-->
@FLRW
Because people like you would just tell them that he was mentally ill and a liar. If you want to know what the afterlife looks like meditate, explore spirituality, get off your lazy butt and look for it.
Heaven
Posts
Total:
79
HEAVEN
Everyone is trying to get to the barThe name of the bar, the bar is called HeavenThe band in Heaven, they play my favorite songThey play it once again, they play it all night longHeaven (Heaven) is a placeA place where nothingNothing ever happensHeaven (Heaven)Heaven is a placeA place where nothingNothing ever happensThere is a party, everyone is thereEveryone will leave at exactly the same timeIt's hard to imagine that nothing at allCould be so exciting, could be so much funYeah, HeavenHeaven is a placeA place where nothingNothing ever happensYeah, HeavenHeaven is a placeA place where nothingNothing ever happensWhen this kiss is over, it will start againIt will not be any different, it will be exactly the sameIt's hard to imagine that nothing at allCould be so exciting, could be this much funHeaven (Heaven) is a placeA place where nothingNothing ever happensHeaven (Heaven) is a placeA place where nothingNothing ever happens
-David Byrne/Jerry Harrison
-->
@Tradesecret
Firstly, God created Heaven
Did God create his heaven, or ours? Genesis does not tell us. It does tell us there are multiple gods, however. Considering that string theory allows for the potential that the universe operates in cycles of expansion [from a big bang?] to contraction, in repeated cycles over timelessness, or, eternity, if you will, and that our God is a product of generations of gods before him, perhaps one of his Fathers created the heaven our Father now inhabits. Just so, as we are able to attain godhood, we will create the heaven our children will inhabit, distant from now into the future... and so on.
ASo, perhaps the "heaven" of "heaven and earth" as described in Genesis is a more local phenomenon than the entire universe., such as is suggested by Genesis, since the sun, moon and stars that volume describes are to be used for our "day from night, and times and seasons, and days and years." [Gen 1: 14] Not very many stars out there are used for those purposes for us on Earth, are they?
-->
@EtrnlVw
Lol, you are in for a big and delightful surprise. Earth could be considered a type of heaven, perhaps one day it could become one (out of many others) but to limit God to this one planet is very unfortunate. And what a waste of unimaginable space on every level.
Wow!
I don't think earth is a type of heaven or even heaven itself. Nor do I limit God to one planet. I take the view that heaven is God's home on earth. Not that earth is heaven. In the bible - Heaven is described firstly as the Garden of Eden. And secondly in Revelation 21-22 as a city. When you read the different descriptions and compare the two - you notice the Garden of Eden is the original heaven and the City is the eternal or everlasting one. The city is basically the Garden of Eden on Steroids. The mature version.
When people die on this planet - if they are have trusted Jesus, they go to paradise. And they have plenty of things to do there. Work, eat, sleep, make love, have recreation, worship God. Then after the world is judged - say in Revelation 20, Jesus takes them with himself to the New Jerusalem on Earth. This is God's home. I suspect it is not a second place - but a reconditioned - or restored place. The beauty of course is that there is also a new earth. God's city is a beautiful garden city on the new earth. This is home on earth.
The thing about God is that he does not need a home for himself. He was before heaven and does not need heaven. Yet because he wants to have a relationship with his people - he has fashioned this city, similarly to planting a Garden in the first place, as his home for his people to visit.
We however live in the time between the Garden of Eden and Judgment Day. In the time often known as the now and not yet. This means that we don't experience heaven until we die in the Garden or the City. Rather, due to God's wonderful grace - we experience heaven in the Church. The church performs a similar function to heaven. It is God's place to dwell on earth to meet with his people. Again if you did a biblical search you would find a common theme throughout the OT. The tabernacle in the desert. The temple in Jerusalem. People of God in the promised land. The church in the NT. God meets and dwells with his people.
The temple is an image of heaven. As is the church, one reason it is called a temple of God.
This means heaven MUST be God's home on earth. At least in accordance with the bible.
-->
@949havoc
Firstly, God created HeavenDid God create his heaven, or ours? Genesis does not tell us. It does tell us there are multiple gods, however. Considering that string theory allows for the potential that the universe operates in cycles of expansion [from a big bang?] to contraction, in repeated cycles over timelessness, or, eternity, if you will, and that our God is a product of generations of gods before him, perhaps one of his Fathers created the heaven our Father now inhabits. Just so, as we are able to attain godhood, we will create the heaven our children will inhabit, distant from now into the future... and so on.
God created heaven. The bible does not tell us there are multiple Gods. The Bible clearly distinguishes between the ONE true God and every other pretender. There is only one creator God. It may be true that sometimes different beings are referred to as gods in the bible - Satan is called the god of this world. Jesus called humans gods. Angels are sometimes referred to as gods. Yet there is only one creator God in the bible. Every other so called god pales into insignificance next to this Creator God.
I don't particularly see how string theory is relevant in this situation. For despite the theory - no other dimension has been established to be true.
ASo, perhaps the "heaven" of "heaven and earth" as described in Genesis is a more local phenomenon than the entire universe., such as is suggested by Genesis, since the sun, moon and stars that volume describes are to be used for our "day from night, and times and seasons, and days and years." [Gen 1: 14] Not very many stars out there are used for those purposes for us on Earth, are they?
You can have your theories - go for it. Yet unless it springs from the bible then it is pointless to suggest it is helpful. For me when people don't really use the bible or know Jesus - it is like they are half tuned into a radio station hearing only static and other noise. Even people who are tuned in - mostly only see the world in black and white. But heaven will be full coloured and vivid. You enjoy your white noise. Go for it.
-->
@FLRW
God used to speak to people from clouds and burning bushes, so why doesn't he go on Facebook and show pictures of Heaven?
Hebrews 1:1-3 provides the reason why.
-->
@Tradesecret
Who says God stopped speaking with Biblical uttering? That places limits on God, and we, certainly, have no authority to do that.
The Genesis creation account refers to multiples in the creation process:, specifically in the creation of man " in our image" Gen 1: 26
Yes, there are plentiful verses that advise that we worship no other gods but God, our Father. But that does not discount that there are others with whim he associates, who are the progenitors of other people not of this earth, as I am certain our Father has also populated other earths like ours. That I owe them no allegiance does not say they do not exist.
-->
@949havoc
Who says God stopped speaking with Biblical uttering?
God did.
That places limits on God, and we, certainly, have no authority to do that.
No, it is God placing limits on us. And he certainly has that authority.
The Genesis creation account refers to multiples in the creation process:, specifically in the creation of man " in our image" Gen 1: 26
I don't agree. The term "in our image" has been understood by different interpreters in different ways. Some have suggested it is a royal we. I think that is weak since God never uses that term anywhere in the bible.
Some suggest that it is talking about God and various other entities. I think this is weak too as the Bible declares that only God is the creator God.
Some suggest it is talking about the Trinity. It might be. I think it is possible since God's is the only image that humanity was made in. Yet I find it unlikely since it it seems to be an argument out of convenience rather than out of the doctrine of the Trinity.
