Board index ‹ Heaven and Hell

[1.62]

The traditional concept of heaven has four main features: 1) a place above earth, 2) where god lives, 3) where Jesus came from and is now, and 4) where the blessed will live forever. How do Christians simultaneously reconcile these are facts with a timeless, space-less, immaterial God? For example; 1) Heaven is a place, 2) only what is physical is located in a place, 3) God is not physical, 4) So God is not located in a place, 5) So God is not located in heaven.

[jimwalton]

The ancients (Old Testament) perceived heaven as a physical kingdom sitting atop a solid dome that was the sky. They were free to view heaven that way, because their point was not so much the structure of heaven as it was the sovereignty of God. Obviously, we know that the atmosphere is not solid, and heaven is not a physical entity sitting on it, so we understand that their views were partial. The ancients' understanding of the afterword was extremely limited, and for good reason.

Jesus opened the windows of understanding a little more, and the book of Revelation even more (though there are things in Ezekiel that are very similar to things in Revelation). Now we've learned that heaven is not a physical place, and yet it exists in reality somehow, not as matter, and yet real. I know that sounds like gobblely-gook, but Jesus' resurrected body shows us a glimpse of what that means, even though we have a very limited understanding of his resurrected body. It was real (people could touch it; he could eat), but he could also walk through solid things in our world as if they were mere shadows. While God is truly immaterial, as you say, the afterlife for us has some kind of materiality to it. So heaven has a type of materiality for us, but God's presence is there obviously, but immaterially. In Rev. 4, the throne of God is described in fantastical terms, but there is no physical being of God on that throne. Other creatures and believers are there with a material type of presence, and so heaven is described as a "material" place, but God is not described as having a material presence there.

[1.62]

I'm trying to understand how a Christian is at ease with biblical claims that appear nonsensical. Of course Jesus talked about the Kingdom of Heaven as a metaphysical place but the bible also describes it as a physical place. A place where the stars are and will fall from; it has a tabernacle; it has door ways; it stages wars; it is the "location" of God and now Jesus; it houses treasures, treasure will be distributed from there and people store their treasure there.

Talking about Jesus' resurrected body brings to question the Saints bodies that were resurrected. Let's look at this closely. (Matt. 27:50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. 51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.) There is some "gobblely-gook" going on here with these resurrected bodies. The graves were opened, the saints "arose". They (a corpuscular re-assemblage of dust in the dirt into resurrected bodies) wait in their dirt filled graves or inside their tombs for a day and a half. They remain there through sun up Saturday, all night Saturday night and then on Sunday after Jesus' body is resurrected they go to town to be seen. Picture that, all those saints milling about in their opened graves and tombs for a day and a half and no one notices. There's been an earthquake, rocks were uplifted, tons of soil displaced, people pacing back and forth inside these open tombs and holes and no body notices. Then there is problem of Jesus resurrected body that walks through walls. Jesus ate and drank, how does that pass through the walls?

Also I still see the same contradiction(s) originally presented. You are describing a quasi-physical place, heaven, equipped with a quasi-material throne for a spirit (God) that doesn't sit. Also since God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost are One, there is the touchable physical body of Jesus and some saints (I don't have any idea what they're made of) and some patriarchs of the OT. Heaven does, or at least did, have real and physical, bread, and stones that God threw down from heaven. For me all the assumptions, apologetics and mental gymnastics that one has to string together only leads me toward parsimony and the simplest answer.

[jimwalton]

Thanks. Glad to try to explain.

Exhibit #1: We all know from physics class that there are some things that have more than one property, viz., light. It can be perceived as a wave, and it acts like a wave, but it can also be perceived as particles, and it acts like particles. So which is? It is yet to be resolved.

Exhibit #2: The stuff of fairy tales. Scientists have discovered that sub-atomic particles, at a quantum level, "don't have one fixed location" and are able to pass through barriers as if they weren't even there. (http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/06/ ... -barriers/)

Exhibit #3: Dark matter. Stuff that is there but isn't there. It accounts for most of the universe, but it's still hypothetical and has never been directly detected. It is hypothesized because of discrepancies.

