What's your view on Hell?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Paul is talking about himself in third person. It is a man that "he knows" that saw great revelations, and then he, Paul, has great revelations to boast about, but because of the abundance of revelations.... The third person is a way to even humble himself more, but it is rhetoric. It is also talking about the same man, not two men (I know a man... And I know such man...how he was...).

Read it in context:

2 Corinthians 12:1-7 (NKJV) 1 It is doubtless not profitable for me to boast. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord:
2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a one was caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I know such a man—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— 4 how he was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. 5 Of such a one I will boast; yet of myself I will not boast, except in my infirmities. 6 For though I might desire to boast, I will not be a fool; for I will speak the truth. But I refrain, lest anyone should think of me above what he sees me to be or hears from me.
7 And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure.

.

So yes, it is the same man, and it is Paul, and he was caught up to Paradise in the third heaven in a vision.

He specifically says "of myself I will NOT boast EXCEPT in mine infirmities", so he is speaking of someone ELSE having ecstatic experiences.

Also, in verse 3 he says "and" showing he refers to two different persons. There is nothing to suggest they are the same person, and his diction strongly implies they are not the same person. And therefore the passage in no way proves paradise is in heaven.

Now please explain how if Paradise is in heaven, Jesus went there BEFORE EVENING on the same day He was crucified?

I explained the reason why the apparent contradiction between the OT and the NT.

I think all you said was basically in the OT they were unclear on what happens after death, but then it all became clearer in the NT when Jesus uttered the story of the rich man and Lazarus? Is that your position?

I explained this too. Lazarus went to "Abraham Bosom" a metaphor for the side of Hades that was for the just. Paradise is in heaven, and became the destination of the saints after Jesus' death.

He went to Abraham's bosom and lo and behold Abraham is there with him. Almost like Abraham's bosom isn't a metaphor for anything, and actually means his bosom where Lazarus reclined with him in standard ANE style. Where is the evidence, the Scriptural Revelation that:

1. Hades has two distinct compartments or locations,

2. One of which is known as "Abraham's Bosom", and

3. The dead could communicate with one another from one compartment to another?

Where is any of this coming from? The parable? Why was nobody astounded at such new, heretofore unheard of revelations concerning the structure and character of the intermediate state? Why are those details never mentioned ever after, much less ever before? And more importantly, why is it that people who believe in continued consciousness after death always preach about the "moment after you die" but hardly ever preach about the Resurrection and Judgment Day like the apostles? ESPECIALLY in an evangelistic context?

Paul said:


1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 KJV
But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. [14] For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. [15] For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. [16] For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: [17] Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. [18] Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

This is very different than the comforting words given by the average immortal soulist. Instead, they talk about how the dear departed saint is in heaven enjoying streets of gold and their nice new mansion, talking with saints of old and sweet Momma who passed on years before. How many hymns and songs are in this vein?

And compare to the apostolic command to give comfort by talking about THE RESURRECTION with the only reference to the intermediate state being a reference to SLEEP of the saints???? Makes me think the apostles did not believe as most today believe.

Gotcha. So the "sleeping" of the soul is not a temporary cessation to exist. I didn't know that.

I explained this early on, it is called "sleep" because it is a temporary interruption of life, ending with the resurrection when the dead "awake" ie come back to life.

That's a good point. But notice that those that are in the grave their ears are decomposed and not able to hear anyways. So this text has to be a truth communicated with a figure of speech. So, the ones in the grave hearing his voice refers to when God speaks the word commanding the resurrection to raise them all from the grave. It speaks of a miracle, like in Genesis: God speaks, things happen. Probably the reason for that figure of speech is for the rhetorical impact of reminding the hearers that one day God will call them to be accountable to what they did. It does not contradict the souls being conscious in Hades.

But it contradicts the souls being conscious in heaven. If you are in heaven are you in the grave?

Again, it is not the BODY ALONE which is raised out of the grave (sheol, hades) but the PERSON. And what are they doing there?

Psalm 6:5 KJV
For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?

Ecclesiastes 9:10 KJV
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.

They are not doing anything whatsoever except waiting for the resurrection.

