darkman200:

there are too many people that are claiming to be Christians but have the heart of the devil, they are mean, wicked, selfish, greedy and callous.

Perhaps due to the fact that they're feeding their 'flesh'?

LOL viaro you beat me to it!

Deep Sight:

That seems to me to be entirely beside the point, aside from reeking extensively of a materialistic and ritualistic mentality that is entirely at odds with genuine spirituality.

As an asides -

(1) what is 'genuine spirituality'?

(2) And if your use of that clause is askew from the meaning others hold of it, what would be the value of your comments?

(3) Does the 'spirituality' of Deism have to be the same for other worldviews?

(4) If not, on what basis then do you proceed to adjudicate on 'genuine spirituality' for a worldview that is NOT YOURS?

Mavenb0x:

LOL viaro you beat me to it!

Hehe. . at least for once! I 'saw' your fingers getting ready to type, and I only 'peeped' into your mind and read off what you intended (just the same way you used to 'decode' my and Krayola's hide-outs) - and bingo! I posted b4 thee!

Mavenb0x:

The initial opportunity IS choosing Christ, the same way every criminal goes to prison and they can decide to let the correctional institute change them, or they can just "serve time" and exit the same way.

Can you tell me what it takes for a human being to “choose Christ?” Can a person choose Christ if he has never heard of the man called Jesus? Answer me this please.

There was nobody saved before Jesus Christ. They were not in heaven before Jesus came. In particular, the holy Jews were in a section of hell called "Abraham's bosom" where the throes of hell could not get to them (see the parable of Lazarus and the rich man). I believe every "people" had such a special section, because there were just men like Enoch and Noah and Job who were not Jews.

Who were the figures that appeared beside Christ at the transfiguration? Can I safely quote you as indicating that those two noblemen were appearing beside Christ from a “reserved” part of hell?

Answer me on this, please.

When Jesus died, he told the thief on the cross beside him "You will be with me in paradise today" and that was true because they both went to paradise that day. Three days in paradise, and Jesus overcame the devil and made a mockery of him IN HIS OWN DOMAIN. And then, whoever BELIEVED his gospel the same way YOU have a choice to believe the gospel today, went on into heaven.

Please educate my ignorance and delineate for me the distinctions between “paradise” and “heaven.”

There was no human agent in heaven before Christ rose.

What about the account of Elijah being taken up into heaven? This happened well before Christ, yes?

All those AFTER Christ died have the same opportunity as those ones because God is Just.

Now you are venturing into very dangerous territory and I am sniffing contradictions all over the place.

You stated that Christ went to preach to the dead after he died on the cross so that they could have the chance proffered by the gospel.

Then Christ rose again and returned to sit at the right hand side of the father.

Now after Christ had departed the world, you are doubtless aware that for centuries, and even up till this day – millions of people have been born and lived and died WITHOUT EVER HEARING OF JESUS OF NAZARETH.

1. What happens to such people – as they were not amongst “the dead” that he supposedly went to preach to after he died?

2. To crystallize it for you – imagine the West-Indians who inhabited the Americas for centuries – even after Christ. Imagine a good, honest, sincere West Indian man living say, 1, 500 years ago in the Americas. He happens to love his fellow and is the epitome of kindness and graciousness. He lives his entire life without ever hearing of Jesus from Nazareth. He dies. What happens to him? Remember this is AFTER Jesus has already supposedly been to the grave to preach to those there – so he cannot benefit from that supposed intervention. What becomes of him, for his great crime of never hearing of the existence of the Nazarene carpenter?

3. After you answer the above, let’s look at another scenario. Let’s imagine that by some odd twist of fate our kindly West-Indian in another age, happened to come across some one like Christopher Columbus – who now tells him the gospel of Christ. But expectedly, it all sounds simply like a strange foreign myth, just like all tribes have their own myths, dogmas and legends. Our kindly West-Indian man is now damned to hell-fire as he is unable to believe the tale of a foreigner who is almighty God and who was murdered and which murder serves as remission of his sins?

Perhaps while you are at it you can also take some time to tell us what fate awaits the children of such societies – who actually heard about Christ through missionaries but were too young to understand anything, and perhaps died before coming of age. Hell Fire for them too? O – if you will exempt them on account of age, can you kindly advise me as to what the cut-off age might be?

I hope you can answer these posers, and better still, I hope they give you a glimpse of how odd Christian dogma must appear to the non-Christian.

viaro:

As an asides -

(1) what is 'genuine spirituality'?

The search for truth, and the application of the inner being - the spirit - towards transcendental harmony.

Deep Sight:

Can you tell me what it takes for a human being to “choose Christ?” Can a person choose Christ if he has never heard of the man called Jesus? Answer me this please.