Given the nature of these scientific observations, the teachings of the Bible are in good company. Heaven has some properties of being a physical place, but a different kind of physical place than the stuff of earth. Wave or particle?

Resurrected bodies of Matthew 27. If we grant the existence of God (which I don't know if you do or not), who has power over matter (which he created), there is nothing to cause us to doubt the possibility of what we read here. But you have some of the facts wrong. They appear at Jesus' death. There no assemblage and waiting around for a day and a half. When Jesus died, the text says there was a physical resurrection of some dead people (we don't know how many), who walked around the city for (we don't know short or long) a period of time on that day. Nor does the text say that nobody notices. Then they were gone, as far as we know. How possible is this? For those who believe Jesus rose from the dead, it's a no-brainer than he can also raise others. That's Paul's exact point in 1 Cor. 15.

Jesus' resurrected body? If passing through solid objects is possible by subatomic particles at the quantum level, then the story of Jesus doing is becomes believable. If realities can pass through other realities given certain conditions, then it's not so nonsensical.

> Also I still see the same contradiction(s) originally presented.

There aren't any contradictions at all. We know there are different kinds of existence. The thoughts in my head exist in a very different way than the chair I'm sitting on, and yet they both truly exist. My memories exist in a very real way, but those are different too. Gravity exists, and it can even be measured, but its existence is different from the tree outside my window. Then there's always time. Time surely exists, but what a quasi-kind of thing that is. It's constant, but relative. And of course I've already mentioned light. You don't consider any of these things to be contradictions, but the exact same ideas in a religious context are nonsense to you. There are different kinds of reality, and different ways that things can exist. You admit that, but won't admit them in religious thought, which to me betrays a bias in you. The simplest answer is that if such things are possible in our physical world, then they are possible, period. And there's so much more we don't even understand, even about our physical world, not to mention the possibilities and characteristics of a super-physical one.

I'm glad you've been willing to share your thoughts and pursue this conversation with me a little further. I hope that my explanations have helped.

[1.62]

Thank you for your time and response! I have some counter points:
> "Exhibit #1: We all know from physics class that there are some things that have more than one property, viz., light. It can be perceived as a wave, and it acts like a wave, but it can also be perceived as particles, and it acts like particles. So which is? It is yet to be resolved."

The wave/particle duality is a concept, a Model that is used to describe the quantum world. Similarly a map of the world is a graphic model of the geography of our planet. Theories on quantum electrodynamics (QED) are continuously being refined. And, while the wave/particle duality might seem “unresolved”, i.e., it’s got to be a particle or a wave it can’t be both, physicists would say this is the wrong way to think about photons. These models from QED do not themselves provide support for a hypothesis of some sort of non-material, material.

> "Exhibit #2: The stuff of fairy tales. Scientists have discovered that sub-atomic particles, at a quantum level, "don't have one fixed location" and are able to pass through barriers as if they weren't even there. (http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/06/ ... -barriers/)"

Jesus passing through walls is not impossible. This is sufficiently proven because there are physics experiments that have used a phenomenon known as “interaction-shifted tunneling resonance” in which high energy particles passed through a lattes of super cooled cesium up to 5 atoms thick. If I have represented your position correctly then I don’t agree.

> "Exhibit #3: Dark matter. Stuff that is there but isn't there. It accounts for most of the universe, but it's still hypothetical and has never been directly detected. It is hypothesized because of discrepancies."

This is not quite correct either. Scientists “infer” the existence of dark matter because it seems to exert gravitational effects on normal, visible matter. It was hypothesized in order to account for the discrepancies between the calculations of the mass of galaxies. Dark matter can’t be directly observed because it doesn’t absorb or emit light, hence its name.

> "Given the nature of these scientific observations, the teachings of the Bible are in good company. Heaven has some properties of being a physical place, but a different kind of physical place than the stuff of earth. Wave or particle?"

Unfortunately all you’ve given is a heaven (god) of the gaps argument.

