Will we sin when we get to heaven?

[SnowyMacie]

The only assumption I made is that you generally believe in the words of Christ and Paul. I've argued with Christians in the past saying that the serpent in the garden and Lucifer/the morning star are different entities, neither of which is Satan, but I was shown that the New Testament does refer to the serpent in the garden as Satan (although I don't remember where I saw it).

It's in Revelation.

I do not think that your liberal theology is buoyant. Recall that it was through one man that sin entered the world, and through one man that it was defeated. Now you are changing that reading to, "It was through one man who didn't actually exist that sin entered the world, and through one man who did actually exist that it was defeated." I do not think this was Paul's meaning, and it seems to be essential doctrine.

Sin did enter the world through one man, regardless of how literal Genesis actually is.

I do not know what this means, and if you cannot explain it to me then you don't know either.

That means that our bodies will both be of Heaven and of Earth. We will essentially have the same bodies, but they will be "new and improved".

1.) Angelic beings certainly seem to be both physical and spiritual, and certainly seem to be eternal and of Heaven instead of Earth.

They're entirely spiritual beings because they are not of Earth at all. Scripture, at least attempts, to describe what they look like, but they are not physical beings. They can however, take human form, one characteristic not associated with our glorified bodies (we will not have the ability to change form).

2.) Angelic beings do not suffer from sickness or death.

I'll give you this one.

3.) Angelic beings are like the resurrected body of Christ. Recall in Matthew the guards collapsed in terror upon the countenance of the angels, so clearly they are quite glorified.

They are glorified yes, but they are not human. The disciples were terrified because they thought they saw a ghost, not because they saw something that looked genuinely terrifying to them?

4.) Angels have physical form and solidity to the touch, as shown by the fact that men wanted to know them carnally. Also, they are clearly able to teleport.

They don't have physical forms because they are not physical beings. The Genesis 6 passage that talks about the Sons of God and the Nephilim, is an incredibly hard verse to interpret because every single interpretation doesn't actually fit into an consistent exegesis of scripture, but that's an entirely different conversation.

I was raised in the belief that the apocalypse will be literal and physically real, and that it will occur any day now. If you think that's wrong, you're welcome to engage your friends on that. I don't really care, nor is it pertinent to the issue here.

As do I, but how can the Second Coming, which hasn't happened yet, be looked at from any perspective besides a theological one?

If your claims don't come from Scripture or if they aren't at the very least logically inferred, then your claims are fan fiction. You cannot whimsically dismiss claims from scientists or historians while at the same time expecting me to accept the claims of theologians.

This is not a scientific or historical discussion as the things have yet to happen, but for the record, an overwhelming majority of historians agree that Jesus was indeed a real person, died, and that his followers claimed he was resurrected from the dead.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Sorry, I thought the primary question was "Will we sin when we get to heaven?" I did answer that question. Do you have another question?

Of course I have another question, there was a flowchart. Did you put your hand in front of the screen to manually block the rest out?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

It's in Revelation.



Sin did enter the world through one man, regardless of how literal Genesis actually is.

What if it's all literal and God intended for the meaning in the Bible to be accessible to stupid people as well as PhDs?

That means that our bodies will both be of Heaven and of Earth. We will essentially have the same bodies, but they will be "new and improved".




They're entirely spiritual beings because they are not of Earth at all. Scripture, at least attempts, to describe what they look like, but they are not physical beings. They can however, take human form, one characteristic not associated with our glorified bodies (we will not have the ability to change form).


I'll give you this one.



They are glorified yes, but they are not human. The disciples were terrified because they thought they saw a ghost, not because they saw something that looked genuinely terrifying to them?

So essentially your objection is that our new bodies will still be of earth?

They don't have physical forms because they are not physical beings. The Genesis 6 passage that talks about the Sons of God and the Nephilim, is an incredibly hard verse to interpret because every single interpretation doesn't actually fit into an consistent exegesis of scripture, but that's an entirely different conversation.

I wasn't referring to that passage, I was referring to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The angels were literal men and were literally physical.

As do I, but how can the Second Coming, which hasn't happened yet, be looked at from any perspective besides a theological one?

It can be looked at as a literal, physically real event.

This is not a scientific or historical discussion as the things have yet to happen, but for the record, an overwhelming majority of historians agree that Jesus was indeed a real person, died, and that his followers claimed he was resurrected from the dead.

Citation required.

 

[SnowyMacie]

What if it's all literal and God intended for the meaning in the Bible to be accessible to stupid people as well as PhDs?

It doesn't take a PhD to know any of this stuff, but you do need proper guidance to interpret scripture since reading it at its literal face value ignores that was written thousands of years ago to different cultures in different literary styles. I like this quote by John Dominic Crossan "My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally."

So essentially your objection is that our new bodies will still be of earth?

Yes, our home is Earth after all, not Heaven.

I wasn't referring to that passage, I was referring to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The angels were literal men and were literally physical.

