Paradise—Where?

by AuldSoul 15 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  AuldSoul

  Joseph,

  You said regarding Paul: First he states that the person described was caught away "to the third heaven" then he says the person was "caught away into Paradise." But Paradise can't be in heaven, so Paul must not have meant what he said.

  I apologize for misleading you. This is the WTS explanation of Paul's words, not mine. Do research on what Paul, one of Gamaliel's students, would have understood "third heaven" to mean and I feel it is safe to say you will dispense with the belief that he referred to the world's governmental system or to a covenant. I believe he meant what he said.

  You mentioned the Law, the New, and the Kingdom. What happened to the Abrahamic? Wouldn't that mean Paul was caught away into the New covenant (the third)? I can't really think of any basis for your teaching on this point.

  As to human beings becoming non-human beings in the Scriptures, I wholeheartedly disagree that there is no provision for that. The resurrected Jesus is not called "a different human" but a "new creation" If he were a creation like Adam, it wouldn't really be new, would it? Paul said we will be "remade" like Jesus.

  Paul meant what he said about the "third heaven." More to the point, he knew what he was saying. He knew what his readers would think he meant and he wrote nothing to dissuade a misconception on their part, if as you suggest there was a misconception.

  The readers did not believe the "heavens" were covenants. I am unaware of anything in the entire Bible that suggests that "heavens" can be interpretted as covenants (I have read six different translations).

  If you have some basis for this teachings beyond your own conjecture, I would love to see the research. In this case, I would want to see specific examples of the covenants being referred to as heavens. I can't remember a single occurence of that in the Bible.

  AuldSoul
• 

  JosephMalik

  Do research on what Paul, one of Gamaliel's students, would have understood "third heaven" to mean and I feel it is safe to say you will dispense with the belief that he referred to the world's governmental system or to a covenant. I believe he meant what he said. AuldSoul, I have Paul’s own words and how he used them for evidence. Gamaliel would have understood that this word “heaven” was another way to say “God” or higher authority (elevation) someone in authority as in government just as Paul did. For example: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Here Paul used heaven and earth to describe Kingdoms and those ruled by such Kingdoms, nearby (visible) or far away as in Rome (invisible). He even explained what he meant. He identified them: thrones, dominions, principalities, powers all things (human) created by him and for whom He also died. Thus he continues and says of such heavens. Col 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. Non human beings are not reconciled by the blood of Christ only humans can be so reconciled. Earth and heavens are simply descriptive of such human beings for which our Lord died. You said: You mentioned the Law, the New, and the Kingdom. What happened to the Abrahamic? The Abrahamic covenant was for fertility and property (land) and was incorporated in with the Law covenant to become part of it in the book of the Law. It is not only introductory but actually the basis for the Law Covenant and for the New Covenant as well that will embrace all peoples on earth. Ac 3:25 And you are heirs of the prophets and of the covenant God made with your fathers. He said to Abraham, ‘Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be blessed. But as to life itself and those worthy to gain it the Law was specific was blood based having authority to forgive sin (possessed Godly authority) and man was to live by means of it just as “life in you” is specific to the New Covenant and those that partake. The Kingdom has it’s own blood based provision for the great multitudes or peoples on earth that will be allowed entry just as John saw in his vision: These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Paul was already an apostle chosen specifically by our Lord to be such and was a participant in a functioning New Covenant with real power to make disciples on earth. Thus this Covenant had real purpose and authority as if Christ was already ruling and present with them (through the Church the body of Christ). It is a heaven in its own right but this covenant is not the actual Kingdom it proclaims. That is yet to come. You said: As to human beings becoming non-human beings in the Scriptures, I wholeheartedly disagree that there is no provision for that. The resurrected Jesus is not called "a different human" but a "new creation" But this Jesus you speak of was Human! He was flesh and bone, not a spirit creature according to His own words: Lu 24:39 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. He was an immortal human being, visible, touchable and the very first human to achieve this status as a new creation (creature) spoken of by Paul. This is what Paul actually meant when he said: 16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen. Paul was not teaching that other immortal beings did not exist. In this same letter at 1Tim 1:17 he taught God was immortal. He knew what the word immortal means. Are there others? Are not angels by nature immortal? Do any of them die of old age or must they be destroyed by God? Among human beings there is only one who hath immortality and that one is Jesus. Joseph
• 

  AuldSoul

  Joseph,

  How can you use a complete different term in Colossians to explain what Paul referred to in 2 Corinthians? I am at a loss how you justify this.