[Nicodemus1968]

Originally Posted by Esaias

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 KJV
But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. [14] For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. [15] For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. [16] For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: [17] Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. [18] Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

Hebrews 12:1
Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us

[shag]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The Bible doesn't actually say that. It says this:

Ecclesiastes 12:7 KJV
Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

It is the spirit that returns to God. The body goes to the earth, the spirit returns to God. Now check this out:

Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 KJV
For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. [20] All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. [21] Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

People and beasts both die, are both mortal, their bodies are both of the dust, and return to dust. But the SPIRIT of the beast returns to the earth, whereas the SPIRIT of the human returns to God. Why? Because the earth is what brought forth the beasts, whereas God brought forth humans.:

Genesis 1:24-27 KJV
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. [25] And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. [26] And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. [27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

The animating factor or breath or spirit of life for the beasts came from the earth, whereas for humans it came directly from God. As here:

Genesis 2:7 KJV
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.




For EVERY HUMAN the SPIRIT goes back to God and the body goes back to dust. That is "death". The spirit is the breath of life, it was given by God and returns to God. At resurrection the spirit is reunited with the body, thus a resurrection occurs. The PERSON (or "living soul") is a combination of spirit and flesh, which produces a "soul". In death the two ingredients if you will are separated, and the person is no longer alive. Thus, no longer conscious or active either.

Until resurrection. After the resurrection, there is the Judgment, which is by definition the person's court appearance and trial and sentence and punishment or reward.

Nicodemus argued with the Court on this wise:

John 7:50-51 KJV
Nicodemus saith unto them, (he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them,) [51] Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?

His argument is consistent with God's law and with reason: it is not right to condemn a man before examination and inquiry. That is, before his court trial. So the idea that people are sentenced by God BEFORE they are judged is unbiblical and contradictory. How can a man be judged before he is judged?

And I know this post will generate more questions lol. But there it is in a nutshell.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my posts, and help me see the light of things. What you write makes good sense to me, not just this post, but the following ones.


When a spirit goes back to God, is it then basically incorrect to say, “they are with Jesus now, like they do at the funeral homes….since they’re spirit does but it is considered basically His breathe of life?
I am unsure of what I can understand of a literal sense of what the breath of life, someone spirit is… I mean can someone’s spirit be consciencly aware that they’re there was Jesus, I would think not, aside from a later connection with a resurrected body, making up the soul. (I mean, we were not consciencly aware, before we were conceived, and our spirit came from God…)
Based off of how you explain it.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Esaias

He specifically says "of myself I will NOT boast EXCEPT in mine infirmities", so he is speaking of someone ELSE having ecstatic experiences.

Also, in verse 3 he says "and" showing he refers to two different persons. There is nothing to suggest they are the same person, and his diction strongly implies they are not the same person. And therefore the passage in no way proves paradise is in heaven.

Let me go on this one as this is an example of your eisegesis. You are putting your theology on the text. When you come with that interpretation the cohesion of the text breaks apart. So Paul goes all the way to talk about "such a man" just to then say "good for him"?
It is a lot more sensible to realize that he is talking about himself and just playing the game of talking in third person and giving glory to that third person. Then towards the end he says that because of the abundance of revelations he received he got a thorn, so he boasts instead in his tribulations.

Your interpretation breaks the cohesion of the text, the same way your moving of the coma in Luk 23:43 as I explained in another post.

Here are some commentaries about this text:

(Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary)
2. Translate, "I know," not "I knew."
a man—meaning himself.
.... cut for brevity...
5. of myself—concerning myself. Self is put in the background, except in respect to his infirmities. His glorying in his other self, to which the revelations were vouchsafed, was not in order to give glory to his fleshly self, but to bring out in contrast the "infirmities" of the latter, that Christ might have all the glory.

[*](ESV Global Study Bible Notes) 12:2–3 I know a man . . . this man. Paul’s hesitancy to boast of his visions is reflected in his use of the third person (as if it had happened to someone else).

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
2...
The term “a man in Christ,” as a way of speaking of himself, ...

