No One Dies And Goes To Heaven. It is not the Gospel of Christ.

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

us2are1

Son Of Man
Sep 14, 2011
895
26
0
There is no point. But it sounded better than "listen up people, to the Bible as Son of Man proclaims it to be...all else is but folly and shall be ridiculed and declared false by no reason or proof but that I say I'm right and you're wrong....nee nah nee nah"....

Definitely not deacon material. Maybe barroom heckler but not deacon.

"Absent from the body,present with the lord"

Now let's see if somebody can take that hope away as well
You will find that in post number #3

The reason for this thread is in post #9
 

Strat

Active Member
Mar 25, 2012
784
29
28
Definitely not deacon material. Maybe barroom heckler but not deacon.


You will find that in post number #3

The reason for this thread is in post #9


What difference does it make to the common mortal,his or her last moment of awareness is when they die and their next is when they are resurrected,to the dead there is no passage of time,its not,wow i'm realy getting tired of laying here in this grave...my awareness has been suspended and will be returned to me at the resurrection so it will seem like i died and went to heaven in terms of time....my perception of time that is....because that is all time is...perception.
 

us2are1

Son Of Man
Sep 14, 2011
895
26
0
What difference does it make to the common mortal,his or her last moment of awareness is when they die and their next is when they are resurrected,to the dead there is no passage of time,its not,wow i'm realy getting tired of laying here in this grave...my awareness has been suspended and will be returned to me at the resurrection so it will seem like i died and went to heaven in terms of time....my perception of time that is....because that is all time is...perception.

Then you agree with the thread and are not believing the Lies about going to heaven? You realize that it all takes place Here and the only difference is that heaven comes here to rule?
 

Rach1370

New Member
Apr 17, 2010
1,801
108
0
44
Australia
Definitely not deacon material. Maybe barroom heckler but not deacon.

Aren't deacons allowed to have a sense of humour...or voice sarcasm? Or call something what it is? You started this thread not for discussion on the issue, but to tell it how you see it. When someone gave a verse that weighted heavily against your opinion, you dismissed it under the category of "that's not what that verse means"...in other words, "my interpretation of scripture is right and yours is wrong, and I don't engage in meaningful debate with those I consider wrong"...leaving absolutely no room for discussion on the topic. If you won't consider scripture as possible proof you may be mistaken, what on earth is the point of putting forward our opinions? None. So bible verses don't matter, opinions don't matter, which brings me back to the fact that there is zero point to this topic.
 

us2are1

Son Of Man
Sep 14, 2011
895
26
0
Aren't deacons allowed to have a sense of humour...or voice sarcasm? Or call something what it is? You started this thread not for discussion on the issue, but to tell it how you see it. When someone gave a verse that weighted heavily against your opinion, you dismissed it under the category of "that's not what that verse means"...in other words, "my interpretation of scripture is right and yours is wrong, and I don't engage in meaningful debate with those I consider wrong"...leaving absolutely no room for discussion on the topic. If you won't consider scripture as possible proof you may be mistaken, what on earth is the point of putting forward our opinions? None. So bible verses don't matter, opinions don't matter, which brings me back to the fact that there is zero point to this topic.

Having an opinion is one thing but grabbing fuel for heckling is another. I said the scripture doesn't say what they are claiming it does and it doesn't. I told you the reason for the topic and it is my topic and put here for the reason I stated. Bible verses matter as long as it is within what is being said by the bible verse. When you read right over the line that says which is from heaven and have yourself going to heaven instead I would say there is a problem with your understanding.

Hi SOM,

Are you a Jehovah's Witness?

Love in Christ,
Mark

No!! There never was a word called Jehovah or yaweh

The word was hwhy not Jehovah or yahweh







.
 

Rach1370

New Member
Apr 17, 2010
1,801
108
0
44
Australia
Having an opinion is one thing but grabbing fuel for heckling is another. I said the scripture doesn't say what they are claiming it does and it doesn't. I told you the reason for the topic and it is my topic and put here for the reason I stated. Bible verses matter as long as it is within what is being said by the bible verse. When you read right over the line that says which is from heaven and have yourself going to heaven instead I would say there is a problem with your understanding.