  Likewise, if "heaven" means "covenant" and "third heaven" means "the third covenant" why would a covenant need to be reconciled by Christ's blood?

  And since Matthew, Paul, Peter, and John are all clear that Jesus received authority over all things after resurrection and since things in the literal heavens were disharmonious (reconciled gr. apokatallasso; Strong's g604) I find no lack of continuity in understanding heavens to mean what the word "ouranos" means.

  If Paul meant government/kingdom, he could have made that clear by use of "kubernesis" (Strong's g2941), "kuriotes" (Strong's g2962), or "basileia" (Strong's g935). Why would he confuse readers unecessarily? There isn't anything secret about the kingdom, after all. That is what the early Christians preached, wasn't it?

  I notice you did not fulfill the one simple request I had of demonstrating a use of kingdom that means covenant. I requested that you research the term "third heaven" you respond with an unsubstantiated statement about the term "heaven". When an ordinal qualifier is used before a term, the term is qualified and is no longer its former unqualified term. Thus "third heaven" cannot possibly be understood as "heaven" no matter what you believe "heaven" to be.

  You believe heaven means kingdom? Please show why. More to the point, please explain Jesus' incessant use of the phrase "kingdom of the heavens" if that means "kingdom of the kingdom." How do you explain John 18:36?

  I disagree with your assessment, but mostly I disagree with your lack of clear substantiation.

  AuldSoul
• 

  JosephMalik

  How can you use a complete different term in Colossians to explain what Paul referred to in 2 Corinthians? I am at a loss how you justify this. AuldSoul, The word under discussion is heaven and the many ways it is used in scripture especially by Paul in this case. Jews used Heaven(s) for God as Matthew demonstrated. They disliked using the word God and even today spell it G_d. Kingdom of the Heavens and Kingdom of God are interchangeable. But there are other ways Heaven is used as I demonstrated in Paul’s letters. I can show this because definitions are not always complete and scriptural use carries more authority than dictionaries. You asked: Likewise, if "heaven" means "covenant" and "third heaven" means "the third covenant" why would a covenant need to be reconciled by Christ's blood? Heaven simply means elevated be it God or Government a Kingdom or something else with authority over us. It is not that it means covenant as you say. I am simply showing how the word can be used when discussing such covenants and arrangements. Read the texts, they make perfect sense as I explained. Why do you think Heaven is a place or someplace else when it is not used that way in numerous texts? Stay with the context of message. The things in the heavens (non human beings) and the outcome for such has already been determined by God. There is no sacrifice or reconciliation for them. Our Lord did not die for the sin of Satan or anyone else that followed him. His future has already been determined. You said: If Paul meant government/kingdom, he could have made that clear by use of "kubernesis" (Strong's g2941), "kuriotes" (Strong's g2962), or "basileia" (Strong's g935). Why would he confuse readers unecessarily? Who is confused? Paul was not. The Jews understood such use. And it was when writing specifically to such Jews that Paul used heavens in place of such other terms that you think would have been more appropriate. If I said heavens now would you think God? Jews would. The problem is our world, our time not his. Take another example: 1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. KJV But in the NIV we read: 1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. Governing authorities, Kingdom, words that change through time and different cultures just as heavens and its use is barely recognizable today. You asked: I notice you did not fulfill the one simple request I had of demonstrating a use of kingdom that means covenant. But I did and in detail. I even explained how they had provision to forgive sin (authority that can only come from God) and how this all tied together using heaven instead. You said: Jesus' incessant use of the phrase "kingdom of the heavens" if that means "kingdom of the kingdom." How do you explain John 18:36? 36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. Time! This world this time of Pilate was the wrong time. My Kingdom as our Lord stated was future, much further in time than the Kingdom or Rome. Later the disciples wanted to know this time and asked: 6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? 7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. Now for Kingdom of the heavens and God once again: Mt 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. Lu 7:28 For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he. Which way did Jesus say it? The Jewish way or the Gentile way? That the authors did not quote our Lord’s words exactly is not the problem. The wrote for their audiences who understood them. They interpreted our Lords words to clarify what was meant. How we understand the message and such words being from different backgrounds than they were, that is our problem the one we must face today. Makes no difference to me if you agree or disagree with such assessments. This is after all a discussion group presenting alternate views and the responsibility for what we teach is ours alone. Joseph
• 