As I also said, angels can take human form. That is another difference between glorified humans and angels, glorified humans will not able to take another form.

It can be looked at as a literal, physically real event.

Yes, and until it occurs, it is a matter of theology.

Citation required.

Despite (an) enormous range of opinion (on Jesus), there are several points on which virtually all scholars of antiquity agree. Jesus was a Jewish man, known to be a preacher and teacher, who was crucified (a Roman form of execution) in Jerusalem during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea. (…T)his is the view of nearly every trained scholar on the planet…” – Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth
"There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more" - Richard Burridge, Jesus Now and Then
(The theories of non-existence of Jesus are) “a thoroughly dead thesis.” – James D. G. Dunn, “Paul’s Understanding of the Death of Jesus”
“Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed.” – Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus
“Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it (theories of the nonexistence of Jesus) as effectively refuted.” – Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence
"Combining the evidence of Thallus, Pliny, Tacitus, and Suetonius one can accumulate enough data to refute the fanciful notion that Jesus never existed without even appealing to the testimony of Jewish or Christian sources.” Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels
"I am an historian, I am not a believer, but I must confess as a historian that this penniless preacher from Nazareth is irrevocably the very center of history. Jesus Christ is easily the most dominant figure in all history" - H.G. Wells

 

[civilwarbuff]

Sorry, I thought the primary question was "Will we sin when we get to heaven?" I did answer that question. Do you have another question?

Of course there is another question; there is always another question.....

 

[civilwarbuff]

What if it's all literal and God intended for the meaning in the Bible to be accessible to stupid people as well as PhDs?

Only intended for believers....you know, those with the Holy Spirit......

 

[Nihilist Virus]

It doesn't take a PhD to know any of this stuff, but you do need proper guidance to interpret scripture since reading it at its literal face value ignores that was written thousands of years ago to different cultures in different literary styles. I like this quote by John Dominic Crossan "My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally."



Yes, our home is Earth after all, not Heaven.





As I also said, angels can take human form. That is another difference between glorified humans and angels, glorified humans will not able to take another form.




Yes, and until it occurs, it is a matter of theology.





Despite (an) enormous range of opinion (on Jesus), there are several points on which virtually all scholars of antiquity agree. Jesus was a Jewish man, known to be a preacher and teacher, who was crucified (a Roman form of execution) in Jerusalem during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea. (…T)his is the view of nearly every trained scholar on the planet…” – Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth
"There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more" - Richard Burridge, Jesus Now and Then
(The theories of non-existence of Jesus are) “a thoroughly dead thesis.” – James D. G. Dunn, “Paul’s Understanding of the Death of Jesus”
“Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed.” – Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus
“Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it (theories of the nonexistence of Jesus) as effectively refuted.” – Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence
"Combining the evidence of Thallus, Pliny, Tacitus, and Suetonius one can accumulate enough data to refute the fanciful notion that Jesus never existed without even appealing to the testimony of Jewish or Christian sources.” Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels
"I am an historian, I am not a believer, but I must confess as a historian that this penniless preacher from Nazareth is irrevocably the very center of history. Jesus Christ is easily the most dominant figure in all history" - H.G. Wells

Swing and a miss.

You said and I quote,

"but for the record, an overwhelming majority of historians agree that Jesus was indeed a real person, died, and that his followers claimed he was resurrected from the dead."

Now who's making assumptions? I don't hold that Jesus was a myth and I never implied that in my whole life. The parts in bold are the points in question and you made no attempt to address them. They do not follow from the evidence you cited. You can't make a claim most people agree on, hammer said point into the ground, and then sneak something else out there that is actually the pivotal part of your argument.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Citation supplied....and then some. Now we wait for the "Yeah, but...."

Despite (an) enormous range of opinion (on Jesus), there are several points on which virtually all scholars of antiquity agree. Jesus was a Jewish man, known to be a preacher and teacher, who was crucified (a Roman form of execution) in Jerusalem during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea. (…T)his is the view of nearly every trained scholar on the planet…” – Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth
"There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more" - Richard Burridge, Jesus Now and Then
(The theories of non-existence of Jesus are) “a thoroughly dead thesis.” – James D. G. Dunn, “Paul’s Understanding of the Death of Jesus”
“Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed.” – Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus
“Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it (theories of the nonexistence of Jesus) as effectively refuted.” – Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence
"Combining the evidence of Thallus, Pliny, Tacitus, and Suetonius one can accumulate enough data to refute the fanciful notion that Jesus never existed without even appealing to the testimony of Jewish or Christian sources.” Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels
"I am an historian, I am not a believer, but I must confess as a historian that this penniless preacher from Nazareth is irrevocably the very center of history. Jesus Christ is easily the most dominant figure in all history" - H.G. Wells

 

[Chriliman]

Of course I have another question, there was a flowchart. Did you put your hand in front of the screen to manually block the rest out?