> "Resurrected bodies of Matthew 27. If we grant the existence of God (which I don't know if you do or not), who has power over matter (which he created), there is nothing to cause us to doubt the possibility of what we read here. But you have some of the facts wrong. They appear at Jesus' death. There no assemblage and waiting around for a day and a half. When Jesus died, the text says there was a physical resurrection of some dead people (we don't know how many), who walked around the city for (we don't know short or long) a period of time on that day. Nor does the text say that nobody notices. Then they were gone, as far as we know. How possible is this? For those who believe Jesus rose from the dead, it's a no-brainer than he can also raise others. That's Paul's exact point in 1 Cor. 15.

None of us should without substantial and compelling evidence just grant “the existence of God”. There have been many Gods in the past and there are many Gods today. I don’t know what God can and can’t do and from what I gather neither can anyone else.

Next: When Jesus died the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose. And came out of the graves ”after his resurrection”, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. I suppose one can read it both ways. The saints could have been awoken the same day as Jesus resurrected but another point was that nobody noticing these saints returning to Jerusalem. My point was that if many people came back to life and were seen by many people, it must have created quite a stir (even if the corpses were in pretty good shape!). Yet Matthew seems to be the only person aware of this happening. No historians of that time or later reported anything of this, neither do the other gospel writers. This was maybe the greatest miracles of Jesus’ time.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for a good discussion. My point in raising the science examples is to show (1) There is a lot we don't know about the nature and behavior of matter. We are learning more all the time. The conceptual nature of heaven being an otherworldly place that occupies space but is not matter the way we conceive it is not a difficult stretch. The more we learn in science, and particularly the radical places Quantum mechanics is forcing our brains to go (with its totally new understanding of reality), the more we can conceive with intellectual integrity the possibilities about heaven. The quantum picture accepts that there are some boundaries beyond which our reproducible knowledge fails in principle (not just for technical reasons). Science is caught in quite a pickle here, for instance, general relativity and quantum mechanics. Both are highly confirmed and enormously impressive; unfortunately, they can’t both be correct. My point is that even the definition of reality is up for grabs at this point. We are remiss to too easily dismiss concepts of heaven.

But you are falsely accusing me of arguing the God of the Gaps. I am not proposing that incomplete scientific knowledge is evidence or proof of God's existence, but instead that what we do know about science show cause us to hesitate before pronouncing judgment on theological concepts.

> None of us should without substantial and compelling evidence just grant "the existence of God".

I agree 100%. Absolutely agree with you. I find the evidence for the existence of God both substantial and compelling. I don't accept God merely a priori but on the basis of rational argument, natural evidence, and the credible testimony of reliable people.

> And came out of the graves ”after his resurrection”, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. I suppose one can read it both ways.

I agree with you that one would think such an event would cause quite a stir. It's not necessarily so that "Matthew seems to be the only person aware of this happening," but he is the only one to have recorded it. There's a difference. Woodward and Bernstein were the only ones reporting Nixon's complicity in the Watergate scandal, but that doesn't make their report fictional, as anyone can easily reason. Now, granted, there was a significant cover-up going on in that situation, where the wandering saints was a public event, but the point is the same: Singular reporting doesn't mean it's fictional material. We come back to all of the miracles connected with the life of Jesus. If there is a God, and if Jesus is God, such things are honestly possible. Paul's point in 1 Corinthians 15 is that if Jesus truly came back from the dead, it's a pretty easy step to the possibility of others coming back from the dead also.

[1.62]

Thanks for your reply. This has been a great conversation. I've been giving your comments some thought. I selected what I thought were some of your key points. I am not trying to take them out of context, but my replies are generally focused on areas where I could pinpoint that our differences lie and explain why I think they are significant.

> "The conceptual nature of heaven being an otherworldly place that occupies space but is not matter the way we conceive it is not a difficult stretch."

The path to understanding nature and the universe comes to us thru the discipline of the scientific method. The path leading to a better understanding of heaven is growing narrower by the day. Today, one is left with the tools of imagination as the primary means for discovering the heavenly path. One's imagination is sharpened through a deeper understanding of the fundamental forces of nature, therefore, one's imagination is refined primarily by virtue of an ever expanding list of things and methods ruled out by scientific methods and discovery. Since the discovery of the Higgs boson, the Standard Model is for all practical purposes complete and anything that can occur in the universe now, through understanding the Standard Model, can effectively be explained. This is not saying we know everything—far from it. But we now have at least the basic (and complete) explanatory AND predictive power using the Standard Model.

