Jesse Duplantis' message on Heaven

[Simon_Templar]

Heaven is not metaphorical, nor did I say it was.
People like me?
A bit of rude wording on your part.
Further it was uncalled for.

The Bible says: God is spirit, and we must worship him in spirit.
Obviously if he is spirit he is not physical.
So any physical descriptions of him are either metaphors, or temporary manifestations.

Heaven is the spiritual presence of God. Not a physical place.
The spiritual realm is non-caporeal.
We can exist as siprit in non-caporeal form. That is how we can remain alive after death.
So we will "exist" "in" heaven, but heaven has no depth, or mass, or dimension.
So "there" would not be a place, as much a state of existence.

So no, heaven is not metaphorical. It is a place described thusly since we can not comprehend what it truly is. I certainly don't comprehend it, I am just good with understanding concepts... rarely can I apply said concepts, but that is another issue.

Again, please refrain from judgement.
One should be slow to anger.
One should not judge to harshly, or to quickly for what is to judge.


Then demonstrate thusly.
He quite literally quoted scripture in the sense of paraphrase.
If it was wrong, prove it.
The burden of proof is on you because you questioned it first in a sense of challenging without first asking for clarification.


How could we understand existing without a body in a place without dimension?
Spirit is not physical.
angels, demons, God. They are all not physical.
How can their realm be if they are not?
Besides "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord."
If we are absent from the body, we are not in the body, and are obviously not in a "place".


That is rude, and no better than anything he said.
Whether you fealt it was or not I do not know.
It simply would be wrong for me to rebuke him, if I don't say the same to you when you do the same thing.

The flaw in you're logic regarding heaven is the assumption that since God is a spirit, then heaven must be only spiritual. This does not follow. A spirit can inhabit physical places, just as easily as it does spiritual 'places'.

Further, it is clear in scripture that Jesus is physical, and he has physical form, yet he is in heaven, seated at the right hand of the Father. This does not imply that the Father is not a spirit or that He is physical, but it does imply that Heaven is a physical place.

As for my comments to Mike, you're welcome to your opinion. He routinely misrepresents and attacks the beliefs of others here, that behavior is indicative of exactly what I have said.

 

[MikeMcK]

I already gave you the scripture and you ignored it, because it doesn't fit with your views.

No, because it doesn't fit with scripture.

I'm not trying to insult you.[/uote]

Of course you are. Please, I'm not stupid.

Even Atlantians sees that you've been a jerk toward me, and he's on your side.

Studying the bible for 20 years doesn't mean that you don't study it, and interpet in the context of your view point.

Let me put it to you this way:

Every five or six weeks, I have to go and sit before a panel of men who have more than 100 years seminary and ministry experience between them.

I am questioned and have to give an account for everything I've taught and preached during that time.

So far, they haven't found anything wrong with my grasp of the scriptures and I'll guarantee you that I'm held to a much higher standard than I am here, but much more knowledgable men than you.

I've studied the bible for 15 years or more, and for most of that time, without even knowing it, I studied, and interpeted based on the assumptions I had already been taught, and made myself.
Its simply the way humans work, that we need to be trained specificly to step outside our view points and look at things objectively, or we simply don't do it. Its not something we do naturally.

Time and time again here I've seen you misrepresent other people's view point and beliefs, essentially 'strawmanning' any view point that differs significantly from your own.

Really? Back it up and show us an example.

Some of the people around here think you do this because you are malicious. I don't, I think its simply because you're at the stage of reasoning where you can't step outside the basic assumptions of your worldview, because you haven't been trained to do it, and maybe haven't been shown that it is important to do so.

And, until you back it up, it's just another false accusation on your part.

 

[MikeMcK]

As for my comments to Mike, you're welcome to your opinion. He routinely misrepresents and attacks the beliefs of others here, that behavior is indicative of exactly what I have said.

So, I do it "routinely" and yet, you can't even come up with one example?

 

[JTM3]

OK, don't make me break out the mom jokes brotha!

 

[Simon_Templar]

So, I do it "routinely" and yet, you can't even come up with one example?

lets see, pretty much everything you'v ever said regarding Catholics... and a good deal of what you've said regarding the tele-evangelist crowd. Pretty much every time I see you talking to WoF people they say you are misrepresenting their beliefs.

Of course, some of them would say I do as well and, honestly, I have done so more times than I care to remember.


I'm curious to know how the scripture I refrenced, disagrees with scripture.
In all your challenging me to use scripture, the limit of your scriptural refrencing for your own view has been the single sentance "I go to prepare a place for you".

I provided the scripture, Revelation chapter 21. What the chapter states is that when the new heaven and new earth are created, New Jerusalem, described as "the bride of Christ" descends out of heaven and into the new earth, and then it says that God dwells there with us forever. God says here that he makes all things new. It is a complete new beginning, the way things were always intended to be.

