What does it take for me to get into Heaven?

[Ailedhoo]

Who says Gods definition of a day is the same as ours?

Point taken.

Actually, this is not true. Almost every single ancient culture across the world has a global flood theme in it. This would at least suggest that there is some ancient worldwide historical event to link these stories.



You may want to check on this further as I've read otherwise.

People can take inspirations from local flooding. There appears to be no evidence of a global flood geologically, as well the issues with the ark idea. There is also consideration on errosion which must be considered in noting flooding as water is quite a erosive force.

http://bible.cc/genesis/1-5.htm

And there was evening, and there was morning, the first day.

That seems to me to be one twenty four hour day, but I could be wrong.

But what would be the messurement of a day for a deity? For all we know for the Amberhamic god a minute would be like a few million years or more.

 

[GhostWriter16]

"And there was evening, and there was morning."

God seems to be trying to get us not to ask the question, but yet we continue to do so

 

[civver_764]

You're already in heaven. Your mind is just tricking itself into believing otherwise. You've just got to be at peace with what's happening now.

 

[Ailedhoo]

"And there was evening, and there was morning."

God seems to be trying to get us not to ask the question, but yet we continue to do so

Again: what is a evening to a deity? A deity might see a century or a million years as less then the mini parts of a mini second. What is the messurement?

 

[Joecoolyo]

Throwing in a Jewish point of view in a thread saturated with Christ. (though someone beat me to the punch with a nice link a page or two ago)

According to the Torah (or Tanach, I'm not sure which even mentions it), we think they're might be a heaven, but since no ones come back from the dead to tell us, we are no way sure. Because of that, we basically believe that in order to get there, you just need to be a good person, and that's it really. Doesn't matter who you are, or even if you're Jewish, if you're good, your going to heaven.

Now, if you're bad, well, we don't have any sort of concept of hell (I'm pretty sure that's a Christian creation) so you probably end up in heaven as well. Though if I'm remembering correctly, according to my religious Dad you get punished in heaven for the bad deeds that you do on Earth, and the length of that punishment is related to how bad the deeds are; unlike Christianity though punishment isn't eternal, that's way too unforgiving.

Of course, all the above is just speculation (I think) based on scholars of the Tanach and such. So it may or may not be true; to be safe, if you want to get into heaven, just be as good as possible is basically what we say

That's basically what I got out of my education as a reform Jew, as well as some other small readings I've done. And I'm not very religious (in fact I'm not religious) so if you want, you can take the above with a grain of salt since I'm in no way going to dig through the Torah or Tanach for specific lines and quotes like other people in this thread enjoy doing.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Throwing in a Jewish point of view in a thread saturated with Christ. (though someone beat me to the punch with a nice link a page or two ago)

According to the Torah (or Tanach, I'm not sure which even mentions it), we think they're might be a heaven, but since no ones come back from the dead to tell us, we are no way sure. Because of that, we basically believe that in order to get there, you just need to be a good person, and that's it really. Doesn't matter who you are, or even if you're Jewish, if you're good, your going to heaven.

Now, if you're bad, well, we don't have any sort of concept of hell (I'm pretty sure that's a Christian creation) so you probably end up in heaven as well. Though if I'm remembering correctly, according to my religious Dad you get punished in heaven for the bad deeds that you do on Earth, and the length of that punishment is related to how bad the deeds are; unlike Christianity though punishment isn't eternal, that's way too unforgiving.

Of course, all the above is just speculation (I think) based on scholars of the Tanach and such. So it may or may not be true; to be safe, if you want to get into heaven, just be as good as possible is basically what we say

That's basically what I got out of my education as a reform Jew, as well as some other small readings I've done. And I'm not very religious (in fact I'm not religious) so if you want, you can take the above with a grain of salt since I'm in no way going to dig through the Torah or Tanach for specific lines and quotes like other people in this thread enjoy doing.

Just wondering, something you might know the answer to since you're Jewish, is the Orthodox Jewish views on Heaven and Hell different than or the same as the Reform Jewish perspective?"

 

[Joecoolyo]

Just wondering, something you might know the answer to since you're Jewish, is the Orthodox Jewish views on Heaven and Hell different than or the same as the Reform Jewish perspective?"