Meyer NT Commentary
2.I know a man … who was snatched away. Paul speaks of himself as of a third person, because he wishes to adduce something in which no part of the glory at all falls on the Ego proper.

Benson Commentary
2 Corinthians 12:2-3. I knew a man in Christ — That is, a Christian. He must undoubtedly have meant himself, or the whole article had been quite foreign to his purpose. Indeed, that he meant himself is plain from 2 Corinthians 12:6-7.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
12:1-6 There can be no doubt the apostle speaks of himself.

Expositor's Greek Testment
2 Corinthians 12:2. οἶδα ἄνθρ. ἐν Χρ. κ.τ.λ.: I know (not “I knew” as the A.V. has it) a man in Christ, i.e., a Christian (see reff.), fourteen years ago (for the constr. πρὸ ἐτ. δεκ. cf. John 12:1)—whether in the body, I know not; or whether out of the body, I know not (the words distinctly indicate St. Paul’s belief that perception is possible for a disembodied spirit); God knoweth—such an one caught up to the third heaven. Cf. Ezekiel 8:3. “The Spirit lifted me between the earth and the heaven, and brought me in the visions of God to Jerusalem.” [*]The date of this trance must have been about 41 or 42 A.D., years of which we have no details so far as St. Paul’s life is concerned; probably he was then at Tarsus (Acts 9:30; Acts 11:25; cf. the reference to St. Paul in the dialogue Philopatris, § 12; ἐς τρίτον οὐρανὸν ἀεροβατήσας).

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
2. I knew a man] That this is the Apostle is proved by 2 Corinthians 12:7. The word knew should, both here and in 2 Corinthians 12:3, be rendered know.

Pulpit Commentary
Verse 2. - I knew; rather, I know. A man. St. Paul speaks in this indirect way of himself (see vers. 5, 7).

The sensible understanding of the text is that this is a rhetorical devise, a literary feature, to talk about himself.

So yes, Paradise is in the third heaven, and the thief was in Paradise that day with Jesus, ... and the story of Lazarus is not the only passage in the Scriptures that defends the doctrine of the soul conscious out of the body. So no, it is not my position that "it wasn't clear in the OT until the story of Lazarus", but "till the bunch of texts in the NT I have already posted". That's a better way to reconcile the apparent contradiction between the OT and NT than doing gymnastic hermeneutics, don't you think? There are precedents in other topics of greater understanding or clearer understanding coming in the NT.

You are right that Jesus didn't bring the revelation, as it was already a belief before, however Jesus and Paul themselves believed in it, as it was a correct interpretation. Some "scholars" believe that it came from external religion influences, the same way they explain names for angels in the book of Daniel. I prefer to believe in the authority of the Scriptures. I prefer to believe that the idea, if was endorsed by Jesus and Paul, was the result of going deeper into the Scripture into afterlife because of the increase awareness of afterlife during the captivity, looking for hope.

For example, resurrection and how would happen was not 100% clear and explicitly taught in the OT as it is in the NT. You had to dig deep to see it, to the point that there was a major religious group, the Sadducees, that didn't believe in it. And Jesus used a no very obvious passage to defend it (I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob). The Pharisees were right.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by shag

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my posts, and help me see the light of things. What you write makes good sense to me, not just this post, but the following ones.


When a spirit goes back to God, is it then basically incorrect to say, “they are with Jesus now, like they do at the funeral homes….since they’re spirit does but it is considered basically His breathe of life?
I am unsure of what I can understand of a literal sense of what the breath of life, someone spirit is… I mean can someone’s spirit be consciencly aware that they’re there was Jesus, I would think not, aside from a later connection with a resurrected body, making up the soul. (I mean, we were not consciencly aware, before we were conceived, and our spirit came from God…)
Based off of how you explain it.

Well, when people say "they are with Jesus now" the idea being expressed is usually that they are conscious up in heaven enjoying the afterlife. I think a more Biblical way to refer to a departed saint is that they are "resting (or sleeping) in Jesus", which implies they are awaiting the resurrection.