My point was that responding to people who have given a verse for supporting their position with a 'yeah, that doesn't mean what you think it means', doesn't mean anything. Its simply your opinion that it doesn't mean what they think it means. You provided no explanation in scripture why you believe it to mean something else. So either you had no such verse to support your position or you didn't care to engage in debate about it...which brings me back to wondering why the thread. It would make more sense for you to have a blog...there you can proclaim the truths you want with no one talking back. But no, you seem to believe that you can start a thread in a debate forum, shoot down people's thoughts and proofs with not much more than "that's not true 'cause I said so, and you're all gonna die for believing lies".

Now, if you truly want to discuss this topic with others, that's fine. But I would ask you to give biblical reasons for why you discount various verses in scripture. For example, at the beginning of the thread there was the mention of 2 Corinthians 5:1:10. You said it was 'misunderstood', and does not speak to the time after death, but before resurrection. That perhaps could be so...it could be speaking of the resurrection itself. But how do you then deal with it in the light of other scriptures? Ones that have been given above and also these ones?

And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” (Luke 23:43 ESV)

I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. (Philippians 1:23 ESV)
 

us2are1

Son Of Man
Sep 14, 2011
895
26
0
My point was that responding to people who have given a verse for supporting their position with a 'yeah, that doesn't mean what you think it means', doesn't mean anything. Its simply your opinion that it doesn't mean what they think it means. You provided no explanation in scripture why you believe it to mean something else. So either you had no such verse to support your position or you didn't care to engage in debate about it...which brings me back to wondering why the thread. It would make more sense for you to have a blog...there you can proclaim the truths you want with no one talking back. But no, you seem to believe that you can start a thread in a debate forum, shoot down people's thoughts and proofs with not much more than "that's not true 'cause I said so, and you're all gonna die for believing lies".

Now, if you truly want to discuss this topic with others, that's fine. But I would ask you to give biblical reasons for why you discount various verses in scripture. For example, at the beginning of the thread there was the mention of 2 Corinthians 5:1:10. You said it was 'misunderstood', and does not speak to the time after death, but before resurrection. That perhaps could be so...it could be speaking of the resurrection itself. But how do you then deal with it in the light of other scriptures? Ones that have been given above and also these ones?

And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” (Luke 23:43 ESV)

I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. (Philippians 1:23 ESV)

Your point still makes no sense. It is not an opinion it is what the scripture says. Your approach was that of a barroom brawler. Heckling and then judging what is a proper topic and how it needs to be spearheaded? There are no rules of that nature that I have seen posted here. If I have missed them I'm sure that you will be good enough to put a link to them.

Now about the paradise scripture. Christ was in the grave for three and a half days and after his Resurrection still had not ascended to heaven. So was the robber in paradise with Him that day? The gospel of Matthew who was a eye witness tells a different story.

43 He trusted in God; let Him deliver Him now if He will have Him; for He said, 'I am the Son of God.' "
44 Even the robbers who were crucified with Him reviled Him with the same thing.

Luke wasn't there Matthew was there. Guess who I believe?






.
 

Rach1370

New Member
Apr 17, 2010
1,801
108
0
44
Australia
Your point still makes no sense. It is not an opinion it is what the scripture says. Your approach was that of a barroom brawler. Heckling and then judging what is a proper topic and how it needs to be spearheaded? There are no rules of that nature that I have seen posted here. If I have missed them I'm sure that you will be good enough to put a link to them.

I honestly wouldn't know what a bar room brawl looked like, sorry. And I am not intending to um...'heckle' you. Merely trying to point out the absurdity of starting a thread for 'discussion' and then not discussing...simply waving things off because you feel them to be wrong...no evidence given. Sorry If I have mistaken it, but given your dismissal to even consider some peoples answers, I doubt that I have.

Now about the paradise scripture. Christ was in the grave for three and a half days and after his Resurrection still had not ascended to heaven. So was the robber in paradise with Him that day? The gospel of Matthew who was a eye witness tells a different story.

43 He trusted in God; let Him deliver Him now if He will have Him; for He said, 'I am the Son of God.' "
44 Even the robbers who were crucified with Him reviled Him with the same thing.

Luke wasn't there Matthew was there. Guess who I believe?