To choose Christ means to understand the message of the Gospel in its totality, i.e. God coming to earth in human form to give everyone an opportunity of eternal life, and reconcile the missing link with divinity. As with all opportunities, it will indeed be misappropriated by some, it will be ignored by some, and it will be utilized by others. If one has never heard of the man Jesus, then except God singles them out with a revelation of the gospel, they cannot "choose" Christ. The questions you have embedded in these questions will be answered below.

Deep Sight:

Who were the figures that appeared beside Christ at the transfiguration? Can I safely quote you as indicating that those two noblemen were appearing beside Christ from a “reserved” part of hell?

Answer me on this, please.

Yes, they were not in heaven until Jesus resurrected. They were in paradise, and that was where the "noblemen" Moses and Elijah representing the law and the prophets, came from. Abraham's Bosom.

Hear Jesus speak:
Joh 3:12 If I tell you things that are plain as the hand before your face and you don't believe me, what use is there in telling you of things you can't see, the things of God?
Joh 3:13 "No one has ever gone up into the presence of God except the One who came down from that Presence, the Son of Man.

So it is very certain that as for the HEAVEN that is the presence of the Father, no other "human" was ever there. I say "human" because it is important to note that this was the same God speaking, in human form. In his pre-incarnate form, he was in heaven already.

Deep Sight:

Please educate my ignorance and delineate for me the distinctions between “paradise” and “heaven.”

In case it was not clear, here is it again. The word hades occurs ten times in the New Testament, and always refers to the unseen realm of the dead—the receptacle of disembodied spirits where all people who die await for the Lord’s return and judgment. One part of hades, where Jesus and the thief went, is known as paradise, or Abraham's Bosom. The word paradise, is from a Parisian word meaning "park" or "garden". Jesus and the thief did not yet go to heaven, they went to Hades. That's why Jesus told Mary "I have not yet ascended to the Father" in John 20:17.

And here's a confirmation by David and Paul:
Act 2:27 For You will not abandon my soul, leaving it helpless in Hades (the state of departed spirits), nor let Your Holy One know decay or see destruction [of the body after death].
Act 2:28 You have made known to me the ways of life; You will enrapture me [diffusing my soul with joy] with and in Your presence. [Ps. 16:8-11.]
Act 2:29 Brethren, it is permitted me to tell you confidently and with freedom concerning the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.
Act 2:30 Being however a prophet, and knowing that God had sealed to him with an oath that He would set one of his descendants on his throne, [II Sam. 7:12-16; Ps. 132:11.]
Act 2:31 He, foreseeing this, spoke [by foreknowledge] of the resurrection of the Christ (the Messiah) that He was not deserted [in death] and left in Hades (the state of departed spirits), nor did His body know decay or see destruction. [Ps. 16:10.]


Acts 2:27 states that God would not abandon Christ’s soul in hades, nor allow Christ to undergo decay. So while Christ’s body was placed in a tomb for three days, Christ’s spirit went to hades. Jesus resurrected and freed all the captives of death in Hades, as many as believed his Gospel, and they received eternal life and proceeded to heaven.

Deep Sight:

What about the account of Elijah being taken up into heaven? This happened well before Christ, yes?

No, sir. Elijah did not go to dwell in the place of God's abode. Please try to use a concordance when you study the Bible, so that you can unlock subtle shades of meaning that may be lost in translation. That's what Deep Sight really is, and not speculation.

Here: shâmayim / shâmeh meaning "meaning to be lofty; the sky (as aloft; the dual perhaps alluding to the visible arch in which the clouds move, as well as to the higher ether where the celestial bodies revolve): - air" is the word used for heaven in 2 Kings 2:11 below
2Ki 2:11 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

shâmayim / shâmeh is the same word used for the firmaments that God set AS the sky. THAT is the "heaven" into which Elijah rose and was hidden from view. THAT is why the prophets were searching for him on the mountains. He DID NOT rise into the presence of God. With the backup of other scriptures, I can see that he rose out of their physical view into the skies, and then would have been taken into Abaraham's Bosom. Whether God took his life by HIMSELF (as he did for Moses) or not, is not important here. What I'm stressing here is that he DID NOT enter into HEAVEN. It is the weakness of this English language that causes such distinctions in definition to blur.

Deep Sight:

Now you are venturing into very dangerous territory and I am sniffing contradictions all over the place.

You stated that Christ went to preach to the dead after he died on the cross so that they could have the chance proffered by the gospel.

Then Christ rose again and returned to sit at the right hand side of the father.

Now after Christ had departed the world, you are doubtless aware that for centuries, and even up till this day – millions of people have been born and lived and died WITHOUT EVER HEARING OF JESUS OF NAZARETH.

