Jesse Duplantis' message on Heaven

[Simon_Templar]

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.



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.



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.



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.



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?



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

The entirety of my comments in that thread were:



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



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



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

yes watching me embarass myself probably does get monotonous. I do it so frequently its really passe

Anyway, I've noticed that you have ignored every request that you back up your assertions with scripture. You claim your view is scriptural, and mine isn't. I've provided scripture for my view which I undoubtedly must have misinterpeted.. but I'd like to see where your view comes from.

 

[Questioning Christian]

I don't see much Scripture, if any, coming from ANYONE. It reads like a bunch of arguments back and forth. That is good, if you are not saying "the Bible says THIS". If you are saying "I believe", okay then. But for anyone presenting any point of view in this topic, to make their case Biblical, we need to have Scripture.

That wasn't thrown in any one direction, but generally, because I'm seeing this back-and-forth banter about "YOU don't have Scripture", and then someone says, "No, YOU don't have scripture".

I got one ... "now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face."

 

[nephilimiyr]

I don't see much Scripture, if any, coming from ANYONE. It reads like a bunch of arguments back and forth. That is good, if you are not saying "the Bible says THIS". If you are saying "I believe", okay then. But for anyone presenting any point of view in this topic, to make their case Biblical, we need to have Scripture.

That wasn't thrown in any one direction, but generally, because I'm seeing this back-and-forth banter about "YOU don't have Scripture", and then someone says, "No, YOU don't have scripture".

I got one ... "now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face."

Well, if you're doing a numbers check, I quoted 6 passages of scripture, 13 verses in all, in the two posts I have made in the thread and referred to a few more.

Are you telling me I should just quote scripture and leave out all the commentary?

The point the others are trying to make is that if you are going to be continuely accusing others of not understanding scripture you should at least use some to make your point.

 

[Dyin2live]

Hi Cindy!

LOL! Things have changed drastically since the last time we've talked.

The throne room is in our hearts. We can go there any time.

Jesus looks like a tall slender man. Brown eyes, brown wavy hair. The Holy spirit is a tall etherial man, all glowing and white with HUGE wings. God the Father looks like a powerful but gentle man. I have to use the face of my imagination because He is difficult to see. I see my own father's face or a man's face.

The room is where I go to chat, but they have other thrones where its set up high above the ground. Nations were worshipping them. Everyone had their hands up and singing.
They were in the center, up high.

There are other people/spirits there. Some children/babies and adults. I didn't stay long to talk with them. I saw my own "mansion" and the roads paved in emeralds and rubies.
There are cities and outlying towns and countries. Much like earth but better.
No cars.

As for authority; depending on what you are to Him on earth, you will have that much authority in heaven. Best I can describe is like Joshua when he was dividing the land amongst the tribes in Caanan.

Gotta go start my day...
talk with you more later.

Is God the father like the size of a normal human or is he huge. I always pictured Him being like 500 feet tall and like brighter than the sun and extremely powerful. Id always picture Him with like a white beard and white hair.Ive never really heard a description of the holy spirit, thanx for that! I thought he looked like a dove before.

 

[peacechild4]

Hi Cindy!

LOL! Things have changed drastically since the last time we've talked.

The throne room is in our hearts. We can go there any time.

Jesus looks like a tall slender man. Brown eyes, brown wavy hair. The Holy spirit is a tall etherial man, all glowing and white with HUGE wings. God the Father looks like a powerful but gentle man. I have to use the face of my imagination because He is difficult to see. I see my own father's face or a man's face.

The room is where I go to chat, but they have other thrones where its set up high above the ground. Nations were worshipping them. Everyone had their hands up and singing.
They were in the center, up high.

There are other people/spirits there. Some children/babies and adults. I didn't stay long to talk with them. I saw my own "mansion" and the roads paved in emeralds and rubies.
There are cities and outlying towns and countries. Much like earth but better.
No cars.

As for authority; depending on what you are to Him on earth, you will have that much authority in heaven. Best I can describe is like Joshua when he was dividing the land amongst the tribes in Caanan.

Gotta go start my day...
talk with you more later.

I have heard this message and have it on CD some place here at home.. this is the second time I have read about this teaching... so must get the CD out again and relisten to it!!

Thanks for sharing this AFinChrist!! I hope you start a blog on here or write someplace where we can read some more.... I really think those who are blessed to see and experience this should be sharing it!!! I know for one.. it really helps me to keep my focus on living for Gods Kingdom down here!!

Your account lines up with many I have heard tell stories of heaven.. etc !!

So indeed the pictures we see of Jesus who betray Him as you describe.. are they sort of like Him??

