• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

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

Are Heaven and Paradise the same?

Allan

Active Member
It, however, was not even a belief of the early church. It was a later added phrase to the Apostles Creed that was misunderstood. "He descended into hell", when it was added did not mean that Jesus went to the place of eternal torment but that He went to the grave.

You aren't listening Ann.
However I will add that it 'was' a view in the early church as the very words (hades and sheol) used meant just that not to mention we see it in the Ante-Nicene fathers writing such as Tertullian and others.
Hell (refer to hades/sheol) is the abode of the dead, gehennah is the place of torment and fire. Hell known in the Greek as Hades and the Hebrew as Sheol, is in general only a holding place until the Judgment. It is a place that, prior to Christ's resurrection, held both groups in different places and each place specific to their spiritual disposition. It is much the same as jail. People are placed there until their trial/judgment and from there they are either released or incarcerated. However with God the place in which those people were/are placed corrisponds to their spiritual disposition - ie. the garden a place in which man partakes of God's favor, or a place of fire in which man partakes of God wrath.

Here we see early 1st century belief of the Jews and early church Christian writers (from wiki - I'm at work and it what I have at present, here):
According to 1st century C.E. Jewish beliefs, the dead were gathered into a general tarrying-place, the sheol of the Old Testament, and the Hades of the New Testament writings (cf. Luke 16:22, in the Gr. 16:23). Here, the righteous occupied an abode or compartment of their own which was distinctly separated by a wall or a chasm from the abode or compartment to which the wicked were consigned. The latter was a place of torments usually spoken of as Gehenna (cf. Matthew 5:29-30; 18:9ff, Mark 9:42 sqq. in the Latin Vulgate)- the other, a place of bliss and security known under the names of "Paradise" (cf. Luke 23:43) or "the Bosom of Abraham" (Luke 16:22-23).

The happy part of the afterlife as portrayed in the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus fits this concept of the Bosom of Abraham.

In the 3rd century, Hippolytus of Rome referred to Abraham's bosom as the place in hades where the righteous await judgment day in delight.[1]

Augustine of Hippo likewise referred to the righteous dead as disembodied spirits blissfully awaiting Judgment Day in secret receptacles.[2]

Since the righteous dead are rewarded in the bosom of Abraham before Judgment Day, this belief represents a form of particular judgment
...
Tertullian, on the other hand, described the bosom of Abraham as that section of Hades in which the righteous dead await the day of the Lord
-^ Tertullian, A Treatise on the Soul, Chapter 7.
Here are the citiations for the two earlier church fathers mentioned:
^ Hippolytus of Rome, Against Plato, on the Cause of the Universe, §1. As to the state of the righteous, he writes, "And there the righteous from the beginning dwell, not ruled by necessity, but enjoying always the contemplation of the blessings which are in their view, and delighting themselves with the expectation of others ever new, and deeming those ever better than these. And that place brings no toils to them. There, there is neither fierce heat, nor cold, nor thorn; but the face of the fathers and the righteous is seen to be always smiling, as they wait for the rest and eternal revival in heaven which succeed this location. And we call it by the name Abraham's bosom." Ibid.

^ Augustine of Hippo, City of God, Book XII (his statement is found therein)
To name a few.

This also from the Jewish Encyclopedia:
In the New Testament and in Jewish writings a term signifying the abodeof bliss in the other world. According to IV Macc. xiii. 17, the righteous who die for their faith are received by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in paradise (compare Matt. viii. 11: "Many shall come from the east and the west and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven"). In Ḳid. 72b, Adda bar Ahaba, a rabbi of the third century, is said to be "sitting in the bosom of Abraham," which means that he has entered paradise. With this should be compared the statement of R. Levi (Gen. R. xlviii.): "In the world to come Abraham sits at the gate of Gehenna, permitting none to enter who bears the seal of the covenant" (see Circumcision).

