What's your view on Hell?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

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

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

Where is this information coming from?

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

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

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

Do we really want to go there?

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

Seriously?

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

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

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

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

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

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

NO.

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

Speaking of which...

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

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

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

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now about "Paradise":

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
(Rev 2:7)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

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

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

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