No one goes to heaven!

[Butch5]

You may be right, but was he writing "current events" or was he writing what Jesus said a few decades earlier?

The word translated ascended in John 3:13 is in the perfect tense. This indicates that no one has ascended to Heaven in the past including up to the time of John's writing.

 

[Rhema]

The word translated ascended in John 3:13 is in the perfect tense. This indicates that no one has ascended to Heaven in the past including up to the time of John's writing.

Butch, if I may add....

Koine Greek doesn't have "tenses" per say, as much as Aktionsart inflections.

It's a long read (or complex one) but I offer this article for consideration.

A brief guide to aspect in Greek: Part III, The perfect​

"The perfect form (of a) verb’s paradigm communicates the situation or state that persists following (its) process (action). The perfect’s connection to the prior event is relational rather than textual."​

In addition:

The Perfect Tense ... of verbs in Koine Greek ... is usually used to show that a past event has occurred with present ongoing consequences.​

(LINK)​

I happen to find it a bit sleight of hand when they translate a Perfect Aspect ("tense") with English past tense endings, but this might be seen as a deficiency in English, which is unable to express the dual nature of "Terminative" and "Resulting State."

και (AND) ουδεις (NO ONE) αναβεβηκεν (HAS GONE UP & IS ASCENDED) εις (INTO) τον (THE) ουρανον (HEAVEN) ει (IF) μη (NOT) ο (THE one) εκ (OUT) του (OF) ουρανου (HEAVEN) καταβας (DESCENDING) - ο (THE) υιος (SON) του (OF) ανθρωπου (MAN)​

And no one is ascended into heaven ... if not descending out of heaven - The Son of Man.​

I think the purpose of this verse is to declare that if the Son of Man hasn't descended out of heaven, then no one is in (has ascended) heaven.

Then again, it might just be saying that the only ones to ascend into heaven are those having descended from heaven (e.g. angels) including the Son of Man.

Kindly,
Rhema

 

[Rhema]

This verse is a popular quote from annihilationist's. Are you one?

It's interesting that you keep asking me questions, without first stating your position.

@Christ4Ever Nick has (had?) taken the position that the content of our posts are to support (be in accord with) the Statement of Faith. With that in mind, I'm sure you can understand my reluctance to answer. In addition, I recall you saying that a mature poster would not start a "rabbit trail" like this (annihilationism) but would create a new thread instead.

Out of an abundance of caution, then, I think I shall wait to comment until a thread on Annihilationism is created.

Rhema

It's a 'chiastic structure' (had to google that).

But of course.

Then we have teaching from Jesus in Luke 16...

It's a parable, KJ. It's also interesting that you reject Ecclesiastes as being literal, but demand that Luke 16 is.

 

[Rhema]

The question is... Is where will you exist once the flesh is gone.

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.
(Matthew 10:28 KJV)

 

[Rhema]

However, over time the Edomites remained the dominate culture and tribes Judah and Benjamin were assimilated (or "faded away" metaphorically).

So Jesus wasn't Jewish?

(I think I shall step away from discussing your post.)

Kindly,
Rhema

 

[Rhema]

The JW's I've talked to claim the 144,000 in Rev. 7, which are Jews, are not the same 144,000 of Rev. 14, which are JW's.

How these folks can believe this is bewildering!

Yet .... there is nothing in the text that actually links these two groups together. One should be honest and say that chapter 14 says nothing about its group being the same as the people in chapter 7. There's not even a definite article to establish THE 144,000 as a substantive object.

"a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand,"​

doesn't say "and with him those, ..." or THE 144,000. If these were the same people, then the definite article ought to have been written. So one might just as well say, "How these folks can believe they are the same group is bewildering." (But then again, I find the entire book to be bewildering.)

From a textual view, then, the different descriptions in each chapter might very well be a separating factor. The first group is Jewish, the second is celibate. And unless I am sorely mistaken, there is no monastic (celibate) tradition within Judaism, the outlier being the community at Qumran. Rather the opposite. Aren't Jews expected to have children?

