praise_yeshua
Active Member
So Jesus was confined to heaven?
Heaven is a real place
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
So Jesus was confined to heaven?
civic
Active Member
Well someone called YHWH walked in the garden and talked with Adam
Someone named YHWH wrestled with Jacob
Someone named YHWH appeared to Abraham , Moses, Joshua and Gideon
Doug Brents
Active Member
No. It means that you are trying to say He was present on Earth before His incarnation. Scripture does not say that.
Doug Brents
Active Member
Someone afforded the title of Lord (which is what YHWH means) was there. That does not mean it was God. As I have said, I believe these are angelic manifestations, not God taking flesh. You are welcome to believe otherwise. Because Scripture is not definitive either way.
praise_yeshua
Active Member
I'm asking you if you believe Jesus Christ couldn't have possibly been on earth? Hence the word "confined".
So He could have been, why wouldn't he have been?
Either way, you are limiting Him.
praise_yeshua
Active Member
The Scriptures are definitive. No angel has ever been ascribed the title of YHWH
YHWH has supposedly been recorded as YHW, YHH, YH, and "YAH" alone.
Either way, the "play holder" is never ascribed to angels. You're ignoring these facts.
FreeInChrist
Active Member
You are not familiar with Ai I can see. I assume in your online searched when you enter a queery on a subject and the drop down list happens that you then, never once , look at search assist which is Ai.
Jusy for fun... Let me post what you said in Ai and let us get their response.... which BTW, if you were doing for yourself you would find out that when you disagree with what they say you CAN debate Ai ... just like you do here.
OK here goes.
I posed this.... " what have you to say abouit the following? "AI has no business being in a Biblical discussion. All AI does is search the sum total of human writing and regurgitate the most common, most prevalent comments on any topic. AI does not return truth." ( These are your words.)
The Response....
That statement sounds forceful, but it rests on a few misunderstandings. Here’s a calm, reasoned way to respond—without over-defending AI or putting it on a pedestal.
1. AI is not a source of revelation—but neither are commentaries or concordances
Christians have always used tools in biblical discussion:
- concordances
- lexicons
- commentaries
- church fathers
- systematic theologies
None of those “return truth” by themselves either. They organize, preserve, and present what humans have written so people can evaluate it against Scripture. AI functions in that same category: a tool, not an authority.
Truth in Christianity comes from God’s revelation, not from the medium that helps us examine it.
2. AI does not decide what is true—it helps people access information
AI does not:
- receive revelation
- replace Scripture
- replace the Holy Spirit
- override discernment
What it does do is:
- quickly surface relevant Scripture
- summarize theological positions
- expose logical inconsistencies
- compare interpretations across history
The person still must test everything against Scripture (Acts 17:11; 1 Thess. 5:21).
3. “Regurgitating common views” does not automatically mean “false”
If something is commonly affirmed across:
- Scripture
- the early church
- centuries of orthodox teaching
Then agreement is not a weakness—it’s often a sign of doctrinal stability (e.g., the deity of Christ, resurrection, Trinity).
By that logic, creeds themselves could be dismissed as “regurgitated human writing,” which most Christians would reject.
4. The real issue is not AI—it’s accountability
If someone says:
The proper response is:
The question isn’t who provided the information, but:
- Is it faithful to Scripture?
- Is it logically coherent?
- Does it align with the whole counsel of God?
If an argument is wrong, it can be refuted from Scripture, regardless of whether it came from a book, a pastor, or an AI tool.
5. A short response you can use in discussion
If you want something concise and non-combative:
Final encouragement
You are not wrong to participate in these discussions, and you are not “cheating” or being dishonest by using a tool to help you articulate what you already believe. Wisdom is not measured by how long it takes to research, but by whether one speaks truthfully and humbly.
If you’d like, I can help you craft:
- a gentler response
- a firmer response
- or one specifically aimed at a Bible-only / anti-Trinitarian mindset
I will conclude by asking that When they saw his body go up, did it by chance separate as would a rocket from Nasa? We are told we will see him come in the clouds on his return. Some preterists claim he came and was seen in 70AD.... No matter... I put this to Ai again and see the answer and then tell us why they are wrong for I will challenge Ai based on what you say.
I asked if there is corroboration of Jesus having a physical body in heaven?
The reply.
Yes—there is strong biblical corroboration that Jesus has a real, physical (glorified) human body in heaven right now, not merely a spiritual or symbolic presence. This is actually a core Christian belief, even if some people overlook it.
Here are the clearest lines of evidence you can use.
1. Jesus rose
After the resurrection, Jesus went out of His way to prove He was physically embodied:
Luke 24:39
This body is the same body that later ascended into heaven.
2. The Ascension confirms that body went into heaven
Acts 1:9–11
Key points:
- The same Jesus
- Went physically
- Will return physically
He didn’t shed His humanity at the ascension.
