(Jesuit) Preterism versus John 14

[KJV1611]

thank you -- an this is showing that our marriage to Christ involves not only the spirit but the body, right? Paul is using that point to encourage holiness.

speaking of us as already His own bride doesn't definitively make the snatching away of the bride to the place prepared for her, the marriage consummation and feast a thing of the past tho. in Hebrew culture, a betrothed is considered equivalent to an actually married bride. it was not until Gentile culture was mixed with Jewish in the middle ages that there was any thought of the engagement process being 'reversible' or 'tentative' -- rabbinic law treats the betrothal as only being possible to annul through the same divorce proceedings that a married woman would go through.
so it is a very Jewish thing for Paul, a Jew, to speak of the one he 'betrothed' to Christ ((not 'married' - 2 Cor. 11:2)) as already and truly belonging to Him.

but in that these passages from Ephesians speak of us as being bodily joined with Him, how can that consummation, and subsequent feast, have already taken place when we have not yet received the redemption of our bodies ((Rom. 8:22-25)) which is the consummation of our sanctification -- that sanctification being a process the Hebrew bride completes before the consummation of marriage?

The way I see it, marriage doesn't involve the body because the body is not us. The earthly body is only a vehicle that allows us to partake in the experience that we call life. The spiritual body will be the vehicle that allows us to partake in the heavenly experience.

Paul is using the man and woman becoming one flesh because the "one flesh" is the baby that results from their union. For Christ and us, the "one flesh" is the birth of our "new man". If our marriage is supposed to come at the end of time, then the new man created in us right now, is born out of fornication.

 

[KJV1611]

why is the body resurrected and changed?

The old body isn't resurrected and changed, and that's the point I was trying to bring out in the Resurrection thread where you pointed out my error.... and like I said, I was wrong, but I wasn't wrong on everything.

The verses below are probably the most straightforward verses that explains WHAT gets resurrected. Just answer the question, What is "IT" in the verses below? "IT" is what gets resurrected.

(1Co 15:42) So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
(1Co 15:43) It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
(1Co 15:44) It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

"It" is sown in these corrupt, dishonorable, and weak body.
"It" is raised in the powerful spiritual body.

You can see from the text that "It" is not the body, it's our spirit, the real us.

 

[KJV1611]

Did you know what Paul actually said was that he was "willing rather to be absent from the body and present with the Lord"? The entire first part of 2 Corinthians 5 is Paul saying that he wanted to be rid of this Earthly body of woe, skip being "naked" and "unclothed" without a body (which a blind man can see is a reference to lying in the grave dead), and go be present with the Lord in his resurrection body...

...but Paul knew that man does not go immediately to heaven at death, for in that same chapter he himself said "we must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ" which is at the last day, not at a person's death, and he also said that Jesus would give him a crown of righteousness "at His appearing", not when he died.

Everyone who believes the doctrine of the immortal soul and consciousness in death ignores the elephant in the room...the part about "naked" and "unclothed" which Paul clearly says is the intermediate state between Earthly dwelling and Heavenly residence.

(2Co 5:1) For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
(2Co 5:2) For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:
(2Co 5:3) If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.

When this earthly house of a believer dies, that tabernacle is dissolved, but we as believers, ARE NOT ever found naked. Believers are clothed upon with the heavenly house.

Naked isn't an intermediate state for the believer, it's the state of a non-believer.

 

[KJV1611]

Are we to believe all the OT righteous dead reside in Abraham's literal bosom? How could they all fit? How big can Abraham's bosom be? A man's bosom is able at best to accommodate one adult, or several children, depending on age. Yet, we're to believe millions of dead saints are there? Impossible. It's symbolism, brother.

Abraham's bosom is the same place as paradise. Jesus told the thief on the cross that he would be with Jesus this day in paradise. Abraham's bosom was a literal place according to the bible. That was the "old heaven", the place where the OT saints that accepted Christ as their savior went just prior to the death of their earthly bodies.

 

[GaryA]

I await in anticipation.

Perhaps all of you might "await in anticipation" until later tonight (I don't have the time right now.) when I intend to write a post explaining how-and-why ALL of you are wrong about the "where I am" statement that Jesus made.

Look for it, but be patient...

 

[GaryA]

John 14:

3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

In this verse, the 'location' of "where I am" is NOT "fixed" by the context of the verse/passage.

It is not "fixed" with regard to the 'time' of where Jesus was when He spoke the words.

It is not "fixed" with regard to the 'where' of the place prepared.

According to the 'Grammar of the Language', the place prepared has absolutely nothing [directly] to do with the 'where' in the phrase "where I am" later in the verse.

