Is 'soul sleep' doctrinal?

[Guest DRS81]

 

 

...

 

It's hard to really take you seriously Butch when you don't even understand what born again means and that Jesus died for your sins and that Jesus is God. You would have to understand the basics of what the Bible is about in order to understand the deeper stuff. Please respond to post 70..

 

I would say the same to you.

 

 

I just don't think you truly understand the basic things of the Bible, especially the resurrection. You're making that obvious.

[Butch5]

 

 

 

...

 

It's hard to really take you seriously Butch when you don't even understand what born again means and that Jesus died for your sins and that Jesus is God. You would have to understand the basics of what the Bible is about in order to understand the deeper stuff. Please respond to post 70..

 

I would say the same to you.

 

 

I just don't think you truly understand the basic things of the Bible, especially the resurrection. You're making that obvious.

 

I understand it quite well. The difference is I let the Scriptures tell me what they say, I don't try to make them fit my doctrine. Much of what you've said isn't even in the Scriptures

[Guest DRS81]

 

 

 

 

...

 

It's hard to really take you seriously Butch when you don't even understand what born again means and that Jesus died for your sins and that Jesus is God. You would have to understand the basics of what the Bible is about in order to understand the deeper stuff. Please respond to post 70..

 

I would say the same to you.

 

 

I just don't think you truly understand the basic things of the Bible, especially the resurrection. You're making that obvious.

 

I understand it quite well. The difference is I let the Scriptures tell me what they say, I don't try to make them fit my doctrine. Much of what you've said isn't even in the Scriptures

 

 

If you understand scriptures then what you should do is answer people's question and responses when they respond to you. Ignoring posts is not a good sign, like post 70 for example. You're not suppose to wait a week before answering. When someone asks you to respond to something you respond. That just shows me a lack of maturity and growth in you.

 

(Hebrews 5:12-14 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, 13 for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. 14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.)

[Butch5]

 

 

 

 

 

...

 

It's hard to really take you seriously Butch when you don't even understand what born again means and that Jesus died for your sins and that Jesus is God. You would have to understand the basics of what the Bible is about in order to understand the deeper stuff. Please respond to post 70..

 

I would say the same to you.

 

 

I just don't think you truly understand the basic things of the Bible, especially the resurrection. You're making that obvious.

 

I understand it quite well. The difference is I let the Scriptures tell me what they say, I don't try to make them fit my doctrine. Much of what you've said isn't even in the Scriptures

 

 

If you understand scriptures then what you should do is answer people's question and responses when they respond to you. Ignoring posts is not a good sign, like post 70 for example. You're not suppose to wait a week before answering. When someone asks you to respond to something you respond. That just shows me a lack of maturity and growth in you.

 

(Hebrews 5:12-14 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, 13 for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. 14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.)

 

That's interesting. You asked me to answer another question, I said if I do will you show me where the Scriptures teach that man lives on between death and the resurrection. You said yes and have not, but you expect me to continue to answer your question. Any evidence you're given just dismissed as out of context. There's no point in my continuing to chase rabbits.

[Guest DRS81]

They’re not mansions they’re rooms or chambers where the priest stayed during they’re service at the temple. Most of the English translations don’t use the word mansions. The place Jesus was preparing is a reference to their reigning with Him in the restored earth. He said they would rule over the 12 tribes of Israel. He made that statement to His disciples. He didn’t say I’m going to prepare a place for every Christian who will ever live.

Here’s something else to consider about that passage.

 

3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. (Joh 14:1 KJV)

If He was talking about Heaven, and that’s where Christians go why is it necessary for Him to return so that they can be with Him? He didn’t say, I’m going to prepare a place so that you can come and be with me, He said, I will return so that you can be with me. There’s nothing in this passage that suggests Heaven, or that believers go there.

