If Jesus said no one has ascended to Heaven & David didnt ascend to Heaven, why do we think we will go when we die? (Tanakh, Jehovah's Witnesses)

[Richard1965]

Originally Posted by Mike555

People can read what I have already posted and decide for themselves. As for you, you really need to grow up and change your attitude. Until and unless you do, you simply are a waste of peoples time. We're done here.

Sure they can...And see how full of it the stuff is...Grow up????...I'm way beyond you in knowledge...But, your comment is typical of those who have nothing and can't win the argument...

[Ella Parr]

Originally Posted by SAAN

John 3:13 (NKJV)
13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.

Acts 2:34-35 (NKJV)
34 “For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself:
‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at My right hand,
35 Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.



Jesus also said no one has ever ascend to heaven but him, so why do we think the moment we die, we go directly to heaven or hell?

In my reading, I haven't found any where in the Bible where it says we are going to Heaven. Heaven is God's place, not ours.

[RevelationWriter]

- Jesus said in John 14:12 - 'I go to My Father'.
- Jesus told Mary not to touch Him for He had not ascended to the Father;
I am ascending to the Father' - John 20:17

- No One But Jesus Of Their Own Accord Has Ascended Into Heaven. -

[arleigh]

Matthew 5;3, 7;21,22,23, 18;1,2,3,4, 22;2, 23;13,
John 14;1,2,3,-
2 Timothy 4;18,

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Mike555

If Paradise was in Hades before the cross and was then relocated to the third heaven after the cross, that is not a contradiction. If you are saying that John 20:17 and Luke 23:43 contradict, they do not. They are not referring to the same event.

The first is not a contradiction, but a convenient relocation of hades to heaven to get around it. And the latter is a contradiction unless you invent a whole convenient reinvention to get around it.

Are you now deliberately twisting what I said? I said that while they may not have fully understood what they wrote, nevertheless, what they wrote was accurate because it was written under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. In writing about the existence of heaven for instance, or the existence of Hades, one need not understand the details concerning those places.

No, I think you are twisting what you said. You said that you believed what they wrote (because of the Holy spirit) was accurate even if what they wrote wasn't acurate. What they understood was not, I am sure, anything to do with it. I'll have a check back. (1)

Other than 2 Kings 2:11 which refers to Elijah, I don't recall any Old Testament references to anyone being taken to heaven. Enoch was said to have been taken and to have not died (Gen. 5:24; Heb. 11:5), but it is never said that he was taken to the third heaven and therefore he could have been taken to Abraham's Bosom which at that time was located in Sheol. The appearance of Elijah and Moses at the transfiguration doesn't necessitate them having to have been in the third heaven. They were residing in Abraham's Bosom.

You keep on with this Abraham's bosom in Sheol. Get real You don't seriously believe the snowdome cosmology with a hollow Sheol - Hades underneath and God's palace on the top of the dome? Now I can see the idea that the heaven that Jesus went to (when he ascended to the father as per John) is not the same as the paradise or 'bosom of Abraham' that Jesus went to with the penitent thief as per Luke. But this is (because I don't buy for a minute your suggestion that Paradise in in Hades) technical dickering and Jesus in John is being pointlessly deceptive in saying that no man has ascended to heaven.

P.s I noted your post with the beliefs of 3rd c rabbis about Abraham at the gates of Gehenna. That really doesn't help you much even if you take their views seriously, because they didn't believe in a heaven anyway. You do, so you have to give some good reasons why paradise isn't there. Glossing over a contradiction of John is not a good reason to invent all sorts of complex afterlife -places, especially as I doubt you believe the bronze age cosmology anyway.

Since Jesus said that no man had ascended up to heaven other than Himself (which before He went to the cross was true) then the reference to Elijah being carried to heaven by a whirlwind must therefore not be referring to the third heaven.[/quote]

One could equally argue that Jesus' claim that no man had ascended to heaven was false in all but a technical sense, then your argument that Elijah being taken to the 'Third heaven' is not being taken to heaven at all is false.