You have said there were others in the creative process - apart from that verse which might mean a variety of things - how would you justify it?
Colossians 1 indicates that Jesus Christ was part of the Creation process as indeed John 1 tells us as well. God - in the sense of elohim was part of it - since that is the word used in Genesis 1. But are they different or are they two persons within the Trinitarian Godhead.
Yes, there are plentiful verses that advise that we worship no other gods but God, our Father.
That sentence does not compute since it is not true. There are many verses which talk of the worship of Jesus. Jesus is not the Father.
But that does not discount that there are others with whim he associates, who are the progenitors of other people not of this earth, as I am certain our Father has also populated other earths like ours.
Well respectfully, you are not certain. You have no evidence that any other planet has life. Nor do you have any evidence that the Father populated other worlds. Nor do you have any evidence to support that others with whom God associates helped create people on our world. You have no scientific evidence. You have no biblical evidence. You have one verse - one verse only that says - "in our image". That is not evidence - and clearly not proof.
Also I am not discounting on a whim. If I do not see any evidence for something and no one produces any - and I hold to the Scriptures, which do not agree with your beliefs - that does not make it a whim.
That I owe them no allegiance does not say they do not exist.
That you think they do exist - does not make them exist. Produce your evidence. And then we can discuss further.
-->
@Tradesecret
A. Has been understood by different interpreters in different ways
As I keep telling you Trade.
B. God never uses the term anywhere in the bible.
As I keep telling you Trade.
GOD is a character within the human bible. (Mythical, naive creation hypothesis).
Therefore GOD is actually created in the human image. (To be expected. Though Elephants and Dogs are alternatives).
Or more accurately...Man invents a MAN GOD that creates us in it's image. ( Also to be expected).
Why you think that yours is the best option......Is because you were taught to think that yours is the best option.
No real proof was ever necessary.
-->
@Tradesecret
The bible does not tell us there are multiple Gods.
It very clearly does. There are multiple references to other gods IN THE BIBLE.
The Bible clearly distinguishes between the ONE true God and every other pretender.
No it doesn't. In fact the bible only holds that the Hebrew god as saying "there is no other god but me". Isaiah 45:5 Well he would wouldn't he.
You and your personal Hebrew teacher#45 can make the claim that there is "only one god" but this doesn't and never will alter the very clear fact that THE BIBLE holds that there were / are many gods.
-->
@Tradesecret
God did.
Show me where God said he has stopped speaking to man, remembering that god wrote not one word or punctuation of the Holy Bible; men did, and men can make mistakes. That is why James tells us how to properly interpret to gain wisdom.
I agree with your assessment that the Genesis account "Let us make..." is not a royal we; God is far greater than that need that royals have to be more than their subjects. I believe gods are stratified. Yes, God is the "creator god," but others can be delegated by him to perform certain functions of creation. We know a movie producer does not do all the work, just because he is called "producer." Skilled delegates do much work of the work on God's word.
God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three separate, distinct personages who are completely aligned and one in purpose, but not one in body.
Jesus is not the Father.
Since all three personages of the godhead are worthy of worship for all they individually do for us, I worship them for the individual roles they perform in and on our behalf. Worship is praise, not some unidirectional fawning over one person, alone.
Well respectfully, you are not certain.
Well, respectively, back at you. You have no idea of what I am certain. Return to James' epistle, and read the entirety of it. We can be certain, but there are specific steps to follow, and they cannot be short-circuited and expect to have that which is lacking in certainty. Learning is a continuous process, and we'd best be about it with all our heart, might, mind, and strength. Therein is my evidence. It's called putting faith to work.
-->
@Tradesecret
Wow!
What do you mean "wow"? I responded to what you wrote which was this...
"I say on earth. The Jewish and Christian lingo puts heaven and earth hand in hand."
"Sorry Heaven is not out there - it is here."
I don't think earth is a type of heaven or even heaven itself.
Yet you keep saying that it IS.
Nor do I limit God to one planet.
So.. as of yet, I have heard nothing from you that indicates you believe God is not limited to this planet.
I take the view that heaven is God's home on earth.
Here we are again, have you made up your mind yet?
Not that earth is heaven.
I'm not sure what you believe to be honest, but I'd love to help you figure it out.
In the bible - Heaven is described firstly as the Garden of Eden.
Heaven, in the Bible is an actual city, and that city is located on a planet. Not the planet Earth, there is no city in the Garden of Eden lol. The Garden of Eden was created for man, it was very much like a paradise but it was not the city or the Kingdom of Heaven. Heaven on earth is to be completed at a later time. "A new heaven and a new earth".
And secondly in Revelation 21-22 as a city. When you read the different descriptions and compare the two - you notice the Garden of Eden is the original heaven and the City is the eternal or everlasting one. The city is basically the Garden of Eden on Steroids. The mature version.
Again I have a hard time understanding what you are saying, the Garden of Eden and the City of Heaven are not the same things, Revelations is clear about that. So if the Garden of Eden (which exists on Earth) is not the Kingdom of Heaven, Heaven exists elsewhere. Revelations says " 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God"....."10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God."
Notice, it's coming down out of the Heaven from God, meaning it's not already there, it exists on another planet. We also know there is no city in the Garden of Eden that is described as this...
"11 It shone with the glory of God, and its brilliance was like that of a very precious jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal. 12 It had a great, high wall with twelve gates, and with twelve angels at the gates. On the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. 13 There were three gates on the east, three on the north, three on the south and three on the west. 14 The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
15 The angel who talked with me had a measuring rod of gold to measure the city, its gates and its walls. 16 The city was laid out like a square, as long as it was wide. He measured the city with the rod and found it to be 12,000 stadia[c] in length, and as wide and high as it is long. 17 The angel measured the wall using human measurement, and it was 144 cubits[d] thick.[e] 18 The wall was made of jasper, and the city of pure gold, as pure as glass. 19 The foundations of the city walls were decorated with every kind of precious stone. The first foundation was jasper, the second sapphire, the third agate, the fourth emerald, 20 the fifth onyx, the sixth ruby, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth turquoise, the eleventh jacinth, and the twelfth amethyst.[f] 21 The twelve gates were twelve pearls, each gate made of a single pearl. The great street of the city was of gold, as pure as transparent glass."
This does not exist on Earth.
When people die on this planet - if they are have trusted Jesus, they go to paradise.
Some Christians might go the paradise yes, some won't. Certainly that is not on earth. Many other souls have many other options.
And they have plenty of things to do there. Work, eat, sleep, make love, have recreation, worship God.
Yes sir, there are many things to be accomplished when we die. Waiting in the grave (in dirt) is not one of them.
Then after the world is judged - say in Revelation 20, Jesus takes them with himself to the New Jerusalem on Earth.
New, yes new. Meaning not anything we have here now.
This is God's home.
No.
I suspect it is not a second place - but a reconditioned - or restored place.
Yes, it is. One of many, many places in creation. At a later time, earth will be something completely new.
The beauty of course is that there is also a new earth.
Yes, a new earth, meaning not the one we have now.
