The Gospel reading at Mass today for the feast of Christ the King was the story of the thief asking Jesus to remember him when he comes into his kingdom, to which Jesus replies that the sorrowful and plaintiff thief would be with him in Paradise today.

Question - did Jesus go to heaven immediately upon his death? How does this jibe with the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds stating that he descended to the dead and then rose from the dead three days later and ascended to heaven much later?

Sincere questions, not rhetorical.

Thanks in advance.

I guess he could have met up with Jesus on the pleasurable side of the halfway house. That part on the side of the gulf where Lazarus was instead of the side where the cursed man was thirsty.

When it says "he decended into hell...," hell means the grave. That is his physical body.

This is my opinion.

The eschatological place/time/whatever/wherever/whenever heaven is is not -anywhere- or -any when- because it predates our creation. Where/when God is must by necessity be outside of our creation.

So the thief was with him in the eschatological now, which is today.

When we commune we commune with all the church and saints in the same way.

k2aggie07 said:

---

This is my opinion.

The eschatological place/time/whatever/wherever/whenever heaven is is not -anywhere- or -any when- because it predates our creation. Where/when God is must by necessity be outside of our creation.

So the thief was with him in the eschatological now, which is today.

When we commune we commune with all the church and saints in the same way.

---

If this is the case, and I'm not saying here that it's not, where did Jesus ascend to? Did he just ascend until he was out of sight and then beam into another dimension? Why would he confuse the onlookers by ascending, thereby making them think he was literally flying to a physical location in the sky like Kolob? Why didn't he just vaporize or vanish immediately? And what does it mean when God says he will create a new heaven?

Heaven currently isn't a physical place. The new heaven will be physical and here on earth.

When Jesus died, his physical body went into the grave, while his spirit went to be with the Father in heaven. On the third day, his spirit returned to his physical body when he was resurrected. Later, after 40 days he physically ascended body and spirt into heaven.

You think he's still up there somewhere, ascending? Or maybe he leveled off at cruising altitude of 32,000 ft?

He prepared a place for us. Doesn't have to be anything like this place. Or in this time.

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Heaven currently isn't a physical place. The new heaven will be physical and here on earth.

When Jesus died, his physical body went into the grave, while his spirit went to be with the Father in heaven. On the third day, his spirit returned to his physical body when he was resurrected. Later, after 40 days he physically ascended body and spirt into heaven.

---

That doesn't really answer my question. He physically ascended to where with his body and spirit? And as Carl Sagan once said, if Jesus was ascending at the speed of light, he still hasn't made it out of the galaxy. So is heaven in the galaxy or was Jesus confusing the onlookers?

If the current heaven is physical, I don't think it is within the universe. Jesus going faster than the speed of light wouldn't be a problem since he created the universe and light.

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Heaven currently isn't a physical place. The new heaven will be physical and here on earth.

When Jesus died, his physical body went into the grave, while his spirit went to be with the Father in heaven. On the third day, his spirit returned to his physical body when he was resurrected. Later, after 40 days he physically ascended body and spirt into heaven.

---

This response seems to resonate with me. Thanks.

Will continue to research and give it some thought and pray about it.

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

If the current heaven is physical, I don't think it is within the universe. Jesus going faster than the speed of light wouldn't be a problem since he created the universe and light.

---

Then why did he float casually out of sight? That would leave a false impression for the onlookers. If he had vanished faster than the speed of light (which would not have looked anything like an ascension), a very different notion would have been left with the onlookers. It might even lead Mormons to believe in an alternative to Kolob.

Also, did he shed his physical body at some point? Obviously a human body couldn't survive beyond a few thousand feet.

I don't understand the objection to ascending before his followers. His resurrected body was a glorified body. Not sure that the God of the universe would have an issue with his body being destroyed by space travel.

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

I don't understand the objection to ascending before his followers. His resurrected body was a glorified body. Not sure that the God of the universe would have an issue with his body being destroyed by space travel.

---

The issue is that by ascending, he would have left an impression that he was ascending leisurely to some place rather than being zapped into another dimension or disappearing at faster than the speed of light. In other words, it would not have appeared that he was going to a place that transcends space and time or that was outside of what we now know to be the Milky Way. The Bible appears to waiver between God as some sort of a transcendent mind and a powerful alien type figure. The ascension is more in line with the powerful alien.

If his body was glorified, then why did it still have holes in it from the spear and nails? Were they there just long enough to convince Thomas?

Not sure how any of that matters.

Perhaps the guy that worked out the Christmas star can figure out where a straight line rising vertically from the surface of the earth in Israel would have been pointing 2000 years ago and we can figure out where heaven is.

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Not sure how any of that matters.