Well, I'm no expert on religious matters, but, the different denominations (if you can call them that) of Judaism are different from those in Christianity. While in Christianity, different sects take the Bible and actually believe different things, drop certain books, etc. The major sects in Judaism (reform, conservative, orthodox) are based on how strictly they adhere to things in the Torah. Orthodox try to live out the life put forward in the Torah, following all of God's commandments, keeping the Sabbath, studying the Torah intensely, etc. While Reform on the other hand are the sect of "live and let live", or, you read the Torah, and follow what you want to follow, whatever fits your life and makes you happy. Conservative fall in between but lean towards Reform. All sects follow the same exact Torah, and believe in everything that's said in there, the difference is just the degree that they adhere to what's said in there.

And with that said, as regards to heaven and hell, I really don't think there's much of a difference between the Orthodox and Reform in the belief. Since the Torah, really doesn't really get into it, and it's only speculated on in the Tanach, there's not much to differ on, other than say practices and what makes a person "good" and such. I'm pretty sure both sides follow the same principle that basically you need to be good to get there, if it exists.

Then again, take this with a grain of salt, since I'm not Orthodox, I'm not religious, and I'm nowhere near being an expert, this is just what I've picked up over the years.

 

[bhsup]

To be clear, I recognise that this is at least a second-hand quotation. Jesus might not have actually said these things.

As we see in Acts 7, the disciple Stephen (recruited by the original disciples) believed that the Exodus was literally true. It was clear that he was not corrected by the disciples and I don't think the disciples were corrected by Jesus.

The author of Jude 1, if he's Jude the Apostle, also believed in 6-day Creation and the Flood. That's him writing after spending a couple years with Jesus.

Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15, and 1 Timothy 2 both show that Paul certainly thought 6 day Creation was literal (though, in my defense I don't know if this was after or before he hung out with Peter who could've set him straight if Jesus had set him straight)

Regarding the exodus of the Jews from Egypt, I just don't see the issue. The Bible says it happened, so unless you have some sort of incontrovertible proof to the contrary, I don't know how you can possibly prove to me that it did not happen. If you are going to claim that "there is no evidence", well all I can counter with is Sargon II. Until the 19th century there was no evidence of his existence outside of the Bible either, which was actually used as "proof" by some that the Bible was wrong.

Regarding creation, I've always thought ever since I was old enough to start really thinking about this that "days" were periods of time. (mind you, my mom is a YECer and prays for my soul because of my view on this...that and me being a non-trinitarian...scandal!!) I've nothing to back this up except my belief, sorry. Though I did run across a blurb on the internet ages ago that I found interesting because it explains it. I don't claim this particular guy's numbers are accurate, I just link it as an example of it being generally how I feel it worked out.
http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AgeUniverse.aspx

As far as the flood goes, I don't know. I honestly do not have answers for you. Do I believe it happened? Absolutely. Did it cover the entire world, or just the near east? What was meant by "land", "earth", etc? I don't know.

I realize that last part is probably the most frustrating to you and I'm sorry about that. I know you guys hate the "faith" argument as a cop-out, but I just don't know what else to tell you.

EDIT: Man, I hope I remembered the right King with the 19th century discovery thing. I think it was Sargon II, but... if it wasn't him, lemme know and I'll do some digging.

 

[Berzerker]

Genesis describes a water covered world in darkness before there was "light", and that light was given a name - "Day" - and the darkness was called "Night". Whatever "God" did to that dark, water covered world (His "wind" blew over that primordial world) - my $$$ is on a celestial collision - it produced a spinning world closer to the sun. That is day and night... I view Genesis as telling a multi-layered story of creation - 6 days of creation with a 7th day of rest refers to the planets and their orbits (the Earth is the 7th planet, the Enuma Elish has Tiamat (biblical Tehom) as the 6th planet before creation).

