., bliss in heaven.   In other words, your conclusion that there is an afterlife immediately after death is bound within your premise, “The account of Lazarus does not misrepresent the facts of the afterlife…”  I am also confused about your second “overlooked fact.”  What difference does it make that Jesus mentions Lazarus' name?  It seems to me that the important fact is that Jesus said that this man existed, and that the manner in which he said that Lazarus existed is no different from the manner in which he stated (whether literally or hypothetically) the existence of the characters and objects in all of his other parables (or anecdotes).  (He usually states their existence with the formula, “There was a…”)  


“I agree with both parts of this statement, yet I do not agree with some of the conclusions you use them to support. I also must say with equal force that Abraham's bosom is certainly the opposite of Hades. It is certainly a place of comfort and awareness to which the souls of the righteous go after death. The power of your complaint is the misunderstanding of the nature of ‘heaven” in the cosmology of Christendom. And that cosmology is erroneous, as you contend. Nevertheless, some aspects of it are based in truth. One shouldn't destroy the wheat along with the tares. Let's rather provide correction for the error, keep the truth, and come to a right conclusion.”
It seems to me that you have once again put your preconceived conclusion inside of one of you premises.  (It is interesting to me how some writers will use the word “certainly” in propositions that they are not certain about.)  If I am not mistaken, a “place of comfort and awareness to which the souls of the righteous go after death” is a fitting definition of the concept of heaven.  Please correct me if I am wrong in saying that this is circular reasoning.  Furthermore, I must reiterate that my point is not that the concept of a human-receiving heaven is false but that there is nothing in the bible that proposes any idea on which the concept of a human-receiving heaven can logically be based.



“There is, in fact, a specific chronological order to the events in the Book of Revelation. But, it is not recorded in a purely linear fashion. The writing uses “reviews” (closer examination of time periods and events already written about) and “previews” (overviews of time periods and events to be written about). It may be easy to miss the chronology, but this is most likely a disadvantage of reading with presuppositions.”
What is the difference between “a specific chronological order” and “a purely linear fashion”?  It seems to me that the two terms are exactly synonymous and that, therefore, this particular argument is self-defeating.



“Genesis 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.
This is directly interpreted in the New Testament:
Hebrews 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. Where did God take him? If you missed this obvious signpost, what else might you have missed? Do you really intend to tell me that you have studied the texts enough to categorically state that there are no Old Testament promises about the destination of the righteous? Or are you again limiting your comments to “heaven” as the rhetorical abode of the omnipresent?”
It seems that here you have again begged the question.  I never said that the Old Testament did not give promises about the destination of the righteous.  I said that the OT does not promise that that destination resembles anything related to the concept of heaven.  What you have done is misquoted me by replacing my word “heaven” with your phrase “destination of the righteous.”  In other words, you have implicitly equated heaven with the destination of the righteous, thus presupposing in your premise that this “heaven” exists.  From my reading of the OT, heaven is the dwelling place of God and his angels—I see no evidence that the OT authors conceived of it in any other way.
Furthermore, I am confused about the last question that you put forth in this portion: “Or are you again limiting your comments to ‘heaven' as the rhetorical abode of the omnipresent?”  Again reiterating the point of my discussion, I have no reason not to limit my comments to “heaven” as the rhetorical abode of the omnipresent because I simply cannot find any scriptures that tell me that heaven is anything but that.  There is a heaven; there is just no heaven made for human beings—this is what I am saying.  While I try to support this point via my inability to find scriptures to convince me otherwise, it seems that you are trying to support your point that a human-receiving heaven exists by doing nothing more than criticizing me for not agreeing with you.
Furthermore, correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that you have applied your presupposition about a human-receiving heaven to the way in which you interpret Genesis 5:24.  It is possible that God took Enoch to heaven.  It is also possible that God took Enoch to Disneyworld or Cancun, Mexico.  Whatever the case, the Bible simply does not say where God took Enoch.  (Personally, I don't think it matters where he was taken; I think the whole point of Genesis 5:24 is simply that he was taken.)


“If nothing in the comments above are to be allowed, I submit Luke 23:43 as a likely candidate. ‘And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.' I don't think paradeisos (“paradise”) is the same as hades (“hell”). Neither do I think semeron (“To day”) means ‘in a few thousand years.'”
I am trying to figure out how Luke 23:43 can be evidence of the existence of a human-receiving heaven when to assume that Jesus went to Paradise immediately after he died is to catastrophically clash with the straightforward statements in Acts 2:27, Acts 2:31, 1 Peter 3:18-20, and Matthew 12:40 concerning how Jesus went to Hades after he died.  Matt.12:40 even goes so far as to give the specific nu

Answer
Dear Randol,

First of all, thank you for our generous rating for my previous answer.