Rhema

And NO, I'm not JW.

 

[Christ4Ever]

@Christ4Ever Nick has (had?) taken the position that the content of our posts are to support (be in accord with) the Statement of Faith. With that in mind, I'm sure you can understand my reluctance to answer. In addition, I recall you saying that a mature poster would not start a "rabbit trail" like this (annihilationism) but would create a new thread instead.

Out of an abundance of caution, then, I think I shall wait to comment until a thread on Annihilationism is created.

Dear Rhema,
You might as well throw caution to the wind, since you usually do when it suits you anyway. On the annihilationism, I do not believe you should be concerned since the SOF I do believe does not delve into that subject. However, you are welcome to double check me to make sure, since you are that concerned.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Moderator
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[Rhema]

You might as well throw caution to the wind, since you usually do when it suits you anyway.

I might just quote you on that... oh wait, I just did

But, ... from my perspective, I believe myself to be very cautious in what I post, because I think the jots and tittles matter.

On Annihilationism, I hesitate to say because I don't know what @KingJ might mean by that term. However, I do know that Jesus taught that the soul can be killed and destroyed.

(Matthew 10:28 KJV) 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 (G622) both soul and body in hell.​

And as is my penchant, I provide for you a LINK to the Simplified Liddell for ἀπόλλυμι (G622).

A I. to destroy utterly, kill, slay, and of things, to destroy, demolish, waste,​

The soul is not immortal.

Rhema
But hey, maybe I missed something, so I would gladly entertain what scripture you might have that shows otherwise.

 

[Butch5]

So then Resurrection once into a different new heavenly body that is incorruptible and not some rehash of the old corruptible physical body is NOT Reincarnation by your own definition.

Nope. Going into a different body isn't resurrection. It's reincarnation.

No. Go study the phrase for yourself, and learn about idioms on your own. I already gave you one example. If you need more, go find them.

So, let me get this straight. You make a claim, and I'm supposed to validate it? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim.

So Jesus lost his hair? Or it was died blue? Purple? Orange orange?

Then again, if the shroud of Turin is true, maybe Jesus was naked and Mary averted her eyes.

I guess I'd make jokes too if my argument was weak.

13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: 14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. 15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. 16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. 17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, 2 Co 3:13–17.

33 And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, 34 Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. 35 And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.
36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, iPeace be unto you. 37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. 38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? 39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. 40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. 41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? 42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. 43 And he took it, and did eat before them. 44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. 45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, 46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 And ye are witnesses of these things The Holy Bible: King James Version, Lk 24:33–48.

Here we have Jesus Himself appearing to them and yet they still had trouble believing He was alive.

We see that there was a veil over their understanding of the Old Testament Scriptures. That veil is only lifted in Christ. In the passage from Luke 24 we see that Jesus opened the understanding of the apostles so that they could understand the Scriptures. The veil obviously isn't literal. However, it's not hard to see how God could have kept things veiled until the time that He opened their understanding.

Stop changing the words. The word "by" is not found in that phrase. The preposition used isn't "by" or even "up" it's ὑπό (G5259). The literal expression would be "swallowed under immortality." One of the main examples given for καταπίνω (G2666) is cities "swallowed" in an earthquake. Once that happens, there ain't no city no more. It's the same with the physical body. The overarching action is to be consumed.

I provide a LINK to the Liddell Scott Lexicon for ὑπό which means "under." And besides, the word "body" is not even found in that phrase.

(2 Corinthians 5:4 KJV~) ... that mortality might be swallowed under life.​

I didn't change any words, as I didn't quote the passage. Secondly, your example fails to address the issue. Does the city come back life? No. The Key is swallowed up. Notice Paul doesn't say he wants to divest himself of mortality. Rather, he wants his mortality swallowed up.