It says exactly what I said.

Now, since you think I'm trying to insult you by pointing out that I think you're interpeting scripure in light of your previous assumptions, and you think I'm being a jerk for doing it... what does that mean when you say "I'm not implying it, I'm flat out saying he's contradicting scripture" (paraphrased from memory) in regard to me.. I suppose thats not insulting, its just the facts right .. so essentially... you're allowed to state the facts (as they appear to you) regarding me and my views... but I'm not allowed to state the facts (as they appear to me) regarding you and your view point, because when I do it, I intend to insult you. Don't you think thats a tad bit of a double standard. I didn't get all bent out of shape about it, why are you?

As for your oversight board with 100 collective years of seminary training, thats cool. I wish more people had something like that. I must ask, however, do you really think that makes you, or them, immune to subjective reasoning? "schools" of thought are entirely based on the fact that given view points can be taught, and held in common by groups of people devoted to their defense and maintenance.
This is in no way a slight upon your or their intelligence... there are many brilliantly intelligent people who exist within a pre-assumed school of thought, and frequently brilliant people are in opposite schools of thought.

 

[MikeMcK]

lets see, pretty much everything you'v ever said regarding Catholics... and a good deal of what you've said regarding the tele-evangelist crowd. Pretty much every time I see you talking to WoF people they say you are misrepresenting their beliefs.

And yet, you can't even come up with one example of my having done this?

and you think I'm being a jerk

Evidently, I'm not the only one here. Somebody else has already pointed out that you've been rude to me.

As for your oversight board with 100 collective years of seminary training, thats cool. I wish more people had something like that. I must ask, however, do you really think that makes you, or them, immune to subjective reasoning?

Not at all. But I do think it's telling that those who have gone over my doctrine with a fine toothed comb for years now are unable to find a problem, but you, with no knowledge of the Bible, are able to find all of this heresy from just a couple of posts on the internet.

Now, are you going to back up your false accusations, or not?

 

[nephilimiyr]

The Bible says: God is spirit, and we must worship him in spirit.
Obviously if he is spirit he is not physical.
So any physical descriptions of him are either metaphors, or temporary manifestations.

I agree; God doesn't have hands or feet, He doesn't have a torso or a head. Any reference of any body part owned by God the Father is metaphorical. Yet Jesus Christ the Son is physical and alive today and sits at the Fathers right hand

Heaven is the spiritual presence of God. Not a physical place. The spiritual realm is non-caporeal.
We can exist as siprit in non-caporeal form. That is how we can remain alive after death.
So we will "exist" "in" heaven, but heaven has no depth, or mass, or dimension.
So "there" would not be a place, as much a state of existence.

I'm not trying to be rude here with you but I honestly think your taking a rather shallow view on this. I see no reason to conclude that heaven is without demensions and in fact the Bible does give evidence towards saying that it does. Heaven and the spirit world is in a dimension that we can't see and the Bible on a consistant basis refers to heaven in context of being a place, not a state of mind or existance.

Take a look at these verse's please.
Hebrews 8:4-5, If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: "See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.
With your belief of heaven as being nothing more than a state of existence but not a place, please explain these two verses for me.

So no, heaven is not metaphorical. It is a place described thusly since we can not comprehend what it truly is. I certainly don't comprehend it, I am just good with understanding concepts... rarely can I apply said concepts, but that is another issue.

Concepts? concepts created and applied by whom? You are trying to understand God's kingdom of heaven using man's logic? I would say that you have started from the wrong place. You start by understanding God and His kingdom of heaven by reading His word and getting to know Him. No amount of understanding man's concepts will help you to understand God and where He is in the spiritual realm.

How could we understand existing without a body in a place without dimension?

Who says the spirit world is without dimension? And if so, why can't a world without dimension not have space?

Besides "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord."
If we are absent from the body, we are not in the body, and are obviously not in a "place".

Odviously? please explain without useing man's concepts but by useing the word of God, if you can.

 

[JTM3]

Please do not knock Jesse and kill the thread - I just want to know how many of you have heard his message on being brought up to Heaven for over 5 hours and the word that Jesus gave him to bring back of "tell them I am coming."

To hear him and see him on this message I feel it was real and a Blessing.

He tells some things on this message that we wonder about and a lot of questions were answered.

He never saw his face because the light was so bright - but it was a wonderful encouraging message - we won't be sitting around on a cloud doing nothing.

I think the thread has died.

 

[JTM3]

There will be no marriage in Heaven.

Marriage is an Earthly institution by God to demonstrate and to be a foreshadow of the relationship between Christ and His church.

Just as the Sabbath was a foreshadow of the coming Christ, and has now been fulfilled in Christ, so there will be no need for the shadow in Heaven, when the real marriage ceremony comes.