Here is what I can give you this time:

Yours:
I appreciate your response to my previous question.
Some of your responses to my previous discussion, I agree with; and some
of the responses, I disagree with, but to try to justify myself concerning
some of them in the present discussion would be to engage in worthless
nitpicking.  In my present discussion, I have given a defense for some of
points that I made in my first discussion.  This will be done in the same
format as your answer to my first discussion.

Mine:
There is no need for you to justify anything to me, nor defend your “points.”  My obligation does not extend to debating theological issues, only to providing what answers i have to questions which are asked.  Neither is it my purpose to convince the questioner, just offer answers for consideration.  If your purpose is to convince me of your particular belief, this will be my last reply.  It would be an unpleasant subterfuge.  There is an acceptable way to use AllExperts.com to propagate your beliefs. Sign up as an “expert,” wait for someone to ask you a question, give the best answer you can, and allow the questioner to decide if the answer is acceptable or not.  Of course, you may never get someone to ask you the question which allows you to teach them what you want to teach them. In that case, you'll just be providing a free service, and one with no reward here.

Yours:
“While you intend to deny that apples (“heaven,” as commonly used) and
oranges (“heaven” as scripturally used) are the same fruit, it appears
that you are saying that because apples are not oranges, they aren't
fruit.”
I am not saying that apples are not oranges and are therefore not fruit.
I am saying that oranges (a human-receiving heaven as scripturally used)
are a nonexistent fruit that people use to validate the identity of apples
(a human-receiving heaven as commonly used).  

Mine:
I do not understand, “(a human-receiving heaven as scripturally used) are a nonexistent fruit.” How can there be a “scripturally used” human-receiving heaven which is non-existent?
My analogy may have not been clear.  You must first scripturally define “heaven,” and not neglect to define all of the heavens, ( at least three of them, and probably more,) that are mentioned in the Bible. Then your subject can be cogently and honestly handled.  In some of your “discussion” you seem to be arguing that the commonly accepted use of the term “heaven” is not scriptural. I agree.  But to turn around and use that error as grounds to deny all of the components of the commonly accepted idea is wrong.  The method would be wrong, even if I agreed with the conclusions.  If you define “heaven” scripturally, your doctrine of heaven may well differ from the commonly accepted use of the word.  But that does not automatically negate what is meant by the misuse of the word.  I think you have multiple issues, and intermingle them without discretion.  It also seemed to me that you occasionally use the common misuse of the word yourself.  In other words, your “discussion” is disorganized, whether intentionally or coincidentally. (And, must I remind you that the first actual question you asked concerned your ‘discussion” and not the theology of “heaven?”)  If I look behind the common misuse of the word heaven, into the doctrine of what happens to a human being when they die, your “discussion” contains some things I consider to be fallacious.

Yours
I think that the basic thing
that you've done is accused me of a fallacy that you yourself have
committed.  You accuse me of having presuppositions about the bible's
doctrine of heaven, when it seems to be you who have the presuppositions.
To illustrate this, I will give my own analogy.  Imagine for a moment that
the bible is the story of Cinderella.  (Assume that there is only one
version of the Cinderella story.)  In the story, Cinderella, at some
point, leaves a glass slipper.  Some people who know about the story (but
haven't read it closely) choose to believe that the glass slipper that
Cinderella left behind was a green glass slipper.  On the other hand, you
would disagree with them and agree with me that the story does not mention
Cinderella's having a green glass slipper.  Nevertheless, you maintain
that Cinderella's slipper did, in fact, have a certain color.  However, I
would argue that the story simply does not say that Cinderella's glass
slipper was green or that it had any color at all.  The story says that
Cinderella had a glass slipper, and there is absolutely no justified
reason to believe anything else about this aspect of the story.  However,
you still claim that I am being illogical in refusing to ascribe a color
to Cinderella's glass slipper.

Mine:
I guess any analogies either of us use are pretty well doomed to failure.  For, using your analogy, it seemed to me that you were insisting on the total absence of color (which is absolute invisibility), rather than denying any particular color. My argument would be that the slipper had color, even if it was not specified which color it had.  Let's let the analogies go into oblivion.
I stand by my comments that you did approach the subject with presuppositions, and used them as negative proofs to deny arguments for the opposing view.  In order to answer your question about your ‘discussion” being right or wrong, I went through your polemic with a critical eye, and attempted to point out it's failures. Had your question been “What happens to a human being when they die?” or “Is there a specific place the saved go when they die?” or something like that, I would have answered with a different approach.