But you bring up an interesting point regarding the human spirit, and what exactly does it contribute to the whole person? I have usually thought of the relationship between spirit, soul, and body as similar to the relationship between the wind, sails, and rudder of a ship. The wind provides the "energy" (or "life", or "breath") which on its own is generally just a vague wind blowing in a general direction. But when it interacts with a ship's sail it imparts that energy to the ship allowing it to move (animate). Meanwhile the rudder provides steering and direction. In fact, all three interact to put the ship on its course - the direction and speed of the ship is determined by wind speed and wind direction, the stiffness or elasticity and angle of the sail, and the position of the rudder. All three elements combine in various ways to result in a moving ship, and all three contribute something to overall character of the voyage.

Of course, it's likely a weak analogy and certainly breaks down if pressed too far, but I see the wind as analogous to the spirit, the sail as analogous to the body, and the rudder as analogous to the soul. The human spirit imparts life to the body, but that life much be directed or steered by the soul (decisions, choices, etc). And the individual human spirit seems to have a character unique to itself which colours the person and their life and character and experiences, etc. Also, without the body the impulse of the human spirit cannot manifest itself (kind of like how faith without works is dead, being alone?), and without correct knowledge and choices the human ship (person) will usually run aground or capsize or wind up in the wrong port.

And this brings up the relationship between God's Spirit and the individual human spirit, especially in regards to regeneration. I do not believe the individual human spirit is simply replaced by the Holy Spirit, obviously that would not be the case. But it seems the Holy Spirit comes along and changes the human spirit to be a miniature version of the Holy Spirit, if you will? Like a ship sailing on the sea and the wind is contrary to the proper course, so the ship is struggling and threatened with flipping over and sinking, but along comes a powerful mighty wind and overtakes and transforms the original wind, changing its direction, enabling the ship to sail smoothly to the correct destination.

As long as the guy controlling the rudder cooperates. Otherwise it's a constant battle for the ship, often even worse than it was experiencing before. So the lesson is we need to cooperate with and submit to God's Spirit lest we find ourselves shipwrecked.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Let me go on this one as this is an example of your eisegesis. You are putting your theology on the text. When you come with that interpretation the cohesion of the text breaks apart. So Paul goes all the way to talk about "such a man" just to then say "good for him"?
It is a lot more sensible to realize that he is talking about himself and just playing the game of talking in third person and giving glory to that third person. Then towards the end he says that because of the abundance of revelations he received he got a thorn, so he boasts instead in his tribulations.

Eisegesis is concluding a text means ABC when the actual data present in the text does not mean ABC. As a side note, the word "eisegesis" in actual usage really means "the other person interprets a text differently than I do and they are wrong, therefore they have imported their own ideas into the text." Catholics accuse Protestants of eisegesis, Protestants accuse Catholics of eisegesis, Jews accuse Christians of eisegesis, liberals accuse fundamentalists of eisegesis, and fundamentals accuse liberals of eisegesis. Oneness believers accuse trinitarians of eisegesis, and trinitarians accuse oneness believers of eisegesis, and JWs accuse all of us of eisegesis, while we all agree JWs are guilty of eisegesis.

But I will demonstrate how you are, in fact, practicing eisegesis in your treatment of the passage in 2nd Corinthians, and I am not. Your position is that Paul is speaking of himself and experiences that he himself had, but that he is doing so in the third person.

Does the text say anywhere that this is what is happening? No. In fact, the textual data itself indicates that is NOT what is happening. Paul specifically said that in regards to visions and revelations he will not boast of himself. So whatever he is talking about when he says a man was caught up to the third heaven, and how he also knows a man who was caught up to Paradise, they are (according to the actual text) not concerning himself, UNLESS he is lying.

Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities. ..(2Co 12:5)

You then suggest that verse 7 must mean that the third heaven and Paradise experiences are his own, otherwise the verse doesn't make sense in the context. But it does. Notice:

It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. ..(2Co 12:1)

He is going to talk about visions and revelations of the Lord as a basis for comparative boasting between himself and those "other apostles" - not the Twelve - with whom he has been comparing himself throughout the previous chapter. Notice also the subject matter is not spiritual vacations into the netherworld, but "visions and revelations", indicating what he is about to describe fall under the category of VISIONS AND REVELATIONS and not necessarily astral projections or physical relocations. And notice also this caveat is derived directly from the TEXT ITSELF, from verse 1, which identifies the SUBJECT MATTER OF DISCOURSE.