In the Hellenistic Testament of Abraham it is Adam, the representative of humanity, who sits at the gate of hell and paradise; the Jewish view of later times placed Abraham, the progenitor of Israel, in Adam's place. This was also the view of the New Testament writers as presented in Luke, xvi. 19-31, the story of Lazarus and the rich man. Lazarus, the beggar, died and was carried by the angels into Abraham's Bosom; the rich man died and was put into Gehenna, where he saw Lazarus in the Bosom of Abraham, full of joy, whereas he suffered great torment. Thereat he cried: "Father Abraham, have mercy on me!" and finally he asked Abraham to send Lazarus to his father's house to admonish his five brothers to lead lives characterized by repentance, in order not to meet the same fate as his own. Whereupon Abraham said: "They have the law of Moses and the teachings of the prophets; let them be mindful of these, and they will enter paradise as well as Lazarus." On Lazarus (Eliezer) and Abraham see Geiger's "Jüdische Zeitschrift für Wissenschaft und Leben," vii. 200. It is plain that Abraham is here viewed as the warden of paradise, like Michael in Jewish and St. Peter in Christian folk-lore ("Texts and Studies," v. 55, 69, Cambridge). Of Abraham as attorney pleading for Israel, R. Jonathan also speaks (Shab. 89b). K.



Read more: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=362&letter=A#ixzz0Tbi2T1Qu




Notice with the Rich man in Luke 16, to whom did he cry out for mercy? God? No. Father Abraham. Abraham was never depicted as God in 'any' Jewish historical writings. However the rich man did appeal to Abraham through which the covenant was promised and thus he called to 'Father' Abraham. IOW- there must be some mistake, let Lazarus cool my tongue and we can talk. But again, who answers the Rich Man? God? No, but Abraham. Some try to state that Abrahams bosom means heaven, however it does not. It only references the fact that where Abraham was there were God's people, nothing more.

Now, here is another point;
Where else do we find Jesus in any other parable or other teaching calling God the Father - Abraham. You wont'.
Another point of interest is that Abraham says to the rich man - son. To whom does God call his sons? The elect alone correct?
Thus my point earlier is made more clear here as Abraham is 'acknowledging' that the rich man is one of his decendents (a Jew) but that does not help the rich man one iota.

Why do we not find the rich man calling out to God as both we and he knows God is the one who sent him there?
Because he knows he belongs there, as is evident when Abraham answers him, and he was hoping that Abraham would mediate his position based upon his blood status.

Therefore even if this were a parable (which I don't believe it is and it does not follow those rules) this is not speaking of two people speaking back and forth from heaven and firery hell, unless heaven is only within shouting distance of hell itself. Even the term 'far off' (apo makrothan) refers something that is not near him or away at a distance. The term chasm simply means a large space that one can not of their come across due to both distance and depth. IOW - it couldn't be jumped or climbed but it was not so far away that specific people could not be identified and spoken to.


For the believer, after Christ's resurrection, we are judged immediately. However unbelievers are not judged yet, but that judgment will take place at the Great White Throne Judgment after the 2nd coming of Christ Jesus.

No one has stated on here that Jesus went into torments but into hell spoken and identified as hades/sheol, and in accordace with the scripture Jesus did 'decend' and being in 'sheol' (the place of the dead and not the grave only) prophesy was fulfilled that God did not leave Him there. This portion alone is sufficient proof that Jesus decended because of just what sheol means, and that it was part of the prophesies Jesus was to fulfill. And again, sheol does not mean only the grave but refers to both the grave and the aboad of the dead simultaneously and the historical Jewish view of both was to 'decend' until judgment in which it would then 'ascend' to be before God.

This something that can not honestly be side tracked. Historically the Judistic view, as well as modern scholars understanding of the word, state the term shoel speaks simultaneously of both the grave and the spiritual abode of both the saved and unsaved, with emphasis toward the spiritual aspect. It can not, ever, be interpreted as only the grave. No credable Hebrew scholar can think of would say such. There were/are Hebrew words that already were being used in scripture to mean grave, tomb, etc. It is for this reason hades in the Greek is the apt counter part.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Allan

Active Member
What about Enoch and Elijah. Both are said to have been taken to heaven in bodily form.
Enoch was never said to have gone to heaven. Elijah it is presumed he went into the third heaven (and I'm not necessarily saying he didn't) but it can be argued that the phrase simply refers to going into the sky. However how can sinful 'flesh' appear before God and not be destroyed immediately? We know that they did not receive immortal bodies as of yet because Jesus is the first born of the dead.