1. What happens to such people – as they were not amongst “the dead” that he supposedly went to preach to after he died?

I do not know why you keep asking me the same questions from thread to thread, Deep Sight. I have answered this before but I will do it again. God KNOWS the people that heard the gospel, UNDERSTOOD it and REJECTED it; he knows those who HEARD it and DIDNT understand, and he KNOWS those who didn't even hear it at all. He knows all hearts, all thoughts, intents and purposes. So if YOU, Deep Sight, UNDERSTAND the gospel of Christ (as I believe you do, judging by your level of exposure) but REJECT it; I believe God in his justice will not balance you out equally with someone who never heard the gospel or didn't humanly comprehend it. It's very simple. He may/will have alternate plans for those ones, but the truth is that every sincere and honest heart seeks God out: they may not understand the Gospel of christ but God knows their intentions. Are they trying to prove a point against the divine mandate by rejecting it, or do they reject it because they do not HUMANLY understand (this answers your questions about babies and kids)?

Deep Sight:

2. To crystallize it for you – imagine the West-Indians who inhabited the Americas for centuries – even after Christ. Imagine a good, honest, sincere West Indian man living say, 1, 500 years ago in the Americas. He happens to love his fellow and is the epitome of kindness and graciousness. He lives his entire life without ever hearing of Jesus from Nazareth. He dies. What happens to him? Remember this is AFTER Jesus has already supposedly been to the grave to preach to those there – so he cannot benefit from that supposed intervention. What becomes of him, for his great crime of never hearing of the existence of the Nazarene carpenter?

Your question has been answered in [1] above.

Deep Sight:

3. After you answer the above, let’s look at another scenario. Let’s imagine that by some odd twist of fate our kindly West-Indian in another age, happened to come across some one like Christopher Columbus – who now tells him the gospel of Christ. But expectedly, it all sounds simply like a strange foreign myth, just like all tribes have their own myths, dogmas and legends. Our kindly West-Indian man is now damned to hell-fire as he is unable to believe the tale of a foreigner who is almighty God and who was murdered and which murder serves as remission of his sins?

Also answered in [1] above.

Deep Sight:

Perhaps while you are at it you can also take some time to tell us what fate awaits the children of such societies – who actually heard about Christ through missionaries but were too young to understand anything, and perhaps died before coming of age. Hell Fire for them too? O – if you will exempt them on account of age, can you kindly advise me as to what the cut-off age might be?

I hope you can answer these posers, and better still, I hope they give you a glimpse of how odd Christian dogma must appear to the non-Christian.

This question has also been answered in [1] above.

I really wonder why you are "painting" all these scenarios. I already told you on the other thread that there is no THE FUTURE anywhere. There are multidimensional countless futures, and God in his omniscience knows all the outcomes depending on your choice/ choices. You have made your own choice of rejecting the gospel of Christ: let these people also "face" the choice and make it, and if they never have the chance to face the choice, all good. If they face the choice but dont understand it (e.g. Noetic and the dying Buddhist as you mentioned on an old thread), then GOD KNOWS WHAT HE WILL DO ABOUT THEM! See, if God made plans to save the dead-before-Christ by allowing Christ to die and preach to them there as well, as they were in prison of death, why won't he have made alternate plans also for those who also died after Christ but never heard the gospel? I told you God is the unlimited master-planner / game-theorist / chessmaster so he knows EVERY SINGLE MOVE and their consequences and how to handle them.

THAT is omniscience. And that is a trait single-handedly wielded by my God.

Quote from Mavenbox -

No, sir. Elijah did not go to dwell in the place of God's abode. Please try to use a concordance when you study the Bible, so that you can unlock subtle shades of meaning that may be lost in translation. That's what Deep Sight really is, and not speculation.

Here: shâmayim / shâmeh meaning "meaning to be lofty; the sky (as aloft; the dual perhaps alluding to the visible arch in which the clouds move, as well as to the higher ether where the celestial bodies revolve): - air" is the word used for heaven in 2 Kings 2:11 below
2Ki 2:11 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

I am sorry to say Maven, but you are being deeply fraudulent with this post.

Unfortunately for you; i do have an exhaustive Bible concordance right in my personal library here in my bedroom.

I have reached for it: and it emerges that the hebrew word "shamayim" which you cited is the word used for "heaven" EVERYWHERE IN THE OLD TESTATAMENT.

Thus you fail in your attempt to make it appear as though in that specific instance only, the writer was referring to the physical heavens - the clouds.

Go back to your concordance and you will see the reference number H8064 (from your quote i believe we are using the same concordance - Strong's?) - is the same referrence number for ALL references to "heaven" in the Old Testament. Accordingly it is clear that you cannot single out one verse and insist that it refers only to the physical heavens when the same word is the very word used to refer to the spiritual heavens in the Old Testament.

Thus your statement that he did not enter heaven is nothing but your own speculation without an ounce of proof. For me: it is clear that he did rise to a spiritiual "heaven" in the context of that verse for at least two reasons: (1) - What was the need for the "Chariot of fire and horses of fire" if he was merely going into the phjysical heavens? (2) - He was NEVER seen again. Accordingly he had departed the physical world in that instant.

Take time o.