> My point is that even the definition of reality is up for grabs at this point. We are remiss to too easily dismiss >concepts of heaven.

As stated above reality is better described today than ever. According to the Standard Model, there may be some tiny quantum dimension world yet discovered where some event takes place but anything happening in that realm cannot have or produce an effect in our world.

> "Now, granted, there was a significant cover-up going on in that situation, where the wandering saints was a public >event, but the point is the same: Singular reporting doesn't mean it's fictional material.

I whole heartedly agree that single reporting doesn’t mean it IS fictional. But in my 25 years of studying the biblical origins, comparative religions, Greco-Roman history, and more, it is more than likely that all the Gospel writers are anonymous and the books as we read them today have been heavily edited. There are historical facts that support this. How could I fairly grant non-fiction status to this single report, found in a collection of manuscripts 1700 years old, with no original manuscript to compare it to and who’s date precedes the earliest known by 250 to 300 years.

One of the first serious questions I had in my pursuit of truth was who wrote it and why, to what extent was the contents of the bible influenced by the context of culture? To that here is my current stance. The overall theme of the bible is of cultural conquest. This is the theme for stories within the bible and the context for which the contents of the bible survive. It was the conquest of the Hebrews over their neighbors, the Jews over the 10 tribes of Israel, and Christians over the Jews. In production of the biblical cannon we see the conquest continue with the Catholics over the Gnostics, Marcionites, Valentinians and Arianists, and so forth. Then we see the extreme diversity in which Christianity survives today. One can basically find his own Kingdom of Heaven. It may be here on earth, in heaven, or it may be something that comes in the future here or “up” in heaven. Either way, Christianity has evolved and it, just as its’ varied creeds have, can become as diverse as necessary.

To me it seems dishonest, at least for me, to proclaim the bible as Authoritative or Inspired. There are too many problems that the church lets go undiscussed and unresolved. These include are some of the simplest things that Christianity does not take a firm stance on such as; the mythical flood of Noah. If you think there was a flood, you can find thousands of churches that will help you support, rationalize and maintain that false belief. Today there are more than 40,000 denominations of Christianity, each with its own different statement of beliefs. In light of the facts, how can I believe Matthew when he says many people were resurrected? In the brilliant light of science, we now have probabilities and possibilities that were unreasonable and illogical only 50 years ago. For example: is it more likely that the laws of physics were broken and someone was resurrected from the dead or, aliens with a superior intellect did something 2000 years ago that amazed the illiterate, superstitious people of that time? Both are outrageous, but; which is more likely?

[jimwalton]

> The path to understanding nature and the universe comes to us thru the discipline of the scientific method.

I agree to some extent. There are certainly ways to know things other than by the scientific method, the most obvious being reasoning (which includes our knowledge of math). Christians would also believe that some of what we understand comes to us via revelation. Epistemology is a continuing debate, even without the question of God. One possible position, including God, is what is known as "reformed epistemology," in which we know what we know is by observation, reasoning, and revelation. Some things are not completely evidentiary. Verificationism has its weaknesses, particularly at the outset, since verificationism postulates a premise that is not verifiable by scientific observation, viz. "The path to understanding nature and the universe comes to us thru the discipline of the scientific method." That's not a statement that can be understood and verified by the scientific method. None of what we have discovered in science rules out the possibility that nature is not a closed system and that there are metaphysical realities beyond what we can see, test, and verify by the scientific method. As a matter of fact, it's possible that much of what we learn in life is not by deductive reasoning at all.

> it is more than likely that all the Gospel writers are anonymous and the books as we read them today have been heavily edited.

The Gospels were anonymous by genre, but the historical fact is that the authorship of none of them was in doubt or debated or even disagreed upon for millennia, even from the earliest times. There is no attribution of authorship to anyone other than Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John even from the earliest sources. Though the debate rages, the case for traditional authorship is strong.

> The overall theme of the bible is of cultural conquest.