I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. ..(2Co 12:2)
And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) ..(2Co 12:3)
How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. ..(2Co 12:4)

He then says he knows a Christian brother who was caught up to the third heaven. He then says "AND I knew a man, how he was caught up to paradise". The grammar indicates this is speaking of a second person differing from the first. Now, I concede it is possible this is the same individual, due to the ambiguity regarding the word toiouton (translated "such"), and whether it refers to a man "like" the one previously referred to, or whether it refers to "the same" man previously referred to. But in either case, this man or men experienced some awesome visions and revelations. And Paul says of them - in the context of any basis for HIM boasting:

Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities. ..(2Co 12:5)

Paul specifically says he WILL glory about such a person, who experienced such great visions and revelations, but he will NOT glory of himself EXCEPT in his infirmities. He has no problem giving God glory and saying "Praise God! Amen! Hallelujah!" to a brother's testimony about visions and revelations, but when it comes to HIMSELF he will DO NO SUCH THING. He will decidedly NOT boast about any of his visions and revelations. He will instead only boast about all the problems and trials and tribulations he has experienced as an apostle.

Now here is the key verse that ties the above to verse 7:

For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me. ..(2Co 12:6)

He states that he could truthfully and honestly boast about visions and revelations, but he will forbear. He clearly asserts he has a ground for boasting about visions and revelations, a true ground, that he has actually had revelations and visions. BUT HE WILL NOT BOAST ABOUT THEM. He doesn't want anyone to get caught up in a cult of personality around "Paul the ecstatic visionary mystic". AGAIN, a second time, a SECOND WITNESS, he declares he will NOT boast about his own visions and revelations. Which again shows that the people he referenced in the previous verses ARE NOT HIMSELF.

Now, verse 7:

And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. ..(2Co 12:7)

He was allowed to suffer in order to prevent getting a big head about the visions and revelations he had experienced. What visions and revelations? The ones referred to in verse 6. Are these the same ones in the earlier verses? You say "Yes" but there is nothing in the text to actually warrant that conclusion nor is there anything in the actual text to even suggest such a conclusion. That is an idea YOU ARE IMPORTING INTO THE TEXT. The TEXTUAL DATA ITSELF indicates otherwise, that the abundance of revelations he had received HAVE NOT BEEN DESCRIBED because he specifically said he would NOT BOAST ABOUT HIS OWN VISIONS AND REVELATIONS. It thus follows necessarily that if Paul is being honest, then the visions described in verses 2-4 must of necessity belong to somebody else, other than himself.

That is not eisegesis, that is straightforward EXEGESIS, allowing the text itself to provide the data and propositions and premises which result in a conclusion drawn directly from the text itself.

On the other hand, to IMPORT ideas like "Paul was speaking about himself" (in clear contradiction of what he himself says about the subject) is eisegesis, plain and simple.

Your interpretation breaks the cohesion of the text, the same way your moving of the coma in Luk 23:43 as I explained in another post.

You do realise I simply mentioned moving the comma as a very simple and simplistic solution to the question you presented? You have noticed that my argument was not and never has been about the position of the comma, right? And besides which, the COMMA IS NOT IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK TEXT and therefore can in fact be moved or eliminated altogether. The comma is irrelevant because it is supplied by the translators, and is not in the Greek.

Here are some commentaries about this text:

It is undeniable that every, or at least very nearly every, commentary on the passage assumes Paul is speaking of himself. But that is of the same weight as the fact that nearly every commentary assumes trinitarianism to be good exegesis and not horrible eisegesis. Every one of those commentaries are written by people who believe in the continued conscious existence of the disembodied and inherently immortal soul, so naturally they will read their doctrine right into what Paul is saying.