 

The Father's house is the kingdom of God in heaven. The Father is referring to God the Father. Do you know who God the Father is? The Father is the one who baptizes you in the Holy Spirit. When you are baptized the kingdom of God is now within you (Luke 17:21). Jesus was talking about heaven Butch. Yes, there will be mansions in heaven. The greek word for mansion is 'dwelling place', 'room', 'abode'. He said he was going to return as in "a comforting sense" to his people. He is going to take each believer back with him up into heaven, but you would have to understand the resurrection first and that Jesus is God and has all authority over the dead. Jesus is alive in heaven right now and is the intercessor between the Father and humanity. What are your thoughts on John 2:19, Acts 7:59, Phil 1:23 and Ezekiel 32:27.

 

Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. (2 Corinthians 5:1-4)

 

Earthly tent is describing our bodies that we live in right now. A building from God, an eternal house in heaven is describing our resurrected bodies at judgment day. John 14:3 and 2 Cor 5:1-4 are speaking about two completely different things. Notice John 14:3 says 'he is preparing a place' and 2 Cor 5:1 says 'not built by human hands'. Jesus has human hands, remember? He had nails pierced through them, and when he resurrected his entire fleshly body also went to heaven. His specialty on earth was carpentry and on top of that he and his heavenly Father are both creators. John 14:3 is physical carpentry and 2 Cor 5:1 is a spiritual transformation.

[Guest Butero]

 

 

 

 

 

Those are excellent examples.  Thanks.  The only problem I have with them is that they are teaching false doctrine.  We know that they cannot be in the truth, as God himself is the one that ordered his people into battle time and again in the OT.  If killing during time of war was wrong, that would make God guilty of wrong doing.  The Bible says he is the same yesterday, today and forever.  Jesus himself will lead an army into battle at Armageddon.

 

My first question is this, if they are teaching false doctrine and are not in the truth of God why do you believe when they tell us who wrote the NT. They way we know who wrote it s from them. If we can’t trust what they say then we have no way to verify that the Scriptures we claim are inspired were actually written by the writers whose name they bear.

Another question I would ask is this, Jesus came to bring the Gospel. He taught His apostles. His apostles went out and taught the Gospel that He taught them.  Did they succeed? You see, the prohibition on the use of violence was universally taught in the early church. No one writes in approval of the use of violence, and this is over the entire region. That means that if Jesus and the apostle did teach that violence was OK, everyone they taught either didn’t understand or totally rejected what they taught on the subject. Either way it would indicate that they failed to establish the Gospel. I think Jesus and the apostles were successful in their establishing the Gospel.

I don’t want to derail this thread so I’m going to post a bunch of evidence for the teaching. I will say this, everyone who supports the use of violence must seek support from the OT as there is nothing in the NT to support that idea.

I've written a paper on this subject that goes into both Scriptural support and the historical evidence for the doctrine. Should Christians use Violence?

 

 

I appreciate where you are coming from.  You have writings of early church figures that oppose the use of war, so you figure that means war is evil.  I don't see it that way.  I believe that doctrine actually goes contrary to things found in the Bible itself.  I don't believe that Jesus came and changed things in the new covenant like some do.  When he taught things about the OT, he was clarifying errors that were created by the religious leaders.  He wasn't doing away with the law itself.  He certainly wouldn't come against God for telling people to fight battles, like the one at Jericho.

 

God is the judge, it’s His place to give life or take it, not ours. God told Israel when to go to war and when not to. What nation does He do that with today?

 

Actually, God did say that things would change when Christ came.

 

5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

6 I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;

7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.

8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

9 Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them. (Isa 42:5-9 KJV)

 

Paul quotes this

 

17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. (2Co 5:17 KJV)

 

Jesus said he didn't come to do away with the law but to fulfill it.  The Bible also states that God is the same yesterday, today and forever.  If it is sinful to go to war, that would make God a transgressor.  It is in NT times that Jesus will lead the saints into battle.  I completely disagree with anyone that would interpret scripture to show war as sinful.  It should be avoided, but military service is not wrong, and neither is killing in time of war. Revelation is part of the New Testament, so yes, there is an example of Jesus participating in a war at Armageddon. 