Yours:
The fact is that I have never seen any scriptures that explicitly describe
the idea of souls going to heaven, but I HAVE seen scriptures that
explicitly describe people being resurrected from the dead.  

Mine:
If you decide to respond further, allow me the privilege of demanding that you show your doctrine only with scriptures which explicitly describe your ideas.  Show me the text which explicitly describes “people” being resurrected from the dead.  May I have the same right to deny any use of texts which infer, or must be combined with others to show your beliefs?  Can you show me one scripture which explicitly states that souls die, so that they can be resurrected from the dead? Then show me one scripture which explicitly describes how a dead soul can have any consciousness while dead. Then show me a scripture which explicitly describes how God is, in fact, the God of the dead rather than of the living.  Please do this without contradicting any other text.
There are texts which specify resurrections of the dead. What else do they specify?

Yours:
I will admit that certain scriptures are worded in a way that may give someone with a previous belief in a human-receiving heaven the idea that that doctrine is biblical, but I am quite convinced that a non-Christian with no previous
indoctrination who reads the bible will come to the conclusion that
biblical Christianity believes in a doctrine of resurrection and that the
idea of going to heaven immediately after death will not seriously be
extracted from the scriptures.

Mine:
I was a non-Christian who believed in neither a heaven or a hell for human beings. My study of the Bible concerning these issues was not tainted by previous beliefs or indoctrination in favor of any specific afterlife. When the Lord Jesus interrupted my life, I was very disillusioned with all churches, even all religions. I did not trust the clergy, and sought answers to my questions from within the pages of the Bible.
Do you believe that the righteous will go to heaven at any time?  To what heaven will they go?  Some of your argument  seemed to disavow any “heaven” for believers, reserving heaven for the Deity alone.
The next time you write a polemic, begin with proper definitions of your terms, and stick to them. And don't hide your polemic in the guise of an inquiry.

Yours:
“The text does not mention what happens or happened to the treasure.
Neither does it eliminate the possibility that the believers already
inhabit the city when it is brought down.”
I believe you have misunderstood my point.  You may have been assuming
that believers were promised some other kind of treasure such as money or
jewelry.  But since the bible does not elaborate on what this treasure
precisely is, I assumed that “treasure” is used as a metaphor for the New
Jerusalem, eternal life, eternal peace, etc˜the “eternal inheritance”
mentioned in Hebrews 9:15, the “purchased possession” in Ephesians 1:14,
and the promises in such OT verses as Isaiah 11:1-9; 54; 60; 62; and
65:17-25.

Mine:
I agree that you make assumptions.  I feel justified in demanding that you offer some scripture which “precisely” and “explicitly” defines the treasure as such a metaphor.
It is your use of such words, “explicitly” and “precisely,” in the demands you make of the opposing view which make your method offensive.  You offer nothing more precise and explicit than they.
2 Corinthians 4:7 and 1 Peter 1:4 may be relevant, but you ought not confuse the benefit the saved receive with the saved themselves.  The “purchased possession” is the church, not treasure given to it.

Yours:
Furthermore, if believers already inhabited the New Jerusalem,
then there would have been no reason for it to be taken down to earth to
be among men; God would have already been among men.

Mine:
I did not say that believers went immediately to New Jerusalem. Actually, it appears that just as Hades is a temporary abode for the unrighteous until Gehenna is opened, so also “Abraham's bosom” or “Paradise” is a temporary abode for the righteous until New Jerusalem is opened. And since the Book of Revelation does offer a timing for the coming of the New Jerusalem, I must ask where was John taken, who was there already when he got there, how and when did they get there?  If Revelation 4:1 calls it “heaven,” I am willing to let the name stand, even if there are other verses which define “heaven” differently.  I can accommodate more than one “heaven” in my doctrine, just as the scripture does.

Yours:
Evidently, he had not already been among men or dwelt with men, else he could not have BEGUN to dwell among them.

Mine:
This is much more complicated than reasonable for this forum.  I will just comment that His dwelling with some men is not the same as His dwelling with all men. The fact that He begins to dwell with men does not mean that He never dwelt with men before. (John 14:17.)