You may ignore Ecclesiastes 12.7 and John Gill's interpretation if you choose but I believe that you are incorrect. In Ecclesiastes 3:21 we have a similar teaching:
If anyone is ignoring brother it seems to be you. Read those passages again in context and you will see they are refering (in both passages) to ALL men/mankind going before God for judgment and even Gill agrees with me , sort of :) - See:
Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward?[/b] &c.] There is indeed a difference between a man and a beast; though they have one breath, they have not one spirit or soul; man has a rational and immortal soul, which, when he dies, goes upwards to God that gave it; to be judged by him, and disposed of by him, in its proper apartment, until the day of the resurrection of the body;
I only differ with him in that all men immediately go to the Father to be judged and then consigned to their perspective places - till they can be judged? It is the this which makes no sense. All are brought before God for judgment, and is what the passage is refering to but we never read in scripture that man is judged twice, (once at his death and then again at the Great White Throne Judgment/resurrection of the body). Gill is wrong on this point because there is not two judgments.

Not only Gill but also Keil & Delitzsch agree with me that both of these are speaking of 'all' (saved and unsaved) men going before/ascending up to God for the purpose of judgment.

Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?
Note first that it is a question and second the context is refering to 'all' men.

John Gill comments on this passage as follows:

The Midrash interprets this of the souls of the righteous that go up to heaven, and of the souls of the wicked that go down to hell.[/i]
You DO know there are various forms of Midrashs?
One of the groups deals with the legal view and the other deals with the homiletical view, and of the forms of exegesis one refers to the literal or plain reading, one focuses on the what scripture is hinting at or alluding to, another speaks to its comparitive means, and the last one refers to the passages philosophical meanings.
Do you know which type of midrash interpretation it was of the passage that Gill is saying agrees with his view?

The plain reading of the text disagrees with him on this so you can discard that one immediately.

It is not clear to me from reading your posts, and those who agree with you, whether you believe that the body and soul of Jesus Christ went to the hell of Satan or not. That is Word of Faith doctrine which is heretical.
This statement is pure, unadulturated, bunk.
No one, not once, has even come remotely close to even equating our view with what the Word of Faith holds to, and what is worse you know it!

I believe that when Jesus Christ, the man, died that His body went into the grave and His soul went into the presence of God to await the resurrection of His body. When Jesus Christ told the thief on the cross that they would be together in Paradise that day He was speaking of their spiritual natures and He meant they would be in the presence of GOD.
That is 'one' valid interpretation.

I have yet to see anyone present Scripture to show that Paradise of GOD is not Heaven. I believe that is the question posed in the OP is it not.
It has been given but you will purposely remain blind to it no matter how mant scriptural passages,in context. are posted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Posted by OldRegular
It is not clear to me from reading your posts, and those who agree with you, whether you believe that the body and soul of Jesus Christ went to the hell of Satan or not. That is Word of Faith doctrine which is heretical.

This statement is pure, unadulturated, bunk.
No one, not once, has even come remotely close to even equating our view with what the Word of Faith holds to, and what is worse you know it!

Allan you have a serious problem with me. It is rare that you respond to anything I post without calling me a liar.

I would advise you to examine yourself.
 

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
you have 2 problems here.
1st. Sheol does not mean grave onlyand should never be interpreted as such. Sheol means place of the dead and refers to both where the body is and where the spirit resides - at the same time. To speak of one (using this word) was to speak simultaneously of the other with emphasis more toward the spirit. Sheol is never used to mean only the grave. When the term is used There are other Hebrew words that mean grave, tomb, etc, and are used frequently in scripture. Sheol historically was understood in like manner that hades was, and is why both are used to speak of the same place. Hades which was like (or similar to) sheol was a place where both the godly and the ungodly dwell though they were in seperate places or better the comparments in which they resided were divided.
I don't think that is the correct rendering of Sheol, and context dictates how the phrase is used, and it doesn't always include body and spirit... http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=sheol
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Getting back to the OP: Are Heaven and Paradise the same?

I noted in a recent post:
I have yet to see anyone present Scripture to show that Paradise of GOD is not Heaven.

Allan has kindly assured me that such Scripture has been presented.
It has been given but you will purposely remain blind to it no matter how mant scriptural passages,in context. are posted.

Perhaps I missed that post. I do not want to be ignorant of Scripture on anything so I would be very appreciative if whoever posted Scripture showing that Paradise and Heaven are not the same would be kind enough to do so again.
 