So, basically what you're saying is that you don't believe all scripture to be infallible? Just the parts that agree with your point of view? That's really good to know....
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
No!! There never was a word called Jehovah or yaweh
The word was hwhy not Jehovah or yahweh

-- Jehovah is just fine with Jehovah or Yaweh.


Now about the paradise scripture. Christ was in the grave for three and a half days,

-- If you wish to be exact, it was nowhere near three and a half days.
He died Friday afternoon. He emerged Sunday morning (the day after the Jeweish Sabbath)
"After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb." - Matt. 28:1
It was three calendar days, but Friday afternoon (Crucifixion) to Sunday morning (Resurrection) isn't even 72 hours.



and after his Resurrection still had not ascended to heaven. So was the robber in paradise with Him that day? The gospel of Matthew who was a eye witness tells a different story.
Luke wasn't there Matthew was there. Guess who I believe?

-- Luke never claimed to have been there.
But he did interview a number of eye witnesses to the event itself.
Luke was a wise and disciplined man. If he interviewed a number of eye witnesses and the majority said nothing of the sort, he would not have recorded it. If the majority of those present - interviewed individually - stated it happened, but Matthew didn't mention it, that doesn't make it a non-event. Translation: Just because Matthew didn't record it didn't mean it didn't occur.

And as Rachel eluded to, if you choose not to believe it occurred, you are chosing to question the credibility of God's Word.




.
 

us2are1

Son Of Man
Sep 14, 2011
895
26
0
I honestly wouldn't know what a bar room brawl looked like, sorry. And I am not intending to um...'heckle' you. Merely trying to point out the absurdity of starting a thread for 'discussion' and then not discussing...simply waving things off because you feel them to be wrong...no evidence given. Sorry If I have mistaken it, but given your dismissal to even consider some peoples answers, I doubt that I have.



So, basically what you're saying is that you don't believe all scripture to be infallible? Just the parts that agree with your point of view? That's really good to know....

Is that rightly dividing the word of truth? The truth is that not all writings that men decided to put in a book is scripture.

All scripture is infallible. But not all writings are scripture. Some people carry Hal Lindsay books around instead of the protestant bible. They think His books are scripture. Some carry around the book of Mormon thinking that it is scripture. Is the Catholic Canon all scripture? Is the Protestant canon all scripture? No to all of the above that is why we are to rightly divide the word of truth and find out what is scripture and what is not.
I gave plenty of evidence for the dismissal of what those who answered were saying but just like the evidence that I gave you about the thief not being in paradise with Christ that day. You didn't hear any of it even though it is all there.






.

-- Jehovah is just fine with Jehovah or Yaweh.




-- If you wish to be exact, it was nowhere near three and a half days.
He died Friday afternoon. He emerged Sunday morning (the day after the Jeweish Sabbath)
"After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb." - Matt. 28:1
It was three calendar days, but Friday afternoon (Crucifixion) to Sunday morning (Resurrection) isn't even 72 hours.





-- Luke never claimed to have been there.
But he did interview a number of eye witnesses to the event itself.
Luke was a wise and disciplined man. If he interviewed a number of eye witnesses and the majority said nothing of the sort, he would not have recorded it. If the majority of those present - interviewed individually - stated it happened, but Matthew didn't mention it, that doesn't make it a non-event. Translation: Just because Matthew didn't record it didn't mean it didn't occur.

And as Rachel eluded to, if you choose not to believe it occurred, you are chosing to question the credibility of God's Word.

Gods word is not everything that any old person writes. For instance is the writing that you just wrote to me scripture? Luke was a keeper of the books a gentile scribe who lived in around 160 AD and wrote his version of the Gospel to the patriarch of Antioch Theophilus. It is no more the word of God than if you wrote your account of the gospel as you see it to me right now. All of your false foundations and vain interpretation would get in the way of the truth just like it did with Luke.



.
 

Rach1370

New Member
Apr 17, 2010
1,801
108
0
44
Australia
Is that rightly dividing the word of truth? The truth is that not all writings that men decided to put in a book is scripture.