It doesn't say that the Mortal Body might become immortal. Rather, Mortality itself is swallowed under life, as an earthquake swallows under a city, or as an ocean swallows under a ship. Mortality is no more. Paul makes a similar comparison in this verse:

(1 Corinthians 15:54 KJV) Death is swallowed in victory.​

Again, your example fails. You say mortality is no more. Really? Can you explain then why Jesus is giving believers the right to eat from the Tree of Life?" Seems kind of unnecessary for people who are immortal, doesn't it? Maybe, they're immortal because they have access to the Tree of Life. Maybe Adam lost immortality because he was denied access to the Tree of Life.

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Ge 3:22–23.

But you're the one who brought up bodies from 2 Cor 5:1

For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. The Holy Bible: King James Version, 2 Co 5:1.

Exactly, because it's not the same body. The mortal body is gone, and one receives a new immortal body.

(1 Corinthians 15:54 KJV) So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed in victory.​

One might say, "SEE the corruptible body "PUTS ON" incorruption. Once more I provide a LINK to the Liddell Scott Lexicon for ἐνδύω (G1746), where I note : I. c. acc., go into, 1. of clothes, put on,.

Butch, one takes off the "old clothes" (the corruptible body) before putting on "new clothes" the incorruptible one. One "goes into" the new body, leaving the old.

(1 Corinthians 15:52 KJV) In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.​

The DEAD, dead people, are raised incorruptible, not dead bodies. Their bodies are not raised at all. Dead bodies dissolve (cf. 2Co 5:1).

It is the same body. That's abundantly clear from Scripture. A new body is not raised from the dead. And, yes, one does put clothes on over other clothes. We call it a coat, a jacket, a vest, etc. Notice Paul said "this corruptible must put on." He didn't say, I must divest myself of this corruptible and put of incorruption. He said this corruptible must put on incorruption.

I am aware of Jewish Dualism. But that same belief rejects the afterlife period, teaching that at death, the body is subsumed back into dust, and the animating spirit is subsumed back into God. But that's not the view taught by Jesus (or Paul). At the Resurrection, the you that is you must put on (be clothed with) an incorruptible body, not one made of Earthly dirt.

(2 Corinthians 5:1 KJV) For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.​

You keep saying." Yet you haven't told us what the "You" is. You mention the sentient being. However, as we see from Gen 2:7 the sentient being is the combination of the body and the breath of God. Since you reject the resurrection of the body the sentient being which you called the soul cannot be. The soul consists of the body and the breath of God. So we still don't know what this "you" is that you claim is resurrected.

Also, I didn't say anything about Jewish Dualism. I spoke of Platonic Dualism. Platonic Dualism most definitely believes, just as you suggest, that man is some sort of immaterial being that leaves this body. The Bible teaches no such thing. Please show me one passage of Scripture that teaches that man can leave his body and still live.

The DEAD are raised.

The dead what? What is it that is dead? If it's not the body then what is it. Please don't say it's "you" without defining exactly what "you" is.

(1 Corinthians 15:52 KJV) ... the dead shall be raised incorruptible, ...​

What scripture states that Dead Bodies are raised from the dead? And who are the dead? PEOPLE. People are raised from the dead. You are raised from the dead, being composed of an immortal body and the self that is you. (If not YOU, who else?)

Again, not who, what? What is this "You" that is raised from the dead. What Scripture. Ezekiel 37 is a prime example. God tells Ezekiel to prophesy to a valley of dead bones.

37 The hand of the LORD was upon me, and carried me out in the spirit of the LORD, and set me down in the midst of the valley which was full of bones, 2 And caused me to pass by them round about: and, behold, there were very many in the open cvalley; and, lo, they were very dry. 3 And he said unto me, Son of man, can these bones live? And I answered, O Lord GOD, thou knowest. 4 Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the LORD. 5 Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live: 6 And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the LORD. 7 So I prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone. 8 And when I beheld, lo, mthe sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above: but there was no breath in them. 9 Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live. 10 So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army. 11 Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts. 12 Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. 13 And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves, 14 And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken it, and performed it, saith the LORD.

Notice here that God brings bones together, puts flesh on them, breathes "HIS" breath into them, and they live. This is just what we see in Genesis 2 :7. Notice what gives them life. It is God's breath. It's not their spirit or their soul or their ghost or whatever. It is God's breath that gives them life and it is the same bodies that went into the ground.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Eze 37.