As has been gone over, the fact that no one other than the high priest was allowed into the Holy of holies in the tabernacle, and later the temple, and which was but a copy of the true Holy of Holies in heaven, speaks to the fact that no one was allowed into heaven until Jesus went to the cross. When He died, the veil in front of the Holy of holies which separated it from the rest of the temple was torn from top to bottom signifying that the true Holy of holies was now accessable.

No. It signified that God had left the temple. That is, he had abandoned the Jews. Your rather symbolic interpretation is ..well, just your symbolic interpretation.

But again, if for the sake of argument the Bible is not indicating that Abraham's Bosom or Paradise was located in Sheol/Hades prior to the cross, then Abraham's Bosom still could not have been located in the third heaven at that time because of the reasons already given. Which means that it would have to have been located at some other location.

The reasons already given do not stack up so Abraham's bosom, paradise and the third heaven and effectively all heaven including the father's bit of it is by all reason all the same place. If it isn't then Jesus surely doesn't make that very important fact clear, only in your explanations designed to do one thing - gloss over the contradictions.

Rome had no interest in Jesus. Pilate wanted to release Him. The Sanhedrin absolutely did represent the Jews. During New Testament times the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem consisted of the chief priests, the elders of the people, and scribes. The Sanhedrin was the supreme theocratic court of the Jews. Because the Jews were under the control of Rome, the Sanhedrin had certain restrictions placed on them and had only the autonomy that Rome granted them. To infer from that that Rome had an interest in Jesus is unwarranted. Your assertion that the gospel writers tried to shift the blame from Rome to the Jews is unfounded.

Very poor argument. The sheer fact of the temple takeover - at the festival too where several hundred Roman troops would be keeping watch - is enough for Pilate to have Jesus nailed up. And it is highly significant that this is effectively the charge that Pilate uses, for all that it is the one that never, ever, gets suggested as a possible charge.

Of course God intended that Jesus should die on the cross. That was the reason why Jesus came into the world.

Ok Then Jesus as god would know that and so to even ask means that, it times, Jesus as man didn't know what Jesus as god knew.

I didn't say that Jesus-the-man didn't know what Jesus the God knew. I said that Jesus, being fully human (though He was also fully God) naturally felt conflicted because of the suffering that He was soon to endure. Despite His desire at that point that somehow the cross could be avoided, He was fully willing to submit to the Father's will.

I know what you said. And I pointed out that was a nice little sermon but nothing to do with what is quite evident from the gospel story - that Jesus sometimes didn't know what God knew.

Now, as indicated by Jesus Himself in Matthew 24:36 there were times when Jesus chose not to access His omniscience as God. Your assertion that this made Jesus in error concerning Noah and Jonah is not valid.

I beg your..what??? Jesus sometime CHOSE not to access his omniscience as God? Why would he ever do that unless he knew it would be inconvenient for the gospel story if he did? I think that is the best example of apologetic gymnastics to get over a problem I have seen. However, it makes no difference. Jesus clearly sometimes did not know something - or at least pretended to.

The earliest extant gospel manuscripts all have the names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John attached to them. There is no reason to believe that the very first copies after the originals didn't also have those names attached to them because although the gospels are formally anonymous, that is, the gospel writers names don't appear within the text of the gospel, it was known to the church who had written the gospels.

The earliest extant copies are 3rd century. And there is no reason whatsoever to say that the 'originals' were written by the gospel characters (even if they had the authorship assigned to the - like the gospel of Judas) except that it suits you to claim that church knew.

If the church wanted to simply attach a 'handy name' they could have chosen a much better choice than Mark who deserted Paul at one point during one of the missionary journeys. Since Mark is said to have received his information from Peter, it would have made more sense to attach Peter's name to Mark's gospel if Mark didn't actually write it.

Works such as the 'Gospel of Peter' were rejected for various reasons such as having been written to late to have apostolic authority,or because they were not consistent with the doctrine or teaching that the church already possessed --namely, the Old Testament and Apostolic teaching. Some of the non-canonical gospels which were written during the second century made wild claims that are not consistent with the four canonical gospel accounts.