This

Once again, Duplantis shows that he's a false teacher.

Once again, Christians show that they'll abandon sound doctrine in a heartbeat, if they think it will satisfy their itching ears.

Looking back, I find it hard to believe, but God is faithful and it's a testimony to His great mercy and faithfulness that He led me out of that Unbiblical belief system.



Actually, Gary Whetstone and Bob Palmer, the pastors of the two churches I attended are very well known in WoF circles. If they're not WoF, then they certainly have the WoF community fooled.

In any event, Jesse Duplantis still teaches false and Unbiblical doctrines, just as Whetstone and Palmer, and it is still disturbing that Christians would fall for his nonsense, including his Unbiblical "Heaven" story.

I see. So then, when Jesus ascended, and said that He went to prepare a place for us, so that where He is, so we may also be, He was really ascending to the New Earth?

If you say so, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to go with the Bible on this one.

No, I'm not implying anything. I'm stating outright that he's speaking in contrast to the Bible.



Then why does the Bible describe Heaven as a physical place?

No, I've studied the scriptures for nearly twenty years and have based my opinions on it.



Funny, but you're very good at hurling childish insults, but when it comes to actually backing them up with scripture and correnting me, not a peep out of you.

Frankly, I think that says it all.

If you've supposedly studied the Scriptures so long, perhaps you could POST some!!

Then the Bible is wrong when it describes Heaven as a real, physical place?



You do know that believers are resurrected bodily, don't you?

Of course you are. Please, I'm not stupid.

Even Atlantians sees that you've been a jerk toward me, and he's on your side.



Let me put it to you this way:

Every five or six weeks, I have to go and sit before a panel of men who have more than 100 years seminary and ministry experience between them.

I am questioned and have to give an account for everything I've taught and preached during that time.

So far, they haven't found anything wrong with my grasp of the scriptures and I'll guarantee you that I'm held to a much higher standard than I am here, but much more knowledgable men than you.

I've studied the bible for 15 years or more, and for most of that time, without even knowing it, I studied, and interpeted based on the assumptions I had already been taught, and made myself.
Its simply the way humans work, that we need to be trained specificly to step outside our view points and look at things objectively, or we simply don't do it. Its not something we do naturally.



Really? Back it up and show us an example.



And, until you back it up, it's just another false accusation on your part.

So, I do it "routinely" and yet, you can't even come up with one example?

And yet, you can't even come up with one example of my having done this?



Evidently, I'm not the only one here. Somebody else has already pointed out that you've been rude to me.



Not at all. But I do think it's telling that those who have gone over my doctrine with a fine toothed comb for years now are unable to find a problem, but you, with no knowledge of the Bible, are able to find all of this heresy from just a couple of posts on the internet.

Now, are you going to back up your false accusations, or not?

Looking back, over your dozen or so posts, there is NOT a SINGLE Scripture in them.

Not ONE from someone who is supposed to go to before a council every so often and therefore supposed to know so much.

SO, if you SUPPOSEDLY know so much, BACK IT UP, or else stop falsely accusing others!


Don't expect me to check back often. It's pointless to debate with people like you.



[I'm sorry if didn't post Scipture, but I never intended on getting too deep in here anyway]

*****************************************************************************************

 

[Simon_Templar]

And yet, you can't even come up with one example of my having done this?



Evidently, I'm not the only one here. Somebody else has already pointed out that you've been rude to me.



Not at all. But I do think it's telling that those who have gone over my doctrine with a fine toothed comb for years now are unable to find a problem, but you, with no knowledge of the Bible, are able to find all of this heresy from just a couple of posts on the internet.

Now, are you going to back up your false accusations, or not?

Examples...

http://www.christianforums.com/t4158753&page=3
In this one you misrepresent Catholic teaching
and while accusing the forums of having a double standard, reveal one of your own

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=28897639#post28897639

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=28895855#post28895855

In both of these posts you attack a book you haven't even read on the basis of your assertion that anything which teaches against OSAS is unbiblical and a false teaching. The underlying assumption, again is that your view is 100% right and you are unwilling to consider otherwise.

http://www.christianforums.com/t4008168
In this thread, all of your posts are insults based on no substance at all. Further, you take other's comments obviously made ironicly and intended to be humorous and construed them to be the literal position of your opponents.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=28864697#post28864697
In this post you point out that a Catholic misrepresented your view, and even acknoledged that they commonly tell you you misrepresent theirs, which you do.

http://www.christianforums.com/t4143932
this entire thread was based on misrepresentation of what the Catholic Church teaches.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=28784679#post28784679
ditto for this one. Essentially the same topic.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=28767834#post28767834
your posts here both misrepresent the opposition, and then go on to insult him as well.