Yours:
All that I can assume is that the New Jerusalem, with all the bliss that
lies within it, is the treasure that was spoken about.  And since the New
Jerusalem had not since been inhabited by mortals, as proven previously,
no mortal had ever been presented this treasure until the time discussed
in Rev. 21:3.
You can assume whatever you like, but using your assumptions as the foundation to deny the assumptions of others does not make a legitimate “discussion.”

“Also, John 12:32-34 and 18:31-32 specify the manner in which he would
die, and the biblical and historical accounts of that death are precise.
The manner of His death was crucifixion. Yet this is not the manner of
death of all believers. If we demand a literal interpretation of the
terminology, your argument is nullified. If we allow the metaphorical use,
your argument is destroyed.”
When I said that believers die in the same manner as Christ, I meant that
believers will go to Hades, as Christ did.  I should have been more
specific on that point.   However, Galatians 2:19 could possibly be used
to counter your argument, though˜”I have been crucified with Christ.”  On
your last point, what I should have said was, “Jesus is the firstborn from
among the dead, and the manner in which he died and was resurrected will
be the model by which all other believers WHO DIE will die and be
resurrected.”

Mine:
Yet, you still offer only your conjecture, without the “explicit” and “precise” scriptural text to support it that you demand of others.  Where are the New Testament texts which explicitly states that the souls of believers go to Hades?
I am going to suggest that the attempt to apply Galatians 2:19 to counter my argument would be a serious misapplication of the text.

Yours:
“...like everyone who dies will eventually do.' This assumption has
already been proven wrong. And, if it was still an operative assumption,
it could not be used as an interpretive limitation. Any falsehood can be
supported if we are allowed to read our assumptions into the evidence.
This is the most significant fault in the “discussion” you asked me to
judge right or wrong. Even if some of your conclusions are correct (and I
have stated my agreement with some of them), the “discussion” is fatally
flawed by the use and abuse of assumptions, some of which are manifestly
in error.”
I wrote “. . . like everyone who dies will eventually do” while keeping in
mind the Hebrew conception of death.  Throughout the OT, people who die
are described as “sleeping with their fathers” or going down to the grave,
that is, Sheol or Hades.

Mine:
What about Qeber?  Are Sheol and Qeber the same place? Sheol may have a metaphorical depth a bit greater than the grave (Qeber), and the theology of the afterlife you build with it better account for both.

Yours
My study of the bible gives me no reason to
think that this conception had changed any in New Testament times.  

Mine:
Mine does.  Neither statement carries weight in a study.

Yours:
In 2
Esdras 4:35 and 7:95 (an Apocryphal book), we see that Late Jewish and
early Christian thought involved the righteous going to Hades after they
died and eagerly awaiting their resurrection.  (2 Esdras 4:35˜”Did not the
souls of the righteous in their chambers ask about these matters, saying,
‘How long are we to remain here?  And when will the harvest of our reward
come?'”  2 Esdras 7:95˜The fourth order, they understand the rest that
they now enjoy, being gathered into their chambers and guarded by angels
in profound quiet, and the glory waiting for them in the last days.”)

Mine:
None of the Apocryphal writings are useful for determining New Testament doctrine.

Yours:
Here, it seems that you have begged the question in a surreptitious way;
you have advanced your idea of a human-receiving heaven by immediately
assuming that something different from Hades is encountered, according to
Jewish thought, by people who die.

Mine:
Demonstrate this begging of the question “here.”  I made comments about your statement, “...like everyone who dies will eventually do,” and those comments stand.

Yours:
If, before Christ's resurrection, righteous people went to ecstasy in
heaven after they died,

Mine:
I made no such claim.  Since I do not grant the condition, I am at liberty to ignore the conclusion drawn from it.  In fact, my comments were clear enough that before Christ's resurrection all souls went down.

Yours:
then it seems as if Jesus' raising of Lazarus in
John 11 and his resurrecting of the girl in Mark 5:21-43 were terribly
cruel acts.  And if, after Christ's resurrection, the righteous went to
heaven after death, then why would Paul say in 1 Corinthians 15:51, “We
will not all die, but we will all be changed [on the Lord's coming].”

Mine:
What dies?  What shall be changed?  Souls or bodies?

Yours:
Verses 50-55 of this chapter make clear that on the day of the Lord, ALL
believers will shed their perishable bodies and assume imperishable
bodies.  Of course, if believers, whether dead or alive, will become
imperishable on the day of the Lord, then believers who are now in heaven
must be perishable in heaven.  I don't think any believer in the
human-receiving heaven would accept that the righteous are capable of
dying in heaven.