All scripture is infallible. But not all writings are scripture. Some people carry Hal Lindsay books around instead of the protestant bible. They think His books are scripture. Some carry around the book of Mormon thinking that it is scripture. Is the Catholic Canon all scripture? Is the Protestant canon all scripture? No to all of the above that is why we are to rightly divide the word of truth and find out what is scripture and what is not.
I gave plenty of evidence for the dismissal of what those who answered were saying but just like the evidence that I gave you about the thief not being in paradise with Christ that day. You didn't hear any of it even though it is all there.

Gods word is not everything that any old person writes. For instance is the writing that you just wrote to me scripture? Luke was a keeper of the books a gentile scribe who lived in around 160 AD and wrote his version of the Gospel to the patriarch of Antioch Theophilus. It is no more scripture than if you wrote your account of the gospel as you see it to me right now.

But again, you are basing what constitutes scripture and what is only 'written by men' on your own opinion. You have no solid proof...yes, I know you would claim it so, but hundreds of years, more scholarly men than yourself, and the Holy Spirit himself, would disagree. Luke, the book itself, and also his writing in Acts, plays a pivotal part of scripture. Luke is based on eye witness accounts, which we know to be important, as each apostle in writing his book (under inspiration of the Holy Spirit) placed emphasis that they had seen these things. Luke went around faithfully asking people who had seen these things. That is why not every gospel book is exactly the same...they are from different perspectives. They would, in fact, be suspect if they were identical.
Acts is an amazing book. We see the beginning of the church and the conversion of Paul. Everything that Luke writes about Paul in Acts is confirmed by Paul himself throughout his letters. To call Luke into question as cannon, is to call Paul into question.

Here at Christianity board we affirm that all the books in the bible (Protestant bible) ARE God's holy word. All of it is written for us and to us by various authors, all inspired by the Holy Spirit. You may disagree with that, but quite simply, that means that here, you cannot claim any kind of orthodoxy. Your views are not shared by the majority of Christians today, and while you are certainly free to have them, even free here to talk about them, it's not okay for you to claim your views are the only correct and valid ones and that any other view is under the lie of Satan. And it is most certainly dodgy, for want of a better word, that you seem just fine cutting out any part of scripture that does not fit and support you views. We read in Revelations that God takes a pretty harsh view of that...unless Revelations is yet another book you don't hold to be inspired?
 

us2are1

Son Of Man
Sep 14, 2011
895
26
0
But again, you are basing what constitutes scripture and what is only 'written by men' on your own opinion. You have no solid proof...yes, I know you would claim it so, but hundreds of years, more scholarly men than yourself, and the Holy Spirit himself, would disagree. Luke, the book itself, and also his writing in Acts, plays a pivotal part of scripture. Luke is based on eye witness accounts, which we know to be important, as each apostle in writing his book (under inspiration of the Holy Spirit) placed emphasis that they had seen these things. Luke went around faithfully asking people who had seen these things. That is why not every gospel book is exactly the same...they are from different perspectives. They would, in fact, be suspect if they were identical.
Acts is an amazing book. We see the beginning of the church and the conversion of Paul. Everything that Luke writes about Paul in Acts is confirmed by Paul himself throughout his letters. To call Luke into question as cannon, is to call Paul into question.

Here at Christianity board we affirm that all the books in the bible (Protestant bible) ARE God's holy word. All of it is written for us and to us by various authors, all inspired by the Holy Spirit. You may disagree with that, but quite simply, that means that here, you cannot claim any kind of orthodoxy. Your views are not shared by the majority of Christians today, and while you are certainly free to have them, even free here to talk about them, it's not okay for you to claim your views are the only correct and valid ones and that any other view is under the lie of Satan. And it is most certainly dodgy, for want of a better word, that you seem just fine cutting out any part of scripture that does not fit and support you views. We read in Revelations that God takes a pretty harsh view of that...unless Revelations is yet another book you don't hold to be inspired?

That is your personal opinion without knowledge. You have no Idea in all honesty how scholarly I am. You have no Idea at all even who I am. As for Speaking for the Holy Spirit Himself: What makes you think that you are qualified to Speak for God.





.
 