I could go on, but what would the point be.. its just more of the same, and it'd get boring (probably already is to the others here)

One last thing.. in this thread, you have stated that my views are contradictory to scripture, you have accused me several times of not providing scripture, which I actually have done... but you really haven't. You've just stated that your view is the scriptural one, and apparently because mine is different then yours it must necessarily be unscriptural...

SO, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind actually showing some scriptural support for your view. If you have valid reason why my view is incorrect, or why I've misinterpeted Rev. 21, I'd like to know.

 

[Atlantians]

Please for the sake of post length, quote and respond to what I have said to YOU (if I indicated more than one person, then that is cool also).
Since this post is so dang long I think that will save time and effort and make everything look less pyramid shaped.

No, because it doesn't fit with scripture.

Well, I think that you should demonstrate how and why it isn't.
It is raelly easy to say that it isn't, I think we need to hear... read... see... that it isn' in the way you interpret it.

Of course you are. Please, I'm not stupid.

Even Atlantians sees that you've been a jerk toward me, and he's on your side.

Actually, to be bluntly honest, I think you have both been jerks to eachother and am on no one's side...
*hides his neck really quickly*


so neither of you can take a morale highground on the issue.
And also, I think neither of you can tell the other's intentions, attitude, tone, or meaning because this is a bunch of 1s and 0s sent across an interconnected computer network to a bunch of pixels in a screen.
On the other hand, people have been speaking through written words for thousands of years... so we have a basis to base such interpretations.
Sigh. To much caffiene.
Ooh... gives me an idea for a sig.

"Atlantians- A dose of overcaffienated Christian teenage reason, in a hyper caffienated adult world."

Let me put it to you this way:

Every five or six weeks, I have to go and sit before a panel of men who have more than 100 years seminary and ministry experience between them.

I am questioned and have to give an account for everything I've taught and preached during that time.

So far, they haven't found anything wrong with my grasp of the scriptures and I'll guarantee you that I'm held to a much higher standard than I am here, but much more knowledgable men than you.

I've studied the bible for 15 years or more, and for most of that time, without even knowing it, I studied, and interpeted based on the assumptions I had already been taught, and made myself.
Its simply the way humans work, that we need to be trained specificly to step outside our view points and look at things objectively, or we simply don't do it. Its not something we do naturally.

Here is an idea.
You are used to a certain form of criticism. Maybe the kind you recieve here is a different kind altogether then in those doctrinal meetings.
I think we all should tryto approech these discussions with one motive: Thinking about it as if we havn't before.

And, until you back it up, it's just another false accusation on your part.

I wouldn't go that far as to say it is a false accusation.
However, asking one to backup the statement is called for.

The flaw in you're logic regarding heaven is the assumption that since God is a spirit, then heaven must be only spiritual. This does not follow. A spirit can inhabit physical places, just as easily as it does spiritual 'places'.

Well heaven is described in many ways, and we can interpret those descriptions from what we know about the inhabitants.
My logic is not flawed.
I am basing my point on the knowledge that heaven is spiritual. If it has a physical aspect is an addition, not a contrast.
And a spirit can not inhabit a physical place porse. A being of non temporal existence or dimension is by deffinition not "anywhere".
It is a contradiction of terms.
You can't cut off my arm and say "oh, there went part of his spirit".
My spirit is not a dimension, of place or sound. It simply is. And my body simply holds it in a non-dimentional sense.

Further, it is clear in scripture that Jesus is physical, and he has physical form, yet he is in heaven, seated at the right hand of the Father. This does not imply that the Father is not a spirit or that He is physical, but it does imply that Heaven is a physical place.

Good point.
I am not sure about that.
We know God exists outside time, space and dimension, we also know that God, the angels and demons all are in cohabitation. Yet we know the demons were baned "from heaven".
So it implies that haeven is abstract, not tangible.
However, Christ does have a physical body, yet we know "sitting at the Right hand of the father" is a metaphore for the principle place of importance in a Kingdom.
So then, what can we deduce?
From other scriptures we can deduce heaven is an abstract state of existance in the positive presense of God.
So how can the Physical body of Jesus remain yet be in a spiritual place.... no clue.
Obviously he "left earth" when he ascended into heaven, and obviously that doesn't mean he went to faster then light speed and is zipping about the universe, still ascending or whatever.

As for my comments to Mike, you're welcome to your opinion. He routinely misrepresents and attacks the beliefs of others here, that behavior is indicative of exactly what I have said.

My oppinion is simply unbiased observation.
I rarely take sides on personal issues, often I take neither side and point that both are wrong... this rarely helps my popularity.
Its like going into war with two parties because they are both fighting for bad reasons.
Like attacking the revolting americans in the Revolution for defying reasonable authority, and attacking the British for having a jerk for a King.

Then the Bible is wrong when it describes Heaven as a real, physical place?