 

But, just because God is allowed to do something doesn't mean you and I are allowed to do it. God is allowed to judge men, we are not. You've alluded to the statement that God is the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Just because who He is doesn't change doesn't mean His methods don't change. Let me ask you, are Christians still under the dietary Laws of the OT? If not doesn't that mean God changed somethings. Is the new covenant identical to the old? If not doesn't that mean God changed some things?

 

What nation today is in direct contact with God that they would hear from Him to know whether they should go to war. We can read in the Scriptures what happened to Israel when they took it upon themselves to go to war.

 

As I said, God is the judge and creator, He has the right to give and take life. He said, 'all souls are mine.' What right does a man have to take a soul (life) that belongs to God?

Isaiah prophesied that when Christ came old things would pass and new things would be done. Can you make a case for war from the NT. Or, can you make a case for war from the OT that can be applied to the NT?

 

There is nothing in scripture that would ever make it wrong to go to war.  When Jesus was speaking of turning the other cheek, he wasn't speaking of nations, but individuals.  It is like the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill."  That was part of the law of Moses, but it didn't mean in any instance.  If it did, it contradicted God's direct command to execute murderers in the same law, and it went against God commanding armies to go into battle.  Just as "Thou shalt not kill" didn't apply to military service or executions in the law of Moses, turning the other cheek doesn't apply to either.  That is just a false interpretation.  If it were so, no nation could stand up to brutal dictators.  They could simply walk in and take over everything.  The very notion is absurd. 

 

You're comparing apples and oranges. What God told Israel to do were direct commands from God. What nation is there today that gets direct commands from God?

 

They don't have to be told directly by God to go to war to make it ok.  The point I am making is that God is not going to do something that is unrighteous.  If God himself would direct people to go into battle and kill, it cannot be a sin to kill enemy combatants during a time of war. 

[Guest Butero]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is not correct.  The definition of Hades from the Greek Dictionary is...

The place (state) of departed souls:  grave, hell.

 

What here has contradicted what I said? Hades is the grave not the place of torment that is Gehenna.

 

 

One area we have had questions over is the body, soul and spirit, so lets look at these definitions.

body (soma) the body (as a sound whole), used in a very wide application, lit. or fig.: bodily, body, slave.

soul (psuche) breath, i.e. (by impl.) spirit

spirit (pneuma) a current of air, i.e. breath (blast) or a breeze; by anal. or fig. a spirit, i.e. (human) the rational soul, (by impl.) vital principle, mental disposition, etc.

 

Are you familiar with how Biblical dictionaries are made?

This isn’t really any different than the situation with the commentaries. I gave you Scripture show what a soul is. Can you show me anywhere in the OT where a soul and spirit are said to be one and the same. It doesn’t really matter if a dictionary says it if it’s not in Scripture. If the idea cannot be found in Scripture then it’s just the idea of the author.

The punishments of hell are forever.  Notice what it says in Mark 9:43-48

And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off:  it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:   Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.  And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off:  it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:  Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.  And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out:  it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:  Where their worm deith not, and the fire is not quenched.

Hell is real, and a place of eternal punishment for the wicked.

 

The results of the punishments are forever, not the duration.

 

What is not correct is your definition of hades.  It was incomplete.  The full definition is "the place (state) of departed souls:  grave, hell.  You chose to leave out all but grave, and made out like hades could not describe the place the soul of the rich man was at, when clearly it can.  And yes, the punishments are forever.  I don't believe everyone has the same amount of torments for their transgressions, but all suffer to some degree for eternity.

 

Another point about the definition. Aren't you assuming that the departed souls are alive? This definition says nothing about the departed souls being alive. If a soul is a person and we know when a person departs they're dead. We use that language today, the dearly departed. 

 

Let me ask you a question, do you believe that the ghosts of the dead are in the ground? Hades does mean the grave. Even if you say the ghost is alive Hades is still the grave. Is the Ghost 6 feet under in a pine box being tormented in flames?

 

Absolutely not.  The ghost or spirit of a person leaves their body when they die, and hades is a place where departed souls go.  It is either heaven or hell, depending on whether or not they are a Christian. 

 

If the soul goes to Hades, is it dead or alive? What is the spirit or ghost?