God's city is a beautiful garden city on the new earth. This is home on earth.
No, God's city already exists elsewhere, but in the future God's city will come down out of heaven where it already exists. And I believe that just means a rebuilt earth...not that the city of heaven will literally fall down from the sky and plant itself here. It simply means what happens in heaven will be a reality on earth in the future.
The thing about God is that he does not need a home for himself. He was before heaven and does not need heaven.
Correct, God is omnipresent and everything and all of creation exists within God. But an incarnation (Jesus) must exist to take form and have location to any specific place.
Yet because he wants to have a relationship with his people - he has fashioned this city, similarly to planting a Garden in the first place, as his home for his people to visit.
The Garden of Eden began as a paradise on earth for mankind, it is not a city of heaven. The city of heaven is described for you above. The garden was just a beautiful garden located on earth.
We however live in the time between the Garden of Eden and Judgment Day. In the time often known as the now and not yet. This means that we don't experience heaven until we die in the Garden or the City. Rather, due to God's wonderful grace - we experience heaven in the Church. The church performs a similar function to heaven. It is God's place to dwell on earth to meet with his people. Again if you did a biblical search you would find a common theme throughout the OT. The tabernacle in the desert. The temple in Jerusalem. People of God in the promised land. The church in the NT. God meets and dwells with his people.
I've been submerged in the Bible and Christian teachings since I was a young boy. I'm well aware of what the Bible says and what is Christian fundamentalist teaching. There is some truth to it, yet there is much missing.
The temple is an image of heaven. As is the church, one reason it is called a temple of God.
Sure, not really sure what your point is though. We are talking about heaven itself. Heaven itself has a distinct location even though it can be tapped into from earth.
This means heaven MUST be God's home on earth. At least in accordance with the bible.
Again you contradict your own statement..."I don't think earth is a type of heaven or even heaven itself. "
Let me break this down for you as a Christian so that this is very clear for you. Heaven already exists as a city on a planet (not earth). This is where the angels, Jesus, the prophets, the saints and all of God's people currently dwell. The Earth was created and the Garden of Eden was established as a paradise on earth for man (not God). It no longer is what it once was....One day, after the temporary rule of the gods of this world the earth will once again be rebuilt and ruled by the Kingdom of heaven which exists elsewhere. When this rule takes place, it will come down from Heaven where Jesus rules this particular Kingdom and all of those who will be a part of it will reign this planet. It will be a new earth and new heaven, meaning something that does not already exist on this planet.
Jesus' Kingdom is not currently on this planet, though his Kingdom is also channeled through every believer (on earth as it is in Heaven). This world is occupied by many various principalities, powers and rulers in high places but will one day be resurrected as a glorious planet and controlled by the Kingdom of heaven.
-->
@949havoc
God did.Show me where God said he has stopped speaking to man, remembering that god wrote not one word or punctuation of the Holy Bible; men did, and men can make mistakes.
2 Timothy 3:16 tells us that all scripture is God breathed. This means every word of the Scriptures is breathed out by God. This is one reason why Jesus in Matthew 5 said not one bit will be scrapped. So please don't ask me to remember lies and misrepresentations of the Scriptures or about them. I have provided several texts that show God has chosen to stop talking until the second coming. Hebrews 1:1-3; 1 Corinthians 13:8; Daniel 9: 24. You have yet to refute any of these passages.
That is why James tells us how to properly interpret to gain wisdom.
If you are correct about men making mistakes - does not that include the little pearl of wisdom you are wanting me to read in James about wisdom? Perhaps James is mistaken? And if so- then it puts you up a creek without a paddle. Better to see the whole scriptures - OT and NT as infallible because it is written by the Holy Spirit - and by humans. Fully God and Fully Man. Very similar to Jesus.
I agree with your assessment that the Genesis account "Let us make..." is not a royal we; God is far greater than that need that royals have to be more than their subjects. I believe gods are stratified. Yes, God is the "creator god," but others can be delegated by him to perform certain functions of creation. We know a movie producer does not do all the work, just because he is called "producer." Skilled delegates do much work of the work on God's word.
I don't have an issue with delegated responsibility. What I asked for you to do was show where it is in the Scriptures - not just speculate.
God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three separate, distinct personages who are completely aligned and one in purpose, but not one in body.
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons - but they are all ONE GOD. No one is talking about bodies except you. There are NO other Creator Gods. In fact there is no one to compare to God the Triune ONE.
Jesus is not the Father.Since all three personages of the godhead are worthy of worship for all they individually do for us, I worship them for the individual roles they perform in and on our behalf. Worship is praise, not some unidirectional fawning over one person, alone.
I worship but ONE GOD. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three but they are ONE. I worship them as the ONE and the MANY. TRINITY. I don't know what you mean by undirectional fawning - is that something that Mormons do? We pray to the Father, through Jesus by the power of the Spirit. We worship the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Well respectfully, you are not certain.Well, respectively, back at you. You have no idea of what I am certain. Return to James' epistle, and read the entirety of it. We can be certain, but there are specific steps to follow, and they cannot be short-circuited and expect to have that which is lacking in certainty. Learning is a continuous process, and we'd best be about it with all our heart, might, mind, and strength. Therein is my evidence. It's called putting faith to work.
Your certainty respectfully is based on a testimony. I know that you know that you know that you know. But I also know that you cannot know. And I am certain about that. Why? Not because I have followed some magical process of steps - but because the bible - God breathed denies your words. I know because God said it. Not because I have followed a process and had a wonderful nice warm fuzzy feeling in my heart. My certainty comes from truth - not an experience.
I am not even sure you understand the contradiction you have placed yourself into. You want me to return to James' epistle. Why? If you are correct above - it is only man's words - which make mistakes. It cannot - if you are correct - give me certainty - because you have just told me - it cannot be trusted. I am sure you have a wonderful way to explain why I should trust something which I cannot trust. I will wait while you enlighten me.
-->
@Tradesecret
Hebrews 1:1-3; 1 Corinthians 13:8; Daniel 9: 24.
Hebrews: Nothing in these verses describe an end of God speaking to man. Yes, at Christ's beginning of his ministry, Jesus spoke as the Son of God, and he said on many occasions that what he spoke were not his words, but those given him by God the Father; iow, still God's word.
Corinthians: Nothing in this verse indicates a cessation of God speaking to man [except as through Christ, as noted in Hebrews]. Paul is saying that there may be prophesies, tongues, and knowledge, but that these shall fall when "that which is perfect [Jesus Christ] is come" that these other utterances will cease, because Christ, himself, will again be on the Earth. He is speaking of that future time, not in Paul's time in the first century. This would necessarily imply that god speaks to man by prophecy from heaven until the time Christ returns.
