So... where is heaven?

[Greektim]

Would tend to see in as distinct outside/apart fromt the universe, beyonfd"normal time and space" realm of God, where no time exists , just God presense , and His creation where angels and the redeemed shal spend Eternity in....

The concept of sacred space is one that baffles me. Honestly, too much neo-platonic talk is thrown into the mix, as some posters speaking of a different ontological realities have demonstrated. But I tend to think that many, especially the fundamentalists, are steered in their theology unwittingly by neo-platonic philosophy and western post-enlightment rationalization (i.e. unacademic modernity).

I have heard it explained many different ways, and they all leave me scratching my head. For example, when Jesus supermaned himself to heaven in Acts 1, did he reach a point where scotty beamed him up out of our reality and into heaven? Or is heaven part of our reality but in an overlapping dimension so as able to connect w/ our world but not be seen by it? Or... this could go on for a while. There are as many views as there are people talking about it.

Fact is, the Bible doesn't place much emphasis on heaven because IT IS NOT THE POINT OF THE STORY OR THE GOAL OF GOD!!! God doesn't intend to stay in heaven. From the garden, to the tabernacle, to the temple, to Jesus, to the Spirit in the church; God's goal is to dwell with humans in creation, not humans to dwell with God in his abode. This is another reason why I don't like rapture theology. It flows against the grain of the biblical story line of God seeking to live w/ his creation. If you just look at the book ends of the canon, God started w/ dwelling w/ humanity in creation and ends w/ dwelling w/ humanity in new creation. End of story.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

You can talk all you want, but you still haven't cited a place that says first or second heaven.

Like the mention of "the third heaven" doesn't implicitly indicate the concept of the first and second? You're kidding right.

The 3 stage concept comes from their understanding of the temple.

I'd like to see where you get that idea. Post a link. IF you can find one, that is.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

In simplest terms

"Heaven" is 'in God's presence'.

From what I read, it is a physical place. There is a building from which the Jerusalem Temple was copied, which houses (for lack of a better term) God's throne and receiving room. Job believed that after his (Job's) death, Job would see God with his (Job's) own eyes. Jesus, following His crucifixion appeared in a physical body. So I'm pretty sure Heaven is a physical place.

And, I'm just as sure it is not accessible from this Universe in any physical fashion. In any fashion we can imagine.

However, I don't think it is quite as simple as that. As mentioned, there will be a 'new Heaven and a new Earth' - although that last mentioned 'new Heaven' may be the current Heavens in conjunction with the current Earth - rebuilt, new and improved. (Or may not.) Jesus told a parable where Lazarus was in "Abraham's bosom" and then later assured the thief on the cross the thief would be with Jesus in 'Paradise".

Abraham's Bosom is mentioned no where else in the Bible, Old or New. But I think all the Jews listening to the parable instantly knew it was a 'good place' to be.

Paradise is mentioned twice other than the Crucifixion; once when Paul speaks of the 'third Heaven' and again in Revelation as the location of the tree of life; this last is designated as the Paradise of God. One presumes the thief on the cross and most of us consider this 'paradise' also as a 'good place' to be.

I don't think trying to make distinctions about all these names is very rewarding. We have an Eternal home waiting for us. I don't think I'm going to have a nicer place when I get there if I break the code, nor a worse one if I don't.

Van mentioned the seeming contradiction between Jesus saying "No one has ascended to heaven..." in John 3:13 and the exit of Enoch. Jesus is saying "No human has traveled to heaven on his own power." Enoch didn't 'ascend', he was taken.

One other thought about heaven, Abraham's Bosom, paradise and so forth. When we leave this life, we are not in the year we died anymore. We will be in Eternity. Anyone know what year it is in Eternity?

 

[Van]

Paradise and the third heaven are the same place, the spiritual abode of God. Before Christ, no one, on his own power, or conveyed by angels or any other entity ascended to heaven. Not Enoch, not Elijah. They went to Abraham's bosom, which is not part of or in the third heaven/Paradise.

Adding to scripture to reverse its meaning is done all the time by folks unwilling to submit to scripture. For example scripture says "no one has ascended to heaven" and since that does not it with my "instantaneous" view of God's actions, I say it really means, no one has ascended to heaven except instantaneously. Thus by adding to scripture, I reverse what it plainly says.

Time exists in the spiritual realm of God. Recall the saints asking how long must they wait, Revelation 6:10.

 

[Greektim]

Like the mention of "the third heaven" doesn't implicitly indicate the concept of the first and second? You're kidding right.