Rach1370

New Member
Apr 17, 2010
1,801
108
0
44
Australia
Actually, that is what you are doing. You are editing God's word to your own benefit. After that, it doesn't matter a jot how 'scholarly' you may or may not be.
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
Gods word is not everything that any old person writes. For instance is the writing that you just wrote to me scripture? Luke was a keeper of the books a gentile scribe who lived in around 160 AD and wrote his version of the Gospel to the patriarch of Antioch Theophilus. It is no more the word of God than if you wrote your account of the gospel as you see it to me right now. All of your false foundations and vain interpretation would get in the way of the truth just like it did with Luke.

-- Sorry, but the Luke you speak of was not the Luke that wrote the Gospel.
But you confirm you feel that the Bible is wrong. That says it all.
 

us2are1

Son Of Man
Sep 14, 2011
895
26
0
Actually, that is what you are doing. You are editing God's word to your own benefit. After that, it doesn't matter a jot how 'scholarly' you may or may not be.


Then you haven't heard a word that I have said. My benefit is that you ask God for His Spirit and walk in it. So that you and your loved ones can make it through the great tribulation which is about to hit everyone on earth. All of the lies of the ages are about to be brought into the light anyway so why do I waste my breath? Because there is one somewhere who will hear and ask God and follow Christ and be able to bring ten thousand through the furnace into the kingdom of God.


8 And it shall come to pass in all the land," Says the Lord, "That two-thirds in it shall be cut off and die, But one-third shall be left in it:
9 I will bring the one-third through the fire, Will refine them as silver is refined, And test them as gold is tested. They will call on My name, And I will answer them. I will say, 'This is My people'; And each one will say, 'The Lord is my God.'

30 How could one chase a thousand, And two put ten thousand to running away, Unless their Rock had sold them, And the Lord had surrendered them?


-- Sorry, but the Luke you speak of was not the Luke that wrote the Gospel.
But you confirm you feel that the Bible is wrong. That says it all.


It wouldn't do any good to tell you that Christ told me.
So you can explain to everyone how it was possible for the robber on the cross to be with Christ in paradise that same day when Christ didn't ascend into heaven for approximately forty days. Then explain why there is no scripture that tells about the robber being Resurrected to ascend with him. While you are at it explain why a important event as the robbers on the cross were reported differently by those who were there and saw it?

44 Even the robbers who were crucified with Him reviled Him with the same thing.

It was so important and real that John didn't mention it at all and we know by Johns writing that he was there standing right beside Mary.


17 Jesus said to her, "Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.' "

9 Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.




XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




8 And God called the firmament Heaven.







.
 

Rach1370

New Member
Apr 17, 2010
1,801
108
0
44
Australia
Yeah....you're not going to convince me, sorry....and therefore, that's as far as this conversation is going to go....
 

us2are1

Son Of Man
Sep 14, 2011
895
26
0
8 And God called the firmament Heaven.

In the book of Daniel we read that the messenger of the Lord tells Daniel that he will rise to his inheritance at the end of the days. He did not die and go to heaven.

Daniel 12
13 But you, go your way till the end; for you shall rest, and will arise to your inheritance at the end of the days."

Christ our example did not die and go to heaven.

Every one who has ascended into heaven has ascended alive. Including Christ, Enoch and Elijah. There is not one mention anywhere in scripture about anyone who has died and gone to heaven.

The resurrection from the dead is one of the elementary principals of Christ.

Christ rose from the dead to show that life is where God resides for men. No man is alive unless brought back to life by God
 

Raeneske

New Member
Sep 18, 2012
716
19
0
Psalm 146:4 - His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.

Ecclesiates 9:5,6 - For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.

Ecclesiates 9:10 - Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.

Ezekial 18:4 - Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Matthew 10:28 - And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

5 excerpts, which come out to a total of 6 verses were chosen here, to show the state of the dead. There are more, but these are the ones that come to my mind first. In Psalm 146:4, we see that when man dies, in that very day, his thoughts perish. Ecclesiates 9:5-6 says that the living (that would be us) know that they shall die, but the dead know not anything. This much is clear: As we are alive, we know that we shall die someday (if Jesus doesn’t come beforehand). However the dead? They don’t know anything. The dead also have no more a reward for anything under the sun, and their memory is forgotten (meaning gone). Their feelings of LOVE, HATRED, and ENVY are all perished. They partake in nothing else that is done under the sun. In 9:10 we see, that in the grave there is also no wisdom or knowledge in the grave where we go. We behold in Ezekial, all the souls are God’s. And the soul that sins, it shall DIE. This lines up with Romans that teaches, the wages of sin is DEATH. Matthew 10:28 shows plainly that we are not to fear them which can only kill the body, yet CANT KILL THE SOUL. But we are to fear God who CAN destroy body AND soul. This is why, the soul that sins, it shall DIE. Constantly echoed in Christianity, is Pagan Philosophy, which is not stated in scripture that:

Genesis 3:4 - And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

In other words: Most theology today agrees with Satan. “You won’t REALLY die”, even though God said ye shall DIE. Death is sleep, as according to Lord Jesus:

John 11:11-14 - These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep. Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.
John 11:21-24 - Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee. Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.

Death is just sleep to Jesus. Why? Well, for His saints death is not eternal. “Oh death where is thy sting? Where is thy victory?” Just like Jesus had victory of death, so shall His saints, as He gives them power to overcome sin and death, and resurrects him.
Now, as for the resurrection, and for heaven – We see that on the last day, Jesus shall rise his Saints up again. So truly, the Saints sleep in earth, until Jesus comes for the resurrection. It is obvious we go to heaven, but not yet. You can even see this of King David:

Acts 2:29 - Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

3 ½ years after the Resurrection of Christ, and his ascension into heaven, Peter is showing that King David, who was a godly man, was both dead and buried. Does this also mean, he has not YET ascended into heaven?

Acts 2:34 - For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

So, David is not YET ascended into heaven, which confirms the fact that you don’t immediately go to heaven when you die. But do you go to heaven at all? YES, you do!

John 14:1-3 - Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

Gensis 5:24 - And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

Hebrews 11:5 - By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

We do go to heaven, after the resurrection. Enoch represented the living Saints, who shall not taste death in the final times on earth. Enoch was translated as we are to be who are alive “in the twinkling of an eye” that we should not see death. Enoch went to heaven, WITHOUT seeing death. And so was Elijah the prophet.

2 Kings 2:11 - And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

While I agree, we do not go to heaven immediately after death; I do not agree that we will never go to heaven. As for the 1000 year millennium, that’s a whole other topic. That’s something that bangs on the doors of false doctrine as well, but that’s neither here nor there.
 

veteran

New Member
Aug 6, 2010
6,509
212
0
Southeast USA
I see some OT Scriptures like these used a lot to try and counter Scripture like Eccl.12:5-7; 1 Cor.15; Matt.10:28; 2 Cor.5, etc., which all reveal our soul and spirit have continued existence after flesh death. Most of the time those OT verses are pulled out of context.


Psalm 146:4 - His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.


Ps 146:3-4
3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.
4 His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.
(KJV)


Who is that ultimately about? The wicked. Otherwise, that "in whom there is no help" idea could be applied to those in Christ who are promised eternal life. Think about it.


Ecclesiates 9:5,6 - For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.

In the OT there is an concept at times attached to the idea of "the dead" that points to the Rephaim, the giants that were to be destroyed and will never be resurrected (like Ps.88:10; Provb.2:18; Provb.9:18; Provb.21:16; Isa.14:9; Isa.26:19). That's actually who Solomon is contrasting there in Eccl.9 with those "dead", unless one believes Christ's servants who die never again have any more reward, or that memory of them will be forgotten, and that they will never have any more to do under the sun even in God's future new heavens and a new earth. Once that kind of contrast is understood about that Eccl.9 verse, then it becomes pretty clear those "dead" are not about Christ's saints that are "asleep" per the idea Paul used.

If that Eccl.9 verse were about even those in Christ who have died, then it would also directly contradict those who were resurrected at Christ's crucifixion, that appeared to many in Jerusalem. They weren't raised to die in their flesh again. Also, when Moses and Elijah were seen talking with our Lord Jesus upon the mount of transfiguration about His crucifixion, Moses definitely shouldn't have been seen there according the 'dead in the ground' theorists, since Moses did die and God buried his flesh body.

In Luke 16 Christ revealed what happens after flesh death also. Our soul and spirit goes to a place that has a great fixed gulf between the two sides.