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. The Holy Bible: King James Version, 1 Co 15:41–44.

Notice the same "it" that is sown in corruption, dishonour, weakness, and as a natural body, is raised in incorruption, glory, and power as a spiritual body. It's the same body.

39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. The Holy Bible: King James Version, Lk 24:39

What did Jesus mean when He said, "behold my hands and my feet?" Obviously, it was the holes. Notice too that He said a spirit does not have flesh and bones. He wasn't a spirit and yet the resurrected body had the wounds of the cross. Surely if He had a different body the wounds wouldn't be there.

27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. The Holy Bible: King James Version, Jn 20:26–27.

Same as above. Jesus' resurrected body still had the wounds.

23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. The Holy Bible: King James Version, Ro 8:23.

I hope we can agree that Paul isn't talking about redeeming a glorified body in Heaven.

25For I know that my redeemer liveth, And that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: 26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, Yet in my flesh shall I see God: 27Whom I shall see for myself, And mine eyes shall behold, and not another; Though my reins be consumed within me. The Holy Bible: King James Version, Job 19:25–27.

Job expected to see His Redeemer in the same flesh that was destroyed.

I answered the question. The fact that you don't like the answer is your problem.

I still get the feeling that you're somehow afraid to accept any view that your current physical body made of corruptible Earth dust that decays and dissolves has nothing to do at all with your house not made with hands (your parents) but an eternal "building" of God in the heavens.

You didn't answer it. I asked what is raised, not who is raised.

If there is a New Heaven and a New Earth, there is a New body.

This is speculation.

 

[Butch5]

Butch, if I may add....

Koine Greek doesn't have "tenses" per say, as much as Aktionsart inflections.

It's a long read (or complex one) but I offer this article for consideration.

A brief guide to aspect in Greek: Part III, The perfect​

"The perfect form (of a) verb’s paradigm communicates the situation or state that persists following (its) process (action). The perfect’s connection to the prior event is relational rather than textual."​

In addition:

The Perfect Tense ... of verbs in Koine Greek ... is usually used to show that a past event has occurred with present ongoing consequences.​

(LINK)​

I happen to find it a bit sleight of hand when they translate a Perfect Aspect ("tense") with English past tense endings, but this might be seen as a deficiency in English, which is unable to express the dual nature of "Terminative" and "Resulting State."

και (AND) ουδεις (NO ONE) αναβεβηκεν (HAS GONE UP & IS ASCENDED) εις (INTO) τον (THE) ουρανον (HEAVEN) ει (IF) μη (NOT) ο (THE one) εκ (OUT) του (OF) ουρανου (HEAVEN) καταβας (DESCENDING) - ο (THE) υιος (SON) του (OF) ανθρωπου (MAN)​

And no one is ascended into heaven ... if not descending out of heaven - The Son of Man.​

I think the purpose of this verse is to declare that if the Son of Man hasn't descended out of heaven, then no one is in (has ascended) heaven.

Then again, it might just be saying that the only ones to ascend into heaven are those having descended from heaven (e.g. angels) including the Son of Man.

Kindly,
Rhema

"The Perfect Tense ... of verbs in Koine Greek ... is usually used to show that a past event has occurred with present ongoing consequences.​

(LINK)"​

​

I believe that's what I said.​

 

[KingJ]

It's interesting that you keep asking me questions, without first stating your position.

I only know annihilationists who take that verse literally.

And, when they do, it opens up many more questions. Like for example, surely if the dead 'lose' their memories from something like being burnt at the stake, it would have been mentioned. Also, if they 'lose' their memories how then are they judged?

@Christ4Ever Nick has (had?) taken the position that the content of our posts are to support (be in accord with) the Statement of Faith. With that in mind, I'm sure you can understand my reluctance to answer. In addition, I recall you saying that a mature poster would not start a "rabbit trail" like this (annihilationism) but would create a new thread instead.

Its not a rabbit trail. If you say you believe in annihilationism I then know why you interpret the verse as you do and know that every verse speaking of eternal conscious torment of the wicked, you reject too.