Mine:
These comments are unworthy of this discussion.  If you intend them to be so, there can be no benefit to either of us in continuing this exchange.  If you do not intend them to be so, I doubt I can communicate with you further.  What gets shed?  What perishes?  Again, I will make the comment that you ascribe to souls what only applies to bodies.
I am going to skip over most of the rest, and make a few final comments at the end.

Yours:
“This is a complete misapplication of the text. It has nothing to do with
your subject, and forcing it into the mold of your subject dishonors the
text. I am not accusing you of any malicious intent. I am answering your
question, “Am I right or wrong about my discussion?” such discussions are
wrong if they misapply texts in an effort to support the assumptions they
are trying to prove.”
I do not understand why this is a misapplication of the text or
irrelevant.  The way I see it, this was the best and most relevant point
that I made in my whole discussion.  1 Corinthians 15:23 says that
believers will be made alive AT CHRIST'S COMING.  One cannot say that
being in heaven is to be dead, since heaven by anyone's description or
definition, is not a place for dead people (which would make it Hades) but
for living souls.  The only possible assumption is that the only way that
believers can be made alive at Christ's coming is if they are dead at
Christ's coming. How much more alive can a person in heaven become?
Further, Romans 8:22-23 states clearly what biblical Christianity is
looking forward to after death: “We know that the whole creation has been
groaning in labor pains until now; and not only the creation, but we
ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while
we wait for the adoption, THE REDEMPTION OF OUR BODIES.  “Adoption” refers
to the revealing of the children of God (:19) on the Lord's coming.
Whether “redemption” of “bodies” means to have one's mortal body redeemed
by life or to redeem a fresh, new body, I do not know; but what is
apparent to me by this verse is that if Paul did, in fact, believe in a
human-receiving heaven, it must not have been very important to him.

Still Yours:
“I disagree with your “deduction.” I think the text does not relate to
your subject except in the most shallow manner. The point of Paul's
teaching is found in :17, where the sentence ends: “And if Christ be not
raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.” The issue he is
addressing is the escape from sin provided by Christ. That a real escape
from sins was provided by Christ is confirmed only by His resurrection,
which was the proof of His claims to be God manifest in flesh. The gospel,
the good news or glad tidings, is that men can now escape the bondage of
sin.”
I think part of what has happened here is that you are refuting my
argument with your argument while both of our arguments are identical.
The bible says that sin and death are fundamentally the same thing (Romans
5:12; 6:23; 8:6; and 1 Corinthians 15:17-18).  Therefore, forgiveness of
sins and resurrection from the dead are, theologically speaking, the same
thing.  They are equated because there is a causal relationship between
them.  Further, it seems that verse 16 and 17 are actually premises of
which verse 18 is the conclusion-- “THEN those who have fallen asleep in
Christ have perished.”    If verse 18 is indeed the conclusion of Paul's
point then the resurrection of the dead is indeed the goal of Christ's
resurrection.  Forgiveness of sins was the means to an end˜being
resurrected into eternal life.  Also, 1 Corinthians 15:26 says that the
last enemy to be destroyed is death, not sin.
Also, it seems to me that the “bondage of sin” is synonymous with the
penalty of sin, which is death.  What else could the “bondage of sin” be?
The only bondage that I have seen associated with sin is the “bondage of
corruption” in Romans 8:21, the “bondage” in Hebrews 2:15, and the bondage
of sin as equated with death in Romans 6:20-21.  As James 2:21, 23, and 25
make clear, it is possible to be righteous in a provisional, pre-Christian
sense without being a Christian, as neither Abraham nor Rahab were
Christians.  Thus, believers in Christ do not become believers so that
they can become incapable of sinning (which the account of a believer
fornicating with his father's wife exemplifies [1 Corinthians 5:1]) but so
that their sin would not be placed on their “permanent record,” so to
speak.  Also, don't forget the famous verse John 3:16˜God gave his son so
that believers can have everlasting life.
At any rate, there are probably equal scriptures saying both that Jesus'
goal was to forgive sins and that Jesus' goal was to grant eternal life.
I tend to make sense of this by saying that forgiveness of sins and the
granting of eternal life is the same thing. Yet, it still seems to me that
the granting of eternal life is more important since it is the end to
which forgiveness of sins is the means˜Romans 5:9.

