How To Get To Heaven When You Die

[ewq1938]

Please defend where Scripture says that they get 'a new different body' at the resurrection.

I have already presented the scriptures for that.

However, you've stated that the definition doesn't matter, so maybe there is no need to continue this discussion.

The definition of "spiritual" is not relevant to the discussion. It is a red herring. Scripture says the saved dead get a body that is different than what was buried when they died. It is only the unsaved that return to their previous bodies which makes sense since they will be destroyed and thus cannot be receiving the new spiritual body.

 

[Butch5]

Differences

However, there were differences, changes in his body, through his resurrection from the dead. Schep’s language is that ‘there are mysterious elements in the appearance narratives’ (Schep 1976:92) and these include,

(1) His appearing and disappearing at will, like that which happened when he vanished from communication with the two people on the Emmaus road (Lk 24:31http://biblia.com/bible/hcsb/Luke 24.31). In this verse, this is the only use of aphontos in the New Testament and it means to ‘vanish’ from someone (Arndt & Gingrich 1957:124).

If aphontos is only used once in the NT how do they know what it means?
Note that the authors say nothing about Jesus' resurrected body

Schep (1976:82) considered it to be ‘a supernatural disappearance’, while Howard Marshall explains the word as meaning ‘he becomes invisible once he has been recognised…. It is as a supernatural visitor that the risen Jesus is portrayed’ in this verse (Marshall 1978:898).

These authors say it was supernatural. That doesn't say how it happened. Since Jesus is a man and only God can do the supernatural it would seem logical that God did it. Also Jesus said that He didn't have the power to perform the works He did while on earth and that it was the Father who did the works. So, there's no reason to think any differently just because Jesus was resurrected.

(2) A sudden and miraculous appearance is suggested in Luke 24:36 when ‘Jesus himself stood among them’.

Could this account for the disciples being ‘startled and frightened’ as they ‘thought they saw a spirit’ (Lk 24:37http://biblia.com/bible/hcsb/Luke 24.37)? When John recorded this event, he spoke of ‘the doors being locked’ and that ‘Jesus came and stood among them’ (the disciples) (Jn 20:19). There are not indicators of how Jesus overcame the difficulties of how Jesus stood among them when the doors were locked.

In this quote the author states in the last sentence just what I've said all along. He indicates there are no indicators of how it was done.

(3) There are Scriptures recording that Jesus was not recognised on first indications by those who saw him (see Mt 28:17; Lk 24:16-32

); Jn 20:14-17). Schep’s perceptive analysis was that

‘all these mysterious and miraculous elements, together with the miraculous ascension, show that Jesus’ body, though consisting of flesh and bones, was now in a glorified condition and capable of acting independently of the laws of time and space. This does not imply that He Himself was beyond time and space, for this again would mean the annihilation of his true humanity. His body was what Paul called a “spiritual body,” (1 Cor 15:44http://biblia.com/bible/hcsb/1 Cor 15.44; Phil 3:20). The word “spiritual” in this connection does not mean “immaterial”’ for Jesus’ body’ (Schep 1976:82).

This author concludes that Jesus' body was capable of acting independently of the laws of time and space. What does he drawn that conclusion from? sSveral events that he can't explain. If one can't explain the events how can one explain the cause of the events? I would submit that Schep is giving just what the text says, his perspective. That, however, doesn't make him right. He states plainly that the events are mysterious.

Ladd summarised the ‘the same but different’ resurrected body of Jesus and its meaning: ‘The resurrection body of Jesus was of the same order as the resurrection bodies of the saints at the end of the age’ (Ladd 1975:123; emphasis in original).

Ladd has it backwards, Jesus' resurrected body isn't the same as the resurrected bodies of the saints at the end of the age, theirs is like His. However, Ladd says nothing here about any different qualities.

So, that Oz, is why I said you gave speculation. These are opinions about the events in question. There is nothing here about how Jesus was able to appear in a locked room, nothing about why certain people didn't recognize Him. All they can do is speculate because we are not told one way or the other.