Daniel: Nothing in these verses say God stops speaking to man. Daniel and the Israelites have been allowed to return to Jerusalem, released by the Babylonians in ~525 BCE, after spending roughly 80 years in Babylon [from ~605 BCE, when Babylon sacked Jerusalem and destroyed Solomon's temple. Daniel is told to re-build the temple, which is completed ~505 BC. The "seal up the vision and prophecy" speaks to Daniels own vision and prophecy being sealed as told in this chapter, but says nothing regarding a cessation of prophecy or visions to instruct on a further basis, else we should not have the records of Hosea through Malachi, 12 prophets in all. Do we ignore them based on your interpretation of Daniel, let alone the advent of Christ 500+ years later?
Perhaps James is mistaken?
Did the Holy Spirit tell you that, too?
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons - but they are all ONE GOD.
Three personages = one God? What's wrong with three personages = 3 Gods, united in purpose, but separate individuals? If nothing else, Occam's razor... makes more sense without having to noodle something out of "let us make man in our image." I also worship the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost - 3 persons of divine nature. 3 = 3 makes a whole lot more sense, and less contradiction, than does 3 = 1. Particularly sense my whole purpose here, on earth, is to ultimately become like them with my continued obedience. I am, after all, as all of us are, a child of God. Should I not try to become like my parents? [Implying that I also have a Mother in Heaven, a Goddess, yeah?]
-->
@EtrnlVw
I don't think earth is a type of heaven or even heaven itself.Yet you keep saying that it IS.
No, I don't. Heaven is Heaven and Earth is Earth. I say Heaven is God's home on earth. It is on earth but separate to it. At least presently.
Nor do I limit God to one planet.So.. as of yet, I have heard nothing from you that indicates you believe God is not limited to this planet.
God made the universe and everything in it. God gives the stars names. I don't God is limited - except when he chooses to limit himself so that humans can understand. For instance - God would at times dwell in a temple - for the sake of humanity. But God was not limited to the temple. That would create an absurdity.
I take the view that heaven is God's home on earth.Here we are again, have you made up your mind yet?
Yes. I have not changed my mind. Heaven is Heaven and Earth is Earth. They are not the same. Yet Heaven is God's home on earth. Separate to the earth but on it.
Not that earth is heaven.I'm not sure what you believe to be honest, but I'd love to help you figure it out.
Well -- that is fine. I don't mind help.
In the bible - Heaven is described firstly as the Garden of Eden.Heaven, in the Bible is an actual city, and that city is located on a planet. Not the planet Earth, there is no city in the Garden of Eden lol. The Garden of Eden was created for man, it was very much like a paradise but it was not the city or the Kingdom of Heaven. Heaven on earth is to be completed at a later time. "A new heaven and a new earth".
Yes, the New Heavens are described as a city. Revelation 21. And it is located on the New Earth which is Earth renewed. I never said there was a city in the Garden of Eden. Eden is the original Heaven. The city is the New Heaven. And now you seem to understand that heaven will be on earth. Perhaps you should make up your mind?
And secondly in Revelation 21-22 as a city. When you read the different descriptions and compare the two - you notice the Garden of Eden is the original heaven and the City is the eternal or everlasting one. The city is basically the Garden of Eden on Steroids. The mature version.Again I have a hard time understanding what you are saying, the Garden of Eden and the City of Heaven are not the same things, Revelations is clear about that. So if the Garden of Eden (which exists on Earth) is not the Kingdom of Heaven, Heaven exists elsewhere. Revelations says " 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God"....."10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God."
Yes, that is right. The Garden and the City are not the same thing. The City of heaven is the new heaven. It is not built yet. The Garden of Eden is the current or the original heaven. 21:1 tells us that it and earth will pass away. Heaven does not need to exist anywhere else. the word heaven in the greek is euranos - this word is used in many different ways. Sometimes it refers to heaven - God's home. Sometimes it refers to the sky. Sometimes it refers to God, as in the kingdom of heaven / God in the parables Jesus spoke about in the gospels. Here 21:1 says the heavens and the earth passed away. So if it has passed away - which heaven is the new city coming from? It can't obviously - so it is logical it is just coming from the sky.
Notice, it's coming down out of the Heaven from God, meaning it's not already there, it exists on another planet. We also know there is no city in the Garden of Eden that is described as this..."11 It shone with the glory of God, and its brilliance was like that of a very precious jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal. 12 It had a great, high wall with twelve gates, and with twelve angels at the gates. On the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. 13 There were three gates on the east, three on the north, three on the south and three on the west. 14 The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.15 The angel who talked with me had a measuring rod of gold to measure the city, its gates and its walls. 16 The city was laid out like a square, as long as it was wide. He measured the city with the rod and found it to be 12,000 stadia[c] in length, and as wide and high as it is long. 17 The angel measured the wall using human measurement, and it was 144 cubits[d] thick.[e] 18 The wall was made of jasper, and the city of pure gold, as pure as glass. 19 The foundations of the city walls were decorated with every kind of precious stone. The first foundation was jasper, the second sapphire, the third agate, the fourth emerald, 20 the fifth onyx, the sixth ruby, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth turquoise, the eleventh jacinth, and the twelfth amethyst.[f] 21 The twelve gates were twelve pearls, each gate made of a single pearl. The great street of the city was of gold, as pure as transparent glass."This does not exist on Earth.
It is describing Heaven on the new earth. the new earth is not yet here. There is no mention of ANOTHER planet. Not in these verses. You might be right - but you have not yet provided proof from the bible itself.
When people die on this planet - if they are have trusted Jesus, they go to paradise.Some Christians might go the paradise yes, some won't. Certainly that is not on earth. Many other souls have many other options.
All Christians go to paradise in this generation. That is heaven. And heaven is here on earth. The bible does not provide any indication that any other soul has another option - unless of course you are talking about Hell. Of course I am happy to see you use the bible to say otherwise. Some contend that the bosem of Abraham is somewhere different. Is that your contention?
Then after the world is judged - say in Revelation 20, Jesus takes them with himself to the New Jerusalem on Earth.New, yes new. Meaning not anything we have here now.
That is what I am saying.
This is God's home.No.
Well yes. Unless you have some scriptures to say otherwise.
I suspect it is not a second place - but a reconditioned - or restored place.Yes, it is. One of many, many places in creation. At a later time, earth will be something completely new.
Agreed.
The beauty of course is that there is also a new earth.Yes, a new earth, meaning not the one we have now.
This is what I keep saying. Although I think it is the old earth - reconditioned or made perfect.
God's city is a beautiful garden city on the new earth. This is home on earth.No, God's city already exists elsewhere, but in the future God's city will come down out of heaven where it already exists. And I believe that just means a rebuilt earth...not that the city of heaven will literally fall down from the sky and plant itself here. It simply means what happens in heaven will be a reality on earth in the future.
I am talking about the New Heaven. It does not exist. God does not have another city elsewhere unless it is in the Garden of Eden which is Heaven on Earth.
The thing about God is that he does not need a home for himself. He was before heaven and does not need heaven.Correct, God is omnipresent and everything and all of creation exists within God. But an incarnation (Jesus) must exist to take form and have location to any specific place.
It does not exist within God. That is more akin to pantheism not biblical Christianity.