What "sets" the 'location' of "where I am" is the conditional circumstance defined by the context of the verse/passage.

The phrases "I will come again, and receive you unto myself" and "[that] there ye may be also" define the conditional circumstance.

The 'location' of "where I am" is "set" by the "coming together" of 'you'/'ye' with Jesus.

The whole point of this verse is about Jesus bringing 'you'/'ye' together with Himself.

The same central idea is represented in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 in the phrase 'and so shall we ever be with the Lord'.

It is about being with the Lord "from now on" - where-ever, when-ever, and how-ever He goes after that point in time.

The verse above does not [actually] say anything about "going straight to the prepared place immediately upon Jesus "coming again" as indicated in the middle of the verse. This is only imagined and assumed by people who want to place that [direct] association upon it.

The prepared place "comes into play" at a later time.

In the same way that 'because I go unto my Father' is used in John 14:12 to show that there is an 'association' and a 'causation' there - but, without "filling in the details" of it - this verse also presents an 'association' and a 'causation' with the prepared place without actually "telling all" that there is concerning it. While there is mention of it, there is no direct association between it and the rest of the verse (the 'details' of the 'association' and 'causation' are not present).

The conditional circumstance in John 7:34 is "[when] Ye shall seek me [and shall not find me]"; the 'location' is "set" by where Jesus is when...

John 12:26 and John 7:24 are a bit more 'abstract'; I will not get into those in this post.

Each passage is a little different, based on the conditional circumstance that is defined in the context of the verse/passage.

 

[Corban]

John 14:

3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

In this verse, the 'location' of "where I am" is NOT "fixed" by the context of the verse/passage.

It is not "fixed" with regard to the 'time' of where Jesus was when He spoke the words.

It is not "fixed" with regard to the 'where' of the place prepared.

According to the 'Grammar of the Language', the place prepared has absolutely nothing [directly] to do with the 'where' in the phrase "where I am" later in the verse.

What "sets" the 'location' of "where I am" is the conditional circumstance defined by the context of the verse/passage.

....

• The location IS fixed by the context and passage; John 14:10, "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works."
• "I am" IS fixed in time for it is written in the present tense.
• The place prepared IS fixed - the Father's House, which is the theme of the Gospel of John
• The place prepared has EVERYTHING to do with where Jesus was. The disciples would be in the same place shortly (v.20)
• The TIME that the disciples would be where Jesus was already is defined by "IN THAT DAY". That is, there would be a DAY when the disciples would be IN the Father and the Father IN THEM - making them "ABODES" in the House of God. This "DAY" is found in John 20:22.

John Chapter 1 sets the introduction to the Book. Eight things of note are mentioned in John Chapter 1 which end in BETHEL - the House of God. Verse 51 alludes to Jacob's vision in Genesis 28 where he erects a stone and calls it BETHEL. They are; (i) God, (ii) the Word, (iii) Incarnation, (iv) the Holy Spirit, (v) the Lamb of God, (vi) Nathanael - a gift of God, (vii) Peter - a stone for building, and (viii) BELIEF in the Son of God. But BETHEL is not a physical BUILDING. It is men in resurrection life (Lk.20:36) going through a process of becoming heavenly (ascending first), but for the earth (descending again). And the means to this LIFE is Jesus - the Ladder (Jn.20:30-31).

In Chapter 2 of John, there is further revelation as to the Father's House. Up until then, God lived on earth in a House "made with hands". But now the Temple is discarded and the House of God is a Man. Those IN Christ by faith are the "many abodes" and by faith are become the House of God (1st Tim.3:15). And this all because of a Wedding.

The CONTEXT of John 14 is the House of God. The context of the whole Book of John is the House of God. And the revelation of John's gospel is how man gets into God and how God gets into man for becoming the House of God and the Bride of Christ. Christ was in a place - IN the Father. The Father was in a place - IN Jesus. Jesus was the House of God (Chapter 2). The many "abodes" (lit. Gk.) are the disciples of Jesus. Their abodes needed "preparation" because of sin. Jesus goes away in death for these sins and returns 4 days later, having presented Himself to the Father and having His "preparation" approved. He then breaths the Holy Spirit into the disciples and they become the "many abodes" in God's new House made "without hands".

 

[Phoneman-777]

First, I our Lord Jesus said, "where I am" the Lord of truth meant "where I am". It does not fit your concept so your only, and very transparent, escape is to say that it doesn't mean what it says. I think you'll agree that this was the Serpents ploy with Eve.

Secondly, John 14, if taken literally, and without adding to the Word of God, does not need INTERPRETING. It is a plain statement of the process whereby our Lord Jesus predcits to His disciples how He will go away from them to prepare the many "abodes" (lit. Gk.) that make up the Father's House, and return to put them into a condition that He is already in - an abode of God. This you try to overturn by additons and private interpretation - all uncalled for, and unwarranted.