 

[OzSpen]

So, that Oz, is why I said you gave speculation. These are opinions about the events in question. There is nothing here about how Jesus was able to appear in a locked room, nothing about why certain people didn't recognize Him. All they can do is speculate because we are not told one way or the other.

No, mate, those authors gave analyses, based on the evidence available. You are giving speculation.

 

[ATP]

Please defend where Scripture says that they get 'a new different body' at the resurrection. However, you've stated that the definition doesn't matter, so maybe there is no need to continue this discussion.

It will still be our body, just not corrupted by sin. It will be awesome.

 

[Butch5]

No, mate, those authors gave analyses, based on the evidence available. You are giving speculation.

Come on Oz, I didn't say one way or the other, so I couldn't have given speculation. I said, we don't know. You talk a lot about logical fallacies and logical conversations and how we have to be logical to have a conversation. Yet here you're abandoning logic. How does anything these men have written prove that Jesus resurrected body had special abilities?

 

[OzSpen]

Did you know that the men who translated the New Living Translation had no training in the languages of the Bible?

http://ittsy.com/focusonthefaulty/Pages/jehovahs.html
http://www.bible.ca/Jw-NWT.htm

Just thought folks ought to know that.

The Barrd,

Did you mean the JW New World Translation?

The fact is that the New Living Translation was translated by a team of OT and NT language experts. I was speaking to one of them, Dr Don (D A) Carson when he preached at the City Baptist Tabernacle, Brisbane, a few weeks ago. He did the first draft of the Book of Acts. You can 'Meet the scholars' who translated the NLT.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

If aphontos is only used once in the NT how do they know what it means?

Don't you understand how Greek word studies are done? Seems like you don't. A word may appear only once in the NT but it appears elsewhere in the Greek language and those pursuing word studies examine how it is used in other Greek literature.

 

[Butch5]

Don't you understand how Greek word studies are done? Seems like you don't. A word may appear only once in the NT but it appears elsewhere in the Greek language and those pursuing word studies examine how it is used in other Greek literature.

Yes, I'm well aware of how Greek word studies are done. However, Calssical Greek and Koine Greek can differ.

 

[OzSpen]

Yes, I'm well aware of how Greek word studies are done. However, Calssical Greek and Koine Greek can differ.

There is an overlap and parallel of word usage in Classical Greek and the Greek of the Septuagint. There is also the use of Koine Greek following the NT. These are taken into account when Greek word studies are done.

 

[Butch5]

There is an overlap and parallel of word usage in Classical Greek and the Greek of the Septuagint. There is also the use of Koine Greek following the NT. These are taken into account when Greek word studies are done.

Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm just leery of people making unsubstantiated statements. Commentators and scholars do that all to often.

 

[OzSpen]

Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm just leery of people making unsubstantiated statements. Commentators and scholars do that all to often.

I consider that all of us need to be like the Bereans, 'Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true' (Acts 17:11 NIV).

However, I am not as skeptical as you seem to be of commentators and scholars who make 'unsubstantiated statements'. Yes, that does happen with some but Bereans will pick that up.

Do you know where - in my view - we are more likely to see Christians making 'unsubstantiated statements'? Right here on this forum and on the many Christian forums available to us. I've been participating in Christian forums for the last 10 years online and some of the worst examples of poor exegesis and unsubstantiated views on theology that I've ever seen are on Christian forums.

Some distorted statements are also found in theologically liberal commentaries where anti-supernatural presuppositions abound. They also impose views such as modernism and postmodernism on the text. But evangelicals also have the ability to impose views that are not in the text.

Oz

 

[Butch5]

I consider that all of us need to be like the Bereans, 'Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true' (Acts 17:11 NIV).

However, I am not as skeptical as you seem to be of commentators and scholars who make 'unsubstantiated statements'. Yes, that does happen with some but Bereans will pick that up.

Do you know where - in my view - we are more likely to see Christians making 'unsubstantiated statements'? Right here on this forum and on the many Christian forums available to us. I've been participating in Christian forums for the last 10 years online and some of the worst examples of poor exegesis and unsubstantiated views on theology that I've ever seen are on Christian forums.