Yet because he wants to have a relationship with his people - he has fashioned this city, similarly to planting a Garden in the first place, as his home for his people to visit.The Garden of Eden began as a paradise on earth for mankind, it is not a city of heaven. The city of heaven is described for you above. The garden was just a beautiful garden located on earth.
The Garden of Eden was not planted for humanity but for God to have relationship with humanity. God planted it. It is his home on earth. Not just a garden - God's garden.
We however live in the time between the Garden of Eden and Judgment Day. In the time often known as the now and not yet. This means that we don't experience heaven until we die in the Garden or the City. Rather, due to God's wonderful grace - we experience heaven in the Church. The church performs a similar function to heaven. It is God's place to dwell on earth to meet with his people. Again if you did a biblical search you would find a common theme throughout the OT. The tabernacle in the desert. The temple in Jerusalem. People of God in the promised land. The church in the NT. God meets and dwells with his people.I've been submerged in the Bible and Christian teachings since I was a young boy. I'm well aware of what the Bible says and what is Christian fundamentalist teaching. There is some truth to it, yet there is much missing.
I am not a fundamentalist. I am not an evangelical. Nor am I Liberal or a universalist. What don't you agree with what I said above - I don't care for fundamentalist teaching.
The temple is an image of heaven. As is the church, one reason it is called a temple of God.Sure, not really sure what your point is though. We are talking about heaven itself. Heaven itself has a distinct location even though it can be tapped into from earth.
Because the new city that comes from heaven is a picture of both the new heavens but also of the church founded on the 12 sons of Israel and the 12 apostles. It is a mature bride prepared for her husband the lamb of God. This is where God dwells on earth - in his new heaven but also in the church universal. Heaven is God's home on earth. It is not on another planet or far far away. Please try and distinguish between the Greek and the Hebrew / Christian understanding of Heaven and Earth.
This means heaven MUST be God's home on earth. At least in accordance with the bible.Again you contradict your own statement..."I don't think earth is a type of heaven or even heaven itself. "
I have not contradicted myself. I have maintained heaven is God's home on earth. It is distinct from earth - like the city of Heaven is distinct from the new earth - like the Garden of Eden is distinct from the earth to which Adam was banished.
Let me break this down for you as a Christian so that this is very clear for you. Heaven already exists as a city on a planet (not earth). This is where the angels, Jesus, the prophets, the saints and all of God's people currently dwell. The Earth was created and the Garden of Eden was established as a paradise on earth for man (not God). It no longer is what it once was....One day, after the temporary rule of the gods of this world the earth will once again be rebuilt and ruled by the Kingdom of heaven which exists elsewhere. When this rule takes place, it will come down from Heaven where Jesus rules this particular Kingdom and all of those who will be a part of it will reign this planet. It will be a new earth and new heaven, meaning something that does not already exist on this planet.Jesus' Kingdom is not currently on this planet, though his Kingdom is also channeled through every believer (on earth as it is in Heaven). This world is occupied by many various principalities, powers and rulers in high places but will one day be resurrected as a glorious planet and controlled by the Kingdom of heaven.
Thanks - but this is not what the bible says.
-->
@949havoc
I love how you don't even try to address the main point in my response to you.
Let me go back to it again:
Why do you want me to trust James - even though he is a man and makes mistakes? Either his words are credible or not. How can you bag out one part of the bible and keep some parts? The inconsistency is testimony to your integrity.
Hebrews 1:1-3; 1 Corinthians 13:8; Daniel 9: 24.
Let's take your points one at a time.
Hebrews: Nothing in these verses describe an end of God speaking to man. Yes, at Christ's beginning of his ministry, Jesus spoke as the Son of God, and he said on many occasions that what he spoke were not his words, but those given him by God the Father; iow, still God's word.
You obviously find it hard to read then. God spoke in various ways in the past - but now God speaks in a different way now. Not like the other ways - which includes angels like Moroni. He doesn't speak in dreams. He doesn't speak through miracles. He doesn't speak in divers manners. NOW he speaks through Jesus. There is a clear division in the way God speaks - then and now. Of course this contradicts your religion - but not mine.
Corinthians: Nothing in this verse indicates a cessation of God speaking to man [except as through Christ, as noted in Hebrews]. Paul is saying that there may be prophesies, tongues, and knowledge, but that these shall fall when "that which is perfect [Jesus Christ] is come" that these other utterances will cease, because Christ, himself, will again be on the Earth. He is speaking of that future time, not in Paul's time in the first century. This would necessarily imply that god speaks to man by prophecy from heaven until the time Christ returns.
This verse speaks of the end of revelation - knowledge, prophecy, and tongues. Each gift is one of revelation from God. To use this phraze obviously meant something to the readers. He was telling them that the church should focus on love because love is the only thing that will matter in the end. The perfect is not the end of the world - but rather the telos - the canon. The perfect revelation or the total revelation. And that makes sense - because once it is completed we don't need more until Jesus returns. It makes no sense that it ends on the last day - only then to start immediately because God is revealing himself to us more. Yes, one could take hold of the language in the passage about children becoming adults. But for most of Christian history - the teachers have been interpreting it to mean the perfect Canon. It makes no sense that Paul would confuse his readers by suggesting that revelation is going to end unless it was going to end. In fact why would he need to do so - if everyone was just going to keep doing it and then they would stop when the end of the world occurs? There is no point to that. And yet if it stopped in history - people would ask why? As indeed they do. And that is because the perfect - in relation to revelation - has come.
Daniel: Nothing in these verses say God stops speaking to man. Daniel and the Israelites have been allowed to return to Jerusalem, released by the Babylonians in ~525 BCE, after spending roughly 80 years in Babylon [from ~605 BCE, when Babylon sacked Jerusalem and destroyed Solomon's temple. Daniel is told to re-build the temple, which is completed ~505 BC. The "seal up the vision and prophecy" speaks to Daniels own vision and prophecy being sealed as told in this chapter, but says nothing regarding a cessation of prophecy or visions to instruct on a further basis, else we should not have the records of Hosea through Malachi, 12 prophets in all. Do we ignore them based on your interpretation of Daniel, let alone the advent of Christ 500+ years later?
Do you intentionally just misread the bible? The vision was sealed up within a generation of Jesus being crucified on the cross. It has a specific time reference in it. Daniel does not inform any of us to ignore any of God's revelation. It ties it to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Did you read the book I linked you to previously? I reckon that you did not. Did you? How convenient? And predictable.
Jesus in the gospels of Matthew and Mark and Luke - predicts the end of the age - when the temple would be destroyed. This was the end of the covenant between God and Israel. Their judgment was fulfilled. The temple destroyed - the sacrifices stopped. It was no longer a religion in the same way it had been before. With its heart and soul cut out - the Jewish world changed forever along with its religion. In fact I take the view that the Jewish religion died that way - and in its place is a new cult. A new Jewish cult.