Well, i have seen some who claim that peter is earlier than the rest - though I don't agree. But the church rejected it it because it did not suit certain theological doctrines they had agreed on. It could be argued that they rejected and suppressed the very best authority with a lot of informative detail not found in the rest - because they didn't like it. But the picked the incomplete gospel of the dubious Mark - because they did.

You just got though asserting that no one knows who wrote the gospels, and are now stating that they were written by Romans.

Now you are twisting what I said. I said that we can't know who the people were who wrote the gospels but we can know the sort of persons who wrote them, because of the content.

And of course the apostles made use of the Septuagint. Jesus may have as well at times. That has no bearing on who wrote the gospels.

I rather doubt that Jesus even saw the Septuagint and would have read the Hebrew as any good Jew would. And that the writers of the gospels...'how craftily you parse that as the 'apostles' as if to say that Jesus' followers used the Septuagint used it rather than the hebrew indeed has a very significant bearing on what kind of persons wrote the gospels.

You deny the gospel writers the right to select the events they choose to report in keeping with their objective in writing their gospel accounts. Every historian includes and excludes certain details in recording an historical event. The gospel writers have that same right.

You are becoming absurd. I am not taking away anyone's rights to write what they choose. I am arguing that, when you give an account of the events between the feeding of 5,000 and the walking on water and it differs from the synoptic account in something as stunningly significant as the transfiguration - not to mention the recognition - then it is perfectly valid to conclude that it was because the person who was supposedly there did not know of it as it is unreasonable to suggest that he did but decided not to mention it.

And I did NOT say that John SUPPOSEDLY had been at the transfiguration. I said that he WAS there.

I know you did. And I said he supposedly was there because there is very good reason to suppose that he wasn't. Though his text -source might have at least had reliable reports.

Luke's recording of Jesus' parable about the rich man and Lazarus had not 'link' with the transfiguration account. They are two different events.

So they are. I don't get the point.

No one is 'trying to keep' anyone out of heaven' by making Paradise some other place. Based on what is recorded in the Bible, no one went to the third heaven before Jesus went to the cross.

Yes you are. What you say is just trying to do that. And the only reason is to gloss over a contradiction.

You're entitled to your opinion. I have stated the reasons why I believe otherwise.

And I have shown why they are debatable at best and unreasonable at worst.

Pilate probably did get reports concerning Jesus. But when Jesus was brought before Pilate at the trial, Pilate found Him innocent (Luke 23:4) and wanted Him released (Luke 23:16-22; John 19:12). He only had Jesus crucified because he finally gave in to the demands of the crowd. It was the Jewish Sanhedrin who wanted Jesus killed because He was a threat to them.

You have to go with what is recorded. Otherwise, you simply make unfounded arguments based on your personal bias. Nothing in the gospel accounts indicates that Rome had any interest in killing Jesus. It was the Jewish leaders who wanted Him dead.

You prefer to go with what is recorded. I am saying that those without their rose -coloured glasses on can see clearly that something is wrong. Those who read a bit of history will see more that is wrong. The gospel claim that it was all the fault of the Sanhedrin (and by extension all the Jews) and Pilate was the nice guy coerced into nailing Jesus up is indeed what is 'recorded' as you cunningly say as though it was verified history. But any reasonable person not determined to believe what it says without question will see that what is recorded doesn't stack up. Matthew (who goes furthest in shifting the blame) has Pilate washing his hands (not recorded anywhere else) telling the Jews to see to it themselves (not recorded anywhere else) and them saying that they take the guilt on themselves and their children (not recorded anywhere else) And yet John and Matthew have the Jews referring to Pilate to have the legs broken or provide a guard - giving away that of course it was Pilate's execution.

You as a skeptic naturally do not believe the gospel writers, except perhaps for certain bits and pieces. I on the other hand believe the honesty and truthfulness of the gospel writers and the historicity of what they wrote. So I think it is time to bring this discussion to an end.

You as an unquestioning believer naturally believe without question the gospel -writers except perhaps for certain bits and pieces that even you can't tell yourself really happened. I on the other hand believe in the agenda and intent of of the writers, betrayed in just about everything they wrote, by the internal text itself, even without the doubts thrown on it by history. So you clearly think it is time to bring the discussion to an end before even you have to admit that you are trying to explain away what can't be explained away.