 

[Atlantians]

I don't see much Scripture, if any, coming from ANYONE. It reads like a bunch of arguments back and forth. That is good, if you are not saying "the Bible says THIS". If you are saying "I believe", okay then. But for anyone presenting any point of view in this topic, to make their case Biblical, we need to have Scripture.

That wasn't thrown in any one direction, but generally, because I'm seeing this back-and-forth banter about "YOU don't have Scripture", and then someone says, "No, YOU don't have scripture".

I got one ... "now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face."

Just a note, I ussually quote from memmory and don't use verse and chapter.

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 never said that.
Rather, I said that because it is spirit, because it exists outside of time and space, because of infinity, it exists in no "place".
It is a contradictio of terms.
You can't describethe taste of an apple by using the terminology for a computer.

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.

Well since you are arguing from a contradiction of terms, this is irrelivent.

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

We do... and don't.
God is spirit. He knows everything. He exists everywhere, but is in no particular "place" at any time.

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.

That is metaphysicalism. Like budhism.
And idea is abstract.
The physical and spiritual are not abstract.

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

Yes and no.
Physical and spiritual are mutually excluive.
A rock, and a dead body are spiritually absent.
But since God is spirit, he has power that we can not understand which is infinite and allows the creation of the uncreatable.
Energy.
And from energy, matter.

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 spiritual and physical are both disconnected and connected.
Mutually exclusive yet intertwined. Gnostisism arises from a false understanding.
But understanding similar thusly is not

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.

True.

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.

Not true.
The spiritual existed before the physical.
God is spirit.
And he created time, space, dimension, the physical.
Thus it can't inhabit the same space.
Further we can determine thus that since God created time, he created space, and dimension.
Besides the universe is expanding.
Is the spiritual realm thus expanding?
Certainly not.
It exists outside of our ability to percieve, understand, or even explain it.
Thus the confussion manifested here.

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.

They were manifested by God.
Elisha saw them in the place he was.
They were made manifest to him.

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.

Yes. They were manifested. They were made perceptible to the senses.
Try it this way:
They were manifested to him in a way he could understand. He obviously "saw them", so their presense was manifested in a way that would allow him to have understanding.
If he "saw" manifestations of presential infinity, would his mind be able to handle it?

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.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

lots of fun stuff to think about.

Indeed.

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.

He said if he was in the body or out of the body he doesn't know.

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.

*roles eyes*
What does the word concepts mean to you?
The Bible has a lot of them.

Please give examples of these instances with context like I asked before.

Anyway, for instance, whenever the phrase "Kingdom of heaven" is used it is talking about a place.

Dude... "kingdom of heaven" is a contrasting analogy to earthly kingdoms.

God's domain is all that exists.

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.

You are trying to make an analogy stand on what it is being compared to, not what is being related.

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.

Yes.
But again, it is an analogy.
A king is genearlly crowned or placed into power.
Who placed God into power? Where is his throne?
If heaven is his footstool, maybe it is actually a flat rectangle and has four posts on each corner.
The point is, it is an analogy. God was expressing in those examples that he has all power and everything belongs to him And that all things are subject thusly..
That was the point.
Going on about the physical history of kingdom's is rather irrelivent.

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.

You are comparing earthly kingdoms to God's rule.
He was comparing his rule to earthly kingdoms.
He was king over all that existed. He has always existed, thus he was always king.
Essentially your running on a wild goose chase. Tracking down metaphors and analogies and trying to pin them down as fact.
God was relating himself to our understanding.
One can not take from that and then instantly believe it at face value in that sense.

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.

If God is spirit, everything is a spiritual realm because he exists in no place everyplace.
Anything that exists is a spiritual 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.

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!

Your point?

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.

Mmmhmm... your point?

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

I am not saying it isn't real.
I am saying it is not a literal place by definition.

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.

Sigh.

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.

You have a clue?
I don't.
You are extending yourself beyond what I am willing to answer. You are addressing all issues at once.
To much.
I have yet to lay the basis of what I am saying, and you are jumping ahead to reprocussions thereof.

As for Enoch and Elija, they might have gone to heaven in their physical bodies, but I highly doubt they are there now in the physical.
Wherew ould heaven be? How could there bodies exist?
All will be ressurected.... oh except Enoch and Elija?
Personally I think their bodies became dormant and sort of "poofed" and their spirits went to Abraham's bosom. Or heaven.

LOL, Either this is an attempt at humor or you're serious and have taken me out of context.

Well, what do you think it was?

I think you have a narrow point of view and or belief on this.

Now that is humorous.

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.