  AuldSoul

  Stay with the context of message.

  Joseph, you write this, but it seems like you mean "Stay with the context of [my] message." You haven't demonstrated a single occurence in Scripture of "heaven" meaning "covenant" separate from your own personal opinion on the matter.

  In other words, I am having trouble figuring out why your personal interpretation as applied to Scripture is any more correct than the personal interpretation of the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. It seems like an exercise in trading one human viewpoint for another human viewpoint. If that is what you are inviting, I have to say, no thanks.

  Who is confused? Paul was not. The Jews understood such use.

  To state a thing is not to prove it true. I am asking for proof that the Jews understood heaven to mean covenant. As proof, you keep asserting they did. You haven't proven they did. I have proof what the Jews understood the term "third heaven" to mean, in the form of their use of the term in their theology.

  means what it means. Its meaning doesn't change to suit your whim.

  You do not have proof of your assertion. When you present proof (which means "something other than your personal conjecture derived from reading the text and ignoring every reference on the meaning of the text") that the Jews or Paul understood "heaven" to mean "covenant" and "third heaven" to mean "third covenant" and "third covenant" to then be a metaphor for "the conditions that would exist under that third covenant," I will consider it duly and modify my understanding to encompass the possibility of what you suggest.

  Until then, I will take "heaven" to mean what "heaven" means, and I will take "third heaven" to mean what "third heaven" means. I won't change the meaning of the words used into a different meaning unless compelled to do so by the context of 1 Corinthians 12:1-7. There is nothing in the context that so compels, so in this case I will let the meaning stand as stated. I do not believe this passage requires interpretation. It merely requires acceptance as written.

  Since you seem to want to reinterpret Paul's words and drag Peter's words into that interpretation (when the two men had vastly different styles of communication) I suppose we have nothing further to discuss on the point.

  Unless you have proof, of course. Proof of some extant variety that the Jews or early Christians understood "heaven" to mean "covenant." If you do, I will happily consider it.

  AuldSoul
• 

  AuldSoul

  Joseph,

  You asked how I explain John 18:36? He means his kingdom is not earthly, not of this cosmos, not of this universe. I do not stand alone in my view of this text (not that consensus proves anything).

  Never is kosmos used differently. Never does it mean a period of time. But I will let Thayer's explain it to you:

  ---

  Further, Jesus states his kingdom "is not from hence." He uses the word enteuthen, which would have to have a subject location predefined—by direct statement or by implication—to which it refers. In this case, the place his kingdom is not from (enteuthen) is this kosmos, i.e. the only location contextually specified in the statement.

  ---

  I sincerely hope you allow your viewpoint some latitude for responding to original language studies. Otherwise, you are forever doomed to interpretting the English meaning without any confidence that the original statement supports your view. Notably, he was speaking to Pilate on this occasion so it is highly unlikely that he spoke in Aramaic in this discussion. He would have either spoken in Latin or Greek. Most likely Greek, as that was the most widespread tongue of the period.

  AuldSoul