Sealing up vision and prophecy is a clear closing of the canon of Scripture - dated to AD 70. I think the evidence for the NT writings all date prior to this time. I accept that there are differences of opinions among scholars and academics. I just take the view that the bible is the best determiner of the truth. Fresh revelation has stopped. It won't commence again until the Second Coming. This is what the bible tells us. It means that the book of Mormon like the Quaran and like all other so called prophets today are wrong. And in error. This means many within the Charismatic movement in the church today as well. The bible is clear. And I am happy to draw that line in the sand. Of course for people such as yourself - this goes against everything you think. But since God himself has declared he has finished until the second coming, I am happy to listen to him. He has already given us much to read and to think about and to obey and submit to. No one even comes close to understanding and applying it to our lives now. Why on earth would he want to give us more when we are having difficulty with what he has given us already?
Perhaps James is mistaken?Did the Holy Spirit tell you that, too?
I never said James was mistaken? I told you I think the bible is infallible. I was reflecting your answer back at you.
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons - but they are all ONE GOD.Three personages = one God? What's wrong with three personages = 3 Gods, united in purpose, but separate individuals? If nothing else, Occam's razor... makes more sense without having to noodle something out of "let us make man in our image." I also worship the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost - 3 persons of divine nature. 3 = 3 makes a whole lot more sense, and less contradiction, than does 3 = 1. Particularly sense my whole purpose here, on earth, is to ultimately become like them with my continued obedience. I am, after all, as all of us are, a child of God. Should I not try to become like my parents? [Implying that I also have a Mother in Heaven, a Goddess, yeah?]
You don't worship Jesus since you don't worship the Trinity. The bible says over and over - there is one God. I know you think there are many and that there are references to other deities. But you never get around to actually answering what the bible clearly means when it says there is one God. And there is no one like him. You just ignore this and focus on what you think leads to many. That is bias and prejudice and faulty thinking.
the doctrine of the Trinity does pick up both trains of thought in the bible. There is ONLY ONE GOD. And yet there are THREE persons in that ONE GODHEAD. No goddess. No mother earth. No three gods. No other creator gods. Yes there are angels who are quite powerful. Yes there are people on this planet to call themselves divine - their power is their strength and the fear they generate over other people.
The Mormon church is not a Christian church. It does not fall within Christian orthodoxy. It is a christian cult. Like the JWs. Many people outside of the church would on that basis label it Christian - but Christians can't and won't.
I believe Jesus should send me to hell so that I can gain the approval of Satan. This seems like a rational way to teach wrongdoers how to gain the approval of God.
After all, Satan is just God's alter ego.
-->
@Tradesecret
You continue to insist on limiting God. The greatest sin is to limit God. Don't.
NOW he speaks through Jesus.
"Now" was then, in the time of Paul writing to the Hebrews; first century CE. But Jesus ascended to heaven, where God dwells. But, do not ignore Perter's words in Acts 2, 3. Read these entire chapters how, on theDay of Pentacost. the Holy Ghost descended on the crowd of roughly 3,000 souls, who spoke on tongues and prophesied contrary to your claim that prophecy ended with Christ.
Do not ignore that Peter prophesied that in the "times of trhe restitution of all things" that would include the return of the Lord, Jesus Christ to Earth, that prophesies and miracles would again fill the Earth, contrary to your claim. Sure, you can pick out scriptures that appear, to some, to say others, and I challenge you to show me that the verses you idewntifi3ed say specifically that God should cease speaking to man, even through his Son, Jesus Christ. They don't say that at all. Hebrews, Corinthians, Daniel, and Acts do bot contradict me. Period.
You continue to wringing your hands over James. Just do what he says and see if he is wrong. Do all of it, in the order given, even, if you want to be that precise. If you do not want to try it, you cannot claim he might be wrong. You have the means to do everything he says. So stop bitching about it and do it. The entire epistle is a gold mine, Use it.
You don't worship Jesus since you don't worship the Trinity.
Rather cheeky to accuse me of whom I worship. I said: [#44]
I also worship the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost - 3 persons of divine nature.
That equals the Trinity; three personages. I also said: [#41]
Since all three personages of the godhead are worthy of worship for all they individually do for us, I worship them for the individual roles they perform in and on our behalf. Worship is praise, not some unidirectional fawning over one person, alone.
I also said: [#33]
our God is a product of generations of gods before him, perhaps one of his Fathers created the heaven our Father now inhabits. Just so, as we are able to attain godhood, we will create the heaven our children will inhabit, distant from now into the future... and so on.
Did I ever say that I worship these other Gods. No, I did not, and I do not. Acknowledging their existence does not mean I worship them. I have no reason to worship them; they have nothing to do with me, personally, nor anyone else living on Earth.
Do you intentionally just misread the bible? The vision was sealed up within a generation of Jesus being crucified on the cross.
Daniel 9 contains the visin and the visitation of Gabriel, who tells Daniel of seventy weeks which will pass with the following results
1. Finish the transgression,
2. Make an end of sins,
3. Make reconciliation for iniquity,
4. Bring in everlasting righteousness,
5. Seal up vision and prophecy,
6. Anoint the Most Holy.
6. Anoint the Most Holy.
So the vision was not sealed up in the first century CE, but within the seventy days Gabriel described and which Daniel records and bears record in his Chapter 9.
Do you intentionally misread the Bible?
The Mormon church is not a Christian church. I
It is not the Mormon Church. We do not worship Mormon. The name of the church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is self-described as being Christian. That others discount it as such, such as you, do so in ignorance. Do I accuse the Roman Catholic Church of being the Pope Church? No, I do not. I call it by the proper name that it gives itself. The members of that church deserve that appropriate respect. I'll thank you to do the same.
-->
@949havoc
You continue to insist on limiting God. The greatest sin is to limit God. Don't.
Stop twisting my words. I said God limits himself. And besides the only unforgiveable sin is to Blaspheme the Holy Spirit which is to deny Jesus is LORD.
NOW he speaks through Jesus."Now" was then, in the time of Paul writing to the Hebrews; first century CE. But Jesus ascended to heaven, where God dwells. But, do not ignore Perter's words in Acts 2, 3. Read these entire chapters how, on theDay of Pentacost. the Holy Ghost descended on the crowd of roughly 3,000 souls, who spoke on tongues and prophesied contrary to your claim that prophecy ended with Christ.
Paul did not write Hebrews. The book however was written in the first century as was the rest of the canon of the NT. Jesus is in heaven - which by the way is on earth in the Garden of Eden. Now is contrasted with the "in former times" referring to the time before Now. Acts was written before Hebrews. Yes, those times included fresh revelation. In fact all of the NT was fresh revelation when it was written. But now it is completed. The perfect has come. 1 Corinthians 13:8.
Do not ignore that Peter prophesied that in the "times of trhe restitution of all things" that would include the return of the Lord, Jesus Christ to Earth, that prophesies and miracles would again fill the Earth, contrary to your claim. Sure, you can pick out scriptures that appear, to some, to say others, and I challenge you to show me that the verses you idewntifi3ed say specifically that God should cease speaking to man, even through his Son, Jesus Christ. They don't say that at all. Hebrews, Corinthians, Daniel, and Acts do bot contradict me. Period.