It's a parable, KJ. It's also interesting that you reject Ecclesiastes as being literal, but demand that Luke 16 is.

As I have explained to you before it is not a parable. There are a few times this has been proven here. You have not yet made a solid case for it being a parable. Yet a solid case is made for it not being one.

If you state '''I am an annihiliationist'' your bias in reading scripture will make sense. For me, since I am not an annihilationist, I simply interpret that specific line as ''the dead don't know what the living know''. I read all four lines together and do not isolate a line in a verse. If I believed in annihilationism I would consider the line.

A For the living know that they will die,
B but the dead know nothing;

I think a good thread to start is one where all state their core beliefs. This should make discussion easier. For example, if you were a JW I would take the discussion a lot more seriously over if you were a Christian who believed in annihilationism. It should not really ever be a heated discussion. Annihilationist's have a better view of God over those would teach eternal 10/10 torture. Most Christians believe in it because they cannot accept that a good God can torture. That is a sound reason.

 

[KingJ]

On Annihilationism, I hesitate to say because I don't know what @KingJ might mean by that term.

Annihilation = cease to exist. Spirit, body and soul.

 

[KingJ]

No one goes to heaven!​

Where Jesus is, is heaven.

If Jesus went to hell and was given the power to run it, hell would be heaven. If the devil went to heaven and was given the power to run it, it would be hell.

There are some who propose that we saints will be bound to Earth in the new Jerusalem. This is an error of assumption. Just because scripture says we reign with Jesus on earth during the millennium and thereafter live in the new Jerusalem does not in any way shape or form equate to Jesus stopping us from traveling to the Moon, Mars or wherever else we desire to go. If God did not want us to travel to other planets, we would not be able to do so now. We will most certainly have more liberty, time and brainpower in the hereafter. Scripture is all we need to know. Not all there is to know.

I always wonder what motivates people to make ''statements of fact'' off of ''cherry picked'' verses about the vastly unknown future. There is always an agenda. Sounds like statements the devil will make to make people despondent of the hereafter with Jesus.

 

[34BillionthHumanBeing]

The JW's I've talked to claim the 144,000 in Rev. 7, which are Jews, are not the same 144,000 of Rev. 14, which are JW's.

How these folks can believe this is bewildering!

I want to add clarification here. The identity of being a Jew didn't start until Tribes Judah and Benajmin were taken into slavery or captivity from the Babylonian incursion in the southern region. Prior to that the 12 tribes under King David and Solomon's reign were united and never identified as Jews, but rather Israelites. Israel comes from Jacob whose name changed. God changed his name from Jacob to Israel. From Israel we have the 12 tribes of Israelites, but not Jews. From Esau's side of the family, their cousins, these people became the Edomites.

So, what's interesting is the criteria of what defines a Jew. This could be subjective. Originally Its the bloodline Tribe of Judah. We can add Tribe Benajmin too since the two were close to each other and blood related. Later when Tribe Judah was able to leave Babylonian Captivity and return back to the southern region from where they came from, their cousins, the Edomites had settled the land. They were a thriving civilization.

Tribe Judah manages to convert their Edomites cousins to Judaism. Interesting the Edomites even though they converted, didn't refer themselves as Jews, not yet anyway. It wasn't until much later that they identified and called themselves Jews, just like tribe Judah decided to call themselves Jews.

Overtime Tribe Judah became smaller, smaller and smaller where eventually they became irrelevant. To give you an idea of the irrelevancy they became their last bit if significance was under Roman Rule. Jesus Christ our Savior his bloodline is from the tribe Judah and that was under Roman rule. Between the Edomite conversion and Christ being born during Roman rule tribe Judah has lost a significant amount of relevance. Today nobody even knows who or where the 12 tribes are.

What's interesting are the people who live and populate the country of Israel are not from any of the 12 tribes, not even Judah. They are all Edomites who stood the test of time and persisted all the way to the 21st century.