Some distorted statements are also found in theologically liberal commentaries where anti-supernatural presuppositions abound. They also impose views such as modernism and postmodernism on the text. But evangelicals also have the ability to impose views that are not in the text.

Oz

I agree Oz. One of the reasons that I am so Skeptical is because I've was taught opposing doctrines from different churches from the same Scriptures. When I questioned pastors they just brushed the questions aside with statements like, "it's a mystery" etc. After years of deep study of the Scriptures I've come to the realization that there is much in modern Christianity that is simply not Christian. Some of the most universally accepted doctrines in the church are not Christian doctrines. They are errors that have entered into the church over time. I used to believe many of those doctrines. However, as I said after serious and deep study of the Scriptures I have seen and rejected many of them. That's why it's so important to me that doctrines be logical. God created the laws of logic, thus God is logical. When I see doctrines that aren't logical I cannot accept them.

 

[OzSpen]

I agree Oz. One of the reasons that I am so Skeptical is because I've was taught opposing doctrines from different churches from the same Scriptures. When I questioned pastors they just brushed the questions aside with statements like, "it's a mystery" etc. After years of deep study of the Scriptures I've come to the realization that there is much in modern Christianity that is simply not Christian. Some of the most universally accepted doctrines in the church are not Christian doctrines. They are errors that have entered into the church over time. I used to believe many of those doctrines. However, as I said after serious and deep study of the Scriptures I have seen and rejected many of them. That's why it's so important to me that doctrines be logical. God created the laws of logic, thus God is logical. When I see doctrines that aren't logical I cannot accept them.

Butch,

Being taught opposing doctrines from the same passage should teach us to be Bereans and not be skeptics.

I don't find it helpful for you to use language such as, 'there is much in modern Christianity that is simply not Christian. Some of the most universally accepted doctrines in the church are not Christian doctrines'. That's quite a useless statement without specifics with which we can deal.

I've been in 'deep study of the Scriptures' (your language) for much of my 50 years as a believer. That has not led me to skepticism of major doctrines. It has led me to a better understanding and some of the evangelical views have required further study. I'm thinking of examples such as: (1) The problem of evil. Is God the cause or has he provided secondary causes (human beings) who DO the evil? (2) The presuppositions of theological liberalism through modernism and postmodernism cause secular worldviews to be imposed on Scripture; (3) The substitutionary atonement is something that is revealed by God and not something that my rational mind finds easy to understand and accept, etc.

However, your statement, 'Some of the most universally accepted doctrines in the church are not Christian doctrines. They are errors that have entered into the church over time' does come with an air of arrogance. How is it that YOU are the one who rejects these 'universally accepted doctrines' and you are the wise person who knows these are not Christian doctrines.

You state, 'That's why it's so important to me that doctrines be logical. God created the laws of logic, thus God is logical'. The God who created logic and writes in logical sentences of semantics in Scripture, is also the God who provided the revelatory doctrines of: (1) Jesus the God-Man, (2) The Trinity, (3) The atonement that cleanses all sins to those who confess, (4) the judgment of all nations, (5) Jesus' bodily resurrection, (6) The physical appearing of Jesus at his second coming, and (7) The raising of all people at the end of the age for judgment.

Those doctrines will not fit into anyone's 'laws of logic' because they come from the God of revelation who has revealed these things in Scripture. Are these the kinds of doctrines you are rejecting?

Oz

 

[Butch5]

Butch,

Being taught opposing doctrines from the same passage should teach us to be Bereans and not be skeptics.

I don't find it helpful for you to use language such as, 'there is much in modern Christianity that is simply not Christian. Some of the most universally accepted doctrines in the church are not Christian doctrines'. That's quite a useless statement without specifics with which we can deal.

I've been in 'deep study of the Scriptures' (your language) for much of my 50 years as a believer. That has not led me to skepticism of major doctrines. It has led me to a better understanding and some of the evangelical views have required further study. I'm thinking of examples such as: (1) The problem of evil. Is God the cause or has he provided secondary causes (human beings) who DO the evil? (2) The presuppositions of theological liberalism through modernism and postmodernism cause secular worldviews to be imposed on Scripture; (3) The substitutionary atonement is something that is revealed by God and not something that my rational mind finds easy to understand and accept, etc.