I would however like to point out that EVEN IF Paul is speaking of himself (which cannot be demonstrated from the text) it still doesn't prove the continued conscious existence of the disembodied soul. And as far as Paradise being in heaven, if you interpret Paul's words to mean that a certain man was caught up to the third heaven and saw amazing sights, and heard amazing things in Paradise, then the most you could say is that Paradise is in "the third heaven" or (more likely) somewhere BEYOND "the third heaven".

Which then raises the question: What third heaven? How many heavens are there? Is Paradise in one of those heavens? Or is it beyond at least the third heaven? Is it separate from those heavens? WHERE IS THIS INFORMATION COMING FROM, and more importantly WHAT ARE WE TO DO WITH IT?

This ties into something else you said which I will make a separate post about in a moment.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

You are right that Jesus didn't bring the revelation, as it was already a belief before, however Jesus and Paul themselves believed in it, as it was a correct interpretation. Some "scholars" believe that it came from external religion influences, the same way they explain names for angels in the book of Daniel. I prefer to believe in the authority of the Scriptures. I prefer to believe that the idea, if was endorsed by Jesus and Paul, was the result of going deeper into the Scripture into afterlife because of the increase awareness of afterlife during the captivity, looking for hope.

You are admitting that the belief in two compartments of hades, separated by a gulf, while allowing for communication between both sides by the dead, with one of those compartments known as "Abraham's Bosom", was ALREADY A KNOWN BELIEF in the first century. And that there was a place called Paradise up in heaven. You then claim Jesus and Paul both believed these things.

But then you say that the people who believed these things came to those beliefs by "going deeper into the Scripture into afterlife"? Please point us to the Scriptures they went "deeper into", and how those Scriptures teach a two-compartment hades with conscious dead communicating back and forth, one place of which was called Abraham's Bosom, and of a place called Paradise up in heaven.

Then, after you have done that, can you please explain how apparently these beliefs were unique Pharisaic beliefs, imported from heathenism, and how they do not fall under the title "Jewish fables" to which we are not to give heed (Titus 1:14)?

For example, resurrection and how would happen was not 100% clear and explicitly taught in the OT as it is in the NT. You had to dig deep to see it, to the point that there was a major religious group, the Sadducees, that didn't believe in it. And Jesus used a no very obvious passage to defend it (I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob). The Pharisees were right.

The Pharisees believed that the wicked would not undergo resurrection, but would remain in hades forever. Only the righteous would be resurrected.

Are the Pharisees right? Or wrong? According to Jesus, they are wrong (see John 5:28-29). What else are they wrong about? How would we know? If doctrine doesn't come from the Bible, then we have no way of knowing what is correct or not.

I suppose you would say that Jesus endorsed the doctrine of the Pharisees. Even though He flatly contradicted the single key tenet of their eschatology (that the wicked dead are NOT raised, only the righteous are). But did He endorse their doctrine?

Is the parable of the rich man and Lazarus an endorsement of Pharisaic doctrine concerning the afterlife? Or was the story a case where Jesus took a Pharisaic idea and turned it around to expose and judge them? Using their own parables against them? Which is more likely?

The Sadducees did not come up with their denial of resurrection and of the spirit because the Old Testament is "vague and unclear". (If it was vague and unclear how did the Pharisees come up with the correct view - which was actually incorrect about the fate of the wicked, and which mimicked standard Greek and other heathen views, with the exception of the resurrection of the righteous?) I submit to you that the Sadducees simply CONTRADICTED THE WORD OF GOD. Jesus in His defense of the resurrection said they are in error NOT KNOWING THE SCRIPTURES nor the power of God. This implies that if one DID know the Scriptures, one would not err concerning the fact of resurrection. Which means the old testament scriptures are NOT so vague and unclear as to leave everyone in the dark.

But you are actually suggesting that a supposed divine truth about the intermediate state was discovered by people APART FROM THE WORD OF GOD. The Pharisees developed intertestamental views on the afterlife due to exposure to Greek beliefs and philosophy coupled with gnostic mysticism. It is extremely unlikely that the divine truths about the nature of death, the afterlife, the location of the dead, the size and structure of "place where the dead go", etc were revealed to Pharisees APART from the Word of God. Rabbinic fables more accurate that the actual SCRIPTURES???? I don't think so.