So, who or what is a Jew? In my opinion its tribe Judah's bloodline, not the Edomites. The Edomites may have converted and later called themselves Jews as they do today, but are they really Jews?

So, an Israelite isn't necessarily a Jew because 10 of the 12 tribes didn't have a vote into who they would identify as. However, a Jew can be an Israelite because Tribe Judah originally and has always been an Israelite. Kind of murky and confusing somewhat.

Going into new territory here. The idea of antisemitism is kind of a misnomer. In today's context the "Jews" (today's 21st century Edomites) monopolize the term for themselves while blanking out that the bloodline of Shem is mostly semitic which includes: Elamites, Assyrians, Lydians, Arameans/Syrians, Arabs and a few more.

The holocaust in World War 2 was the slaughter of 6 million people not in the bloodline of Judah, but rather Esau, Edomites who converted to Judaism a long time before Germany ever existed.

When you see the current war between Hamas and Israel, it's not a war between Hamas and the tribe of Judah but rather a conflict between Hamas and 21st century Edomites, again who converted to Judaism long before Hamas was ever conceived in the mind of a Muslim. What's ironic, Hamas and the Edomites share the same bloodline through Shem making them both semitic.

What a crazy world we live in. What's crazier are little facts like this that people don't know.

 

[Charlie24]

I want to add clarification here. The identity of being a Jew didn't start until Tribes Judah and Benajmin were taken into slavery or captivity from the Babylonian incursion in the southern region. Prior to that the 12 tribes under King David and Solomon's reign were united and never identified as Jews, but rather Israelites. Israel comes from Jacob whose name changed. God changed his name from Jacob to Israel. From Israel we have the 12 tribes of Israelites, but not Jews. From Esau's side of the family, their cousins, these people became the Edomites.

So, what's interesting is the criteria of what defines a Jew. This could be subjective. Originally Its the bloodline Tribe of Judah. We can add Tribe Benajmin too since the two were close to each other and blood related. Later when Tribe Judah was able to leave Babylonian Captivity and return back to the southern region from where they came from, their cousins, the Edomites had settled the land. They were a thriving civilization.

Tribe Judah manages to convert their Edomites cousins to Judaism. Interesting the Edomites even though they converted, didn't refer themselves as Jews, not yet anyway. It wasn't until much later that they identified and called themselves Jews, just like tribe Judah decided to call themselves Jews.

Overtime Tribe Judah became smaller, smaller and smaller where eventually they became irrelevant. To give you an idea of the irrelevancy they became their last bit if significance was under Roman Rule. Jesus Christ our Savior his bloodline is from the tribe Judah and that was under Roman rule. Between the Edomite conversion and Christ being born during Roman rule tribe Judah has lost a significant amount of relevance. Today nobody even knows who or where the 12 tribes are.

What's interesting are the people who live and populate the country of Israel are not from any of the 12 tribes, not even Judah. They are all Edomites who stood the test of time and persisted all the way to the 21st century.

So, who or what is a Jew? In my opinion its tribe Judah's bloodline, not the Edomites. The Edomites may have converted and later called themselves Jews as they do today, but are they really Jews?

So, an Israelite isn't necessarily a Jew because 10 of the 12 tribes didn't have a vote into who they would identify as. However, a Jew can be an Israelite because Tribe Judah originally and has always been an Israelite. Kind of murky and confusing somewhat.

Going into new territory here. The idea of antisemitism is kind of a misnomer. In today's context the "Jews" (today's 21st century Edomites) monopolize the term for themselves while blanking out that the bloodline of Shem is mostly semitic which includes: Elamites, Assyrians, Lydians, Arameans/Syrians, Arabs and a few more.

The holocaust in World War 2 was the slaughter of 6 million people not in the bloodline of Judah, but rather Esau, Edomites who converted to Judaism a long time before Germany ever existed.

When you see the current war between Hamas and Israel, it's not a war between Hamas and the tribe of Judah but rather a conflict between Hamas and 21st century Edomites, again who converted to Judaism long before Hamas was ever conceived in the mind of a Muslim. What's ironic, Hamas and the Edomites share the same bloodline through Shem making them both semitic.