Allan

Active Member
Allan you have a serious problem with me. It is rare that you respond to anything I post without calling me a liar.

I would advise you to examine yourself.

I have absolutely no problem with you at all. I only have problems with many of the posts make, like the one I responded to. You know the two views are nothing alike.

Second, you are putting words into my mouth/post which I did not say. I never stated you are a 'liar'. That was 'your' word not mine.

I examined, and I am in a right relationship with my Father. Thank you for your concern though :thumbs:
 

Winman

Active Member
Let me ask Ann a question, she insists that Jesus had to go to heaven because he was in Paradise with the tree of life.

But where do we first hear of the tree of life?

On earth, in the garden of Eden.

Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, 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.
24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.


So let me ask those that cannot imagine Jesus going down into the heart of the earth for three days and taking those in Paradise with him when he ascended unto his Father, how did the tree of life get into heaven?

Rev 2:7 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 22:2 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.

There is only one tree of life, it is always spoken of as being singular.

When Adam and Eve sinned they were cast out of the garden, but there is no indication the garden was removed from earth, in fact, God set angels to guard it.

Now Jesus said he would be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights. He also told the thief that they would be in Paradise that very day. Paradise is where the tree of life is. So if Jesus did carry Paradise with him when he ascended to the Father, this explains how the tree of life is in heaven in Revelations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Winman

So I am incorrect when I believe that the location of the events described in Revelation 22 is the New Earth?
 

Winman

Active Member
Winman

So I am incorrect when I believe that the location of the events described in Revelation 22 is the New Earth?

No, you are correct, but that doesn't necessarily mean there will be a new tree of life. The tree of life is eternal. God said if Adam and Eve ate of the tree of life they would live forever. How could the tree bare eternal life if it was not eternal itself?

Rev 21:1 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.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.


Rev 21:10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

These verses describe the new Jerusalem coming down from God out of heaven. And following verses describe this city. And in Revelations 22 it tells us the tree of life is within this city.

Rev 22:1 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.
2 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
.

I see no reason to believe this is not the same tree of life that was in the garden of Eden. So somehow it was moved from earth in Genesis, to being in the new Jerusalem that comes down out of heaven.

Are you arguing that there will be a new tree of life? If so, I would like to see scriptures that support that.
 

Allan

Active Member
I don't think that is the correct rendering of Sheol, and context dictates how the phrase is used, and it doesn't always include body and spirit... http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=sheol
Actaully it does. The early early Jews understood as such as did the early church. We see from the writtings of the first century Jews as well that they understood it's meaning as such (which was during the time of Christ), even current Hebrew scholars understand it as such (men like A.T. Robertson).
So I'm not sure how it can be presumed to be anything else when the historical usage of the word is verified and consistant.

But don't take my word fot it, look at your own sourse :)
SHEOL [ISBE]
SHEOL - she'-ol (she'ol):
1. The Name

2. The Abode of the Dead

(1) Not a State of Unconsciousness

(2) Not Removed from God's Jurisdiction

(3) Relation to Immortality

3. Post-canonical Period

1. The Name:

This word is often translated in the King James Version "grave" (e.g. Gen 37:35; 1 Sam 2:6; Job 7:9; 14:13; Ps 6:5; 49:14; Isa 14:11, etc.) or "hell" (e.g. Dt 32:22; Ps 9:17; 18:5; Isa 14:9; Am 9:2, etc.); in 3 places by "pit" (Nu 16:30,33; Job 17:16). It means really the unseen world, the state or abode of the dead, and is the equivalent of the Greek Haides, by which word it is translated in Septuagint. The English Revisers have acted somewhat inconsistently in leaving "grave" or "pit" in the historical books and putting "Sheol" in the margin, while substituting "Sheol" in the poetical writings, and putting "grave" in the margin ("hell" is retained in Isa 14). Compare their "Preface." The American Revisers more properly use "Sheol" throughout. The etymology of the word is uncertain. A favorite derivation is from sha'al, "to ask" (compare Prov 1:12; 27:20; 30:15,16; Isa 5:14; Hab 2:5); others prefer the sha'al, "to be hollow." The Babylonians are said to have a similar word Sualu, though this is questioned by some.

....

See ESCHATOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

(3) Relation to Immortality.