One part of hades, where Jesus and the thief went, is known as paradise, or Abraham's Bosom. The word paradise, is from a Parisian word meaning "park" or "garden".

So there are parks and gardens in hades?

Maven, why are you selling such obviously contrived falsities just to satiate your dogma?

I positively challenge to you produce a single biblical authority for the assertion that paradise is in hades.

This is blatantly false and contrived.

I back up my assertion with the fact that the word “paradise” used by Jesus in reference to the thief on the cross in the concordance refers to a park or garden and is specifically stated to be indicative of a “future place of happiness.” Check the Greek!

FURTHERMORE, AND MOST DAMNING FOR YOU: THIS SAME WORD IS THE WORD USED IN REV 2;7 IN REFERENCE TO THE ETERNAL PARADISE OF GOD WHERE THE TREE OF LIFE RESIDES!

MAVEN IS THE TREE OF LIFE IN HADES? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Where is Maven? Have you taken to your heels now that your FALSE representation of hebrew and Greek words to suit your dogma has been ratted out?

Come back here and tell us again that paradise is in Hades and that the Tree of Life is in the land of the dead - Hades.

You must retract this TODAY and UNCONDITIONALLY.

Deep Sight:


Unfortunately for you; i do have an exhaustive Bible concordance right in my personal library here in my bedroom.

I have reached for it: and it emerges that the hebrew word "shamayim" which you cited is the word used for "heaven" EVERYWHERE IN THE OLD TESTATAMENT.

Thus you fail in your attempt to make it appear as though in that specific instance only, the writer was referring to the physical heavens - the clouds.

Go back to your concordance and you will see the reference number H8064 (from your quote i believe we are using the same concordance - Strong's?) - is the same referrence number for ALL references to "heaven" in the Old Testament. Accordingly it is clear that you cannot single out one verse and insist that it refers only to the physical heavens when the same word is the very word used to refer to the spiritual heavens in the Old Testament.

@DeepSight:


At the time of your post 11.56.34am, you are "here in my bedroom"  ? I'm jealous!!! I was at work!

I remember you abandoning the thread you named after me when I showed that 'almah' was a word used interchangeably with betula for Virgin in the OT and that in every other occurence, it referred to Virgin. How come its ok for you to do same now when I wasn't acknowledged as right when I did same?  . Oya, acknowledge me!

The combination of you being in "bed" at 11:34 and doing to Maven what I couldn't do to you is devastating!

Lol Nuclear! I have really flexible working hours these days, i am able to log into my office from my study in the bedroom and give all the legal advise my company needs by emails and teleconferences. In the office now though!

Deep Sight: One of the two things I dislike the very most, is being falsely accused. What do you gain by that? The few times I have been grossly disrespectful to people on NL, it was because they falsely accused me.

[size=13pt]I know you to be (most likely) more intelligent than I am, and even I am intelligent enough to use the simple "last active time stamp" and the "last post" time stamp on someone's profile to see the last time someone was on Nairaland. And here you are spitting lies, saying I took to my heels. I HAVE NOT BEEN ONLINE SINCE YESTERDAY, and you could easily have seen that on my profile before you said I took to my heels.[/size]

That's very disappointing, I must confess.

I AM BUSY NOW and immediately I have some free time I will reply your post above.

I am sorry Maven, i was only pulling your legs.

I do look forward to your response.

Cheers.

Deep Sight:

I am sorry Maven, i was only pulling your legs.

I do look forward to your response.

Cheers.

U were pulling her legs. Do u want the Damsel to fall down? i beg o

No problem, Deep Sight. Please mull over this pending my free time (enough to make an extensive exegesis, I assume within the hour)


And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. (Hebrews 11:39-40)

Heb 11:39 And all of these, though they won divine approval by [means of] their faith, did not receive the fulfillment of what was promised,
Heb 11:40 Because God had us in mind and had something better and greater in view for us, so that they [these heroes and heroines of faith] should not come to perfection apart from us [before we could join them].


Heb 11:39 Not one of these people, even though their lives of faith were exemplary, got their hands on what was promised.
Heb 11:40 God had a better plan for us: that their faith and our faith would come together to make one completed whole, their lives of faith not complete apart from ours.

@Toba: LOL. I can't often tell when Deep Sight is serious and when he is kidding.

Mavenb0x:

No problem, Deep Sight. Please mull over this pending my free time (enough to make an extensive exegesis, I assume within the hour)

Please try not to be stubborn in your response. See if indeed there is something you should revise. We needn't always defend our every word to death because we are not perfect and can acknowledge that we might need a rethink.

@Deep Sight: Egbon! It's like trying to ask me if I am sure about my height just after I finished measuring it up? I must confess that I am a highly inquisitive person, so questions like YOURS are things I have dealt with since my early years in the teenage church (almost 15 years now) when I became a Christian. So, I am certain about what I speak of, which I myself have queried like a bull dog on the pant leg of life.

