Paradise and Heaven

Great Debates
1

God created Adam and Eve and put them in a place callled Paradise or Eden.

Correct me for any mistakes here.

Adam and Eve were happy in Paradise.

Then they got in trouble by eating the fruit of the forbidden tree.

God ejected them from Paradise and placed for guard an angel with a flaming sword to stop them from getting in again.

Then Jesus came and saved mankind, opening up Heaven for them where they will go when they die in God’s favor.

Which place is better, Paradise or Heaven?

We don’t know nothing about Heaven, but we do know something about Paradise.

What I know from Genesis is that there was peace and plenty in Paradise, no pestering from mosquitoes and cockroaches, no sickness and any discomfort of body, and complete knowledge and pure tranquility of the mind and heart of Adam and Eve.

And Adam and Even had a good conjugal life, that was why God made a woman, Eve, for Adam – otherwise, what for? that they might discourse on philosophy?

What do we know about Heaven?

Jesus said that in Heaven we will be like angels, no more marriage and of course no more conjugal life.

And here is a question for the Pre-Tribs and the Post-Tribs, what kind of life will each of them live in their respective period?

I am neither Post nor Pre, but just a postgraduate Catholic.

Given a choice I think I would just ask God to first give me Paraside, and then I will decide to go to heaven, after I have experienced Paradise.

That was the first destiny ordained by God for mankind.

It was aborted by our first parents, Adam and Eve.

I think we should go back there, before we pass over, if we want to, to Heaven.

Susma Rio Sep

2

He didn’t say quite that.

Matthew 22:30
At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

Firstly, it never mentions exactly what the sex life post-resurrection will be like, just that marital commitments will be as the angels’. No one knows just what the angels’ sex lives are like. It states in Genesis that angels have sexual desires just like humans. If God gave these beings sexual desires you could equally assume that She provided the means for them to enjoy them. Any other interpretation seems to make God even nastier than She normally appears in the OT.

The NT passage you quoted has at times been taken to mean a life of free-love, with no marital commitments or diseases. Of course it has also been taken to mean a life of celibacy. Either interpretation seems equally correct.

The other probable mistake regarding the passage is assuming that ‘the resurrection’ = ‘heaven’. There is little no Biblical support for this position. Such a position would be completely novel to the vast majority of first century Jews. Given this fact, and given that a belief in ‘heaven for all comers’ was never explicitly stated by Jesus or any of his early disciples you could reasonably assume that Jesus never held such a belief. Looking at the writings of Peter for example (“in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.”) it seems like the early Christians believed that some were heaven-bound and some were to stay on Earth. Jesus and early Christians certainly referred to the saints/apostles/little crowd as ascending to heaven, but they never inferred that everyone was heaven bound. From this we can reasonably assume that they held to the older Jewish beliefs, that most people would be resurrected ( presumably in a reconstructed Eden) at the end of the world.

Like everything else in “The Bible” it’s all open to interpretation, but it’s a pretty big leap to infer that the early Christians believed that all post-crucifixion Christians were going to get the harp and wings combo.

3

First, a nitpick, I believe that the Garden was in a place called Eden, the garden itself was not Eden.

Next, why are you mixing up mythology (Paradise and the myth of the first humans and how evil came into the world) with theology (where Christians go when they die)? Just curious.

4

In Paradise Lost there were several comfortable levels to aspire to, all worthy of the journey.

5

How do you distinguish? I would have thought that if one belived in “The Bible” as fact then both points are theological, and if one believed the book is a collection of stories then both points are mythological. How do you determine that the OT is mere mythology while the NT is divine truth?

6

You’re excluding the middle. You’re saying the Bible has to be either completely factual or completely fictional. Why can’t it be a combination of both? Factual evidence, such as histories, etc (albeit one-sided) along with mythology, poetry, personal stories and parables along with one people’s encounter with a divine being. The tricky part is deciding which part is which.

But as to your question…(from Dictionary.com)

theology: The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.

mythology: A body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes.

You seem to be implying that since something is unprovable or unknowable, it is therefore, mythological.

7

I thought that was illustrated in Paradise Regained

8

Thanks, all you people who have enlightened me on Paradise, Heaven, Eden, mythology, theology, facts and myths in the Bible, Milton’s levels of Paradise…

Angels do have or can have sex lives…

Blake, that is really new for me.

All my Christian life I have been taught that angels are spirits and being spirits they don’t have carnal bodies.

You got to be carnal to have sex.

Unless of course they are fallen angels, who do engage in sex of the incubus and succubus kind with humans.

I seem to remember having read Cecil Adams on incubus and succubus – I could be mistaken though.

One thing everyone agrees on, angels are pretty powerful beings.