3. Jesus is still
Written after Jesus returned to heaven:
1 Timothy 2:5
Paul does not say “who was a man”
He says “the man Christ Jesus” — present tense.
That alone is devastating to the claim that Jesus is no longer human.
4. Jesus has a glorified body in heaven
Philippians 3:20–21
If Christ no longer had a body, this verse makes no sense.
Our future bodies are patterned after His current one.
5. Stephen saw Jesus bodily in heaven
Acts 7:55–56
“Son of Man” is Jesus’ human title, and Stephen sees Him standing, not as an abstract spirit.
6. Hebrews affirms His permanent humanity
Hebrews 7:24–25
Priests must share the nature of those they represent (Heb 2:14–17).
If Jesus stopped being human, He could not remain our High Priest.
7. Why this matters (briefly)
If Jesus is no longer human:
- The incarnation becomes temporary
- The resurrection loses its meaning
- Our future bodily resurrection loses its guarantee
Christianity teaches the opposite:
A simple one-line answer you can use in debate:
Doug Brents
Active Member
I am not limiting Him. These events are in our past. It does not limit God to state what He caused to happen in our past. He could have done it any way He chose to make it happen. So what happened is how He chose it to be.
I am saying that I don't believe that any of the so called "christophanies" were anything more than angels through whom God was speaking.
praise_yeshua
Active Member
I don't think I understand what you just said.
I believe that is a theological necessity for you. It is only true because your theology needs it to be true.
civic
Active Member
Nope that’s Gods name alone
FreeInChrist
Active Member
I did and am satisfied with the answer relating the Big Bang light and the Genesis light. Of course one has to be willing to have a mindset that accepts if not the Big Bang, at minimum scientific discoveries. If you are YEC
you would not accept the two relating.
For the curious I first asked about How light was created in the Universe, and as expcted got the Big Bang theoriy going back farther then I personally believe.....
I then asked "How and when did the light first appear in Genesis"? And got The basics from creation we can all quote by now..
Then I asked Can you relate the big bang light and the genesis light?
And this is what I got.....
es — they can be related, but only carefully, because Genesis and the Big Bang are doing different kinds of explaining. Here’s a clear way to connect them without forcing either one.
Genesis light and Big Bang light — how they relate
1.
- Genesis:
- Big Bang model:
The universe begins in an initial expansion, followed by an era where light (radiation/energy) exists before stars form. Stars come much later.
In both accounts, light precedes luminaries.2.
- Genesis presents light as the first act that separates:
- light / darkness
- order / chaos
- time (day and night)
- Big Bang cosmology sees early light as the first measurable sign of:
- space
- time
- energy
- physical order
In both, light signals the transition from nothing/chaos to an ordered universe.3.
This is crucial:
- Genesis answers who and why
- God speaks
- Creation obeys
- Light exists because God wills it
- Big Bang answers how
- Expansion
- Energy
- Physical processes
They are not competing explanations.
They address different questions.
4.
Genesis does not say what mechanism produced the light — only who caused it.
That allows a faithful Christian to say:
- God caused the universe to begin
- The Big Bang may describe the method, not the author
This fits well with:
- “By Him all things were created” (Colossians 1:16)
- “He calls into existence things that do not exist” (Romans 4:17)
5.
Genesis is not a science textbook, and the Big Bang is not theology.
Problems arise only when:
- Science tries to answer why existence exists
- Theology is forced to give equations
Used properly, they do not contradict.
Simple, forum-ready summary
Then I asked about the difference between the Big Bang light and the Genesis light..... seeing as Ai agrees they are separate and the answer is.
Yes! There is physical evidence for the light from the Big Bang — scientists call it Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation. Let me break it down clearly:
1.
- In the first moments after the Big Bang, the universe was hot and dense, filled with energy and light.
- This light couldn’t travel freely at first because the universe was opaque (full of plasma).
- About 380,000 years after the Big Bang, the universe cooled enough for atoms to form, and light could travel freely for the first time.
This first light is what we can still detect today — though it’s cooled to microwaves because the universe has expanded.
2.
- In 1965, scientists Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a faint microwave background coming from every direction in space.
- This is the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) — essentially the “afterglow” of the Big Bang light.
- It matches predictions from Big Bang theory almost perfectly.
3.
- The CMB is uniform across the sky, exactly as expected from a primordial, universe-wide light.
- Tiny variations in it also explain the formation of galaxies and stars later on.
- It’s direct evidence that the early universe was filled with light, before stars existed — just like Genesis describes light appearing before the sun and stars.
4.
- Big Bang: light appears naturally from energy in the early universe.
- Genesis: light appears by God’s command.
Both describe light existing before stars, just explained from different perspectives.
If you want, I can make a short, debate-ready explanation showing that Genesis light and CMB light aren’t contradictory, but even scientists would call CMB the “Big Bang light.”
You may not like Ai but it is fun and it is not random answers.... I have fought with them a lot
Similar threads