If your flowchart assumes that God has free will then my answer is sufficient. If your flowchart assumes God does not have free will then it's already out of line with what Christians believe.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

If your flowchart assumes that God has free will then my answer is sufficient. If your flowchart assumes God does not have free will then it's already out of line with what Christians believe.

I don't think you're paying attention. I never said anything about God having or not having free will.

 

[Chriliman]

I don't think you're paying attention. I never said anything about God having or not having free will.

Seems important to establish that if your assuming heaven is real, right? Was God forced to create heaven or did He freely choose to do so of His own will?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Oncedeceived,

You made an error in your quote format so I will copy/paste something you said here:

Who said God is limited by logic, not I. Logic is a part of God's nature. God knows all things so they can be decided by God.

This is self contradictory because by definition a thing is limited by its nature.

Perhaps you might want to explain what you mean by limited. If one is the origin of Logic and Logic is God's thinking, how is that limited?

Also you said this:



Whatever you want to call logic - God's nature, the nature of reality, or simply manmade - God is certainly limited by it. You said so yourself and then went on to deny it.

God is logic, His thinking is logic. How is God as the origin of logic limited by it? He thinks according to His logical thought.

Lastly, you said this:

We discover mathematics and the laws of logic. That this "incompleteness" of everything is no argument against either logic nor mathematics being rooted in God. In fact, it can be argued that this can actually provide support for God.

The problem is that even if I grant you this in its entirety, you are left with the fact that God can't be omniscient. You didn't address that issue at all, and it's the only thing I was trying to prove. So I do not believe you followed the argument.

IF logic and math come from God THEN he is necessarily not omniscient. IF logic and math are manmade THEN God might be omniscient.

Explain how omniscient thought is not cohesive with origins of mathematics and logic.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

A self-professed atheist will never make it to heaven.

Romans 10:9-13
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,”and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

The promise of God is available to all who choose it.

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’"


There will be people who think they're going to Heaven, yet won't get in. So I don't know how you think you know you're getting in... worked out a side deal with Christ?

 

[civilwarbuff]

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’"


There will be people who think they're going to Heaven, yet won't get in. So I don't know how you think you know you're getting in... worked out a side deal with Christ?

There is this little thing called the Holy Spirit....you know, God himself....not that anyone would expect an atheist such as yourself to have any concept of.....

 

[SnowyMacie]

Swing and a miss.

You said and I quote,

"but for the record, an overwhelming majority of historians agree that Jesus was indeed a real person, died, and that his followers claimed he was resurrected from the dead."

Now who's making assumptions? I don't hold that Jesus was a myth and I never implied that in my whole life. The parts in bold are the points in question and you made no attempt to address them. They do not follow from the evidence you cited. You can't make a claim most people agree on, hammer said point into the ground, and then sneak something else out there that is actually the pivotal part of your argument.

I think you may have misread my post. I did not say that historians overwhelming claim that Jesus rose from the dead, but that they agree that the followers of Jesus claimed that he rose from the dead.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I think you may have misread my post. I did not say that historians overwhelming claim that Jesus rose from the dead, but that they agree that the followers of Jesus claimed that he rose from the dead.

Actually, you misread me. I'm not asking for historical consensus on the resurrection. I'm asking for historical consensus on the claim being made by the disciples. I thought that was clear from what I bolded in your quote.

 

[SnowyMacie]

Actually, you misread me. I'm not asking for historical consensus on the resurrection. I'm asking for historical consensus on the claim being made by the disciples. I thought that was clear from what I bolded in your quote.

The Gospels, The Epistles, the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, etc.

 

[Moral Orel]

Please explain how God being a Being that is eternal, not created, and everlasting create us as gods? Please explain.

Okay, maybe our disagreement is over the word "sinless". We've had disagreements over definitions before, but I'm just going to give this one to you because it is a theological term and that's your purview.

Now I'm not saying that God could make us eternal, like Him, as that would be impossible. Being created means you have a beginning, so we can't be eternal like God, that's fine. And we don't need to be omnipotent either. Clearly, our free will can be limited by our own physical capacities, and we don't need to be able to do everything in order to be able to never do evil. Omniscience is a bit tricky, as we need to know a good deal to make sure our actions aren't evil, but we don't need to know everything.

So, what it comes down to, is to give us just one part of God's nature, and that is to never have a desire to do evil, and to only ever have a desire to do good, just like God. Our temporal status has nothing to do with our desires. The fact that we have a beginning doesn't affect our desire to do one thing over another. So I won't use the word "sinless" as that obviously has some other meaning attached to it that I don't intend. I'll just say that God could make us so that when we are created we have never done evil, and we have no desire to do evil, just like Him. We don't need all of His other features to do that, just that one.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Seems important to establish that if your assuming heaven is real, right? Was God forced to create heaven or did He freely choose to do so of His own will?

What would be the difference?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The Gospels, The Epistles, the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, etc.

I see you've stopped trying. Or is this your way of conceding that there is no historical consensus on this issue?