---

I'm not suggesting that this line of questioning defeats Christianity, but it matters regarding the nature of who God/Jesus is and what/where heaven is. Heaven as a place in outer space is a very different notion than heaven as a transcendent dimension. God as an omnipresent spirit or mind is a very different notion than God as a physical being with a body. This is, as I understand it, one of the primary areas of disagreement between Christians and Mormons.

7thGenTexan said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Not sure how any of that matters.

---

I'm not suggesting that this line of questioning defeats Christianity, but it matters regarding the nature of who God/Jesus is and what/where heaven is. Heaven as a place in outer space is a very different notion than heaven as a transcendent dimension. God as an omnipresent spirit or mind is a very different notion than God as a physical being with a body. This is, as I understand it, one of the primary areas of disagreement between Christians and Mormons.

---

from a little o orthodox perspective physical paradise is a redemption of all matter. What that looks like is more difficult to say.

The following is Orthodox dogma about the Trinity as best as I can faithfully repeat. regarding God, He is unknowable in His essence and is a transcendent, preexistent being. The first person (hypostasis) of the Trinity is the Father who is the source of all Godhead and the monarch - the cause, source, and principal of the Godhead. The second person of the Trinity is the Logos, the word and wisdom and reason of the Father, the Son. The third person of the Trinity is the Spirit which is "everywhere present and fills all things" which proceeds from the Father eternally to the Son. All three persons are of the same essence (ousia) and are all equally God. All of these statements are true before and outside of time.

In time, the Logos became incarnate and we know Him as the Theanthropos, the God-man Jesus. Every instance of the Word manifesting or being revealed in the OT is the preincarnate Word. All God in the Scriptures is Christ because He is very God of very God.

So, your second question is "yes".

7thGenTexan said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Not sure how any of that matters.

---

I'm not suggesting that this line of questioning defeats Christianity, but it matters regarding the nature of who God/Jesus is and what/where heaven is. Heaven as a place in outer space is a very different notion than heaven as a transcendent dimension. God as an omnipresent spirit or mind is a very different notion than God as a physical being with a body. This is, as I understand it, one of the primary areas of disagreement between Christians and Mormons.

---

Christianity teaches that Jesus, as God, doesn't have a physical body by nature. In the Incarnation, he took on flesh. He is now and evermore the God/man. How that works with the current heaven, I don't know. God the Father, however, doesn't have a physical body. On the Day of the LORD, God will bring down a new heaven and a new earth. It will be a physical heaven right here on this earth.

So the Ascension was just for show? Jesus wasn't actually ascending to anywhere? And he shed his body somewhere?

For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind. (Isaiah 65). Not sure "here" on "this" earth is necessarily accurate. By physical yes.

And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;

What does that mean? It's not a lot to go on. Taken up, went up.

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

When it says "he decended into hell...," hell means the grave. That is his physical body.

---

Correct. He immediately went to heaven as the verse says.

k2aggie07 said:

---

And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;

What does that mean? It's not a lot to go on. Taken up, went up.

---

Went up, taken by a cloud. That's pretty clear. And they were looking steadfastly into the sky as he ascended.

So about that new earth. Who's going to live there and why?

The phrase "by a cloud" or "in a cloud" is a common description of a manifestation of divine power, a theophany, in both the NT and OT.

Here's a description:

Quote:

---

The New Testament. The Literal/Metaphorical Cloud. The only New Testament reference to literal cloud phenomena is Jesus' graphic contrast between his hearers' ability to interpret the meaning of a cloud rising in the west-that a shower is coming-and their inability to interpret the present time ( Luke 12:54 ). Metaphorical cloud references in the New Testament include Jude's depiction of the unstable, deceptive, false teachers as waterless clouds, carried along by winds (v. 12), and Hebrews' portrayal of the many worthy of faith as a great "cloud of witnesses" (12:1).

The Theophanic/Eschatological Cloud. The remaining twenty-two New Testament occurrences of the word "cloud" appear in the context of theophany, and encompass six theologically crucial, eschatologically related events or visionary scenes in salvation history: (1) the pillar of cloud at the exodus, viewed as a type of Christian baptism in the time of eschatological fulfillment ( 1 Cor 10:1-2 ); (2) Jesus' transfiguration, as a foretaste of the kingdom of God, during which the Father appears and speaks in a cloud ( Matt 17:5 ; Mark 9:7 ; Luke 9:34 ); (3) Jesus' ascension, explained by the angels as a paradigm for his return ( Acts 1:9 ); (4) the "mighty angel" descending from heaven wrapped in a cloud, announcing (against the eschatological backdrop of Dan 12:7 ) that time should be no longer ( Rev 10:1 ); (5) the two resurrected witnesses ascending to heaven in a cloud, described in the context of the eschatological measuring of the temple of God ( Rev 11:12 ); and (6) Jesus' parousia, against the backdrop of Daniel 7:13, as the Son of Man coming with/on/in a cloud/the clouds/the clouds of heaven ( Matt 24:30 ; 26:64 ; Mark 13:26 ; 14:62 ; Luke 12:54 ; 21:27 ; 1 Thess 4:17 ; Rev 1:7 ; 14:14-16 ).