See this too, from a secular source (Wikipedia)

Sheol (pronounced "Sheh-ole", in Hebrew שאול (Sh'ol), is the "grave", or "pit"[1]. Sheol is the common destination of both the righteous and the unrighteous flesh, as recounted in Ecclesiastes and Job.

Sheol is sometimes compared to Hades, the gloomy, twilight afterlife of Greek mythology. The word "hades" was in fact substituted for "sheol" when the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek (see Septuagint). The New Testament (written in Greek) also uses "hades" to refer to the abode of the dead.

By the second century BC, Jews who accepted the Oral Torah had come to believe that those in sheol awaited the resurrection either in comfort (in the bosom of Abraham) or in torment. This belief is reflected in Jesus' story of Lazarus and Dives.

English translations of the Hebrew scriptures have variously rendered the word sheol as "hell"[2] or "the grave".
[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol

Which makes it clear to us all that Sheol (the place of the DEAD, a.k.a HELL (green text)) is made up of two parts: those awaiting the ressurection in comfort (Abraham's Bosom), and those in torment (see blue text above); which is indicative of the destination of the righteous and unrighteous.

Okay, in the next 15 mins I should be done, then I will make more proper posts. Cheers

P.S> Please read the entire Wikipedia page, it will help to make our discussion smoother

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol

Remember that saying that there are comfy parts of hades is altogether different from saying that paradise is in hades.

Remember the Tree of Life is said to be in paradise, and its nothing if not bizarre to suggest that the tree of life resides in the land of death.

@nuclearboy: My guy how u dey na?

@bee444: lol thanks, Im glad you didn't mind the secondary digression (chess) built upon a primary digression (the afterlife of the OT saints).

@Deep Sight: Yeah im back now. I saw your chess invitation in the mail (sorry I didnt check it all day, its an email I don't use for serious stuff, cos I knew I would be posting it on NL and Im kinda very privacy-oriented), I will respond to it immediately I can.

Okay, now what were we on about? (Next post)

As for me, I'm not in my bedroom at the moment. But wherever I may be, let me say something on this interesting development on 'heaven'.

Deep Sight:

I have reached for it: and it emerges that the hebrew word "shamayim" which you cited is the word used for "heaven" EVERYWHERE IN THE OLD TESTATAMENT.

No problem with that; but even though it is one same word in Hebrew, it does not necessarily convey the same meaning or sphere in context - and I think that was what marvellous Maven was trying to point out to thee.

However, let's see the strain of your argument:
(a)

Go back to your concordance and you will see the reference number H8064 (from your quote i believe we are using the same concordance - Strong's?) - is the same referrence number for ALL references to "heaven" in the Old Testament. Accordingly it is clear that you cannot single out one verse and insist that it refers only to the physical heavens when the same word is the very word used to refer to the spiritual heavens in the Old Testament.

(b)

Thus your statement that he did not enter heaven is nothing but your own speculation without an ounce of proof. For me: it is clear that he did rise to a spiritiual "heaven" in the context of that verse for at least two reasons: (1) - What was the need for the "Chariot of fire and horses of fire" if he was merely going into the phjysical heavens? (2) - He was NEVER seen again. Accordingly he had departed the physical world in that instant.

It seems that you are forcing a narrow meaning and context in that passage for Elijah. To this end it appears that was why Mavenb0x had referred you to Hebrews 11 in post #46 above - to the intent that you may see the context she made earlier in Elijah's case, viz: "No, sir. Elijah did not go to dwell in the place of God's abode" (here).

The one thing I may observe here (and agree with you on) is that there just is no sense in maintaining that Elijah could not have gone into 'heaven' and rather argue for 'SKY'. No, no and thrice holy NO! The word in 2 Kings 2:11 is simply 'HEAVEN' (shâmayim  /  shâmeh - שׁמה  /  שׁמים), and not 'SKY' (shachaq - שׁחק).

The distinction appears in several references of the OT, but let just one example suffice: Deuteronomy 33:26 - "There is none like unto the God of Jeshurun, who rideth upon the heaven (shâmayim  /  shâmeh - שׁמה  /  שׁמים) in thy help, and in his excellency on the sky (shachaq - שׁחק)."

What is viaro yapping about? This simply: Elijah went up by a whirlwind into HEAVEN (not 'sky') according to 2 kings 2:11.

Okay, that said, let us also observe that marvellous Maven's gist resonates with me, which is that "Elijah did not go to dwell in the place of God's abode". This is clear from the Hebrews 11 references she gave to that end; and we can further observe that there are indeed spheres about or in heaven. Again, just one example should suffice: 1 Kings 8:27 - "But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?" In the NT, we read of "the third heaven" (2 Cor. 12:2) which could be ancillary to the point. It is in this instance that one cannot just presume from 2 Kings 2:11 that Elijah arrived at God's abode when he was taken up into heaven. Rather, he is metaphorically in 'Abraham's bosom', expression used for the place of the blessed until the Day of the Resurrection.

