Did the ancients really consider anything above ground to be "heaven"?

[Steve Lortz]

Here is what one of my profs calls "the hermaneutic circle": WHAT does it say (what is actually written)? > What DID that mean (to the people who originally wrote/read it)? > What DOES that mean (how would we put it in modern idiom)? > What does that mean TO ME (how should I apply what I've learned)? > How does this effect my understanding of other passages?

That's not how Wierwille taught...

According to Ricker-Berry, the passage in question (Acts 2:2a) reads "and suddenly came out of heaven [ouranou - heaven] a sound as of a rushing violent breath [pnoes - wind, spirit, breath]..."

Wierwille wanted to remove as many supernatural elements from the Pentecost event as possible so that people would not expect them during session 12 of PFAL. He taught that the sound was simply the apostles inhaling, and since their mouths were above the ground, the sound seemed to come from heaven. Wierwille may have been right in downplaying spectacular expectations during PFAL, but he did so at the cost of twisting the words of the word, and muddying our understanding of what actually happened on Pentecost.

In the first place, the poetic element... "as of a rushing violent breath"... refers to what the sound seemed like, not where it came from. The verse is pretty explicit... the sound came from heaven. It DOESN'T say the sound came from the apostles' mouths.

There were as many cosmologies in antiquity as there were different philosophers, but that doesn't mean we are at a loss to know what was generally believed, and by whom.

If a person believes, as I do, that Luke/Acts was written as a legal brief for Paul's trial before a magistrate appointed by Nero, then it appears to me that Luke was writing with a view to a well educated Roman official, and he would shape his language in terms such a person might understand.

Yes, there were Platonists around at the time Luke wrote, but their concept of an immaterial cosmos inaccessible to the senses was not yet associated in the general imagination with "heaven." That didn't come until later with the neo-Platonists and Augustine. And well educated Romans of the period were instructed in the Stoic cosmology.

"Heaven" meant the realm of fire, the orbit of the moon and above, which was the place where the gods dwell, since they are fire elementals. To say that the sound came from heaven would signify to Luke's reader that the events occurring on that day of Pentecost were of divine origin.

Love,

Steve

Edited July 2, 2011 by Steve Lortz

[Ham]

I dunno. Maybe one has to define what the ancients thought was heaven.. was it the afterlife? Resurrection? What was it?

Was it a topological space? Or theological space?

Maybe the first step would be to define a few terms here..

[waysider]

If they thought of Heaven as being any old place above Earth, why would they even bother to reference it as "Heaven"? See what I mean? ....."Dude,there was this really rad sound coming from all around us."

Edited July 3, 2011 by waysider

[sirguessalot]

Thanks for the all the clarifications, Steve. I had never heard of Acts being written as a legal brief.

[Steve Lortz]

I dunno. Maybe one has to define what the ancients thought was heaven.. was it the afterlife? Resurrection? What was it?

Was it a topological space? Or theological space?

Maybe the first step would be to define a few terms here..

You're right, Ham! Defining terms is always the first step in critical thinking. Most words start out with a literal meaning that takes on figurative significance. One of the first things to recognize about the "heaven" is that the ancients did not conceive if them as being invisible or immaterial. If you look up on a clear day, you see the heavens and their prinicple resident, the sun. If you look up on a clear night, you see the moon and the stars. Some of the stars seem to travel on the same path, night after night. Some of the stars seem to wander around.

What are those things up there? What are they made of? Why do they move? Do they move of their own volition? Why do some of them move around with an order and predictability not matched by anything below the moon? Why do others seem to wander?

There seems to be a perfect order, grace and harmony to the movement of the stars, the kind of order, grace and harmony we would expect of superior beings, such as gods. It's obvious that they are made of fire because they shine, but it isn't the ordinary kind of fire we experience here on the surface of the earth, because they don't go out.

And the heavens are a place of perfect safety, because they are too high for the calamities of the earth and men to reach. That's one of the points of the story of the tower of Babel. Human beings can't reach the heavens on their own, to wreak havoc there as they do here.

The literal meaning of "the heavens" is what you see when you look up at the sky, apart from the temporary manifestations of weather.

The figurative meaning of "heaven" the dwelling place of diety, safe from the depredations so rife on the earth.

The heavens were not generally associated with an afterlife. Immortal, immaterial "souls" were deemed, outside the cultures the Bible came from, to go underground to Hades, or the grave, upon death. The good guys went to a section of Hades called the Elysian Fields, a very pleasant place. Others went to less pleasant parts. Bad deities went to the worst section, called Tartarus. The souls hung out in Hades until they were ready to reincarnate. Before they went back into a body, they drank from the river Lethe, which wiped out all ther memories.

For a soul to be chained to a body, inherently evil because of its materiality, was worse in the ancient Greco-Roman culture, than being in Hell.

The ideas were gummed up by the generations of Christians that followed the first, but it was the writings of Augustine that set them in stone.

Love,

Steve

[sirguessalot]

so, if the author/s of Acts were somehow writing to a non-Christian worldview regarding the Pentecost experience, how do we find out what they really believed happened on Pentecost?

if not Wierwillian, or Greco-Roman, then what?

what did the apostles and disciples believe about that sound from Heaven?

[waysider]

We touched on this briefly in Thus Saith Paul. These types of questions need to be answered in a context that acknowledges the chronology of the writings and deals honestly with the concept of inerrancy.

Edited July 4, 2011 by waysider

[Steve Lortz]

so, if the author/s of Acts were somehow writing to a non-Christian worldview regarding the Pentecost experience, how do we find out what they really believed happened on Pentecost?

if not Wierwillian, or Greco-Roman, then what?

what did the apostles and disciples believe about that sound from Heaven?

The fact that the sound of spirit egeneto... ek tou ouranou, came out of heaven, indicated to anyone who considered, that the events of Pentecost were spiritual in nature, and of divine origin.

Love,

Steve

[waysider]

I think we would really need to understand a bit more about Acts to answer this question. Things like..... Who wrote it?, when was it written, why was it written?, who was the intended audience?, etc.

Edited July 4, 2011 by waysider

[cman]

seems to be a third person view of Pentecost

not first hand expression,

the way it's written

instead of what did the apostles and disciples actually experience in themselves

a recording of what was seen and heard as the writer saw it?

back to what is heaven or where

even via 3rd person it looks like from inside of them as well as out

Acts 2

1And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

2And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

3And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

4And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

just to look at the verses....

[Steve Lortz]

We touched on this briefly in Thus Saith Paul. These types of questions need to be answered in a context that acknowledges the chronology of the writings and deals honestly with the concept of inerrancy.

I took BIB2010 History and Literature of the Old Testament last semester. It's the current equivalent of a class I took at the same school 42 years ago. Most of the students were freshmen or sophomores, straight out of Sunday school. Most of them were shocked and amazed when I told them that I don't believe in Jesus because of what I read in the Bible, but I trust the Bible because the Lord who rescued me from going crazy led me to the Bible.

That being said, I don't believe Paul was a con man.

I also introduced the class (and the prof) to the communication theory we learned in Organizational Communications. There are five elements of complete communication: a sender, a message, a channel, a receiver and feedback. The sender has to properly encode the message in a form that will travel through the channel. When the receiver has received the message, he has to properly decode it. There are three possible sources for error: the sender may introduce errors while encoding, the channel may introduce errors in the form of noise during transmission, and the receiver may introduce errors while decoding.

Even if the sender (God) encoded the original autographs of the Bible perfectly, we know that there have been a multitude of errors introduced during transmission of the manuscripts. And we all make decoding errors almost all the time. None of our interpretations would approach perfect understanding, even if we did have perfect manuscripts.

The problem with inerrancy, especially the way Wierwille taught it, was to say that either ALL of it is true, or NONE of it is true. That is a false dichotomy.

Love,

Steve

[Steve Lortz]

The fact that the sound of spirit egeneto... ek tou ouranou, came out of heaven, indicated to anyone who considered, that the events of Pentecost were spiritual in nature, and of divine origin.

Love,

Steve

John W. Mauck has written a very instructive book entitled Paul On Trial. Mauck is a lawyer by profession, and he analyzes what can be known about Luke/Acts from the viewpoint of the Roman legal system. He makes a very persuasive argument that Luke/Acts was the brief written to present to the Roman magistrate during Paul's trial at Rome. I am inclined to accept his analysis.

Love,

Steve

Edited July 4, 2011 by Steve Lortz

[sirguessalot]

thanks again, Steve. I think i get the gist of what you are saying, that 1) Wierwille was wrong as usual, 2) in this case, he was wrong because Acts was not written to the Church, but to the Roman legal system using Greco-Roman cosmology....to which i cannot disagree.

but, like you said:

No questions... just one more actual error in PFAL

so my questions about how we understand the cosmology of the apostles regarding that Pentecost experience seem quite outside the scope you intended for this thread.

fair enough.

but i do recommend adding a developmental element to that hermeneutic circle, as well as a more comparitive inter-religious element.

Because even ancients within a single group (such as the apostles) experienced/interpreted/communicated their own cosmologies/mythologies from profoundly different stages of life and growth, where meanings behind "spiritual" and "divine" can change dramatically many times in life. Psychological and cognitive development did not begin in recent history.

yeah, cman...3rd person perspective. Fitting for the legal arena.

[geisha779]

Why not start with the one person who speaks with authority about heaven?

Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.

[waysider]

The question is really not,"Where is Heaven?" The question is, as I interpret it, "Where did people of ancient/Biblical cultures perceive it to be?". According to Wierwille, via his interpretation of the events of Pentecost, they considered everything above Earth to be Heaven. Is it? Is it not? Irrelevant, IMO. What's relevant is that what Wierwille taught appears to be contradictory with perceptions that were prevalent during the point in time when Acts was written.

[Steve Lortz]

The question is really not,"Where is Heaven?" The question is, as I interpret it, "Where did people of ancient/Biblical cultures perceive it to be?". According to Wierwille, via his interpretation of the events of Pentecost, they considered everything above Earth to be Heaven. Is it? Is it not? Irrelevant, IMO. What's relevant is that what Wierwille taught appears to be contradictory with perceptions that were prevalent during the point in time when Acts was written.

Bingo!

Love,

Steve

[Steve Lortz]

Why not start with the one person who speaks with authority about heaven?

Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.

What an intriguing passage of scripture! Nobody has ever gone up into heaven except the one who came down from heaven. What are we to make of that? And why, in this particular place, does He call Himself the Son of Man?

At any rate, the phrase "from heaven" in the version you chose, geisha, is translated from ek tou ouranou, the very same phrase used in Acts 2:2 regarding the sound of a rushing, mighty wind. I wouldn't think the phase should be taken to mean that Jesus came out of the mouths of the apostles!

Love,

Steve

Edited July 4, 2011 by Steve Lortz

[waysider]

We know from the O.T. that people climbed trees. So, according to Wierwille's definition, Jesus is not the only one to have gone into or come down from Heaven. I'm thinking his definition may have some obvious flaws.

Edited July 4, 2011 by waysider

[OperaBuff]

John W. Mauck has written a very instructive book entitled Paul On Trial. Mauck is a lawyer by profession, and he analyzes what can be known about Luke/Acts from the viewpoint of the Roman legal system. He makes a very persuasive argument that Luke/Acts was the brief written to present to the Roman magistrate during Paul's trial at Rome. I am inclined to accept his analysis.

Love,

Steve

Steve, thanks for the book mention, my copy came today and it looks like it will be an interesting read. I'll let you know what I think of it.

I love you, too.

[Jbarrax]

Steve, thanks for the book mention, my copy came today and it looks like it will be an interesting read. I'll let you know what I think of it.

I love you, too.

Interesting. In his book "The Two Ways of the First Century Church" David Anderson makes the same argument. In his case, it comes up midway through the book and I've always felt that it became a tangent that derailed his original thesis. I don't know if he borrowed that from Mauck or vice versa. Anderson's book was written in 1989. I think I have the last printed copy, but it's available online.

[Steve Lortz]

Interesting. In his book "The Two Ways of the First Century Church" David Anderson makes the same argument. In his case, it comes up midway through the book and I've always felt that it became a tangent that derailed his original thesis. I don't know if he borrowed that from Mauck or vice versa. Anderson's book was written in 1989. I think I have the last printed copy, but it's available online.

Thanks, Jerry. I'll see if I can "get aholt" of a copy!

Love,

Steve

[Twinky]

The ancients... who, exactly?

No doubt ideas have varied considerably over the pre-Christian millennia.

What did Stone Age Man think? (Never mind the thoughts of Greek philosophers over an extended period.)

What did Egyptians of relevant times think? What did Assyrians think?

Are there any common "ancient" concepts? "Locations" for heaven?

Or is it simply a recognition of there being something "much bigger" than us and our planet?

Is heaven a manmade concept?

Is, indeed, God, a manmade concept?

...Is it perhaps time I went to bed (it's 2AM)? Since my bedroom's way above street level - will I be in heaven?

[waysider]

The ancients... who, exactly?

No doubt ideas have varied considerably over the pre-Christian millennia.

What did Stone Age Man think? (Never mind the thoughts of Greek philosophers over an extended period.)

What did Egyptians of relevant times think? What did Assyrians think?

Are there any common "ancient" concepts? "Locations" for heaven?

Or is it simply a recognition of there being something "much bigger" than us and our planet?

Is heaven a manmade concept?

Is, indeed, God, a manmade concept?

...Is it perhaps time I went to bed (it's 2AM)? Since my bedroom's way above street level - will I be in heaven?

I don't know, but after a long, hot day in this scorching Midwest heat, it's gonna feel heavenly to me to hit the pillow.

Anyhow----ancient?....Wierwille was referring to people who lived in Biblical times and cultures, if that helps define "ancient".

[Tom]

If I were (still) a Wierwille apologist, I might offer Genesis 1:6 & 7 in support of VP's assertion that heaven is any place above earth. In this passage,it seems that the air mass that separated the waters on the earth from the waters above was called "the firmament" or heaven. So in that context, heaven is the air mass above the earth.

----------------------------------------------------------

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so.

Nice catch, Jb.

I agree that the ancients had no common cosmology & that even the Jews had no common cosmology - at least I'm not going to argue the point. Never could see two Jews agree on anything - except there should be an Israel (that's 1/2 joking from a 1/2 Jew - Jews are famous historically for arguing jots and tittles). Nevertheless, there are certain notions about cosmology in ancient times that could be considered Jewish (or Judean:)). It was an ancient Jewish notion that there are 3 heavens.

There are various words translated heaven, each with its own meaning. Firmament, as Jb pointed out, is between the earth and the waters above. The "fowls of the heaven" fly there.

I haven't read further than Jb's post on page one, so sorry if this post is out of place or has already been covered.

Hey, been a while - hello everyone.

Ha, just read waysiders post about sleeping in a heavenly place. I see birds flying around here lower than rooftop level, so I would think that if one is sleeping on the 2nd or 3rd floor, "ancient" Jews might consider that a heavenly place. Heck, my parents had a luxury apartment rather high off the ground. I considered it up in the heavens. Of course, I was taught by Wierwille, but I can see that perspective as maybe "ancient" Jewish in character.

Okay, here's one for you. Jesus said the kingdom of heaven is at hand. At hand means immediately present - right here, right now. And he wasn't talking about himself. After he put the spirit upon the apostles, he told them to go preach the same. The kingdom of heaven is right here, right now.

Love,

Tom Heller

Edited July 30, 2011 by Tom

[Jbarrax]

Hi Tom.

What were the three heavens? I'd like to hear more about that.