What a crazy world we live in. What's crazier are little facts like this that people don't know.

God doesn't need my help to determine the identity of His chosen people. The Scripture is filled with prophecy concerning these chosen people.

When God told Abraham "I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you," that was enough for Charlie to stay out of God's business and let Him take care of it.

There is no reason for us to look at the nation of Israel as anything other than God's chosen. They are the enemies of the Gospel, as Paul said, but at the same time the recipients of the promises God made to their father's Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

 

[B-A-C]

Nope. Going into a different body isn't resurrection. It's reincarnation.

This is an example of deductive reasoning, and not going with what scripture says.

1Cor 15:42; So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body;
1Cor 15:43; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power;
1Cor 15:44; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
1Cor 15:45; So also it is written, "The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
1Cor 15:46; However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
1Cor 15:47; The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.
1Cor 15:48; As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly.
1Cor 15:49; Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.
1Cor 15:50; Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

2Cor 5:1; For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
2Cor 5:2; For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven,
2Cor 5:3; inasmuch as we, having put it on, will not be found naked.
2Cor 5:4; For indeed while we are in this tent, we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed, so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life.

 

[B-A-C]

Where Jesus is, is heaven.

Today yes. In the future...?

Rev 20:4l Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

Will they reign in heaven or on the Earth?

Rev 21:1; Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.
Rev 21:2; And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband.
Rev 21:3; And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them,

 

[B-A-C]

The account in Luke 9 however is a vision.

Where does the Bible say this?

 

[B-A-C]

I lost the message, but someone asked isn't the Great White Throne judgment in heaven before God's throne?

My answer is no.

Rev 20:11; Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them.
Rev 20:12; And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds.
Rev 20:13; And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds.

It seems heaven and earth "fled away" and they don't exist during this time.
However there will be a new Heaven and New earth at some point after this.

Rev_21:1; Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.

2Pet 3:10; But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.
2Pet 3:12; looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat!

 

[Butch5]

This is an example of deductive reasoning, and not going with what scripture says.

1Cor 15:42; So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body;
1Cor 15:43; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power;
1Cor 15:44; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
1Cor 15:45; So also it is written, "The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
1Cor 15:46; However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
1Cor 15:47; The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.
1Cor 15:48; As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly.
1Cor 15:49; Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.
1Cor 15:50; Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

2Cor 5:1; For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
2Cor 5:2; For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven,
2Cor 5:3; inasmuch as we, having put it on, will not be found naked.
2Cor 5:4; For indeed while we are in this tent, we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed, so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life.

It's deductive reasoning. But it's not going against Scripture. Why do you assume that the spiritual body is a different body than our current one? The resurrected Jesus had the same body that went into the ground. The word spiritual is an adjective. As such it gives the qualities of the noun body. Thus a spiritual body is a body that has qualities of the spirit. It doesn't necessitate a different body. Suppose I was grossly overweight and had an unfit body. Then two years later I had a fit body. Would you assume I got a different body or that I lost weight, got in shape, and had a fit body?

Consider Paul's words.

But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. (Rom 8:11KJV)

Notice that it is the mortal body that is raised from the dead. It is raised by the Spirit of God. Would that not be a spiritual body? Would it not have qualities of the Spirit?

You see, assuming the spiritual body is a different body is also an example of deductive reasoning. The Scriptures don't tell us that the spiritual body is a different body from our current body. That's just a deduction people draw. Maybe it's wrong.

On the other hand claiming it's a different body does go against Scripture because resurrection requires that this body be made alive again. Going into a separate body is not resurrection. Additionally it goes against Scripture because it assumes man is something other than a flesh body enlivined but the breath of God. Which is taught nowhere in Scripture. The Bible teaches that man is a flesh being enlivened by the breath of God. Anything else is contrary to Scripture.

On another note Paul often uses metaphors, allegories, and other figures of speech, in his writings. We would be wise to consider his words carefully.

You are close. If you just drop the Immortal Soul doctrine the pieces will fall into place for you.