When we read of a text, perhaps we need to think carefully on context and deixis (as we all know) - which, in this case for 'HEAVEN' does not mean that it could be given just one simplistic meaning that is stretched completely in disregard of the spheres identified in the body of the OT (and even the NT for that matter).

_____________________

But thank you for this, DeepSight:

Deep Sight:

(1) what is 'genuine spirituality'?

The search for truth, and the application of the inner being - the spirit - towards transcendental harmony.

I don't want to be tedious, but I shall tuck that away as well until you and I enter into rigorous discourse on these things. I tend to be inclined from the strain of your posts that you argue often for the 'natural', in which case all that could be understood are merely 'natural' and hardly anything could be supernatural. In which case, I would be looking at what you tend to make of 'spirit' within that matrix. Please not now, just observe and leave it off until later, yes? Thanks.

Deep Sight:

Quote from Mavenbox -

I am sorry to say Maven, but you are being deeply fraudulent with this post.

Unfortunately for you; i do have an exhaustive Bible concordance right in my personal library here in my bedroom.

I have reached for it: and it emerges that the hebrew word "shamayim" which you cited is the word used for "heaven" EVERYWHERE IN THE OLD TESTATAMENT.

Thus you fail in your attempt to make it appear as though in that specific instance only, the writer was referring to the physical heavens - the clouds.

Go back to your concordance and you will see the reference number H8064 (from your quote i believe we are using the same concordance - Strong's?) - is the same referrence number for ALL references to "heaven" in the Old Testament. Accordingly it is clear that you cannot single out one verse and insist that it refers only to the physical heavens when the same word is the very word used to refer to the spiritual heavens in the Old Testament.

Thus your statement that he did not enter heaven is nothing but your own speculation without an ounce of proof. For me: it is clear that he did rise to a spiritiual "heaven" in the context of that verse for at least two reasons: (1) - What was the need for the "Chariot of fire and horses of fire" if he was merely going into the physical heavens? (2) - He was NEVER seen again. Accordingly he had departed the physical world in that instant.

Take time o.

Unfortunately, in the OT they did not distinguish between Heaven and heaven. The latter is like HEAVENS as used in English, the previous is the abode of God. But it takes discernment to see which one is which.

Just like the word used for the grave is the same one used for hell, the place of the dead; then the same word used for the skies is the same one used for HEAVEN; the place of God. The feeble attempts in Hebrew to make a distinction is seen in, for example,

1Ki 8:27  But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded? (see also 2 Chr 2:6, Neh 9:6)

Psa 115:16  The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD'S: but the earth hath he given to the children of men.

We all know that languages evolve, and so did Hebrew evolve after Christ. So there was no such distinction before Christ. In the feeble Hebrew language before Christ, one who proceeds from the atmosphere outwards is "entering into heaven" and the one who descends into the subterranean to its extents has gone into "hell"

Amo 9:2  Though they dig into hell, thence shall mine hand take them; though they climb up to heaven, thence will I bring them down:
Psa 139:8  If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
Job 11:8  It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know?

I have reached for it: and it emerges that the hebrew word "shamayim" which you cited is the word used for "heaven" EVERYWHERE IN THE OLD TESTATAMENT.

Did you really reach for it? Cos to be politically correct, it's you that is wrong, DeepSight. There are four words for heaven in the OT, and they are shâmayim  /  shâmeh (the one with Elijah), shâmayin (used whenever God of heaven, God in heaven, voice from heaven, etc is mentioned, it is the one that we would translate as "the heavens" today ) and minnêy shâmayim (meaning a sector of the "heavens", this is the one used in Isa 14:12 to describe Lucifer's fall. The last one is galgal in Psalm 77:18

Psa 77:18  The voice of thy thunder was in the heaven: the lightnings lightened the world: the earth trembled and shook.

So it's you that's wrong, technically speaking, bro.

By the way, for example,

Psa 113:6  Who humbleth himself to behold the things that are in heaven, and in the earth!

God "humbles himself" to see things in heaven (shâmayim  /  shâmeh), which means it's the atmospheric heavens. He is not "humbling himself" to see where he "lives"!

Deep Sight:

So there are parks and gardens in hades?

Maven, why are you selling such obviously contrived falsities just to satiate your dogma?

I positively challenge to you produce a single biblical authority for the assertion that paradise is in hades.

This is blatantly false and contrived.

I back up my assertion with the fact that the word “paradise” used by Jesus in reference to the thief on the cross in the concordance refers to a park or garden and is specifically stated to be indicative of a “future place of happiness.” Check the Greek!

FURTHERMORE, AND MOST DAMNING FOR YOU: THIS SAME WORD IS THE WORD USED IN REV 2;7 IN REFERENCE TO THE ETERNAL PARADISE OF GOD WHERE THE TREE OF LIFE RESIDES!