I'm not ignoring anything. And I'm not suggesting miracles don't happen. But perhaps you ought to point to the passages you are referring to - which you think say what you are saying. I don't see anything like you are saying. Again Hebrews 1:1-3; 1 Corinthians 13:8 and Daniel 9:24. You have yet to refute them. Each of these verses contradict you. You just have to deny the obvious.
You continue to wringing your hands over James. Just do what he says and see if he is wrong. Do all of it, in the order given, even, if you want to be that precise. If you do not want to try it, you cannot claim he might be wrong. You have the means to do everything he says. So stop bitching about it and do it. The entire epistle is a gold mine, Use it.
I'm not hand wringing. You are simply avoiding the obvious. You told me that the bible is written by man and therefore full of mistakes. And then you say I should read James. If you can't see the glaring inconsistency, then you need some real help. You can't try and say - the bible is untrustworthy and then say - trust it. You can't have it both ways.
You don't worship Jesus since you don't worship the Trinity.Rather cheeky to accuse me of whom I worship. I said: [#44]
Not cheeky. True.
I also worship the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost - 3 persons of divine nature.That equals the Trinity; three personages. I also said: [#41]
Seriously!. And now not only are you someone who worships idols - you are lying. You see the three persons as completely distinct. And not as ONE. And I am not just talking about one in unity - one in aim or visiion. There is ONLY ONE GOD. Did you notice how once again you avoid actually talking about ONE GOD.
Since all three personages of the godhead are worthy of worship for all they individually do for us, I worship them for the individual roles they perform in and on our behalf. Worship is praise, not some unidirectional fawning over one person, alone.I also said: [#33]
Christians don't worship the three persons separately. They worship GOD as one. They are not three gods. They are ONE GOD.
our God is a product of generations of gods before him, perhaps one of his Fathers created the heaven our Father now inhabits. Just so, as we are able to attain godhood, we will create the heaven our children will inhabit, distant from now into the future... and so on.Did I ever say that I worship these other Gods. No, I did not, and I do not. Acknowledging their existence does not mean I worship them. I have no reason to worship them; they have nothing to do with me, personally, nor anyone else living on Earth.
Your god is a product of your imagination. Your god is closer to the greek gnostic version of the demiurge, Just because you don't worship other gods - does not mean that you worship the ONE True GOD.
Do you intentionally just misread the bible? The vision was sealed up within a generation of Jesus being crucified on the cross.Daniel 9 contains the visin and the visitation of Gabriel, who tells Daniel of seventy weeks which will pass with the following results1. Finish the transgression,2. Make an end of sins,3. Make reconciliation for iniquity,4. Bring in everlasting righteousness,5. Seal up vision and prophecy,
6. Anoint the Most Holy.So the vision was not sealed up in the first century CE, but within the seventy days Gabriel described and which Daniel records and bears record in his Chapter 9.Do you intentionally misread the Bible?
LOL! As you well know this was not talking about 70 literal days. Perhaps you ought to read some commentaries written about the place and not just Mormon persons. Again - if you had bothered to read that book which I linked you to - you would see the arguments in it which blow your little theory to pieces. I expect you will not read it - it would challenge you to much.
The Mormon church is not a Christian church. IIt is not the Mormon Church. We do not worship Mormon. The name of the church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is self-described as being Christian. That others discount it as such, such as you, do so in ignorance. Do I accuse the Roman Catholic Church of being the Pope Church? No, I do not. I call it by the proper name that it gives itself. The members of that church deserve that appropriate respect. I'll thank you to do the same.
Elijah ridiculed the ridiculous. I will do the same. The Mormon church is a cult. It does not deserve respect. You can call the Roman Catholic Church anything you want to. I won't call the Mormon church a Christian Church - because it is not part of the Church. It is a cult outside of the orthodox church. The Mormons reject the church and its teachings anyway - so I don't know why you are having such a hissy fit about me calling a spade a spade.
You would not accept our baptism or our communion. I would not accept your baptism. I think that we baptise once - and if a Catholic came or an epicopalian or even a baptist came and wanted to join our church - no problem at all. But if a mormon came- I would have to baptise him or her properly since they had not been baptised in the name of the triune God. No offence meant - that is how it is. Nor would I accept the baptism from a JW. They like you guys are your own religious cult - but you are not Christian.
-->
@Tradesecret
Satisfied?
-->
@Tradesecret
Were I to darken your door to seek enlightenment, tell me why I should, Christian, one who professes to be so, when I have been shown disrespect at every turn, regardless of my beliefs and my requests, to simply be called as I have described. I seek simple courtesy, and have been shown the door. Why, indeed, ought I knock rather than move on? I move on, my friend. Thanks for naught.
I leave you with my testimony of Jesus Christ, that he lives, that he is the atoning one, savior and redeemer of mankind.
-->
@949havoc
Do you talk like a pretentious douche too, or is that just how you write? For someone who claims to be a writer, you have a really, really off putting way with words.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Have you ever seen the movie Astral City or read either of the books the Afterlife of Billy Fingers and the Blue Island. Where spirit inspired the text.
-->
@949havoc
Were I to darken your door to seek enlightenment, tell me why I should, Christian, one who professes to be so, when I have been shown disrespect at every turn, regardless of my beliefs and my requests, to simply be called as I have described. I seek simple courtesy, and have been shown the door. Why, indeed, ought I knock rather than move on? I move on, my friend. Thanks for naught.
You are a funny one aren't you? I only want you to be who you are and not what you are not. If you want to follow the teachings of Mormon that is a matter for you. Just don't pretend to be something you are not. You stand on the outside of the door and demand that you should be let inside the room. Yet, you don't even hold the same doctrines or views of most of the church and its creeds and teachings for over 2000 years.
Your church has clearly told the main and traditional church that we have got it wrong. That our scriptures are incorrect. That we don't really know the Holy Spirit or God. You don't accept our baptism or our communion or our clergy. Now that is a matter for your church, but don't expect the traditional church just to say - ok we can work with that. Your church would not accept our teachings - hence why you are what you are.
You say you want curtesy. But did you even read the link I sent you. No of course not. You don't feel you need to read it - why? Because you are already right and we are wrong.
The church's teachings are clear. And if you wish to join the church, then the same rule applies to you as it does to anyone else. What God won't reject, neither will we. And what God accepts so will we.
But the Mormon church holds to a different standard. And that is part of the problem. It is classified as a cult. Now that is neither a positive or a negative statement. It simply recognizes the truth that the Mormon Church like the JWs stand outside of what is taught amongst the traditional church of whatever flavor. Catholics, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ, Brethren, Many Charismatic, and Pentecostal, even Salvation Army, and the Uniting Church - they all despite their differences in the style of government they have, even some of the nuances in respect of baptism and communion, and emphasis on literal v symbolic interpretations of the scriptures, and other odds and ends. The LDS and the JW and even the SDA to an extent - stand outside of the traditional position.
To call this what it is - is not offer you disrespect. It is to say to you - be what you are - don't pretend to be something you are not. Although I must say that the craving the LDS has to be part of the church demonstrates that the traditional church has something that the LDS does not have. And that is unity. But unity is not the end game here - and it never has been. It is Spirit and it is truth.
I leave you with my testimony of Jesus Christ, that he lives, that he is the atoning one, savior and redeemer of mankind.
Your testimony is just your own warm and fuzzy experience. I would never base my theology on my own experience, let alone someone else's. The bible always calls us to understand our experience through the lens of theology - not the other way around.
For example the Bible tells us that Jesus died and rose physically from the grave. I have never experienced people rising from the grave. I have heard stories - but never experienced it myself. So do I start with my own experience or with the Bible?
My answer is going to be - with the bible. Not with my experience. Now don't misunderstand me. I am not saying experience is unimportant. It is. The question however is - how are we going to interpret that experience?
For example I attended a charismatic meeting during the high point of the Holy Roller laughing Toronto Blessing. During that meeting - hundreds of people were going down the front and experiencing something - they were falling down - laughing their heads off - and afterwards all of these people were saying how wonderful they felt - they were closer to God, reading their bibles more, praying etc. Sounds like a great experience.
But my experience in those meetings was quite different. I was curious in the first place - but could not justify these things from the bible. I was concerned this was not of God but did not know - since I was pretty young and reasonably naive to know or not know. People were saying - just go with it - let the Spirit move you.
I decided to leave it in God's hands - so I prayed firstly for myself and my sister who was attending - I said God - I don't know whether this is you or not - but please protect my sister and me whatever the situation was. Neither my sister nor I fell down or experienced this weird behavior. After that I looked down at the front and I was watching people just falling down one after the next. I picked a guy out about 10 from one end - and I prayed to God - God, please protect that man from anything that was not of you. The people just about reached him - but he would not fall down. They tried several times but he did not fall down. I was amazed - but thought - this is just a coincidence. So I looked up the row further to another person about 10 people down the row. Again I prayed the same prayer. And again the same thing happened. That person did not fall down either - this happened approximately another 4 0or 5 times. For every person I prayed for on that evening did not fall down or experience what everyone apparently was.
Now - how should I interpret that experience? Should I let my experience interpret my theology or my theology interpret my experience.
Was it just coincidence? I don't think so. But perhaps it was.
Was it saying this so called Toronto Blessing was not of God? Perhaps IDK.
Was it saying that I was stronger than GOD? Obviously not.
Was it saying I was in touch with God in a really strong way? Again obviously not.
And what about all the people experiencing this Toronto Blessing and experiencing a fresh life in God? Was that not true? Were they all lying? Was it some kind of mass hypnosis?
This is the problem with relying on experience as the basis of interpretation. There are so many potential interpretations of what happened.
Your testimony is your testimony. It does not fit with my experience nor with the theology of the Bible. Your experience fits very well with what you have been taught and asked to do in the first place. Ask the Holy Spirit to let you know whether book of Mormon is true or not. And a peace from God will come upon you and you will be satisfied with that experience. Now the thing about the Bible - is Christians know it is true - whether they pray to God for wisdom about it or not. The bible is God's revelation - theology prior to experience.
This is why in our first conversation on another topic - I told you that I prayed to God in relation to the book of Mormon and the Holy Spirit told me - the book of Mormon is NOT from GOD. You see - that is my testimony. How can you - who values testimony refute that? You can't - not in good conscience.
Unless of course you are going to that I did not follow all of the correct procedures or did not believe God enough or were not listening properly.
We don't discover whether a book if from God or not - by simply praying and hoping we will get a nice warm fuzzy feeling. That is just simply a nonsense - why? Because everyone's experience will be different. Yet the words of God are not different depending upon who you are - they remain the same - Like God himself.
The truth is said in few words, most times. There are exceptions, but they are rare. Rare is not the case when the preponderance of evidence demonstrates verbosity.
I would never base my theology on my own experience, let alone someone else's.
Mark 2: 27 "The sabbath was made for man [to experience], and not man for the sabbath [for the sabbath to experience].
-->
@949havoc
The truth is said in few words, most times. There are exceptions, but they are rare. Rare is not the case when the preponderance of evidence demonstrates verbosity.I would never base my theology on my own experience, let alone someone else's.Mark 2: 27 "The sabbath was made for man [to experience], and not man for the sabbath [for the sabbath to experience].
And this just proves my point doesn't?
How do you attempt to prove me wrong? Not by appealing to experience but to theology. The doctrine of Jesus. Not people's experience.
The doctrine has always been that the sabbath was made for man. People's experience as presented by the Pharisees was wrong.
-->
@Tradesecret
People's experience as presented by the Pharisees was wrong.
Yet, you said
I would never base my theology on my own experience, let alone someone else's.
What of your experience as presented by Christ? Is that not also personal experience?
-->
@949havoc
People's experience as presented by the Pharisees was wrong.Yet, you saidI would never base my theology on my own experience, let alone someone else's.
Yes, it exactly my point. The doctrine or theology interprets our experience. Our experience does not determine our theology.
What of your experience as presented by Christ? Is that not also personal experience?
You are trying to suggest that the situation whereby I read the scriptures is an experience. At least that is what it looks like.
Yet the matter of doing something is not the same thing as an "experience". And what I mean by an "experience" is your warm fuzzy feelings of peace. Not that you prayed - but that feeling you have as opposed to the reality of what is happening.
When it comes to my theology - I do not have to experience Jesus rising from the dead to know he has risen from the dead. Do you?
When it comes to knowing God, I do not have to experience God to know that God is real. Do you?
The problem with experiences is that they change from person to person. You had an experience about the book of Mormon - and so did I? Which one is right? Yours or mine. This is why experience is not a useful determiner of truth. And again the experience I am talking about is not the five senses - but mostly related to a feeling. Are feelings genuine or real? Of course - but also they can be manipulated and forged or are false.
I start with the bible and permit this to interpret for my experiences not the other way around. Now admittedly I do not always get this right - but that is my rule of thumb.
Why do you believe the book of Mormon to be true? Because you prayed and received a warm fuzzy feeling of peace - and now you know that you know that you know. If I am wrong please correct me.
-->
@Tradesecret
Why do you believe? Because you prayed and received a warm fuzzy feeling of peace - and now you know that you know that you know.
Bang on Trade.
Though often, a certain amount of biased preconditioning does help.
-->
@Tradesecret
the Bible tells us that Jesus died and rose physically from the grave. I have never experienced people rising from the grave. I have heard stories - but never experienced it myself. So do I start with my own experience or with the Bible? My answer is going to be - with the bible. [..................................] When it comes to my theology - I do not have to experience Jesus rising from the dead to know he has risen from the dead.
"The bible "? The same bible that you say is "just a book that can't cause anything". #3 ?
And full of words about which you say "Words
are words, and that is all they are". #45 ".
Written by unknown ancients thousands of years ago in another time, culture and society. A book that has been translated, mistranslated and expunged over millennia.
You really are a contradictory, sanctimonious, condescending, jumped up, self important bellend, aren't you , Reverend "Tradey" Tradesecrete?