Not thinking very deeply... hmmm. Lets see:
I prpopose heaven is a spiritual existence uncomprehendable to us and God tried to condecend such incomprehensibility to us using clear analogies.
You are taking it at face value and claing essentially that there is an actual heavenly temple and God literally architechturalized the tabernacle of Moses based on that temple.
Who is not thinking deeply? Who has the obverly limited view?

 

[Questioning Christian]

Well, if you're doing a numbers check, I quoted 6 passages of scripture, 13 verses in all, in the two posts I have made in the thread and referred to a few more.

Are you telling me I should just quote scripture and leave out all the commentary?

The point the others are trying to make is that if you are going to be continuely accusing others of not understanding scripture you should at least use some to make your point.

If you quoted scripture, then my post does not apply to you. But when I'm reading 2 and 3 pages of people just batting words around, and all saying that the other person's not using scripture, I think it's sort of amusing.

 

[Atlantians]

Post was to long.

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.

Well that is nonsense.
Which is easier to explain? That the Bible is in a sense, the attempt of an infinite God to give a finite expression of a part of infinity.
Or explaining it as if it were a handbook based solely on physical and localized examples.

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.

That was a historical event.

2000 years latter you come along to tell everybody that they're wrong and have been wrong on this all the time?

Argumentum ad populum.

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.

Did they?

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

Just a state of existence.. what do you mean by "just"?

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

What do you mean by state of existence?
I am a human spirit/physical synthesis.
A being existing with a nature based in spirit and the physical.
My state of existense is thus. I act and react in a physical world affected by spiritual and physical stimuli. That is my state of existence.

In heaven our state of existence will be an intellectual, emotional, and relational existence in the infinite presense of God. No time, no space, no dimension (height, width, depth). We will exist in that state. Our relationship[ with God will be with the veil torn. No longer through a glass darkly.

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!

You are using the wrong language. It was based of of what was in heaven. There is no time in heaven.
The temple shows the relationship between God and man.
Seperate, distant, broken.
Jesus tore the veil (there was a veil in the tabernacle and the Temple).
The veil was the symbolic representation of that seperation.
Only a high priest under vary careful circumstances could enter.
Christ tore the veil.
The temple was destroyed.
Christ destroyed what it symbolized. Which is the seperation of God and man.
So what the set plans were based on was the fact that God seperated himself (the veil) from us because of our sin, atoned for by the blood of a pure inoccent creature.

When Moses was shown the pattern of how he was to build the tabernacle, this pattern came from what was already in heaven.

Then how can the slain animal be the type and shadow of Christ, if it was the type and shadow of what was already in existence?
The language is the same.
Temple sacrifices were symbols of Christ sacrifice.
Like the temple was a physical symbol of the spiritual seperation of God and man.

The pattern was not of something that was going to happen or going to take place at some future date.

Then how was the slain animal a type and shadow of Christ's sacrifice if it was not a pattern of what was going to happen or take place?

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.

God exists out of time.
Christ was always the anointed one.
He didn't manifest himself thusly until we percieved him on earth in the body of a man.

That's not an answer to my question.

It was an analogy.

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.

And this is your oppionion.
What concepts of the age old Church? What Jewish concepts?
Please explain.

If you were you would see heaven as a real place.

So whose concepts are you going by and then applying?

I am going by the concepts clearly revealed in scripture.

As for applying, that was a personal refference to the fact that I understand how to do things, but when I do them I have difficulty doing them.
I understand how to tie a rope. But when I am tying I have difficulty doing it right.
I understand the concept easily, but I have difficulty applying it.
That statement about application had nothing to do with this discussion about the concept of heaven, but was a statement of my person.

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

Your point?

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.

Let me try and get something across to you about what I mean by concepts.
God is infinite right?
I understand the concept of infinity easily.
I don't however understand infinity.
I understand the concept of existing as a spirit,
I don't understand it.
These are Biblical concepts that I understand.
I don't understand them themselves, but I understand the concept being expressed.

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?

Eh?
These are not my concepts.
I was saying I understand the Biblical concepts I am explaning.

No, you first learn God's word and get to know him.

Um, it was my impression that everything we are talking about revolves exactly around God's word.
Obviously we have learned it, or we would not be having this conversation.
Obviously we know him also.
What we are doing is trying to understad the ways methods and concepts expressed in a finite text designed to express infinite knowledge.

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.

Mmmhhhmmmm....
I am certainly not leaning onto my own understand.
Heck, I am pretty dang confused.
I am expressing the understanding I have gotten that is not my own.

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?