I think that you should demonstrate where it does and we can discuss the scriptures in context.

You do know that believers are resurrected bodily, don't you?

Of course.
But if to be absent from the body is to be present with the lord, logically that implies we will be aware of ourselves in spirit before the ressurection.

I agree; God doesn't have hands or feet, He doesn't have a torso or a head. Any reference of any body part owned by God the Father is metaphorical. Yet Jesus Christ the Son is physical and alive today and sits at the Fathers right hand

The right hand which is a state of existence.
The right hand of the father (the place, not the hand[though the hand is also metaphorical]) is a metaphore relating to we people the most important position of glory to people used to Kings.
How this relates to Christ being in heaven physically is a slighlty different issue.

I'm not trying to be rude here with you but I honestly think your taking a rather shallow view on this.

Obviously not.
Shallowness is a description of depth, since I am of the viewpoint that heaven is without dimension, then I certainly don't have a shallow view of it.

I see no reason to conclude that heaven is without demensions and in fact the Bible does give evidence towards saying that it does.

Yes, but one has to understand that the Bible is describing concepts of absalute infinity, in the sense of finite expression, and absalutely finite human perception.

Heaven and the spirit world is in a dimension that we can't see and the Bible on a consistant basis refers to heaven in context of being a place, not a state of mind or existance.

Heaven is not a state of mind certainly.
But it is a state of existence.

Take a look at these verse's please.
Hebrews 8:4-5, If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: "See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.
With your belief of heaven as being nothing more than a state of existence but not a place, please explain these two verses for me.

The Temple (Tabernacle was the same, but was a mobile temple before the "Temple" was built) was a shadow of what was to come, personal relationship with Christ and forgiveness of sins.
A copy in the sense of relational and purpose.
Shadow in the sense of not the actual thing, but a shape, an outline with no substance.
Christ recreated the temple in each of us personally with him as the sacrifice.
He is saying that the relationship of intercessor priest and God is filled by Christ in heaven, while on earth we have human's who do that.
If Christ were merely on earth being a priest, it would be redundant.
But he is not that kind of a priest.
He is God himself interceding for us.

Concepts? concepts created and applied by whom?

Concepts.
Like square roots.
I understand them well, but figuring out how to simplify them is hard. I understand the process, but figuring out how to write it is hard.
Conceptualization vs application.

You are trying to understand God's kingdom of heaven using man's logic?

Not man's logic.
There is no "man's logic".
There is wisdom, but wisdom and logic are mutually exclusive.

I would say that you have started from the wrong place.

You deduce this how?

You start by understanding God and His kingdom of heaven by reading His word and getting to know Him.

Getting to know him, and knowing about him are both mutually exclusive, and mutually inclusive.

No amount of understanding man's concepts will help you to understand God and where He is in the spiritual realm.

God is everywhere, and yet is nowhere specific.
Well, unless you count Jesus, but he still existed everywhere, at every place and time, at the same time as he was telling Peter to follow him.
I am expressing God's existence as described in the Bible in ways not used in the Bible because God was expressing himself through human concepts.

Who says the spirit world is without dimension? And if so, why can't a world without dimension not have space?

Because space is a demonstration of height, width, depth.
If a place has no dimensions (height, width, depth, vloume, area) then it obviously can't have physical space.

Odviously? please explain without useing man's concepts but by useing the word of God, if you can.

Already have.
"To be absent from the body."
"God is spirit...Worship God in Spirit..."

lets see, pretty much everything you'v ever said regarding Catholics... and a good deal of what you've said regarding the tele-evangelist crowd. Pretty much every time I see you talking to WoF people they say you are misrepresenting their beliefs.

Well, to be honest, WOFers have said the same to me. And I asked them how I did, and they wouldn't give me a strai(spelling?) demonstration on how or why or what I should have written.
And all my examples were almost completely based on exact quotes from WOFers on this forum, many of whom were the one's who were saying I was misrepresenting their beliefs.
So that is a bad example on your part.
As for Catholics, um... I think I remember that.

 

[Simon_Templar]

Atlantians,

one more post and then I'm off to bed

I don't agree with the idea that spirit, if it has no physical manifestation is no where. I don't think this can be proven, by any biblical evidence (and there is no empirical evidence that I'm aware of), and I don't think it follows necessarily ontologically either.

The problem is that we really don't know what spirit is, and how it interacts with the physical.

I would argue that the physical world arises from, or is an expression of spirit. This is somewhat vague, so I'll try to define it a little more clearly. I would say it is similar to the way in which an Idea arises from a mind, or is the expression of a mind. So the physical arises out of the spiritual.

The spiritual, can exist without and seperate from physical elements. However the physical can not be fully seperated from, or without spiritual foundation.

The errors of gnosticism all arise from seeing a disconnect, a seperation between physical and spiritual reality. The two are connected, and the spiritual is the foundation of the physical.

The problem is that we really have no idea what purely spiritual reality is like, because we can experience it, and relat to it, only through its physical expression. It is entirely possible that "spiritual" could be concieved of as another, different dimension, which occupies the same same space as the world we percieve.

This idea could be seen to be born up by the instance in which Elisha asked God to open the eyes of his servant and suddenly his servant saw a vast host of angels surrounding them. This suggests to my mind that the angels, which were spirits, and invisible to the physical perception, were "there" they were present in that location. Also, the opening of the servants eyes, would appear not to be a physical manifestation on the part of the spirits, but rather a spiritual perception on the part of physical eyes.

lots of fun stuff to think about

 

[Questioning Christian]

One thing we all must remember is that we now see through a glass darkly, but then face to face. I think it is awesome that we all stare upward to the heavens in wonderment of what that place is now like, and shall be for us in the experiential upon our individual discovering of it.

Words cannot express just what heaven is really like. Through the imperfections of speech and language, we only receive a shadow of the figure, rather than a fulness of the figure itself. To describe my silhouette is far from knowing me, and to speculate on the glories of heaven, and of the life that is to come, does a far injustice from the actual and real encountering that one day awaits all of us, when we see our Savior first of all.

 

[nephilimiyr]

From other scriptures we can deduce heaven is an abstract state of existance in the positive presense of God.

No because when useing the proper context, whenever the word heaven is used you must conclude that heaven is a real place, not a state of existance. You are not useing proper context, if you are in fact useing the word of God, I have no way of knowing if you are. Actually the only thing you say you have used is "concepts" so you useing the word of God is a question of mine.

Anyway, for instance, whenever the phrase "Kingdom of heaven" is used it is talking about a place. The very phrase used indicates this. Whatever a King rules over is called a domain. This is where we got the word Kingdom from, kings-domain, king-dom. Without a domain, the title of "King" holds no meaning and carries no weight. There can be no president without a country, no Prime Minister without a nation; every ruler must have a realm to rule. There can be no Kingdom of heaven if there is no heaven.

God is King of both the unseen and the seen realms; the spiritual world and the physical world. He is El Shaddai, God Almighty, the ruler who sets all the standards in both heaven and on earth. He lives in and rules the unseen realm (heaven) and is Creator and owner of the seen realm, where He also created us humans to rule under His authority as vice-regents of the earth. As King of both worlds and or everything, God is the standard setter, the rule maker, and the Judge of all things. That's what it means to be King.

A King cannot be a King unless he has something to rule over. It is impossible to be King over nothing. Before anything else was, God was, He is the great I AM. Yet, God was not a King until he created a realm over which to rule. Until that time, He was just God, omniscient and omnipotent, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, complete, and self contained, existing in nothing and in the middle of nowhere. Then, in accordance with His nature, he created first a spiritual realm and then followed by a physical realm.

We know He created the unseen spiritual realm first because we know it existed before He created the seen physical realm. He had an audience when he created the earth.

Job 38:4-7 Where wast thou when I laid the foundation of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
The morning stars and the sons of God are angels. They lived with God in the spiritual realm called heaven. They witnessed God creating the seen physical world and they shouted for joy when they saw it!

Before God created the physical universe he created heaven with a multitude of angels. Now He had something and someone to rule over, this was His domain and it became the Kingdom of heaven.

We have eye witnesses of heaven being a real place. More than enough men had visions of the place. Isaiah was one of them.

Isaiah 6:1-4, In the year that King Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the Seaphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory. And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke.

What house, what temple did Isaiah see? The same temple that Moses was give the pattern of so to build the tabernacle in the dessert by. This is in the like of the same sanctuary that is in heaven. I gave you the verse in the other thread.

I have more to say but I'll let you chew on that for a while.

So how can the Physical body of Jesus remain yet be in a spiritual place.... no clue.

It's not just Jesus who is up in heaven in a physical body Atlantians. Both Enoch and Elijah were taken up to heaven with their physical bodies. And answering back with "no clue" is not good enough.

Obviously not.
Shallowness is a description of depth, since I am of the viewpoint that heaven is without dimension, then I certainly don't have a shallow view of it.

LOL, Either this is an attempt at humor or you're serious and have taken me out of context. I think you have a narrow point of view and or belief on this. Depth? I would say that you have an overly limited view and or not much knowledge on dimensions and that tells me you're not thinking very deeply into this.

Yes, but one has to understand that the Bible is describing concepts of absalute infinity, in the sense of finite expression, and absalutely finite human perception.

Case in point, it's much easier to attribute what the Bible very clearly says on something to somekind of a "concept" that doesn't quite agree with the written word. After all, such things like the Red Sea being parted just isn't logical so we must form a concept that might explain this in a logical way.