I'd like to see where you get that idea. Post a link. IF you can find one, that is.

I am absolutely not kidding. Remember, you are not an ancient near easterner where things are not so analytical. The only reason he calls it the 3rd heaven is b/c the inner sanctum (holy of holies) was the 3rd stage of the temple. And heaven, the abode of God, was thought of as the true temple to which the earthly ones are patterned after. Therefore, the adjective "3rd" is only mentioned in that regard.

As for sources of this idea, you can start w/ a great (but dense) book by G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church's Mission. Here is from a journal article from Beale that is a condensed version of his book; Beale, "EDEN, THE TEMPLE, AND THE CHURCH'S MISSION IN THE NEW CREATION," JETS 48 no 1 (March 2005), pp 5--31:

Israel's temple was a miniature model of God's huge cosmic temple that was to dominate the heavens and earth at the end of time. That is, the temple was a symbolic model pointing to, not merely the present cosmos, but also the new heavens and earth that would be perfectly filled with God's presence. That it was a miniature symbolic model of the coming temple that would fill heavens and earth is evident from the following features of the temple: the temple was divided into three sections—the Holy of Holies, the Holy Place, and the outer courtyard.

He goes on to explain that the model of the temple worked itself out in the cosmos as the first stage being earth and sea (think first heaven I guess), the second stage is the "visible heavens which are still separated from the earth...". Read the article for his biblical arguments, very convincing. If that is the case, then there is not a distinction of the first and second heavens as you have been arguing. The first stage is where the people dwell. The passages you cited which mention the heavens as the sky can just as easily be understood as some version of the 2nd heaven along w/ space and interstellar stuff.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

As for sources of this idea, you can start w/ a great (but dense) book by G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church's Mission. Here is from a journal article from Beale that is a condensed version of his book; Beale, "EDEN, THE TEMPLE, AND THE CHURCH'S MISSION IN THE NEW CREATION," JETS 48 no 1 (March 2005), pp 5--31:

As it happens, I've read Beale, and while he makes great and thorough effort at explaining the meaning of the Temple, both temporal and eternal, he never suggests, here or from any other writings that I can remember, that the Jewish people held to a concept of heaven based on the Temple. Even here, Beale states that the Earthly Temples, past and future, are models of the heavenly Temple, not of heaven.

That it was a miniature symbolic model of the coming temple that would fill heavens and earth is evident from the following features of the temple: the temple was divided into three sections—the Holy of Holies, the Holy Place, and the outer courtyard. [Note: emphasis added to your quote of Beale.]

He goes on to explain that the model of the temple worked itself out in the cosmos as the first stage being earth and sea (think first heaven I guess), the second stage is the "visible heavens which are still separated from the earth...". Read the article for his biblical arguments, very convincing. If that is the case, then there is not a distinction of the first and second heavens as you have been arguing.

Actually, it is inescapable from the verbiage of the passages I quoted yesterday that they did, indeed, see those divisions, and Paul, being a scholar under Gamaliel's tutelage, a Pharisee and a Benjamite, was writing indicatively of that "three heaven" view simply by identifying his spiritual journey as being to the "third heaven."

The first stage is where the people dwell. The passages you cited which mention the heavens as the sky can just as easily be understood as some version of the 2nd heaven along w/ space and interstellar stuff.

I would disagree with that completely, given the nature of the subject matter of those individual verses. Also, to another point in Beale's writings that is somewhat germane to the subject and calls into question many of his other conclusions -- though I do think he has done an excellent job of breaking down the symbolism of the Earthly Temples. I believe Beale makes a major mistake in claiming that the Jews believed God's presence on Earth was limited to His abiding in the Holy of Holies. They did not believe that at all. They saw Him as omnipresent. They believed, however, that His presence in the Holy of Holies was a more intense presence that affirmed the nation's chosenness among nations.

 

[percho]

The concept of sacred space is one that baffles me. Honestly, too much neo-platonic talk is thrown into the mix, as some posters speaking of a different ontological realities have demonstrated. But I tend to think that many, especially the fundamentalists, are steered in their theology unwittingly by neo-platonic philosophy and western post-enlightment rationalization (i.e. unacademic modernity).

I have heard it explained many different ways, and they all leave me scratching my head. For example, when Jesus supermaned himself to heaven in Acts 1, did he reach a point where scotty beamed him up out of our reality and into heaven? Or is heaven part of our reality but in an overlapping dimension so as able to connect w/ our world but not be seen by it? Or... this could go on for a while. There are as many views as there are people talking about it.