Still Yours:
“That Luke 16:19-31 is a parable is powerfully refuted by two often
overlooked facts. 1. Jesus never used a falsehood as the illustration of
the truth. The account of Lazarus does not misrepresent the facts of the
afterlife to establish other facts. 2. Jesus names one of the characters
in this account. Luke 16:20 “And there was a certain beggar named
Lazarus...” Is there an example in any parable of Jesus naming one of the
characters? Was Jesus speaking truth when he said, “there was a certain
beggar named Lazarus”? Was there a certain beggar named Lazarus? Branding
this story a parable creates some very serious problems.”
I am a little confused about your response here.  It seems that you are
begging the question in your first “overlooked fact.”  You said that Jesus
never used a falsehood as the illustration of the truth.  Of course, any
analogy or parable can be defined as a falsehood as the illustration of
the truth.  A parable is intentionally fictional˜to be fictional is to be
intentionally false.  Therefore, what you have done is said that Luke
16:19-31 is not a parable because Jesus never used parables. Of course,
you cannot claim that Jesus never spoke a parable, in light of Luke 8:10
and Matt. 13:34.  Because a parable is an intentional falsehood as the
illustration of the truth, I don't see any reason why Jesus could not have
used a parable that skewed the facts of the afterlife.
Further, even if you do believe Luke 16:19-31 to be a parable, there is no
more reason to think that believers will literally be carried away by the
angels to sit next to Abraham than there is to believe that the wicked
will enter the kingdom of God and then be thrown out of it (Matthew 22:13)
or that unbelievers will yell to God through a door, begging to be let
into the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 25:11).  Also, you seem to be begging
the question along another pattern.  You said that Jesus does not
misrepresent the facts of the afterlife; however, it is my argument that
the “afterlife” means nothing more than the departure from Sheol.
However, you have made your statement with the presupposition that the
afterlife is something other than that, i.e., bliss in heaven.   In other
words, your conclusion that there is an afterlife immediately after death
is bound within your premise, “The account of Lazarus does not
misrepresent the facts of the afterlife?”  I am also confused about your
second “overlooked fact.”  What difference does it make that Jesus
mentions Lazarus' name?  It seems to me that the important fact is that
Jesus said that this man existed, and that the manner in which he said
that Lazarus existed is no different from the manner in which he stated
(whether literally or hypothetically) the existence of the characters and
objects in all of his other parables (or anecdotes).  (He usually states
their existence with the formula, “There was a?”)

More Still Yours:
“I agree with both parts of this statement, yet I do not agree with some
of the conclusions you use them to support. I also must say with equal
force that Abraham's bosom is certainly the opposite of Hades. It is
certainly a place of comfort and awareness to which the souls of the
righteous go after death. The power of your complaint is the
misunderstanding of the nature of ‘heaven” in the cosmology of
Christendom. And that cosmology is erroneous, as you contend.
Nevertheless, some aspects of it are based in truth. One shouldn't destroy
the wheat along with the tares. Let's rather provide correction for the
error, keep the truth, and come to a right conclusion.”
It seems to me that you have once again put your preconceived conclusion
inside of one of you premises.  (It is interesting to me how some writers
will use the word “certainly” in propositions that they are not certain
about.)  If I am not mistaken, a “place of comfort and awareness to which
the souls of the righteous go after death” is a fitting definition of the
concept of heaven.  Please correct me if I am wrong in saying that this is
circular reasoning.  Furthermore, I must reiterate that my point is not
that the concept of a human-receiving heaven is false but that there is
nothing in the bible that proposes any idea on which the concept of a
human-receiving heaven can logically be based.

More Still Yours:
“There is, in fact, a specific chronological order to the events in the
Book of Revelation. But, it is not recorded in a purely linear fashion.
The writing uses “reviews” (closer examination of time periods and events
already written about) and “previews” (overviews of time periods and
events to be written about). It may be easy to miss the chronology, but
this is most likely a disadvantage of reading with presuppositions.”
What is the difference between “a specific chronological order” and “a
purely linear fashion”?  It seems to me that the two terms are exactly
synonymous and that, therefore, this particular argument is
self-defeating.

Mine (written before I decided it is fruitless to continue):
RE: Chronological order versus Linear chronology:
Rather than provide my copyrighted chronological outline of the Book of Revelation, I will offer an example of the distinction:
A chronological sequence which is not linear:
The opening ten pages of a writing contains details of events occurring in time period 1. The next five pages contain a review of time period 1 in greater detail and from a different perspective .  The next ten pages contain details of time period 2.  The next ten pages give a summary review of both time period 1 and time period 2.  Etc.  
A linear chronology:
The opening ten pages of a writing contains details of events occurring in time period 1. The next five pages contain  details of events occurring in time period 2.  The next ten pages contain details of time period 3.  The next ten pages contain  details of events occurring in time period 4.  Etc.
If one knows the time markers, one can follow the chronological sequence, but if one attempts to read it as a linear timeline, it gets confused.