Wow. In all my years of study, I perceive things quite differently, interestingly enough. It is interesting to me that there is no command in the Bible to "make a difference," "change the world", or dominate culture. None. I'm quite convinced you are misperceiving. The Bible is a "legal" document in which God draws up the contract between himself and humanity, the part God will play in the contract, and what is expected of humans. In the process of the contract God reveals what he is truly like. The Bible then is full of examples of what God is like, as well as examples of what happens to humans when they comply with the contract and what happens to humans when they defy the contract.

> it seems dishonest, at least for me, to proclaim the bible as Authoritative or Inspired.

Again, I see things quite differently, from all my study. The more I study, the more I am absolutely convinced of the Bible's reliability and authority. Flood? It wasn't global, but massively regional. 40,000 denominations? There's nothing wrong with diversity. It's actually a strength. Just like different colleges giving more weight to a particular discipline. That doesn't mean they all aren't doing the same thing—providing undergraduate education to prepare people for life. The denominations help people grow in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord.

> no original manuscript to compare it to and who’s date precedes the earliest known by 250 to 300 years.

Are you kidding? We have a piece of John from about 125, and pieces of other gospels from early in the second century—nowhere NEAR the 250-300 years you claim. But that's another far-ranging topic for another discussion.

> The resurrection

The laws of physics broken? Not necessarily. But once again you're presuming a closed system, which science can't speak to. Newton himself claimed that the laws he observed were only valid if no outside force interfered with them, but he didn't rule out an outside force. Newton himself was a Christian. So also Galileo, Kepler, Pascal, and Copernicus. Nature knows resurrection in a seed. It dies, sometimes for thousands of years, and comes back to life. Simple analogy, yes, but there nonetheless. What is more likely: the existence of God is rationally plausible, scientifically possible, and conforms quite reasonably with the world as we see it. Aliens? Not so likely.

[1.62]

Thanks again for participating! I appreciate you sharing your views and thoughts. This is a partial response to your last reply.

> "There are certainly ways to know things other than by the scientific method, the most obvious being reasoning (which includes our knowledge of math). Christians would also believe that some of what we understand comes to us via revelation."

Yes, there are other valid paths to knowledge and the scientific method is not the only one. Certainly the knowledge of how to ride a bicycle does not require the scientific method. I have studied epistemology as an interested layman and am familiar with propositional knowledge and reformed epistemology. In regards to the latter, I have researched with particular interest Plantinga’s work in Properly Basic Beliefs, free will and his take on the problem of evil.

> "There are certainly ways to know things other than by the scientific method, the most obvious being reasoning (which includes our knowledge of math). Christians would also believe that some of what we understand comes to us via revelation."

Do you notice what is happening between the first and second sentence? The topic has changed from knowledge to belief. Then, when you proceed with your thought, “of what we understand” (what we perceive to know), you state that some of the set of things we come to “understand” is received through revelation. Knowing something, such as something in reality, does not necessarily come from revelation. Almost everything we come to know, comes to us by way of our senses. Even math is in a large part, an exercise in using our senses; writing the problem on paper, looking at it and using logical deduction to process it. Even math ties to reality that we detect and validate with our five senses. We know things by way of our senses and our intellect which is evidence based. A revelation would be the receipt of knowledge about something, through some manner of transference from (in your case) God. Surely you can see that even on a minute scale there is something being added into the universe; the physical manipulation of the neurons and synapses at the very least. Even if God miraculously triggers only one connection, then, you have the creation of energy. The law of conservation of energy would be suspended / broken in this hypothetical example, right? Smuggling revelation into the process and then wrapping it into a belief system is the metaphysical fork in our conversational road. We need to pull off onto the shoulder and get out the map.

> "in which we know what we know is by observation, reasoning, and revelation"

We need to look closely at what "revelation" really is, because it is a major source of information that you believe is divinely provided to you, and incidentally, is a source of information for which I have not had the privilege to receive. If people really receive revelation then I need to know how that works. How reliable is it? How does someone distinguish the difference from cognitive bias and a true revelation? Is it testable or falsifiable? Do Muslims receive it? If it is only Christians that receive it then most certainly the Mormons are in the front of the line because they have a living prophet. Same goes for the Catholics and Pope Francis.