MAVEN IS THE TREE OF LIFE IN HADES? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

You seem to have forgotten that Rev 2"7 happend post-resurrection. i.e. after Jesus rose. It's simple: the garden of Eden is where the tree of life is, it is the "paradise", which is the "garden / park" as I previously observed. I once said I believe that this garden is not made up of herbacious green trees, so it is not as such, a PARK. Herein is the limitation of human words. This garden is the place of paradise where Adam and Eve were before the fall, and to that same place did the righteous OT saints go, referred to as the Bosom of Abraham. Now, when Christ died, he went to the place of the dead, he preached to them and then he conquered death and hell but did not destroy them, rather he won over their keys, meaning that he now had authority over what goes on in there. He could decide who stays in hell or who moves on to heaven (Rev 1:18). This makes it clear that after preaching to them, he separated them by their imputed righteousness in Christ in God. The "paradise" place was relocated to heaven, it was no longer a place in "hell". Can you show me ONE place in the OT that talks about paradise? No! Because it made no difference, it was all "Sheoul" to them, the place of the dead. They were all in detention. But in Christ's lifetime, they were relocated to heaven, as many as were ought to be. The tree of life will definitely be relocated along with the entire paradise project.

If you yet do not understand, I will need to return to explain. Cheers.

@Nuclear boy: Sorry I missed your question. YES, club, school (I was on the college team) and tournament levels of chess. But I'm definitely not a "master", I am just an advanced intuitive player.

@Deep Sight: I apologize that my post seemed hurried, it was getting late and I had to go home. I am a slow typer, you see.

Edit: Look what I found by Tertullian, first Latin literature writer and one of the foremost Christian apologists! It is interesting that I diagree with a number of his teachings but He kind of agrees with me that Hades is compartmentalized into the place of comfort and the place of torment. I quote from chapter 7 on this page: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0310.htm

Therefore, whatever amount of punishment or refreshment the soul tastes in Hades, in its prison or lodging, in the fire or in Abraham's bosom, it gives proof thereby of its own corporeality.

@Viaro!!! I salute o. I agree with you totally, your mode of expression is remarkable. Yes, there is a different word for "sky" and one for "heaven" and I agree with that. When I said "sky" above i meant somewhere "in the atmosphere and beyond" i.e. ionosphere, stratosphere, in the realms of the solar system, whatever. I don't mean sky as in where the clouds are, I guess. BUT that is what shachaq means? The place where the "clouds" are? (check a concordance to be sure) 'Cos I really don't think the ancient Hebrew had words for the planetary bodies and their spaces, besides "heaven", "sky", "firmament", "stars", "moon", "sun". Which is why I laugh at all those that claim the Bible is wrong when it describes extraterrestrial activities using these words. e.g. calling a planet a "star" is not so wrong judging by the available words because they are both celestial bodies visible from earth at night, and the gaseous and/or solid structures are not readily distinguishable.

By the way, all this talk about celestial bodies reminds me of yet another place, which kind of backs up my belief about the place that Elijah went to, or any of the other references to "heaven" that shâmayim  /  shâmeh refers to in the OT Hebrew:

Isa 47:13  Thou art wearied in the multitude of thy counsels. Let now the astrologers, the stargazers, the monthly prognosticators, stand up, and save thee from these things that shall come upon thee.

The word "astrologers" above is hâbar shâmayim meaning "those who observe the heavens". It is way beyond the skies, so I can thus conclude that Elijah was probably the first man in outer space.  All hail Elijah, the first astronaut!

Chai!

LOl see me see cross-thread wahala o!! All my above references to bee444 and to chess with respect to Nuclearboy and DeepSight were transferred from another thread (Is Jesus God?)! LOL I must have lost the breadcrumbs trail a little bit there! Apologies, everyone.

Cos they human and constant fight between the flesh and the soul

Okay, now I may be flogging a dead horse but something just occurred to me. Viaro and NuclearBoy, what do you guys think?

It just occurred to me that time is not of consequence in the heavens. It's earth that is time-bound.

That is why the timeless God gave promises to men like Abraham, calling things that be not as though they were. And that is why someone like Abraham can rejoice to see Christ's day, even though the Jews wondered since Christ was not even 50 years old yet (only a VERY old person would have been alive in Abraham's day, for a wizened old Abraham to rejoice to see his day. They were thinking in the time-bound 3-Dimensional world).

Rom 4:17  (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

God called the things that were not-yet as though they had happened; importing the future into the past!

Joh 8:56  Your forefather Abraham was extremely happy at the hope and prospect of seeing My day (My incarnation); and he did see it and was delighted. [Heb. 11:13.]
Joh 8:57  Then the Jews said to Him, You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?
Joh 8:58  Jesus replied, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, before Abraham was born, I AM. [Exod. 3:14.]