However, your statement, 'Some of the most universally accepted doctrines in the church are not Christian doctrines. They are errors that have entered into the church over time' does come with an air of arrogance. How is it that YOU are the one who rejects these 'universally accepted doctrines' and you are the wise person who knows these are not Christian doctrines.

You state, 'That's why it's so important to me that doctrines be logical. God created the laws of logic, thus God is logical'. The God who created logic and writes in logical sentences of semantics in Scripture, is also the God who provided the revelatory doctrines of: (1) Jesus the God-Man, (2) The Trinity, (3) The atonement that cleanses all sins to those who confess, (4) the judgment of all nations, (5) Jesus' bodily resurrection, (6) The physical appearing of Jesus at his second coming, and (7) The raising of all people at the end of the age for judgment.

Those doctrines will not fit into anyone's 'laws of logic' because they come from the God of revelation who has revealed these things in Scripture. Are these the kinds of doctrines you are rejecting?

Oz

Oz,

It's not arrogance it's fact. Anyone can find the truth if they search for it. Regarding the doctrines, that aren't Christian, The Heavenly Destiny, one of the most universally held beliefs, isn't in Scripture. The modern understanding of the Trinity is a logical contradiction. The Ghost of man that leaves the body at death is not a Christian doctrine. It's not taught in Scripture. Then on the other hand there are Christian doctrines that were taught in the beginning that are not today. One of the most important Christian doctrines, which Paul calls that anchor of the soul isn't taught in most churches and when I mention it to people they look at me like I have three eyes. How can the hope of the Christian not only not be taught but be though strange?

It doesn't seem to me that there are too many who really want to find the truth. I say that because when you mention something to them many time they reject it without even giving any consideration.

What does the Christian have to look forward to? What is his hope?

 

[OzSpen]

Oz,

It's not arrogance it's fact. Anyone can find the truth if they search for it. Regarding the doctrines, that aren't Christian, The Heavenly Destiny, one of the most universally held beliefs, isn't in Scripture. The modern understanding of the Trinity is a logical contradiction. The Ghost of man that leaves the body at death is not a Christian doctrine. It's not taught in Scripture. Then on the other hand there are Christian doctrines that were taught in the beginning that are not today. One of the most important Christian doctrines, which Paul calls that anchor of the soul isn't taught in most churches and when I mention it to people they look at me like I have three eyes. How can the hope of the Christian not only not be taught but be though strange?

It doesn't seem to me that there are too many who really want to find the truth. I say that because when you mention something to them many time they reject it without even giving any consideration.

What does the Christian have to look forward to? What is his hope?

You are not telling me here the specifics with which you disagree. Please give us the false teachings and their biblical correction. To this point in this post, you've only given nebulous statements that you oppose.

 

[Butch5]

You are not telling me here the specifics with which you disagree. Please give us the false teachings and their biblical correction. To this point in this post, you've only given nebulous statements that you oppose.

Ok, take the Heavenly Destiny doctrine. It says that believers go to Heaven when they die. That teaching is not taught anywhere in Scripture. The modern teaching of the Trinity, that there are three co equal beings in the Trinity. Jesus said the Father is greater than. I've spoken with many who believe that the Trinity consists of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and that three these are God. They then speak of God using singular pronouns such as He and HIm. That idea is a logical contradition. Three persons cannot be one being, that's impossible. However, I have see people argue till the cows come home that this is the Trinity. It is not. It's a doctrine that came about in the 5th century and I believe Augustine had a lot to do with it. If we look at what the church believed prior to that such as in the Nicene Creed we find that they believed what the apostle Paul said,

6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (1 Cor. 8:6 KJV)

Then there is the doctrine that there is some part of man that lives on after his death and is conscious somewhere, whether it is in Hades, Abraham's bosom or Heaven etc. The Scriptures tell us plainly who God created man in Gen 2 and what happens to man when he dies in Ecc.3. Gen 2 says that God created the man from the dust of the earth and breath into him the breath of life and man became a living soul. So,man is a living soul that consists of a body and the breath of God. Ecc.3 tells us that when a man dies his body goes back to the dust and the breath returns to God. So, there is nothing left to live on after death. Yet, in spite of this clear teaching in Scripture many Christians simply look right past it and continue to argue for the doctrine.