 

It is the real person.  It is their personality.  It is alive, but the natural body is dead and in the ground returning to dust.  The soul and body will be reunited when Jesus returns at his second coming, and the body will be changed to one similar to what Jesus had after his resurrection. 

 

What is the real person, the soul or the spirit? Which one do you claim lives on after the body dies?

 

Having looked at the definition of soul, apparently it could be either.  Soul and spirit are English words that were used in place of the original Greek words, and apparently there were times where the word to describe the real personality was translated as soul and other times it was translated as spirit.  It surprised me when I looked up the definitions.  In the definition of the Greek word translated soul was the word spirit, and in the definition of the word translated to spirit was rational soul.  That is probably why the two are sometimes used interchangeably? 

[Guest Butero]

 

Butero---It is obvious Jesus wasn't speaking about the temple.  Why would Jesus say that in his Father's house there are many mansions if he were speaking of the temple?  What mansions are in the temple?  What was he going away to prepare for his followers?  The temple already existed in the natural.  What you are saying makes no logical sense.  It is obvious he is speaking of heaven.

 

They’re not mansions they’re rooms or chambers where the priest stayed during they’re service at the temple. Most of the English translations don’t use the word mansions. The place Jesus was preparing is a reference to their reigning with Him in the restored earth. He said they would rule over the 12 tribes of Israel. He made that statement to His disciples. He didn’t say I’m going to prepare a place for every Christian who will ever live.

Here’s something else to consider about that passage.

 

3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. (Joh 14:1 KJV)

If He was talking about Heaven, and that’s where Christians go why is it necessary for Him to return so that they can be with Him? He didn’t say, I’m going to prepare a place so that you can come and be with me, He said, I will return so that you can be with me. There’s nothing in this passage that suggests Heaven, or that believers go there.

 

 

Paul is speaking of moving out of one residence into another.  He is describing his body as a residence, and saying he would leave that home and move into his new home that Jesus had prepared for him in heaven.

 

You break down his analogy by changing the meaning of house from a body to a building. Are you claim that Christian “Souls” will put on building and walk around as buildings in Heaven? Will these building be life and incorruptible? Are the building immortality?

Jesus didn’t promise anyone homes in Heaven

 

 

 

He clearly states that to be absent from the body would allow him to be present with the Lord.  Again, this shows it is possible to be outside the natural body and continue to exist.

 

No, it doesn’t. I gave another perfectly plausible explanation. Any passage that could be understood both way proves neither.

Christians read this passage wrongly.  He doesn’t say to absent from the body “IS” to be present with the Lord. He says, We are confident, I say, and willing rather to absent from the body “AND” present with the Lord. There’s a big difference. The second one does not require one to be immediately present wit the Lord. I could say, “ I am confident, I say, and willing to be absent from my house and present in Hawaii, that doesn’t mean the instant I walk out of my door I’ll be in Hawaii.

 

As I said, if God retrieves His spirit/breath at death and puts it back at the resurrection one would be present with the Lord when they received their new body.

 

 

It is just a comparison.  It is like Paul comparing life to running a race and only those that win getting a prize.  Is he speaking of a literal marathon?  Of course not.  If he were limiting the race to a single runner, only one person would be saved.  Is that the case?  Of course not.  It is an analogy.  In reality, the saints will be wearing white robes in heaven, and they will be dwelling in a mansion in the Father's house.  This is clearly not the earthly temple, which was destroyed.  Nobody will dwell in a mansion in that temple.

 

There are no mansions in Heaven. Jesus didn’t say anything about Heaven in that passage. This is why I said the group tries to put aside any presuppositions when coming to the text. If you study the Scriptures closely you’ll find that there is nothing in Scripture that says people go to Heaven when they die. That idea like the ghost is inferred from certain passages but not stated anywhere in the Scriptures.