(1) "They probably didn't have a full understanding of everything that they wrote. Nevertheless, I believe that under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit, what they wrote was accurate."

That is what you said. And i don't think I was twisting it, but untwisting the attempt to say that what they wrote was not accurate (because they didn't fully understand everything they wrote (which sounds like divine dictation rather just Inspiration) but that does not make it inaccurate because the Holy Spirit made sure it was. I see no sense in this and it simply sounds like word fiddling to claim just what i said - that they may have written what wasn't accurate but nevertheless in some Divine-inspired way, it is accurate. If you had some other meaning do feel free to explain.

Perhaps you just mean to say that they mention heaven and Hades without understanding what they were. Well, that doesn't help very much with what the Bible does say about them or with the apparent contradictions about who seems to get there or not.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Richard1965

He doesn't realize that "The Bosom of Abraham" is a Hebraic Idiom meaning a position of honor and not a physical place...

Thanks. I didn't realize that myself. I learn all the time.

I do become aware by the way of some part of the Jesus story that do sound remarkably Greco -Roman rather than Jewish. But then I don't want to rely on that too much as even the Jews of Jesus' day might pass round a bag of hummingbird's tongues at the Jerusalem theatre slaughter.

[garya123]

All this debate has noting to do with His Righteousness without which no one will get to wherever he thinks he is going concerning any part of Heaven.

[Michael Way]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

No, I think you are twisting what you said. You said that you believed what they wrote (because of the Holy spirit) was accurate even if what they wrote wasn't acurate. What they understood was not, I am sure, anything to do with it. I'll have a check back. (1)

No, I did not say that. What I said was, and in these exact words in post #60;

They probably didn't have a full understanding of everything that they wrote. Nevertheless, I believe that under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit, what they wrote was accurate.

You keep on with this Abraham's bosom in Sheol. Get real You don't seriously believe the snowdome cosmology with a hollow Sheol - Hades underneath and God's palace on the top of the dome? Now I can see the idea that the heaven that Jesus went to (when he ascended to the father as per John) is not the same as the paradise or 'bosom of Abraham' that Jesus went to with the penitent thief as per Luke. But this is (because I don't buy for a minute your suggestion that Paradise in in Hades) technical dickering and Jesus in John is being pointlessly deceptive in saying that no man has ascended to heaven.

No. I don't believe the snowdome cosmology. And if you've read my posts over in the Space sub-forum you should know that. But there is a place referred to as Sheol/hades. That Hades could have different sections or areas, of which one could, before Jesus went to the cross, have been Paradise, where the saved went after they died physically should not be difficult to understand.

And no, Jesus was not being deceptive. But you consider all of this to be fiction anyway and so to you it is all just a story with contradictions.

No. It signified that God had left the temple. That is, he had abandoned the Jews. Your rather symbolic interpretation is ..well, just your symbolic interpretation.

No, it is not my symbolic interpretation. God manifested His presence in the Holy of holies. The veil which separated the Holy of Holies from the rest of the temple and which was off limits to everyone except the High priest on the day of atonement represented man's separation from God due to sin. The veil represented the barrier that was between man and God. Jesus paid the penalty for man's sins, and therefore when He died God Himself tore the curtain which signified that the barrier between man and God had been removed and heaven was now accessible.

The reasons already given do not stack up so Abraham's bosom, paradise and the third heaven and effectively all heaven including the father's bit of it is by all reason all the same place. If it isn't then Jesus surely doesn't make that very important fact clear, only in your explanations designed to do one thing - gloss over the contradictions.

You judge everything to be a contradiction and any explanations as an attempt to get past what you perceive as contradictions. Yet Scripture has been shown which shows that the third heaven was not accessible to man until Jesus went to the cross.

Very poor argument. The sheer fact of the temple takeover - at the festival too where several hundred Roman troops would be keeping watch - is enough for Pilate to have Jesus nailed up. And it is highly significant that this is effectively the charge that Pilate uses, for all that it is the one that never, ever, gets suggested as a possible charge.

Again you simply ignore the fact that both Luke and John state that Pilate found Jesus innocent and wanted to release Him.