To apprehend fully the Old Testament conception of Sheol one must view it in its relation to the idea of death as something unnatural and abnormal for man; a result of sin. The believer's hope for the future, so far as this had place, was not prolonged existence in Sheol, but deliverance from it and restoration to new life in God's presence (Job 14:13-15; 19:25-27; Ps 16:10,11; 17:15; 49:15; 73:24-26; see IMMORTALITY; ESCHATOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT; RESURRECTION). Dr. Charles probably goes too far in thinking of Sheol in Psalms 49 and 73 as "the future abode of the wicked only; heaven as that of the righteous" (op. cit., 74); but different destinies are clearly indicated.

3. Post-canonical Period:

There is no doubt, at all events, that in the postcanonical Jewish literature (the Apocrypha and apocalyptic writings) a very considerable development is manifest in the idea of Sheol. Distinction between good and bad in Israel is emphasized; Sheol becomes for certain classes an intermediate state between death and resurrection; for the wicked and for Gentiles it is nearly a synonym for Gehenna (hell). For the various views, with relevant literature on the whole subject, see ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT; also DEATH; HADES; HELL, etc.
There is more in your sourse but this just epitomizes what I have been saying.


Remember there are Hebrew words, used frequently in scripture, to mean the grave, and tomb, etc.. The word sheol has an historical meaning that is acknowledged by scholars and have given you evidence of it. It does mean the grave but not ONLY the grave as it's emphasis is toward the spiritual and thus both are inferred simultaneously but never meaning one without the other. It is of interest to note that David's Psalm chapter 16:10 is not tranlated as grave but as hell/sheol or the spiritual 'abode of the dead'.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
There is only one tree of life, it is always spoken of as being singular.

When Adam and Eve sinned they were cast out of the garden, but there is no indication the garden was removed from earth, in fact, God set angels to guard it.
Have you never heard of the world-wide flood which destroyed "the old world"? God promised that he would never destroy the world again in such a manner and gave us a rainbow as a sign of that promise.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by OldRegular
Winman

So I am incorrect when I believe that the location of the events described in Revelation 22 is the New Earth?

Are you arguing that there will be a new tree of life? If so, I would like to see scriptures that support that.

All I did was ask a question. I am in the learning mode today.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Have you never heard of the world-wide flood which destroyed "the old world"? God promised that he would never destroy the world again in such a manner and gave us a rainbow as a sign of that promise.

A point well worth considering DHK!
 

Winman

Active Member
Have you never heard of the world-wide flood which destroyed "the old world"? God promised that he would never destroy the world again in such a manner and gave us a rainbow as a sign of that promise.

Yes, and perhaps that is how the tree of life came to be in the heart of the earth, Paradise where Jesus told the thief he would be that day. The scriptures say the fountains of the deep were broken up. It was not simply a rainstorm, there were gigantic earthquakes and the ground was broken up in Noah's flood.

Matt 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

I do not think the argument that Jesus was speaking of his body in the grave holds up. Jesus was actually buried at ground level with a stone rolled in front of his sepulchre.

Matt 27:59 And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,
60 And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.
61 And there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre.


Notice that the two Mary's sat over against the sepulchre. So I hardly think this qualifies as being in the heart of the earth. And Ephesians says he descended to the "lower parts" of the earth.

Eph 4:9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?

So, I hardly believe a grave at ground level could be considered the lower parts of the earth.

But Jesus also said he would be in Paradise that day.

Luke 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

But David and Peter showed that the Lord's soul would be in hell, which Allan showed means the place of the departed dead.

Acts 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

Now, I don't know how you get around this verse, because David and Peter both spoke of the Lord's "soul", not his body. His soul went down to hell.

So, if Paradise were in the heart of the earth you have no contradiction. This is where Jesus and the thief went, and the tree of life would be there.

But to teach that Jesus's soul went straight to heaven when he died on the cross does contradict scripture, because the scriptures say his soul was in hell.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
I made the following request in an earlier post. Perhaps the one providing the Scripture Allan assured me had been posted has not yet read this post considering it is a weekend but I don't mind repeating it.

Request by OldRegular

Getting back to the OP: Are Heaven and Paradise the same?