 

He is not speaking of the temple.  I totally reject that.  There are two possibilities with regard to the word translated mansion.  Either God has a huge home in heaven, and we have a room in that home that is so glorious, it is described as a mansion, or heaven itself is the Father's house, and we have a literal mansion in heaven.  I can accept either of those possibilities, but I reject your claim Jesus was speaking of the temple.  Yes, we were promised a mansion in heaven.  Yes, Paul was saying we can exist outside this body, and do exist outside this body. 

 

I was thinking about something you said earlier.  You mentioned studying the Bible with a group of people.  Where did you meet those people?  Were they people you already went to church with, and did you invite them to study with you, or were they outsiders that were part of another group that wanted to lead you in a Bible study?  If so, what group do they belong to?  Just wondering, because it is hard to find a lot of people interested in getting together to study scripture like that, and I was wondering how you met them and how many there are? 

[Butch5]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Those are excellent examples.  Thanks.  The only problem I have with them is that they are teaching false doctrine.  We know that they cannot be in the truth, as God himself is the one that ordered his people into battle time and again in the OT.  If killing during time of war was wrong, that would make God guilty of wrong doing.  The Bible says he is the same yesterday, today and forever.  Jesus himself will lead an army into battle at Armageddon.

 

My first question is this, if they are teaching false doctrine and are not in the truth of God why do you believe when they tell us who wrote the NT. They way we know who wrote it s from them. If we can’t trust what they say then we have no way to verify that the Scriptures we claim are inspired were actually written by the writers whose name they bear.

Another question I would ask is this, Jesus came to bring the Gospel. He taught His apostles. His apostles went out and taught the Gospel that He taught them.  Did they succeed? You see, the prohibition on the use of violence was universally taught in the early church. No one writes in approval of the use of violence, and this is over the entire region. That means that if Jesus and the apostle did teach that violence was OK, everyone they taught either didn’t understand or totally rejected what they taught on the subject. Either way it would indicate that they failed to establish the Gospel. I think Jesus and the apostles were successful in their establishing the Gospel.

I don’t want to derail this thread so I’m going to post a bunch of evidence for the teaching. I will say this, everyone who supports the use of violence must seek support from the OT as there is nothing in the NT to support that idea.

I've written a paper on this subject that goes into both Scriptural support and the historical evidence for the doctrine. Should Christians use Violence?

 

 

I appreciate where you are coming from.  You have writings of early church figures that oppose the use of war, so you figure that means war is evil.  I don't see it that way.  I believe that doctrine actually goes contrary to things found in the Bible itself.  I don't believe that Jesus came and changed things in the new covenant like some do.  When he taught things about the OT, he was clarifying errors that were created by the religious leaders.  He wasn't doing away with the law itself.  He certainly wouldn't come against God for telling people to fight battles, like the one at Jericho.

 

God is the judge, it’s His place to give life or take it, not ours. God told Israel when to go to war and when not to. What nation does He do that with today?

 

Actually, God did say that things would change when Christ came.

 

5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

6 I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;

7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.

8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

9 Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them. (Isa 42:5-9 KJV)

 

Paul quotes this

 

17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. (2Co 5:17 KJV)

 

Jesus said he didn't come to do away with the law but to fulfill it.  The Bible also states that God is the same yesterday, today and forever.  If it is sinful to go to war, that would make God a transgressor.  It is in NT times that Jesus will lead the saints into battle.  I completely disagree with anyone that would interpret scripture to show war as sinful.  It should be avoided, but military service is not wrong, and neither is killing in time of war. Revelation is part of the New Testament, so yes, there is an example of Jesus participating in a war at Armageddon. 

 

But, just because God is allowed to do something doesn't mean you and I are allowed to do it. God is allowed to judge men, we are not. You've alluded to the statement that God is the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Just because who He is doesn't change doesn't mean His methods don't change. Let me ask you, are Christians still under the dietary Laws of the OT? If not doesn't that mean God changed somethings. Is the new covenant identical to the old? If not doesn't that mean God changed some things?

 

What nation today is in direct contact with God that they would hear from Him to know whether they should go to war. We can read in the Scriptures what happened to Israel when they took it upon themselves to go to war.