Prove to me why I have to understand it that way. You are the one making this claim. The Church from the very start has agreed upon and confirmed that heaven is a place, that it's not just a state of existence. For hundreds of years the large majority of biblical scholars have agreed upon this and has never taught otherwise, at least not until recent years. 2000 years latter you come along to tell everybody that they're wrong and have been wrong on this all the time?

In fact the Jewish people from thousands of years before Christ believed in a literal heaven where God lives and rules and you are also telling them that they are wrong.

Heaven is not a state of mind certainly.
But it is a state of existence.

Ok, that's cleared up, you believe it's just a state of existence, not a state of mind.

I have to admitt that I'm a little confused over what exactly you mean by a state of existence.

The Temple (Tabernacle was the same, but was a mobile temple before the "Temple" was built) was a shadow of what was to come, personal relationship with Christ and forgiveness of sins.
A copy in the sense of relational and purpose.
Shadow in the sense of not the actual thing, but a shape, an outline with no substance.
Christ recreated the temple in each of us personally with him as the sacrifice.
He is saying that the relationship of intercessor priest and God is filled by Christ in heaven, while on earth we have human's who do that.
If Christ were merely on earth being a priest, it would be redundant.
But he is not that kind of a priest.
He is God himself interceding for us.

I'm sorry but the passage says that these things that were shown Moses were in heaven. Read the passage again, it says "of what is in heaven". You are discribing something to me that isn't in heaven, something that isn't actualized yet but both Isaiah and Ezekiel bare witness to it being there in heaven!

When Moses was shown the pattern of how he was to build the tabernacle, this pattern came from what was already in heaven. The pattern was not of something that was going to happen or going to take place at some future date.

You do know that at the time of Moses, Christ wasn't in heaven? The Son, the Word, was in heaven but Christ our intercesser was not. Christ is not a name, it's a title that means the annointed one. The Son was not annointed until He was down on earth.

Concepts.
Like square roots.
I understand them well, but figuring out how to simplify them is hard. I understand the process, but figuring out how to write it is hard.
Conceptualization vs application.

That's not an answer to my question.

Again, concepts created by who and applied by who? You're odviously not following the same concepts of the Jewish people, ancient or modern, nor are you following the concepts of the age old Church. If you were you would see heaven as a real place. So whose concepts are you going by and then applying?

Not man's logic.
There is no "man's logic".
There is wisdom, but wisdom and logic are mutually exclusive.

And concepts aren't automatically wise concepts even though they might seem to be the only logical explanation.

You deduce this how?

By reading your words. You have taken the concepts that you know of and have applied them in a way to give you the answers.

God's ways are not our ways and God's thoughts are not our thoughts, Isaiah 55:8. That is in effect saying God's concepts are not our concepts yet you want your concepts of Him to teach you about God?

No, you first learn God's word and get to know him. That is where real wisdom comes from.

Proverbs 3:5, Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;

Prov. 3:7, Do not be wise in your own eyes; fear the Lord and shun evil.

Prov. 4:7, Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding.

Getting to know him, and knowing about him are both mutually exclusive, and mutually inclusive.

And Atlantians gets to know Him how? Tell me. Learning from His word and talking to and praying to Him or from your own concepts of Him or from the concepts of others?

I am expressing God's existence as described in the Bible in ways not used in the Bible because God was expressing himself through human concepts.

That's right and those concepts have been learned and taught for ages through the Holy Spirit unto men. Those concepts have been known for along time and they do differ from your own, that is, on this subject anyway.
Men, under the annointing of the Holy Spirit had much to say about heaven and of it being a real place where God lives and rules.

Because space is a demonstration of height, width, depth.
If a place has no dimensions (height, width, depth, vloume, area) then it obviously can't have physical space.

Again, how do you know that heaven, the spirit world, has no dimensions? This is what I mean by you having a narrow belief on this. You odviously haven't studied much on the theories of alternate dimensions and universes. Einstein himself was working on a theory on this when he died. So, you want to study concepts? If so you should study the theories out there that talk about many alternate demensions and universes. I'll see if I can't give you some reading resources later on this if your interested.

Already have.
"To be absent from the body."
"God is spirit...Worship God in Spirit..."

Your concept of it does not in any way shape or form mean that it is "odvious".

This is like the longest thread I have written in a long time.

If anything Atlantians, thanks for the interesting discussion.

 

[CrazyforYeshua]

Of course Heaven is a physical place, Paul went there himself, also. If it was metaphysical (or whatever ), where did he go?
I've heard the testimony Jesse gave, and I don't think he is making it up. He tells us to test what he says against the witness of the Spirit.

 

[MikeMcK]

Of course Heaven is a physical place, Paul went there himself, also. If it was metaphysical (or whatever ), where did he go?