Fact is, the Bible doesn't place much emphasis on heaven because IT IS NOT THE POINT OF THE STORY OR THE GOAL OF GOD!!! God doesn't intend to stay in heaven. From the garden, to the tabernacle, to the temple, to Jesus, to the Spirit in the church; God's goal is to dwell with humans in creation, not humans to dwell with God in his abode. This is another reason why I don't like rapture theology. It flows against the grain of the biblical story line of God seeking to live w/ his creation. If you just look at the book ends of the canon, God started w/ dwelling w/ humanity in creation and ends w/ dwelling w/ humanity in new creation. End of story.

Well put. Revelation doesn't end with men leaving earth and going to heaven but something coming down out of heaven to the earth which can then be entered and departed from.

BTW there also is a reason God send his Son as the Son of Man, the Son of God and it is relative to men and God dwelling with them.

 

[Greektim]

As it happens, I've read Beale, and while he makes great and thorough effort at explaining the meaning of the Temple, both temporal and eternal, he never suggests, here or from any other writings that I can remember, that the Jewish people held to a concept of heaven based on the Temple. Even here, Beale states that the Earthly Temples, past and future, are models of the heavenly Temple, not of heaven.

Actually, it is inescapable from the verbiage of the passages I quoted yesterday that they did, indeed, see those divisions, and Paul, being a scholar under Gamaliel's tutelage, a Pharisee and a Benjamite, was writing indicatively of that "three heaven" view simply by identifying his spiritual journey as being to the "third heaven."I would disagree with that completely, given the nature of the subject matter of those individual verses. Also, to another point in Beale's writings that is somewhat germane to the subject and calls into question many of his other conclusions -- though I do think he has done an excellent job of breaking down the symbolism of the Earthly Temples. I believe Beale makes a major mistake in claiming that the Jews believed God's presence on Earth was limited to His abiding in the Holy of Holies. They did not believe that at all. They saw Him as omnipresent. They believed, however, that His presence in the Holy of Holies was a more intense presence that affirmed the nation's chosenness among nations.

We could go on and on about this. Even your last statement about the ancient Jews believing in omnipresence is untrue but simply neo-platonic philosphy invading your theology. At this point though, neither of us it seems is bending. You seem to be having a hard time grasping what I am saying, especially about the western analytical aspect that you can't escape. But this isn't really profitable.

But alas, this isn't really about the OP and "where" heaven is located anyways. So I'm done, said my peace, spoken of the true emphasis which is NOT heaven. I wish Christians would drop it almost completely. Even today, I had 7th graders asking whether the exodus generation went to heaven or hell. I had to correct them that the Bible isn't answer that question. So stop asking it.

 

[Van]

We certainly share the concern about adding to scripture through speculation, and answering questions that are not answered. However, we do know that the Exodus generation, and all believers who died before Christ, did not go directly to heaven, John 3:13. And we know those that died in unbelief, went to Hades, John 3:18.

Telling people not to ask questions, and investigate scripture for the answer seems off the mark.

The third heaven, Paradise, is the spiritual abode of God, and those that believe, as determined by God, go to that abode and are present with the Lord.

 

[Greektim]

We certainly share the concern about adding to scripture through speculation, and answering questions that are not answered. However, we do know that the Exodus generation, and all believers who died before Christ, did not go directly to heaven, John 3:13. And we know those that died in unbelief, went to Hades, John 3:18.

Telling people not to ask questions, and investigate scripture for the answer seems off the mark.

The third heaven, Paradise, is the spiritual abode of God, and those that believe, as determined by God, go to that abode and are present with the Lord.

My point is to steer them to ask the right questions. So it is the opposite of "telling people not to ask questions,[sic.] and investigate scripture for the answer". I want honest inquiry. And that happens when people learn to stop asking the wrong questions and learn to ask the right ones.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Tim...

My point is to steer them to ask the right questions. So it is the opposite of "telling people not to ask questions,[sic.] and investigate scripture for the answer". I want honest inquiry. And that happens when people learn to stop asking the wrong questions and learn to ask the right ones.

To be honest, I usually find you a bit 'goofy'. But I'll pitch in with you on this concept. (Read my signature line.)

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

The definitive answer:

The City of Madison, Wisconsin put this sign up during road reconstruction near James Madison Park, which is the location of a now-government preserved synagogue named "The Gates of Heaven," a couple years ago. The clear message: To get to the "gates of heaven" you've got to do an about face from wherever you're at in life.

:laugh: