Who has gone to heaven?

John 3:13 (NIV)
No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.

Where are the dead when Jesus returns?

John 5:28-29 (NIV)
“Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.”

Sorry Edgar, I'll believe what my Bible actually says, not the ideas and doctrines of Roman Catholicism. As for the Lazarus story, learn what a parable is.

We ALL came from heaven, and that's where we go back when we die. If you'd read your bible (with understanding) you'd know about the three earth ages.

Sometimes parables have more to do with reality than fiction. And this is not Roman Catholic doctrine. It's straight out of the NRSV, KJV, you name it.

Learn the difference between history and prophecy. This ALREADY happened, during the three days when Jesus was 'in the grave'. Guess what, he wasn't there, he was in heaven preaching to those who didn't have a chance to hear the gospel and accept the grace and teaching of Jesus Christ. He went to the prisoners on the bad side of the gulf and gave them the opportunity to repent. Those who believed went with Jesus to the good side of Heaven. Those who refused stayed where they were, in 'Sheol'. No one who has died is ever going to use their flesh body ever again. They're corrupt, rotten, and useless. Who would want to live in a decaying body century after century? Do you see that your belief is just bizarre? God is not some kind of zombie king who's gonna raise all the creatures who've ever been buried out of the ground and reassemble them. Their bodies have served their purpose, and are no more. Haven't you ever read about the corruptible flesh putting on the incorruptible spirit?

According to you, God is God of the dead. God is God of the Living. No one is permanently dead yet, and everyone who isn't living in the flesh is living in heaven (in various places...).

At the end of the day, if your proof is not demonstrable to others, your logic is irrelevant. From our perspective, there is no way to differentiate between you and a crazy person that sees things that don't exist.

No matter how much scripture you quote at us, that will never change.

I've died. Does that count?

Genius x

I could say the same thing about things like evolutionism. There is absolutely no proof and it cannot be demonstrated in a lab. But I won't call people crazy for believing in it.

I have an intelligently designed and intricately complex human body as proof. I do not believe that tornados in junkyards produce perfectly working computers. Intelligent design requires an intelligent designer. That's sound logic, not craziness.

I never quote scripture to an unbeliever unless they comment about my beliefs first. Otherwise it is pointless isn't it?

As for your response "Edgar"... forget it. I won't play verse wars. Explain to me why John 3:13 says what it does. Show me clear Scripture to back up your assumptions about going to heaven or don't bother talking to me.

You attacked me, remember? I merely stated my beliefs which are based on what your Bible says.

When God wants you know something, He puts clear Scripture to explain it. He wanted us to know when His son died, so we are told the exact hour Jesus died at, 3pm. He did not want us knowing His birthday, so it doesn't say that (you won't find Christmas in your bible... or "Sunday" for that matter). He wants us to know murder is wrong, so it clearly states that. He wants us to know that hating people, Muslims, Atheists etc... is wrong, so He says that, with clear text that cannot be misunderstood. Yet there are absolutely no clear verses which say we go to heaven when we die, but there are clear verses which say we die and stay dead until Christ's return.

I usually ask this question, and never get a clear answer from Sunday "Christians" (I put that in quotes because they don't actually follow Christ at all).

Q) If we all are judged at the moment of death and are sent straight to heaven or hell, who is still in their graves that needs to be resurrected by Jesus when He returns? And who is judged on judgment day if we are all judged at the moment of death?

I await your answer to this, and your explanation of John 3:13. I have studied John 3 in context. The conversation started with a temple priest who believed in Jesus asking Jesus about being "born again". Jesus was surprised that he didn't understand this (showing this isn't a new doctrine from Jesus). Jesus told Nicodemus that if he cannot understand things in this life, which he has seen, than how could he ever understand things about heaven if Jesus were to tell him when no man has ever seen heaven. The context is even more damning to Roman Catholicism (and that is ALL Sunday keeping churches) as Jesus states that no man has even SEEN heaven, which means you don't go there in any form, be it spirit or physically or otherwise.

Now, can you answer the questions without playing verse wars... "Edgar"?

Oh, and when you need someone else to tell you what clear Scripture says, than you're already off to a bad start. I don't need some man to tell me that John 3:13 doesn't mean what it says. JESUS Himself states that no man has gone to heaven, if you say they do, than guess who I will believe?! Hint: not you.

If our bodies were designed, then they were designed by a bloody idiot.

edit: Your reply here is also the type of bad logic that theists constantly seem to exhibit. Your premise - that your body is intelligently designed, relies on the conclusion of your argument - that there is a god, being true. You're begging the question.

Human evolution can not, but evolution in bacteria has been demonstrated.

To be honest, those are not examples of evolution. Both were deliberate tinkering of genetics.

Edit:

Thinking about it further, those are both examples of the opposite of evolution. Especially with dogs. Many of the traits deliberately bred into dog species by humans would have died out had they been born in the wild.

No, that is only evidence of variation within a kind, and I don't argue against that. Without variation we would all look like clones and could not adapt to our climates etc. But variation within a kind is not evidence of one kind changing completely to another like the religion of evolutionism states.

What was the bacteria before it changed? Bacteria. What was it afterwards? Bacteria. What evolved? Nothing. Also, there is new evidence that bacteria does not mutate as has been stated. There is new evidence that it is just a change in numbers. The bacteria that was resistant to antibiotics already exists, only it's numbers were smaller. The healthier bacteria that were not resistant were more numerous and kept the damaged bacteria that were resistant in check... that is... until you take the anti-biotics and kill them all off.

This evidence comes from frozen bodies found in the north that were there for centuries. Bacteria was found on them that were resistant to modern medicine that didn't exist back when they died. But no matter what you believe, they have always been bacteria.

The same goes with Darwin's finches. They had a minute difference in beak size, which is evidence in variation within a kind. But they were still finches.
I could use the same argument for dogs. They started out dogs, they end up dogs. Excellent evidence of variation within a kind. But show me a dog that became a cat, or a bird? Species like dogs and cats cannot mate. Their DNA doesn't match at all.

No evidence what so ever that anything evolved.

By definition, evolutionism is a religion. You have no evidence you can test, you cannot repeat it so it is not scientific and it is not historical. The only thing one is left with is that it is religious, you have to believe in it without any proof what so ever. It also goes against known scientific principals of thermodynamics like entropy and energy conservation.

Believe me, I have studied this a lot. I used to believe in Evolution and the billion year old universe like the rest of you, until I started to look into the evidence and found none at all, in fact, you will find evidence to the contrary. Like the common idea that things evolved in water, even though water is known to break down proteins, not help them form. There's far too much to go into in one post. But I have clear evidence of design. My body.

Nobody would believe you if you told them that your computer came together as a result of a tornado in a junk yard right? Show me one single solid example of any complex design that came together randomly? It simply doesn't happen.

Intelligent design requires an intelligent designer that is more intelligent than the design and more powerful. This is a fact. I call this intelligence "God" though admittedly I do not know His name. It's just a label I apply in my limited intellect to identify this powerful intelligence.

So now he has proof that God exists and denies evolution as fact.....it's 2017 man.....I feel bad for you.

So much for the original topic...

This ^

A religion is just a system of faith. Faith is just a belief held without evidence. To claim there cannot be a higher power without evidence is no different than to claim there must be with similar backing. They are both unscientific stances built on faith, as is any other assertion made in absolutes.

You don't have to claim that there cannot be a higher power to be an atheist. You simply don't believe one exists for whatever reason. There's nothing "unscientific" about disbelieving in something for which there is no evidence. It also have nothing to do with faith. If evidence were found for such a being I would change my mind.

I also don't believe in Santa Claus, trolls that live under bridges, fire breathing dragons, or other fictional beings. That doesn't mean I have thousands of religions (or that you do, since I trust most of you don't believe in these things either). Likewise, if sufficient evidence for any of these things were found I would change my beliefs to include them.

I don't think I've ever encountered an atheist that believed that their lack of belief in a being gave their life meaning or made them happy. Atheism is a lack of something. It's nothing. You can count 1, 2, or 3 apples. You cannot count zero apples. There's nothing to count. You just know there is not an apple.

It would be like asserting that people that don't believe in homeopathic treatments believe that not taking them is curative (that is, above and beyond not doing harm, it actually has a benefit over the natural state, as if to say that isn't the natural state already). Doing nothing doesn't magically do something. Atheism is our natural state. All babies are born with no belief in deities. It wouldn't even require a word or definition if theism didn't exist.

Anybody that regards science as a faith-based belief system needs a different word to describe their belief than atheism. Atheism is a disbelief in god. It cannot represent a belief in something. It doesn't even specifically reference science. One could disbelieve gods on entirely arbitrary grounds and still be an atheist. For example, newborn babies are atheists not because they trust science, but because they are incapable of even comprehending the notion.