You are starting to like the word concept now aren't you.
Please don't wittness to me. :d

Of course I get to know him through his woprd and our personal relationship made manifest through salvation conducted via his word.
The concepts I reffer to insesintly are the abstract concepts about him such as what does "omnipotence mean", and what exactly is "spirit".
I believe I understand these concepts and am expressing them thusly in line with scripture. Apparently our interpretations clash, thus sparking this long and interesting debate that will suck the bandwidth out of many dial-up users... bless their hearts, and patience (I have cable.).

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.

First: When I said as described in the Bible in ways not used in the Bible I was not saying I was speaking in addition to the Bible.
I meant that I am trying to speak what the Bible tries to express in the language it means, but doesn't use.
Like it never uses the word trinity, but trinity is a concept clearly tought.

Let me rephrase the rest of it:
God was expressing how He is in control of all things and all things are Hid by the analogy of human kings.
Human kingdoms are human concepts.
What God was expressing was what is true.
He was expressing His existence through human concepts.
Or calling Jesus "the Son". and that Jesus was "begotten".
Well obviously Jesus is not an actual "son" like from a mother and father.
But Jesus' position is somehow like a human son to a human father. How the Father feals towards the son.
God is using human concepts to express His existence.
Or even how He describes Himself as "the Father".
He obviously isn't our biological father, but He is expressing Himself, His intended relationship with us, in human concepts.
Get what I mean?

Likewise He expresses the spiritual existence in terms that we understand. A kingdom, a realm, a place with measurments (dimensions).
I am saying this to is a human concepts that reflects, not describes what heaven is.

Again, how do you know that heaven, the spirit world, has no dimensions?

Where is it then?
It can't have dimensions by mere deffinition.
The spirit world is just that... SPIRITUAL.
That is outside of our senses.
Height, width, depth, are all concepts of physical existence.
The spiritual transcends that to the point that it isn't localized. It isn't anywhere, at any specific, but it is "there" and certainly is not nowhere.

I will give you an example:
Cut off your arm(not literally), did you just cut off a piece of your spirit?
No.
Cut off your legs, is your spirit there?
No.
Cut off youir head (assuming all oxygen and blood will still reach the brain), is your spirit in your body?
No.
Cut off pieces of your brain... your spirit is it there? No.
Now replace those pieces and cut of other areas.
Is your spirit there? No.
Then where is it.
It isn't there. Yet when you die your spirit has left you body.
It is a non-caporeal thing.
It has no width, depth, or height. It has no localization.
Spirit is beyond our physical understanding.
If heaven is spiritual, then this is true of it to.
It is true of the angels, demons, and certainly God.
It is true of our very spirits.

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.

Dude... wrong dimension.
Dimension has multiple meanings.
I was reffering to physical dimensions.
Width, depth, height.
Dimension means essentially "types".
So there are multiple dimensions to the word dimension. Get it?
Multifaceted. Is a synonym.
You are using the sci-fi, parrallel universe definition I think.

Like Spock and Mirror gotie-spock.
I am talking about concepts of measurment, localization, placehood.

And besides, if Heaven was an alteranete dimension, that wouldn't make any sense, because it is supopsed to exist in our reality. Just the spiritual level.
That spiritual level would exist and be the same in any alternate universe, because the spiritual trancends the physical.


And I am not saying heaven is not real.
It is very real.
But it is a state of existence diferent then we understand.
Spiritual not physical.
Further we know that specifically, heaven reffers to the state of existence as being relationally "with" God in His loving holy presense.

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.

Indeed.
Deffinately interesting.

 

[AFinChrist]

Is God the father like the size of a normal human or is he huge. I always pictured Him being like 500 feet tall and like brighter than the sun and extremely powerful. Id always picture Him with like a white beard and white hair.Ive never really heard a description of the holy spirit, thanx for that! I thought he looked like a dove before.

God the Father has been many things.
Fire, light that's so bright you can't even face it,
He is like an eagle, and Father figure that cuddles His kids

He has many descriptions.

Anne

 

[JTM3]

Did somebody hear something?

Huh? What?

I think I heard the wind...have to go now

 

[Dyin2live]

God the Father has been many things.
Fire, light that's so bright you can't even face it,
He is like an eagle, and Father figure that cuddles His kids

He has many descriptions.

Anne

ok, lol but i dont understand how he is an eagle lol

 

[Atlantians]

Is God the father like the size of a normal human or is he huge. I always pictured Him being like 500 feet tall and like brighter than the sun and extremely powerful. Id always picture Him with like a white beard and white hair.Ive never really heard a description of the holy spirit, thanx for that! I thought he looked like a dove before.

Well, to be honest, God has no physical appearance.
He is spirit.
He has no size, no mass, no physicality.
When God the Son took the manifest form of a human, he was physically a normal human.