But this prior world was not created by God, Genesis and the Bible "conspicuously" place it before Heaven and Earth and creation itself. Heaven appears next in the story - its a place nearby the Earth, not the universe - and it divides the already existing waters in two. Earth appears even later in the story (on the 3rd day? huh), thats the name God gave to the dry land revealed by the waters receding into "Seas". This is an important distinction, the Bible credits God with the dry land (Earth) and Seas, but not the waters or the celestial body (biblical Tehom, Babylonian Tiamat) they covered before the creation of Heaven and Earth.

The science supports this idea - we now have evidence of oceans going back beyond life and the continental cores. But something happened ~4 bya, the Earth (planet water, "Earth" had not appeared yet) was hit and the Moon witnessed the collision, the man on the moon is the evidence of that collision - the side of the Moon facing us now was the side that got hit when the Earth was given day and night by the Lord's "winds".

As for "The Flood" - I have no doubt it happened, when the ice age ended seas rose 300-400 ft and we have evidence some of this sea rise was fast. One episode occurred ~14.6 kya and times well with a Tlingit legend placing their Flood at 14,000 years ago - about when the Bering land bridge was "sinking". I'm sure that left a lasting impression on the people living in the region. But the flood didn't cover the world, just seemed like it for millions living along coastlines.

Enoch walked with God, that suggests he went to Heaven without dying. That tells me its a place in our reality, not an afterlife. Course that says nothing about what does await us, if anything.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Regarding the exodus of the Jews from Egypt, I just don't see the issue. The Bible says it happened, so unless you have some sort of incontrovertible proof to the contrary, I don't know how you can possibly prove to me that it did not happen. If you are going to claim that "there is no evidence", well all I can counter with is Sargon II. Until the 19th century there was no evidence of his existence outside of the Bible either, which was actually used as "proof" by some that the Bible was wrong.

Not much of a counter. If it was, I could counter with any part of the Bible which has been proven wrong, and use that as a precedent.

"The Bible says it happened" is meaningless beyond a religious point of view. Scientifically, you'll need a lot more than an account in a religious text which has stake in it being true.And I say "beyond a religious point of view" because once you're infected with the belief that what the Bible says is gospel truth in this regard, no evidence to back it up will indeed not convince you, or even leave you doubting. Since you are already convinced. And thus will not view the issue with an open mind.

 

[bhsup]

So then nothing proving the exodus didn't happen is what you're saying?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

No. That's just you in defensive mode.

edit: Look at the basics of science. Then you'll understand me.

edit2: oh hell, it's 2:30 here, but I'll be less mystic before getting some shut-eye.

Bible makes claim. Claim needs to be verified for it to get some credibility. No verification is available. Claim is not credible until such verification is found. Not special for Bible. Process happens with all historical claims.

You, as a believer, do not need such verification. Your starting point is: claim is credible. That's the difference.

 

[civver_764]

So then nothing proving the exodus didn't happen is what you're saying?

Huh? There's no proof that lots of things didn't happen. There's a reason that the burden of proof concept exists, and it's on you.

 

[bhsup]

So then it should be rule that nothing that cannot be verified with a 2nd source, nothing whatsoever, should ever be accepted. I'm betting that's not adhered to.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm talking credibility, you're talking acceptability. I made a clear point I thought, you're being ambiguous. I literally have no time for this.

 

[bhsup]

NO, really, explain why the Bible should be considered less valid than some random stone with stuff chiseled into it? What's to say some 2000BC prankster wasn't thinking "ha, let's see what they think of this in the future?"

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Never mind. Forget I said anything.

 

[bhsup]

Yep, guess I will since it's becoming evident you're just prejudiced against religious documents.

 

[Old Hippy]

Regarding the exodus of the Jews from Egypt, I just don't see the issue. The Bible says it happened, so unless you have some sort of incontrovertible proof to the contrary, I don't know how you can possibly prove to me that it did not happen. If you are going to claim that "there is no evidence", well all I can counter with is Sargon II. Until the 19th century there was no evidence of his existence outside of the Bible either, which was actually used as "proof" by some that the Bible was wrong.