The old testament is not vague about the intermediate state. It is EXPLICITLY CLEAR:

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. ..(Ecc 9:10)

There is nothing vague about this declaration whatsoever. The idea that the truth about the afterlife was all vague and unclear in the old testament, but then lo and behold it becomes crystal clear in the NT when the NT restates Pharisaic beliefs developed during the Exile and Greek and Roman occupation and Hellenization, is to my mind simply absurd. The Old Testament Scriptures teach the truth about the nature and constitution of man, the intermediate state, and the resurrection. The NT takes those truths and centers them in the Christ who was crucified and rose again.

Now let's think a moment about the Lord's reply to the Sadducees. He says God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He then says God is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for all live unto Him.

How does this have anything to do with resurrection?????

A believer in a naturally immortal conscious soul existing after death would take the passage to mean that they are alive right now, they really aren't dead, they are off in the afterlife still carrying on in some fashion. But Jesus specifically chose THAT passage and THAT logical assertion to PROVE RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD. If Jesus believed as you do then how would that passage ever be taken to be a proof text for a future resurrection? How would it ever come to mind as a proof text for a future resurrection?

Yet it makes PERFECT SENSE from the viewpoint of conditional immortality and "soul sleep". The fact that He is God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and is not the God of the dead but of the living, requires a resurrection! Abraham etc must come to life, and must become immortal, otherwise God is in fact the God of the dead, and not of the living. The text, as a proof of the RESURRECTION, only really makes sense from the point of view of "soul sleep" and conditional immortality. Someone who believed in the immortal conscious soul after death would simply not even conceive of using that passage and that logical premise ("not God of the dead"). In THEIR mind those two things would simply mean Abraham is floating around in heaven or somewhere, alive and well just non physical, RIGHT NOW. But Jesus saw it as a proof of the resurrection.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Which then raises the question: What third heaven? How many heavens are there? Is Paradise in one of those heavens? Or is it beyond at least the third heaven? Is it separate from those heavens? WHERE IS THIS INFORMATION COMING FROM, and more importantly WHAT ARE WE TO DO WITH IT?

This ties into something else you said which I will make a separate post about in a moment.

Where is this information coming from?

Other than the text in question (2 Cor 12) there is NO mention in Scripture of any "third heaven". However, in Paul's day, Jews believed in SEVEN HEAVENS. And each particular one had certain particular characteristics. And Paradise - according to Jewish beliefs - was somewhere beyond the third heaven. Also, Jewish sects and schools of thought differed as to the heavenly cosmology.

Is this what Paul is referring to? Some scholars believe so, that Paul believed in seven heavens (a common prevailing Jewish belief).

But how is it that Jewish mysticism is true, and reveals all these neat little factoids about the universe and about heaven.... yet GOD'S Holy Word is silent about such things? God provided no details in His Word, yet some rabbinical mystics have discovered the truth? And Paul, writing to primarily GREEK GENTILE BELIEVERS, is now endorsing such things? Basically he would be telling them "Run to the rabbis, they got all the secrets even Moses and the Prophets couldn't reveal!"

Do we really want to go there?

And why is it that the New Testament, which supposedly provides much clearer detail about these things, simply mention them in passing with no details at all? Leaving the meat and potatoes to be found in the TALMUD and the ZOHAR?

Seriously?

OR... perhaps... Paul is referencing then current ideas and concepts WITHOUT ACTUALLY ENDORSING THEM?

What did Paul say about information imparted to someone from beyond?

Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. ..(1Co 14:29)

Inspired utterances (and by extension all supposed or claimed revelations from God) are to be JUDGED.

How? How are they to be judged if not by a prayerful Spirit-directed application of the WORD OF GOD to the claimed inspired utterance, revelation, vision, etc?

When Paul says "of such a one will I boast, but not of myself", is he endorsing the doctrinal correctness of the alleged revelations and visions? Is that a rational conclusion?

NO.