And I guess that's where the answer to Deep Sight's questions about all those that died without the opportunity of hearing Christ MAY fall. I said MAY because it is a "speculation" (I'm never afraid to have spiritual exercises of this sort, unlike those who are afraid to question what they believe in). Here goes:

I sincerely believe that when those ones die, they will get to that timeless place where Christ will, once again, have risen and will be found preaching the Gospel; which they will, once more, have the opportunity to believe or to reject. This will only apply to those who never heard the gospel and those who never humanly understood it (e.g. someone, a Buddhist who lived in an exclusive cave all his life, on a death-bed, hardly conscious, never heard the Gospel, and is being frantically preached to by one of Deep Sight's contemporaries  and the dying Buddhist dies anyway without getting the gist). It will not apply to those who have already rejected the Gospel, just like Dives (the rich man in the Lazarus / Abraham's bosom story) did not have another chance.


Luk 16:31  And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Which shows that these guys (Dives and his 5 brothers) KNEW what God required of them, but they chose not to listen. They REJECTED the "Law and the Prophets", (of whom many had also prophesied of Christ as well, from Moses to John the Baptist, they did). So, rejecting the prophets meant they would have no other chance. The equivalence in the New Testament is that they would not be given another chance having rejected the Gospel of Christ.

Mat 21:28  What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He came to the first and said, Son, go and work today in the vineyard.
Mat 21:29  And he answered, I will not; but afterward he changed his mind and went.
Mat 21:30  Then the man came to the second and said the same [thing]. And he replied, I will [go], sir; but he did not go.
Mat 21:31  Which of the two did the will of the father? They replied, The first one. Jesus said to them, Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the harlots will get into the kingdom of heaven before you.

And so, someone may ask, of what use is it to preach the Gospel to others since they will still hear it from Christ? First, you can never tell who has ever heard the gospel and has rejected it or did not understand it, and may need a refresher. Secondly, it is love that constrains us: love for God, love for God's intents, love for mankind. We want them to benefit from the abundant life that Christ came to give (John 10:10), there is no need letting them live wretched and confused lives without ever hearing of Christ BECAUSE we believe they will still have that FIRST CHANCE of hearing the Gospel when they die.

Is someone screaming HERESY! yet?     

And that's what I sincerely believe as at now. Once again, just like my beliefs about the actual events and personas in Eden, I must say that I am not forcing this down anyone's throat. It's my personal insight, and I just wanted to share it in case someone else has further light to shed on it.

Thanks,

Maven. 

I think the argument of whether paradise is in hades or not is aptly answered by the story of Lazarus and the rich man.

Luke 16:20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,

21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

Quite clearly those in hell could see those in paradise . . . that could only happen if they are both on the same plane.

David is it not suggestive that he "lifted UP his eyes" and sees Abraham "AFAR OFF" -

DOES this not suggest that he is looking "up" into another realm by means of a vision?

The fact that they are different planes is surely confirmed by the words of Abraham -

"26: And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us." -

Which surely show that these are different planes entirely!

Secondly if at all there is a place of comfort in hades: is that place necessarily the paradise that the bible refers to? ? ?

Because it is clear from both Genesis and Revelation that Paradise is the abode of the Tree of Life, which surely can never be said to be resident in Hades? ? ?

Deep Sight:

David is it not suggestive that he "lifted UP his eyes" and sees Abraham "AFAR OFF" -

DOES this not suggest that he is looking "up" into another realm by means of a vision?

It doesnt suggest any such thing. If i "lift UP my eyes" and see the oncoming traffic does that mean the other part of the road is 10,000 miles away in the sky?

Deep Sight:

The fact that they are different planes is surely confirmed by the words of Abraham -

"26: And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us." -

Which surely show that these are different planes entirely!

Not so . . . if paradise was high up . . . there would be no need for a chasm "between" them to prevent anyone from crossing over. The height distance would be enough deterence. Besides it would be unthinkable for someone so far below to contemplate climbing up to heaven. How would such a person do this? Fly?

Deep Sight:

Secondly if at all there is a place of comfort in hades: is that place necessarily the paradise that the bible refers to? ? ?

Because it is clear from both Genesis and Revelation that Paradise is the abode of the Tree of Life, which surely can never be said to be resident in Hades? ? ?

Again this is your own opinion . . . Genesis and revelation do not tell you this. It is certainly possible for both to be on the same plane but in totally different areas close enough that they can see each other. Are you suggesting the heat from hades may be affecting the leaves on the tree of life?

Si i may understand you as believeing that the eternal paradise of God referred to in Rev 2:7 is in Hades?

Deep Sight:

Si i may understand you as believeing that the eternal paradise of God referred to in Rev 2:7 is in Hades?

Did Rev 2:7 say anything about where paradise is located? You have the liberty to locate it in Jos if you like.

No - It talks about the Tree of Life being in the Paradise of God.

If we are aware of what the Tree of Life stands for, it seems very bizarre to imagine that it is located in the land of death. - which is what Hades is.