Jesus looks like a tall slender man. Brown eyes, brown wavy hair. The Holy spirit is a tall etherial man, all glowing and white with HUGE wings. God the Father looks like a powerful but gentle man. I have to use the face of my imagination because He is difficult to see. I see my own father's face or a man's face.

So, you desribe the holy spirit, the father, and the son as manifest as three seperate persons, and entities?

 

[CrazyforYeshua]

2Co 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such a one caught up to the third heaven.
2Co 12:3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth
2Co 12:4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.


When Paul went to Heaven, he didn't know whether it was in physiacal form, or in the Spirit, as John in the book of Revelation.

Rev 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

The point is, he was there, and it is real. The greek for "caught up" is this:

G726
ἁρπάζω
harpazō
har-pad'-zo
From a derivative of G138; to seize (in various applications): - catch (away, up), pluck, pull, take (by force).

It was not a vision. I also don't see anywhere in scripture it was a one time event, and that God would not do it with someone else if He has a message to give to His church.

 

[AudioArtist]

The physical world is far more insubstantial then I ever thought it was; I like Simon's comment that it needs the spiritual to exist, like ideas needing a mind. When you reduce the physical world, you realise that, in some strange way, there is nothing much to it. It's just varying arrangements of atoms and molecules. Yet somehow, these things interact with the spiritual universe that is around us at every moment.
I think arguing about the specifics of as amazing a place as Heaven is a bit silly, as is this sudden hatred for the idea that Jesus may have been speaking about such a stunning world metaphorically. We're not all walking around with gorged out eyes, are we? Maybe Heaven does have houses, maybe it doesn't. Who cares? We're dealing with things beyond human understanding here, and even though scripture is truth, it still uses words, and words most probably cannot come close to describing what Heaven is actually like

 

[probinson]

Well, to be honest, God has no physical appearance.
He is spirit.
He has no size, no mass, no physicality.

Exodus 3:20-23
20 But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." 21 Then the LORD said, "There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. 22 When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen."
​

This seems to contradict the notion that God has no physical appearance.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Exodus 3:20-23​

20 But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." 21 Then the LORD said, "There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. 22 When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen."​

This seems to contradict the notion that God has no physical appearance.

I was thinking of the verse the other night when I was here but never got around to quoting it.

I however agree with Atlantians on God not having a physical body in heaven much less a human body. I believe when God is talking about his hand, back, and face He is useing metaphors. For what these metephors stand for I don't exactly know and it would be foolish of me at this point to speculate.

 

[nephilimiyr]

The physical world is far more insubstantial then I ever thought it was; I like Simon's comment that it needs the spiritual to exist, like ideas needing a mind. When you reduce the physical world, you realise that, in some strange way, there is nothing much to it. It's just varying arrangements of atoms and molecules. Yet somehow, these things interact with the spiritual universe that is around us at every moment.
I think arguing about the specifics of as amazing a place as Heaven is a bit silly, as is this sudden hatred for the idea that Jesus may have been speaking about such a stunning world metaphorically. We're not all walking around with gorged out eyes, are we? Maybe Heaven does have houses, maybe it doesn't. Who cares? We're dealing with things beyond human understanding here, and even though scripture is truth, it still uses words, and words most probably cannot come close to describing what Heaven is actually like

Now that is as wise as statement as I have seen in this thread.

Still, it's interesting to talk about and debate. I don't always come across such an interesting topic of discussion as this, and I always love a challenge.

 

[AFinChrist]

ok, lol but i dont understand how he is an eagle lol

During the time of spiritual warfare...before I was able to see them as each individual...God came to me as an Eagle. He covered me with His wings.

 

[JTM3]

If heaven isn't a real physical place, WHAT is it then??

That leads me to think then that it's something like Hinduism; like heaven is a state of mind.

If all our knowledge about heaven is metaphorical, and heaven is not a physical place, WHAT is it? :confused

 

[pauldst]

I was thinking of the verse the other night when I was here but never got around to quoting it.

I however agree with Atlantians on God not having a physical body in heaven much less a human body. I believe when God is talking about his hand, back, and face He is useing metaphors. For what these metephors stand for I don't exactly know and it would be foolish of me at this point to speculate.

I just couldn't let this one pass.

God does have a body. That Body is known as Jesus. He was The Word made flesh. He died and rose again, in a body. He ascended on high, still in His body. Every story I have heard of someone who says they have been to heaven and back talks about Jesus in a body, if he was encountered there. (I can't think of a better word than story, but in using that word I am not in the least assuming that these stories are made up.) And He ever lives to make intercession for us as He sits by the Father's right hand.

Paul