Ok Then Jesus as god would know that and so to even ask means that, it times, Jesus as man didn't know what Jesus as god knew.

I know what you said. And I pointed out that was a nice little sermon but nothing to do with what is quite evident from the gospel story - that Jesus sometimes didn't know what God knew.

I don't think you do know what I said, or that you understood it. You are claiming that Jesus' expressed desire while experiencing great distress of soul knowing what was ahead, to somehow be able to avoid the cross, means that He didn't know what God knew. It did not. He was simply experiencing a natural desire to avoid the suffering that was ahead of Him. He had always known that He had to go to the cross and now that the moment was upon Him He did not somehow not know that He to fulfill the mission for which He came into the world.

I beg your..what??? Jesus sometime CHOSE not to access his omniscience as God? Why would he ever do that unless he knew it would be inconvenient for the gospel story if he did? I think that is the best example of apologetic gymnastics to get over a problem I have seen. However, it makes no difference. Jesus clearly sometimes did not know something - or at least pretended to.

As eternal and infinite God Jesus is omniscient. He has always known all the knowable. But as a man, Jesus experience the normal human limitations. He could get tired, grow weak, get hungry, and be ignorant (lack knowledge of things). He had to learn.

The fact that Jesus is both fully God and fully man is theologically referred to as the hypostatic union. This refers to the fact that in the one Person of Jesus are two distinct natures. He nature as God, and His nature as man. The attributes of each nature adhere to their specific natures and do not mix. That is to say that the attributes of His humanity do not mix with the attributes of His deity. Jesus is not half God and half man. As God He is God. As a man He is man.

Therefore it was possible for Jesus, while as God knowing all things, to be ignorant of certain things as a man. During His incarnation, in keeping with the plan of the Father, Jesus refrained from the independent use of His deity for His personal benefit and instead relied upon the Holy Spirit. Theologically Jesus' voluntary restraint of the use of His omniscience and other aspects of His deity is called Kenosis.

When Jesus said, as recorded in Matthew 24:35 that no man, not even Himself knew the day or hour of with regard to the passing away of heaven and earth, that was most likely a case of His refraining from accessing His omniscience.

But contrary to your assertion, Jesus' desire to avoid the cross during His distress of soul when the moment was nearing was not a case of Jesus not knowing what God knows.

The earliest extant copies are 3rd century. And there is no reason whatsoever to say that the 'originals' were written by the gospel characters (even if they had the authorship assigned to the - like the gospel of Judas) except that it suits you to claim that church knew.

Actually we have some manuscripts dated a bit earlier than that, such as P66 for instance which is dated to c. A.D. 175 and contains portions of John. But church tradition goes back further than the extant manuscripts. Papias (c. A.D. 70-163) for example stated that Matthew and Mark were the authors of those gospel accounts. And Irenaeus, late 2nd century states that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the authors of the gospel accounts. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who himself was a disciple of the apostle John himself. Despite your rejection of early church tradition, it is indeed very good witness to the authorship of the gosples.

Well, i have seen some who claim that peter is earlier than the rest - though I don't agree. But the church rejected it it because it did not suit certain theological doctrines they had agreed on. It could be argued that they rejected and suppressed the very best authority with a lot of informative detail not found in the rest - because they didn't like it. But the picked the incomplete gospel of the dubious Mark - because they did.

Now you are twisting what I said. I said that we can't know who the people were who wrote the gospels but we can know the sort of persons who wrote them, because of the content.

You said, in these exact words in post #64, ''And, yes, the gospels were written by Romans - Greek -speaking Roman citizens.''

I rather doubt that Jesus even saw the Septuagint and would have read the Hebrew as any good Jew would. And that the writers of the gospels...'how craftily you parse that as the 'apostles' as if to say that Jesus' followers used the Septuagint used it rather than the hebrew indeed has a very significant bearing on what kind of persons wrote the gospels.

I'm sure that Jesus knew not only Aramaic and Hebrew, but also Greek.

That the New Testament writers quoted from the Septuagint is well known. And the New Testament writers were largely the apostles. Mark, Luke, James, and Jude being exceptions, and possibly the writer of Hebrews since its author IS unknown. There is nothing 'crafty' about making that statement. It is a simple statement of fact whether you choose to believe it or not.