 

As I said, God is the judge and creator, He has the right to give and take life. He said, 'all souls are mine.' What right does a man have to take a soul (life) that belongs to God?

Isaiah prophesied that when Christ came old things would pass and new things would be done. Can you make a case for war from the NT. Or, can you make a case for war from the OT that can be applied to the NT?

 

There is nothing in scripture that would ever make it wrong to go to war.  When Jesus was speaking of turning the other cheek, he wasn't speaking of nations, but individuals.  It is like the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill."  That was part of the law of Moses, but it didn't mean in any instance.  If it did, it contradicted God's direct command to execute murderers in the same law, and it went against God commanding armies to go into battle.  Just as "Thou shalt not kill" didn't apply to military service or executions in the law of Moses, turning the other cheek doesn't apply to either.  That is just a false interpretation.  If it were so, no nation could stand up to brutal dictators.  They could simply walk in and take over everything.  The very notion is absurd. 

 

You're comparing apples and oranges. What God told Israel to do were direct commands from God. What nation is there today that gets direct commands from God?

 

They don't have to be told directly by God to go to war to make it ok.  The point I am making is that God is not going to do something that is unrighteous.  If God himself would direct people to go into battle and kill, it cannot be a sin to kill enemy combatants during a time of war. 

 

The question isn't whether it's alright for God, the question is, is it alright for Christians? Who gave Christians the right to judge men? Paul said that Christians are to judge within the Church and that God would judge those outside of the Church.

 

12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. (1Co 5:12-13 KJV)

 

Cyprian addressed this.

 

Ante Nicene Fathers Book 5

Consider the roads blocked up by robbers, the seas beset with pirates, wars scattered all over the earth with the bloody horror of camps. The whole world is wet with mutual blood; and murder, which in the case of an individual is admitted to be a crime, is called a virtue when it is committed wholesale. Impunity is claimed for the wicked deeds, not on the plea that they are guiltless, but because the cruelty is perpetrated on a grand scale.

Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

 

Let me ask you a question, when is it OK for a Christian to kill a Christian? That is exactly what happened in the American Revolution and the American Civil war.

[Butch5]

The Father's house is the kingdom of God in heaven. The Father is referring to God the Father. Do you know who God the Father is? The Father is the one who baptizes you in the Holy Spirit. When you are baptized the kingdom of God is now within you (Luke 17:21). Jesus was talking about heaven Butch. Yes, there will be mansions in heaven. The greek word for mansion is 'dwelling place', 'room', 'abode'. He said he was going to return as in "a comforting sense" to his people. He is going to take each believer back with him up into heaven, but you would have to understand the resurrection first and that Jesus is God and has all authority over the dead. Jesus is alive in heaven right now and is the intercessor between the Father and humanity. What are your thoughts on John 2:19, Acts 7:59, Phil 1:23 and Ezekiel 32:27.

 

And you’re telling me I don’t know the basics?

13 And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,
14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;
16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.
17 And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up. (Joh 2:13-17 KJV)

7 Because for Thy sake I have borne reproach; Dishonor has covered my face.
8 I have become estranged from my brothers, And an alien to my mother's sons.
9 For zeal for Thy house has consumed me, And the reproaches of those who reproach Thee have fallen on me. (Psa 69:7-9 NAS)

They knew what “My Father’s house” meant.

 

Let’s make this easy. Show me one single verse of Scripture that say believers go to Heaven when they die.

Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. (2 Corinthians 5:1-4)

Earthly tent is describing our bodies that we live in right now. A building from God, an eternal house in heaven is describing our resurrected bodies at judgment day. John 14:3 and 2 Cor 5:1-4 are speaking about two completely different things. Notice John 14:3 says 'he is preparing a place' and 2 Cor 5:1 says 'not built by human hands'. Jesus has human hands, remember? He had nails pierced through them, and when he resurrected his entire fleshly body also went to heaven. His specialty on earth was carpentry and on top of that he and his heavenly Father are both creators. John 14:3 is physical carpentry and 2 Cor 5:1 is a spiritual transformation.

 

Are you following what I’m saying? I didn’t say they were the same.