---

I think interpreting that as Him sitting on a cottony cumulus is probably not the intent of the author.

k2aggie07 said:

---

The phrase "by a cloud" or "in a cloud" is a common description of a manifestation of divine power, a theophany, in both the NT and OT.

Here's a description:

Quote:

---

The New Testament. The Literal/Metaphorical Cloud. The only New Testament reference to literal cloud phenomena is Jesus' graphic contrast between his hearers' ability to interpret the meaning of a cloud rising in the west-that a shower is coming-and their inability to interpret the present time ( Luke 12:54 ). Metaphorical cloud references in the New Testament include Jude's depiction of the unstable, deceptive, false teachers as waterless clouds, carried along by winds (v. 12), and Hebrews' portrayal of the many worthy of faith as a great "cloud of witnesses" (12:1).

The Theophanic/Eschatological Cloud. The remaining twenty-two New Testament occurrences of the word "cloud" appear in the context of theophany, and encompass six theologically crucial, eschatologically related events or visionary scenes in salvation history: (1) the pillar of cloud at the exodus, viewed as a type of Christian baptism in the time of eschatological fulfillment ( 1 Cor 10:1-2 ); (2) Jesus' transfiguration, as a foretaste of the kingdom of God, during which the Father appears and speaks in a cloud ( Matt 17:5 ; Mark 9:7 ; Luke 9:34 ); (3) Jesus' ascension, explained by the angels as a paradigm for his return ( Acts 1:9 ); (4) the "mighty angel" descending from heaven wrapped in a cloud, announcing (against the eschatological backdrop of Dan 12:7 ) that time should be no longer ( Rev 10:1 ); (5) the two resurrected witnesses ascending to heaven in a cloud, described in the context of the eschatological measuring of the temple of God ( Rev 11:12 ); and (6) Jesus' parousia, against the backdrop of Daniel 7:13, as the Son of Man coming with/on/in a cloud/the clouds/the clouds of heaven ( Matt 24:30 ; 26:64 ; Mark 13:26 ; 14:62 ; Luke 12:54 ; 21:27 ; 1 Thess 4:17 ; Rev 1:7 ; 14:14-16 ).

---

I think interpreting that as Him sitting on a cottony cumulus is probably not the intent of the author.

---

I think it probably is the intent of the author.

Solid rebuttal.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Solid rebuttal.

---

you realize the extent of what you quoted above is just some other dude's opinion? there's no meat there.

There are hundreds of uses of the phrase "cloud" in be NT and OT and most are not about clouds.

Is the concept of metaphors or figurative imagery not allowed in your opinion?

k2aggie07 said:

---

There are hundreds of uses of the phrase "cloud" in be NT and OT and most are not about clouds.

Is the concept of metaphors or figurative imagery not allowed in your opinion?

---

Metaphors and imagery are allowed. The cloud isn't the only thing mentioned here, however. It also said he went up and that the disciples were watching him go up until he was caught up in the cloud. Maybe it's all just a metaphor but that's not what the plain reading of the text suggests. It reads very much like Jesus is ascending to a sky god.

k2aggie07 said:

---

There are hundreds of uses of the phrase "cloud" in be NT and OT and most are not about clouds.

Is the concept of metaphors or figurative imagery not allowed in your opinion?

---

not at all. but maybe some evidence to lump it in with metaphors or figurative imagery might be helpful.

He was received by a cloud, yeah. Just like at the transfiguration they entered into a cloud.

Dozens of quotes showing the theophanic or eschatological significance of the use of the word cloud isn't evidence? What is evidence in your opinion?

7thGenTexan said:

---

So the Ascension was just for show? Jesus wasn't actually ascending to anywhere? And he shed his body somewhere?

---

Not sure how that follows from what I said.

k2aggie07 said:

---

He was received by a cloud, yeah. Just like at the transfiguration they entered into a cloud.

Dozens of quotes showing the theophanic or eschatological significance of the use of the word cloud isn't evidence? What is evidence in your opinion?

---

Ok, let's assume the cloud is theophanic metaphor. The text would then read that Jesus ascended until he was received by a deity. That makes it sound even more like an Ascension to a sky god. Mormons of course would say that's exactly what it was. I suppose if God could take up residency in a human body, he could also have his home in the Milky Way.

You can read it however you like, I suppose. You could also say that the Theophany on Mount Tabor didn't reveal Christ's own divinity, if you choose. However, the identity clause of John 1 makes that a bit of an untenable position.