.

do you mean the whole "Akhenaten and his queen, Nefertiti" and their belief in one god... and their followers persecution after the empire turned back to the old gods ...because if Moses was egyption, then him fleeing to avoid persection would fit nicely, taking other followers of the one god with him it corrosponds to the recorded record of plagues in Egpt

Spoiler :

Plague and pandemic

This Amarna Period is also associated with a serious outbreak of a pandemic, possibly the plague, or polio, or perhaps the world's first recorded outbreak of influenza,[46] which came from Egypt and spread throughout the Middle East, killing Suppiluliuma I, the Hittite King. Influenza is a disease associated with the close proximity of water fowl, pigs and humans, and its origin as a pandemic disease may be due to the development of agricultural systems that allow the mixing of these animals and their wastes.[47] Some of the first archaeological evidence for this agricultural system is during the Amarna period of Ancient Egypt, and the pandemic that followed this period throughout the Ancient Near East may have been the earliest recorded outbreak of influenza.[48] However, the precise nature of this Egyptian plague remains unknown and Asia has also been suggested as a possible site of origin of pandemic influenza in humans.[49][50][51] The prevalence of disease may help explain the rapidity with which the site of Akhetaten was subsequently abandoned. It may also explain why later generations considered the gods to have turned against the Amarna monarchs. Arielle Kozloff discusses the evidence, arguing that the epidemic was caused by Bubonic plague over polio. However, her argument that "polio is only fractionally as virulent as some other diseases" ignores the evidence that diseases become less virulent the longer they are present in the human population, as demonstrated with syphilis and tuberculosis.[52]

its flimsy but has as much suported evidence as the bible... and the followers taking up false gods in the desert... well fits with what was actually happening in Egypt at the time

and its not a strech to see a lower adopted son not give up his beliefs when Tutankhamen died early and the full wieght of the old priesthood went about wipping out all traces of the "one god religion" that some one fled taking followers with them...

it just depends on whether you should place more "faith" in a oral story or words carved in stone... and Moses did seem to take the words in stone point of view ...

 

[timtofly]

To be clear, I recognise that this is at least a second-hand quotation. Jesus might not have actually said these things.

As we see in Acts 7, the disciple Stephen (recruited by the original disciples) believed that the Exodus was literally true. It was clear that he was not corrected by the disciples and I don't think the disciples were corrected by Jesus.

The author of Jude 1, if he's Jude the Apostle, also believed in 6-day Creation and the Flood. That's him writing after spending a couple years with Jesus.

Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15, and 1 Timothy 2 both show that Paul certainly thought 6 day Creation was literal (though, in my defense I don't know if this was after or before he hung out with Peter who could've set him straight if Jesus had set him straight)

Peter also said in one of his books that the "atmoshpere" heavens were different before the flood and after the flood. If there were local floods all over the world then it was a world wide flood.

If Graffito is looking at the story of the Exodus from an Egyptian point of view, would that give any more credibility to the Jewish side of the story? There is one other detail that people overlook and that is the Arab or Ishmael aspect. God told Moses that there were twelve powerful tribes surrounding the Jews, but even they supposedly dissapeared from human radar. There are, though, distant cousins out there who somehow have once again become a major player in modern day settings. With three different groups of people intertwined for thousands of years, and one had a group of people who historicaly described as keepers of text, why would we question their ability to keep records of history in tact. Will future generations feel the same way about librarians or editors of today? Even piecing together of different manuscripts proves they existed even if people interpret their existence in different ways.

Can it be looked at this way? Up until 150 years ago people accepted this history and it probably did not bother people that much. It is only in the last 150 years that humans have tried to re-write history. Maybe not to justify their world view, but it seems that is what happened. It is convenient for modern man to not only stop talking about what happened, but they have convinced people that what happened did not happen.

I think that archeology is great and if people can attempt to re-produce what they think happened that is also great. I am not sure even educated "guesses" would change hundreds of years of acceptance. Seems to me that people two thousand years ago could have set the record straight if they felt lied to. Again they were going by carefully scribed versions of manuscripts that for the most part were preserved year after year. Now they could have been lied to year after year after year. Most people though who carry out repetitous ceremonies have forgotten their original intent or purpose. Why have the ones observed by the Jews held such an importance some 3000 years later if they are based on lies? I probably just broke every rule of a logical debate. I am not trying to debate though. Just trying to reason this out and "raise" doubt. People raised doubt 150 years ago, and it worked for them.