Yours:
“Genesis 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.
This is directly interpreted in the New Testament:
Hebrews 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death;
and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his
translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. Where did God take
him? If you missed this obvious signpost, what else might you have missed?
Do you really intend to tell me that you have studied the texts enough to
categorically state that there are no Old Testament promises about the
destination of the righteous? Or are you again limiting your comments to
“heaven” as the rhetorical abode of the omnipresent?”
It seems that here you have again begged the question.  I never said that
the Old Testament did not give promises about the destination of the
righteous.  I said that the OT does not promise that that destination
resembles anything related to the concept of heaven.  What you have done
is misquoted me by replacing my word “heaven” with your phrase
“destination of the righteous.”  In other words, you have implicitly
equated heaven with the destination of the righteous, thus presupposing in
your premise that this “heaven” exists.  From my reading of the OT, heaven
is the dwelling place of God and his angels˜I see no evidence that the OT
authors conceived of it in any other way.
Furthermore, I am confused about the last question that you put forth in
this portion: “Or are you again limiting your comments to ‘heaven' as the
rhetorical abode of the omnipresent?”  Again reiterating the point of my
discussion, I have no reason not to limit my comments to “heaven” as the
rhetorical abode of the omnipresent because I simply cannot find any
scriptures that tell me that heaven is anything but that.  There is a
heaven; there is just no heaven made for human beings˜this is what I am
saying.  While I try to support this point via my inability to find
scriptures to convince me otherwise, it seems that you are trying to
support your point that a human-receiving heaven exists by doing nothing
more than criticizing me for not agreeing with you.
Furthermore, correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that you have
applied your presupposition about a human-receiving heaven to the way in
which you interpret Genesis 5:24.  It is possible that God took Enoch to
heaven.  It is also possible that God took Enoch to Disneyworld or Cancun,
Mexico.  Whatever the case, the Bible simply does not say where God took
Enoch.  (Personally, I don't think it matters where he was taken; I think
the whole point of Genesis 5:24 is simply that he was taken.)

Yours:
“If nothing in the comments above are to be allowed, I submit Luke 23:43
as a likely candidate. ‘And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee,
To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.' I don't think paradeisos
(“paradise”) is the same as hades (“hell”). Neither do I think semeron
(“To day”) means ‘in a few thousand years.'”
I am trying to figure out how Luke 23:43 can be evidence of the existence
of a human-receiving heaven when to assume that Jesus went to Paradise
immediately after he died is to catastrophically clash with the
straightforward statements in Acts 2:27, Acts 2:31, 1 Peter 3:18-20, and
Matthew 12:40 concerning how Jesus went to Hades after he died.
Matt.12:40 even goes so far as to give the specific number of days˜3˜that
Jesus was in Hades.  For Jesus to spend the day of his death in Paradise
with a crucified criminal would be to deduct from the three days specified
in Matt. 12:40.  It seems to me that at this point, we can either (1)
concede that this is a biblical contradiction and explore the issue no
further or (2) we can say that the meaning of Luke 23:43 is hidden within
the historical, cultural, and religious contexts in which the gospel of
Luke was written, and to discover its meaning, we must first discover the
pertinent aspects of those contexts.

And finally, Yours:
  Have I succeeded in vindicating my arguments?  Also, I am unclear on your
view of the afterlife.  How do you reconcile the idea of a human-receiving
heaven with the idea of the resurrection of the dead?  What is the purpose
of a person being resurrected if he is already in heaven?  How does a
person in heaven become resurrected, seeing that he is already alive?

Mine:
Here are my final comments.

Q.  Have I succeeded in vindicating my arguments?
I do not think so.

Here are three contradictory quotes from your polemic:

“There is a heaven; there is just no heaven made for human beings˜this is what I am saying.”

I do not think your arguments establish the proposition..

“...however, it is my argument that the “afterlife” means nothing more than the departure from Sheol.”

You have not shown me any scriptural argument which is persuasive, primarily, but not exclusively, because you consistently apply texts which pertain only to the body as though they pertained to the soul.

“Furthermore, I must reiterate that my point is not that the concept of a human-receiving heaven is false but that there is nothing in the bible that proposes any idea on which the concept of a human-receiving heaven can logically be based.”

This directly contradicts the two earlier quotes.  And, I still disagree with the point you claim to make.