Being pretty powerful beings, who’s to say they would or won’t do sex acts, among themselves or with humans.

No, I did not say that, with animals also?

Anyway, coming back to Paradise and Heaven, I think I still would rather go to Paradise first.

I would like to do what Adam was doing before the gift of Eve from God, giving names to animals and all living things.
Things are not really so clear and definite about existence after death, and specially that one after the general resurrection, not to mention the stages of existence when Jesus comes back and rules for a thousand years.

I mean those faithfuls who will be with him before or after His second coming.
Now, I wished I didn’t learn so much from these messages here.

Keep them coming just the same.

Susma Rio Sep

9

Not what I intended to imply. I was simply wondering what your criteria are for saying that:
The story of original sin angering God and leading Her to pronounce expulsion from Eden leading to death, promising resurrection etc is simply addressing history and deities, while…

The story of the death of JC leading to eternal life and resurrection is a study the nature of God.

I really can’t see what the distinction is. To me it appears that the Genesis ‘myth’ gives more information on the nature of God and allows more wiggle room for rational inquiry, while the NT ‘gospel’ is a simple recording of history and origins of the Christian churches.

I really don’t know how angels have sex, since I’m not claiming to have seen one. However if you read Genesis “When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.” it is clear that angels had sexual desires and lusts. They obtained physical bodies to have sex with humans, but the desire existed in the mind. Assuming that God created angels we need to assume she gave them these desires. We also need to assume that she gave them some appropriate outlet (having ex with humans is ruled out explicitely). Whether this involves physical bodies or otherwise is open to debate, but reasoning from an assumption of a loving God says that angels have some from of sex.

10

Blake:

That’s very good.

Religious people of the Bible persuasion are now getting to more and more distinguish the myths in the Bible and the facts.

Eventually, they will see more and more myths and less and less facts.

Then they will get the pith message of the Bible as understood by the Master Himself:

First love the Lord God with thy whole heart, and whole mind, and whole spirit, and love thy neighbor as thyself.

(Something like that, I am not so precise about the phrases; and are those the words of the Master – you are a one careful Bible reader.)

As for myself, God can do without any loving, but I certainly stand to gain a lot for myself by loving my neighbors as myself.

What about guys who don’t love themselves? their neighbors should move away.

Susma Rio Sep

11

Try reading some comparative mythology and you’ll see similar stories to Genesis popping up all over. Most serious Biblical scholars regard Genesis as mythological. The Creation story, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, etc. are clearly mythological. I would say the other parts of Genesis fall into the category of legendary stories (with seeds of historical fact at their roots, but aggrandized for effect or thru repeated story telling).

Genesis is clearly a Creation myth of the Judeo-Christian religious system. But the question of one’s destination in the afterlife, to heaven for reward or hell for punishment is clearly a question about God and his attitude toward humans and their actions, hence theology. Does that make it clear?

My point is that Susma Rio Sep was conflating the two, mixing mythology with theology. The two aren’t equivalent. My folklore teacher defined mythology as sacred narrative. Theology would be a serious, rational attempt to understand Deity (in whatever way you perceive it).

12

Feyr writes:

My point is that Susma Rio Sep was conflating the two, mixing mythology with theology. The two aren’t equivalent. My folklore teacher defined mythology as sacred narrative. Theology would be a serious, rational attempt to understand Deity (in whatever way you perceive it).

The way I see it, actually:

If I am a Martian and I study the philosophical concept of God first ,as propounded by metaphysicians, and then I start to read theology as expounded by Jewish, Christian, and Muslim theologians.

Then I take up literature and learn about myths and legends.

Finally, I enroll in newpaper reporting.

When I try to put all my learning together, I seem to see that theology is all about myths and legends from the standpoint of philosophy and journalism.

Susma Rio Sep

13

Sorry Freyr, I still can’t see what you are basing the distinction on.

I suspect most serious Bible scholars also consider Jesus’ literal rise from the dead, walking on water, dead walking the streets following the crucifixion etc. as being myth rather than fact.

I also don’t see how you can declare it clear that Genesis is a creation myth, while it isn’t somehow equally clear that the gospels are messiah myths or even a generic hero myth. Both follow classic patterns. Both are repetated time and agian in stories throughout the world and throughout history.

I am even more confused by the fact that you apparently don’t believe that Genesis adresses compelling questions about God and his attitude toward humans and their actions. Genesis directly adresses the origins of human suffering, why God alows such suffering to continue, what God’s original prupose was and why humanity was created in the first place. I would argue that such questions are at least equally pertinent to God and his attitude toward humans and their actions as the question of destination post mortem. Yet you seem to be suggesting that they are of no relevance to an undertsanding of God’s attitudes.

I really can’t see the what you are basing you division on.