These are three of the big ones and a serious study of them shows that what many claim today simply isn't what the Scriptures teach. If you want to look into them we can.

 

[OzSpen]

Ok, take the Heavenly Destiny doctrine. It says that believers go to Heaven when they die. That teaching is not taught anywhere in Scripture. The modern teaching of the Trinity, that there are three co equal beings in the Trinity. Jesus said the Father is greater than. I've spoken with many who believe that the Trinity consists of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and that three these are God. They then speak of God using singular pronouns such as He and HIm. That idea is a logical contradition. Three persons cannot be one being, that's impossible. However, I have see people argue till the cows come home that this is the Trinity. It is not. It's a doctrine that came about in the 5th century and I believe Augustine had a lot to do with it. If we look at what the church believed prior to that such as in the Nicene Creed we find that they believed what the apostle Paul said,

6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (1 Cor. 8:6 KJV)

Then there is the doctrine that there is some part of man that lives on after his death and is conscious somewhere, whether it is in Hades, Abraham's bosom or Heaven etc. The Scriptures tell us plainly who God created man in Gen 2 and what happens to man when he dies in Ecc.3. Gen 2 says that God created the man from the dust of the earth and breath into him the breath of life and man became a living soul. So,man is a living soul that consists of a body and the breath of God. Ecc.3 tells us that when a man dies his body goes back to the dust and the breath returns to God. So, there is nothing left to live on after death. Yet, in spite of this clear teaching in Scripture many Christians simply look right past it and continue to argue for the doctrine.

These are three of the big ones and a serious study of them shows that what many claim today simply isn't what the Scriptures teach. If you want to look into them we can.

Butch,

From these points you raise, you seem to be:

1. Anti-Trinitarian. Would you say you are a Unitarian?
2. Some of your doctrines here are very much like the JWs who knock on my door. Are you JW, Christadelphian, or from another group that denies the bi/tripartite nature of human beings?
3. What happens to a human being at death?

Oz

 

[Butch5]

Butch,

From these points you raise, you seem to be:

1. Anti-Trinitarian. Would you say you are a Unitarian?
2. Some of your doctrines here are very much like the JWs who knock on my door. Are you JW, Christadelphian, or from another group that denies the bi/tripartite nature of human beings?
3. What happens to a human being at death?

Oz

I am a Nicene Trinitarian.
I don't belong to any of those groups. I simply accept what the Scriptures say. The Scriptures are crystal clear on what a man is. The problem is that many don't want to believe that.
He dies, his body returns to the dust and the breath returns to God.

I've answered your questions, however, they don't address the issue. That being that the doctrines I mentioned are not Biblical doctrines. None of those three doctrine are taught in the Scriptures.

 

[OzSpen]

I am a Nicene Trinitarian.
I don't belong to any of those groups. I simply accept what the Scriptures say. The Scriptures are crystal clear on what a man is. The problem is that many don't want to believe that.
He dies, his body returns to the dust and the breath returns to God.

I've answered your questions, however, they don't address the issue. That being that the doctrines I mentioned are not Biblical doctrines. None of those three doctrine are taught in the Scriptures.

The only thing stated in The Nicene Creed about life after death is: 'I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come'. It does not state the nature of human beings and what happens at death. There is not a word in the Nicene Creed about the breath of life leaving a person at death - not a word.

 

[Butch5]

The only thing stated in The Nicene Creed about life after death is: 'I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come'. It does not state the nature of human beings and what happens at death. There is not a word in the Nicene Creed about the breath of life leaving a person at death - not a word.

Yeah, I know. What's your point? If you notice I said the "Scriptures" are crystal clear. The only reason I mentioned the Creed was because you asked where I stood on the Trinity.