Revelation, as I have been told, can be a vivid and powerful experience. With that in mind we must also recognize that many other people also experience revelation in their hearts and minds. Therefore if you are going to use revelation as evidence in support of a particular belief then you can’t give your personal revelation any more weight than anyone else’s revelation. If you are going to be rigorous and consistent about your beliefs, and if you're going to use your revelation and personal experience as evidence supporting your beliefs, you must then treat your experience no differently from anyone else's experience. In other words, you have to step back from your experience, and view it exactly as you'd view anyone's experience.

When it comes to personal revelation you must be vigilant and on guard to separate revelation from personal bias, intuition, and ordinary ideas that pop up in one’s mind.

As vivid as your own revelation and personal experience may feel to you, in all honesty, you can't give that revelation any more weight than you would anyone else's experiences. You must give equal weight and consideration to others who claim revelation. In order to be consistent, the rigor for fair mindedness and proper weight should extend across denominations and even different faiths.

I would think that all Christians would necessarily need advanced training and preparation in order to be able to distinguish interpersonal conflicts, to become skilled in the proper application of the correct weight to one’s revelation in light of revelation received by others. Christians would need technical coaching and training in order to be able to recognize and differentiate cognitive bias in one’s self as well as recognizing these difficulties in others.

What do you think?

[jimwalton]

Fascinating thoughts. Thanks so much for the dialogue. It's intriguing that you've read Plantinga. Whenever I read him, he gives an awful lot of food for thought.

> Do you notice what is happening between the first and second sentence? The topic has changed from knowledge to belief.

Having studied epistemology, then you recognize that the true transition from knowledge to belief is not only smaller than you think, but nonexistent. As any philosopher will gladly tell you, the solution to the epistemic problem has never been truly solved, and when it comes right down to it: (1) We don't really know how we know what we claim to know, (2) all knowledge taken to its most fundamental levels is questionable, (3) the true difference between knowledge and belief is indistinguishable. At some point reason and presuppositions (beliefs) have to weigh in to everyone's epistemology where, to be able to proceed with any logic or to live in the "real" world, we have to default to presuppositional beliefs.

> Almost everything we come to know, comes to us by way of our senses. Even math is in a large part, an exercise in using our senses

I don't agree. Logical positivism (the only types of knowledge are analytic statements [by definition] and empirical statement [by sense experience and evidence]) is an erroneous world view. I also thinks it's inaccurate to say that even math is based on the senses because we do problems on paper. So many mathematicians do their reasoning in their minds; paper only enhances the memory of it (or the communication of it). You certainly know about inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, and adductive reasoning. The problem is that logical positivism is neither analytic nor empirical, and therefore is self-contradicting. W.V. Quine (logician and philosopher) argued that neither Logical Positivism's distinction between analytical and empirical statements, nor the supposition that individual empirical statements can be reduced to immediate experience were supportable. Ultimately, he concluded, "the totality of our so-called knowledge or beliefs is a man-made fabric that impinges on experience only along the edges."

> How reliable is [revelation]?

God's method of confirmation of revelation in the Bible is an interesting combination of metaphysical and natural. More often than not, God confirmed revelation with a physical sign to substantiate the validity of the revelation, removing it from the subjective sphere to one that is empirically validated, and therefore objective. When you read the Scriptures, and the experiences of Moses, Joshua, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, etc., revelation isn't just floating in the air, "Oh, I had a dream." In that case anyone can say what they want. But Moses said God spoke, and then the sea party. Joshua said God was with them, and a part of the wall of Jericho fell down. Elijah confronted the prophets of Baal, and fire from heaven consumed the wet bull. That's how it's distinguishable from cognitive bias.

> If it is only Christians that receive it ...

In the Bible, Pharaoh had dreams from the Lord. So also Nebuchadnezzar. I've heard many stories of Muslims (alive now) who have had visions of Jesus and have converted to Christianity.

> Therefore if you are going to use revelation as evidence in support of a particular belief then you can’t give your personal revelation any more weight than anyone else’s revelation.

Agreed. Lots of people claim revelation because they've had certain thoughts, or claimed to have heard a voice, or had a dream. All pretty subjective, isn't it? In the Bible God confirmed his revelations, as I said, with a physical sign of sorts. We too easily misinterpret our experiences and believe what we want to believe. Very dangerous to proceed on what you think God said to you. We easily self-deceive.