Q.  Also, I am unclear on your view of the afterlife.  How do you reconcile the idea of a human-receiving heaven with the idea of the resurrection of the dead?
In my earlier answer, I agreed with you that the commonly expressed ideas about “heaven” were fallacious. If I remember correctly, and I haven't time or inclination to search it out in my prior answer, I even stated that the common understanding of “heaven” really pertains to what the bible calls New Jerusalem.  However, acknowledging the common error does not automatically force agreement with your conclusions, which I think are equally fallacious.  If your purpose is to prove that when the body dies, the soul inhabits Hades until the time of the resurrection, you face a task I think impossible without violating the principles of scriptural interpretation.  If your purpose is to prove that the common conception of heaven is wrong, it is an easy task.  My belief is irrelevant to your purposes either way.  Nevertheless, I will summarize it for you:

Under the Old Testament, at death, all bodies went to the grave, and all souls went to a temporary abode called Hades (which will eventually itself be cast into Gehenna).

This changed because of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  According to the specifically overlooked words of Jesus Christ in John 3:16, the Son was given “that whosoever believeth in him should NOT perish...” I take this to mean that even those who “died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth” (Hebrews 11:13) would perish had it not been for the salvation provided by the sacrifice of Christ. To “perish” means to be separated from communion with the Lord forever, to suffer “the second death,” to have the soul “killed” along with the body in Hell, etc.

Genesis 2:7 and 1 Thessalonians 5:23 demonstrate three components of a human being: spirit, and soul, and body.  Ecclesiastes 12:7 specifies that at death the body, which is dust, (Genesis 3:19) returns to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

The body of Jesus Christ, which died by crucifixion, went into the grave, but was raised up from the grave after the specified three days and three nights (which was three literal days and nights, from just prior to sundown on the fourth day of the week to just prior to sundown on the seventh day of the week).  Accordingly, His flesh did not see corruption.  (Psalms 16:10; Acts 2:27, :31; Acts 13:34; Acts 13:35, 36, 37; 1 Corinthians 15:4, 50; Galatians 6:8.)

But what happened to His soul and spirit?
By the Spirit His soul went “into the lower parts of the earth” and preached unto the spirits in prison. I cannot categorically state that this happened immediately at His death, and there is a reason or two to think it may have happened prior to it. I can categorically state what happened at His ascension, though.  He led those who were captive to liberty, and turned the captors into captives. (1 Peter 3:18 – 19; Ephesians 4:7 – 10; Psalms 68:18 – 19.)  His soul was not confined to the grave during those three days like His body was.

From the time of His resurrection, the righteous who die are no longer spoken of as “going down,” as they were in the Old Testament. We can add to this His story of Lazarus, His promise to the repentant thief who died under the Old Testament sacrificial plan which was fulfilled in Christ that day, and those other texts which make reference to being present with the Lord when absent from the body.

Q.  What is the purpose of a person being resurrected if he is already in heaven?  How does a
person in heaven become resurrected, seeing that he is already alive?

You have consistently equated the soul to the body.  Bodies die, are buried, and resurrected.  Souls do not die and are not buried.  Those texts which speak of dying, burial, and resurrection cannot be applied to that which does not die and is not buried.  Another difficulty lies in confusing where that which dies goes with where that which does not die goes.

The bodies of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses all died, and were buried, but the Lord spoke of them as being yet alive. (Luke 20:38.) Where were they alive? Interestingly enough, we do have a little testimony about it.  Matthew 17:3 “And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.”  Luke 9:30 “And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias:”  It does seem difficult to accept the idea that their appearance with Him was from a place of torment (Hades).

I would like to have the time to really write a comprehensive reply to you, but I don't, and I am not at all convinced that you would benefit from it if I did.  What you have written strongly indicates that your purpose is neither to seek answers for legitimate questions, nor seek refinement of your method of presenting your argument.  It rather seems like your purpose has been to convince me that all souls go to Hades and stay there until a resurrection.  I will reply that I disagree with your conclusions, that your arguments are full of unproven assumptions, misapplications of texts, and contradictions.  I believe this candid reply will be somewhat offensive to you, but it is not intended to be. I do have an obligation to be honest to you.

It is not going to be worthwhile to continue these lengthy exchanges through this website.  If you wish to write again, use the email address I have provided on my bio page.  That will free me from the time limitations of AllExperts.com, and allow me to send some of my copyrighted documents to you as attachments, if I think it beneficial.  This subject is too large to be debated in this forum, and I have no desire to engage in debate with anyone about anything.

Sorry to disappoint you.

Yours for Truth,

CR