Paul only had a vision of Heaven. He didn't actually go to Heaven.

I've heard the testimony Jesse gave, and I don't think he is making it up. He tells us to test what he says against the witness of the Spirit.

Very shrewd on Duplantis' part.

Tell people who are already inclined to believe your story to trust a subjective experience that they will be predisposed to interpret as supporting their beliefs.

If he had been sincere, he would have said to compare his teachings with scripture.

 

[MikeMcK]

Examples...

http://www.christianforums.com/t4158753&page=3
In this one you misrepresent Catholic teaching
and while accusing the forums of having a double standard, reveal one of your own

Actually, I only made one post in that thread and anyone who reads it will see that I said nothing about Roman Catholic teaching, nor did I hold anyone to a double standard.

So here we have the first example of your trouble with telling the truth.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=28897639#post28897639


http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=28895855#post28895855

In both of these posts you attack a book you haven't even read on the basis of your assertion that anything which teaches against OSAS is unbiblical and a false teaching.

Actually, I didn't "attack" anything. I simply said that, based on what those who have read the book have told me about it, I'm not interested in reading it.

In any event, nowhere in this thread did I attack Roman Catholics, as you claim I did in this thread.

This is the second example of your trouble telling the truth.

The underlying assumption, again is that your view is 100% right and you are unwilling to consider otherwise.

No, what I said is that I had already presented copious amounts of scripture to demonatrate that OSAS is Biblical and, since no one in that thread was able to refute them, I saw no reason to abandon the Biblical teaching of OSAS.

http://www.christianforums.com/t4008168
In this thread, all of your posts are insults based on no substance at all. Further, you take other's comments obviously made ironicly and intended to be humorous and construed them to be the literal position of your opponents.

Actually, I didn't insult anybody in this thread. I simply made the comment that TBN promotes false doctrine and is blocked out on our cable box.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=28864697#post28864697
In this post you point out that a Catholic misrepresented your view, and even acknoledged that they commonly tell you you misrepresent theirs, which you do.

Actually, what I said is that Roman Catholics worship Mary and consider her to be Co-Redemptrix. I and many other posters here have already demonstrated this to be true.

Still waiting for you to show us where I've ever attack Roman Catholics or WoFers.

In baseball, this would be strike three, but let's continue, shall we?

http://www.christianforums.com/t4143932
this entire thread was based on misrepresentation of what the Catholic Church teaches.

Then take it up with the person who started the thread.

The entirety of my comments in that thread were:

I think he knocked the ball out of the park.

He used Biblical and historically accurate evidence to back up his point and there are some, even some here on these boards, who are mad because they can't refute it.

Notice that I do not attack Roman Catholics, as you're claiming.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=28784679#post28784679
ditto for this one. Essentially the same topic.

Actually, it isn't. It's a link to a John MacArthur sermon in which he uses Biblical and historical evidence to ask the question, "Should we share the Gospel with Roman Catholics". Had you bothered to listen to it, you would have seen that the conclusion is not an attack on Roman Catholics, but simply and acknowledgement that church membership doesn't save you, whether it be a Roman Catholic church, a Baptist church, or any other church.

Anyone who reads my threads in this post will see that not only did I not attack Roman Catholicsism, but didn't even adress it's teachings.

I simply posted a link to a sermon and my comments were limited to that sermon

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=28767834#post28767834
your posts here both misrepresent the opposition, and then go on to insult him as well.

Sigh...

And, once again, we see that I didn't misrepresent anyone or insult them. In fact, I don't even know that I spoke to a Roman Catholic at all in that thread.

So, since we see that you're unable to show an example of my ever having attacked Roman Catholics, I'm going to follow the Bible's admonition not to answer a fool according to his folly, and put you on ignore.

I could go on, but what would the point be.. its just more of the same, and it'd get boring (probably already is to the others here)

I agree. Watching you embarrass yourself this way is becoming quite boring.

 

[JTM3]

Ignoring me are we?

 

[Alpine]

Ignoring me are we?

Did somebody hear something?

 

[Simon_Templar]

Paul only had a vision of Heaven. He didn't actually go to Heaven.



Very shrewd on Duplantis' part.

Tell people who are already inclined to believe your story to trust a subjective experience that they will be predisposed to interpret as supporting their beliefs.

If he had been sincere, he would have said to compare his teachings with scripture.

Actually this isn't what the bible says.. Paul says "I knew a man who was caught up into 3rd heaven, whether in the body or in the spirit I can not tell, God knows."

In other words, from Paul's perspective, he was unable to tell if the experience was physical, as in he was bodily caught up into heaven, or if it was a spiritual experience where his spirit only was caught up into heaven.

In either case, it does not appear to merely have been a vision of heaven, it appears to have been a real experience in which he literally traveled (either physically or spiritually) to 3rd heaven.