I noted in a recent post:
I have yet to see anyone present Scripture to show that Paradise of GOD is not Heaven.
Allan has kindly assured me that such Scripture has been presented.
Originally Posted by Allan
It has been given but you will purposely remain blind to it no matter how mant scriptural passages,in context. are posted.
Perhaps I missed that post. I do not want to be ignorant of Scripture on anything so I would be very appreciative if whoever posted Scripture showing that Paradise and Heaven are not the same would be kind enough to do so again.
 

Allan

Active Member
I made the following request in an earlier post. Perhaps the one providing the Scripture Allan assured me had been posted has not yet read this post considering it is a weekend but I don't mind repeating it.

It's not hard, go back and read the thread.
Click on page #1 or 'last' and start from there :thumbs:

Hope that helps. :type:
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Yes, and perhaps that is how the tree of life came to be in the heart of the earth, Paradise where Jesus told the thief he would be that day. The scriptures say the fountains of the deep were broken up. It was not simply a rainstorm, there were gigantic earthquakes and the ground was broken up in Noah's flood.
The tree of life was as physical as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It was destroyed by the flood. So was the garden of Eden. They are not around any longer. Don't worry about looking for them. It is just a pipe dream.

Who said the tree of life was in the heart of the earth? Can you back that up with Scripture? It sounds like something Benny Hinn would say. :rolleyes:
But Jesus also said he would be in Paradise that day.

Luke 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
And he was wasn't he?
But David and Peter showed that the Lord's soul would be in hell, which Allan showed means the place of the departed dead.
That is right. That is why Lazarus, in Abraham's bosom was in heart of the earth and paradise at the same time. It was one place divided into two compartments. In the OT it was known as sheol. The wicked went into the place called hell and the saved went into paradise, the other part--so aptly described for us in Luke 16:19-31.
Acts 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
Now, I don't know how you get around this verse, because David and Peter both spoke of the Lord's "soul", not his body. His soul went down to hell.
His soul was not LEFT in hell, meaning it did go there. That was that part of hell (sheol) that was known as paradise.
It then says that his flesh did not see corruption. And it did not. His body was in the grave for three days and three nights and then arose from the dead, as the Scriptures say. When we speak of the resurrection we always refer to the body. He bodily rose again from the dead--the third day. Obviously his body never went to hell.
So, if Paradise were in the heart of the earth you have no contradiction. This is where Jesus and the thief went, and the tree of life would be there.
Where do you get this imaginary tree of life thing from? Not from the Bible! The tree of life was destroyed by the flood. The next time we hear of it is at the end of the Bible, in the Book of Revelation. There, paradise is no more. It is heaven, the New Jerusalem, and the Kingdom that are spoken of; but not paradise.
But to teach that Jesus's soul went straight to heaven when he died on the cross does contradict scripture, because the scriptures say his soul was in hell.
The hell means paradise. Sheol had two compartments: hell and paradise. Study Luke 16
 

Winman

Active Member
Who said the tree of life was in the heart of the earth? Can you back that up with Scripture? It sounds like something Benny Hinn would say

I don't know for certain that the tree of life was in the heart of the earth. But we do know that the tree of life was in the midst of the garden of Eden in Genesis. We see the tree of life again in the midst of paradise in Revelations. I think it is notable that in both cases it is told that the tree was in the "midst" of both the garden of Eden and paradise in new Jerusalem. So it sounds like both accounts are describing the same tree.

And then we see Jesus tell the thief they would be in paradise that day. I believe when Jesus went down to paradise that he led captivity captive and ascended to heaven. So, to me it seems possible that he took everything in paradise with him. Though paradise was inhabited by the souls of the dead saved, this in no way means paradise itself was not a real physical place.

And to me, the scriptures suggest there is only one tree of life. And I believe it is an eternal tree because it's fruit gives eternal life.

And we don't know for certain if the tree of life was destroyed in the flood. Yes, all animal and human life died, but obviously some plant life survived as when Noah sent out the dove it returned with an olive leaf.

Gen 8:11 And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.

I wouldn't be dogmatic about this, but perhaps when the fountains of the deep were broken up during Noah's flood that Eden fell down into the heart of the earth intact. I know that sounds fantastic, but with God nothing is impossible. Fossilized trees have been found deep in rock many times.

TreeCoalLayers.jpg


Finds like this are strong evidence that Noah's flood occured as the scriptures say. It was not just a rainstorm, the very earth was broken up, the ground was turned over, plant life was buried deep in the earth along with many animals.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top