You are becoming absurd. I am not taking away anyone's rights to write what they choose. I am arguing that, when you give an account of the events between the feeding of 5,000 and the walking on water and it differs from the synoptic account in something as stunningly significant as the transfiguration - not to mention the recognition - then it is perfectly valid to conclude that it was because the person who was supposedly there did not know of it as it is unreasonable to suggest that he did but decided not to mention it.

In making that argument you are denying the right of each gospel writer to write about what he chooses to write about and to exclude from his gospel account what doesn't suit his purpose to write about. You fault John because he chose not to include the transfiguration in his account. It was not his purpose to include it. That in no way means or suggests that he didn't know about it.

I know you did. And I said he supposedly was there because there is very good reason to suppose that he wasn't. Though his text -source might have at least had reliable reports.

So they are. I don't get the point.

Yes you are. What you say is just trying to do that. And the only reason is to gloss over a contradiction.

And I have shown why they are debatable at best and unreasonable at worst.

You prefer to go with what is recorded. I am saying that those without their rose -coloured glasses on can see clearly that something is wrong. Those who read a bit of history will see more that is wrong. The gospel claim that it was all the fault of the Sanhedrin (and by extension all the Jews) and Pilate was the nice guy coerced into nailing Jesus up is indeed what is 'recorded' as you cunningly say as though it was verified history. But any reasonable person not determined to believe what it says without question will see that what is recorded doesn't stack up. Matthew (who goes furthest in shifting the blame) has Pilate washing his hands (not recorded anywhere else) telling the Jews to see to it themselves (not recorded anywhere else) and them saying that they take the guilt on themselves and their children (not recorded anywhere else) And yet John and Matthew have the Jews referring to Pilate to have the legs broken or provide a guard - giving away that of course it was Pilate's execution.

You as an unquestioning believer naturally believe without question the gospel -writers except perhaps for certain bits and pieces that even you can't tell yourself really happened. I on the other hand believe in the agenda and intent of of the writers, betrayed in just about everything they wrote, by the internal text itself, even without the doubts thrown on it by history. So you clearly think it is time to bring the discussion to an end before even you have to admit that you are trying to explain away what can't be explained away.

(1) "They probably didn't have a full understanding of everything that they wrote. Nevertheless, I believe that under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit, what they wrote was accurate."

That is what you said. And i don't think I was twisting it, but untwisting the attempt to say that what they wrote was not accurate (because they didn't fully understand everything they wrote (which sounds like divine dictation rather just Inspiration) but that does not make it inaccurate because the Holy Spirit made sure it was. I see no sense in this and it simply sounds like word fiddling to claim just what i said - that they may have written what wasn't accurate but nevertheless in some Divine-inspired way, it is accurate. If you had some other meaning do feel free to explain.



Perhaps you just mean to say that they mention heaven and Hades without understanding what they were. Well, that doesn't help very much with what the Bible does say about them or with the apparent contradictions about who seems to get there or not.

How do you assume that 'accurate' means 'not accurate'? What they wrote was accurate even though they might not have fully understood what they recorded under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit.

And no. I am not unquestioning. But neither am I so blinded by anti supernaturalistic pre-suppositions that I can't accept the historicity of the gospel accounts. You on the other hand, are, as you make plain. And you perhaps always will be.

[garya123]

Originally Posted by Richard1965

He doesn't realize that "The Bosom of Abraham" is a Hebraic Idiom meaning a position of honor and not a physical place...

A position of honor is a real spiritual place. Abraham's Bosom is also metaphor/euphemism for a place of comfort as it implies a father comforting his child. Abraham is the father of Faith for all nations.

GEN 22:18 "And in your [Abraham] seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because you have obeyed My voice." Here it says seed not seeds as in many because the seed that God is talking about is Jesus, the Jew for all Jews and all Gentles. All nations are blessed because of Jesus the Christ!

[Huckleberry3911948]

Same reason people crowd the casino or buy a lotto ticket or join the marines
I'm feeling lucky