He is simply saying that when it comes to visions and revelations, he knows some brethren who have had amazing and astounding such experiences. Regarding the CONTENT AND MEANING of those experiences, he never involves himself. He says nothing whatsoever about the merit or usefulness or application of those experiences. He goes so far as to say he cannot tell whether those experiences were "with or without the body" (meaning with or apart from the body, ie whether the experiences involved direct sense perception (eyes and ears seeing and hearing things) or whether they did NOT involve actual sense perception but were directly communicated to the mind by a spiritual ecstasis). He has no stated opinion on what the church is to make of them. He goes into no detail. He provides no description of what was seen or heard. He literally just says something happened that qualifies as "visions and revelations".

Speaking of which...

When John has a VISION during a REVELATION and goes up to heaven and sees a four square city coming down to the earth with one gold street and twelve giant pearls for gates... is that actually what is literally up there? When he sees four beasts surrounding God's throne are there literally four creatures, one of which has a human head, one of which has an eagle's head, one of which has a cow's head, and one of which has a lion's head, like big pets or something in the heavenly throne room? Or are those spiritual truths being communicated by SYMBOLS through a series of VISIONS during a spiritual experience?

Did John physically leave Patmos and go to heaven and discover there is a literal lamb with seven horns and seven eyes that was walking around up there? Or was it a VISION in the SPIRIT?

Why would we assume the ones mentioned in passing in 2nd Corinthians ch 12 are qualitatively different?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Other than the text in question (2 Cor 12) there is NO mention in Scripture of any "third heaven". However, in Paul's day, Jews believed in SEVEN HEAVENS. And each particular one had certain particular characteristics. And Paradise - according to Jewish beliefs - was somewhere beyond the third heaven. Also, Jewish sects and schools of thought differed as to the heavenly cosmology.

Is this what Paul is referring to? Some scholars believe so, that Paul believed in seven heavens (a common prevailing Jewish belief).

There is an alternative interpretation, by the way, concerning this "third heaven". I am not saying I endorse it or believe it, but it is an alternative and it does NOT require some kabbalistic rabbis to understand, but derives entirely from the Scriptures.

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
(2Pe 3:5-7)

Here we have two heavens: the first which was part of the Antedeluvian world and which was destroyed during the Flood, and the second which is part of the world that currently (in Peter's day) exists.

This "second heaven" is according to Peter to be destroyed in Judgment. Which leaves the future heaven:

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
(Rev 21:1)

So this would be the third heaven. The three heavens then are the Pre-Flood heaven, the Current heaven, and the Future (eternal) heaven that comes after the Judgment. In this interpretation, the man who was "Caught up to the third heaven" was caught up in spirit to the FUTURE ETERNAL STATE to see visions of what awaits.

Now about "Paradise":

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.
(Rev 2:7)

The overcomers are promised access to Paradise. This access of course is available after the Judgment:

And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads. And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.
(Rev 22:1-5)

So the man caught up to Paradise was caught up in spirit in a vision and a revelation to the eschatological eternal Paradise.

In other words, Paul is referring to people having eschatological visions and revelations (much like John had on Patmos) of "the third heaven" and "Paradise", which means they were catching glimpses of the ETERNAL STATE after the Judgment.

Now, again, I am not saying this is the correct understanding of 2 Cor 12 and the visions and revelations being described. I am however saying this explanation is BETTER EXEGETICALLY than assuming Paul gave credence to Jewish mystical concepts and cosmologies. This approach relies ONLY on the Scripture for defining the terms and concepts elsewhere mentioned. So it has that going for it and as such is a superior explanation than the one offered by most commentaries on the subject.

I do also recognise there is a minor difficulty with Rev 21:1 and it's use of the term "first", but if we stay within the context of the narrative it would mean "first" refers not to the first in the abstract, but simply to the one before the one currently described. In other words, "the first heaven" is the heaven previously described in the visions, which would of course correspond to Peter's "the heavens ... which are now".

Of course that then raises the issue of why Peter speaks of the heavenS which are now and not simply the heaven (singular) which is now...

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

There is an alternative interpretation, by the way, concerning this "third heaven". I am not saying I endorse it or believe it,...

Now, again, I am not saying this is the correct understanding of 2 Cor 12 and the visions and revelations being described.

But the more I think about it, the more it starts to make sense...