Third, you are still unable to counter one of my statements without adding to scripture.

Fourth, if you think that my understanding of John 14 is what you say above, you have a massive problem with English. But why did I think you would do otherwise. You add words to change the meaning of scripture. Why would yu not do it with other men's writing? I wonder what you would say if I added words to your answer that were never there and never intended by you? You would be within your right to be incensed. I wonder how the Lord feels when His carefully chosen words are added to?



Claiming "sound exegesis" and then dismissing the "ascending" and "descending" to place our Lord IN heaven is a contradiction. Sound exegesis considers the WHOLE. And using "subjectivity" on my part to annul what I said is not an argument. You have yet to expound that verse in its entirety, despite the requests to do so. Let's leave it at that, and return to John 14. Let us discuss what the Lord said, and what happened shortly after - WITHOUT ADDING. If so, good. If you don't want to give an exegesis on John 14 WITHOUT ADDITIONS, lets move on.

I await in anticipation.

It is ludicrous to argue "...that where I am, there ye may be also" refers to His geographical location on Earth at the time He spoke these words as the place to where the saints are to be taken to partake of the banquets and mansions...because Jesus plainly states that the location of these things He is to prepare are "In My Father's house...." which is a zillion miles from Earth, right or wrong?

There is no scenario one can concoct to show how Jesus came back in the first century and took the church to these mansions and banquets when we are all still very much here right now in 2020...therefore Jesuit Preterism dies on this hill. It cannot be alementated, conservated, resuscitated, or resurrected. It needs to be cast among the rest of the filth on what Martin Luther referred to as "the Roman dunghill of decretals."

 

[Phoneman-777]

Oddly, we mostly agree .

Progress...I hope people don't start referring to us as "progressives" That reminds me of a story...my favorite preacher, a black pastor/international evangelist and country boy from Maryland named Dr. C. D. Brooks, once said that he had written letters to several high profile politicians about the need for America to maintain separation of church and state due to issues revolving around the "Mark of the Beast" and he said "the only one that seemed to have any idea what I was talking about was Jesse Helms....and I hate to agree with him on anything". LOLOL

 

[Corban]

It is ludicrous to argue "...that where I am, there ye may be also" refers to His geographical location on Earth at the time He spoke these words as the place to where the saints are to be taken to partake of the banquets and mansions...because Jesus plainly states that the location of these things He is to prepare are "In My Father's house...." which is a zillion miles from Earth, right or wrong?

There is no scenario one can concoct to show how Jesus came back in the first century and took the church to these mansions and banquets when we are all still very much here right now in 2020...therefore Jesuit Preterism dies on this hill. It cannot be alementated, conservated, resuscitated, or resurrected. It needs to be cast among the rest of the filth on what Martin Luther referred to as "the Roman dunghill of decretals."

Brother, may I refer you back to my posting # 13. That is what I said. The things you talk about in the above posting are so far removed from what I said that I'm not even sure you read my post.

• The Father's House - a "zillion miles from earth"??? I stated clearly that the Father's House in scripture is five things to which I gave scriptures for
• "Geographical location on earth"? - where does this come from? Read what I said.
• "Banquets and Mansions?" - these are your thoughts. I disagreed with the rendering "Mansions". You are the one who likes to think about mansions and banquets
• "Jesus coming back in the first century to take the Church to Mansions"??? Read what I said in posting # 13.

And you have been invited to give an exegesis on John 14 multiple times - yet you refuse. What kind of debate is this? It looks more like a Crusade to obfuscate. You have yet to address one of my statements from posting # 13 as it stands.

C'mon brother. Let's address John 14 (i) in its entirety, (ii) within context of what SCRIPTURE says the House of God is, and (iii) within the context of the whole Book of John. If you don't want to, let us call it off.

 

[Phoneman-777]

(2Co 5:1) For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
(2Co 5:2) For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:
(2Co 5:3) If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.

When this earthly house of a believer dies, that tabernacle is dissolved, but we as believers, ARE NOT ever found naked. Believers are clothed upon with the heavenly house.

Naked isn't an intermediate state for the believer, it's the state of a non-believer.

Then why would Paul have to clarify in verse 4 that our groaning is not to be unclothed?

"For we that are in [this] tabernacle do groan, being burdened: NOT for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life."​

​

Were believers walking around groaning from their earthly burdens with a misplaced desire to find relief from them in death without a body when, if you are correct, that is both ludicrous and impossible? Are you suggesting being "unclothed" means "lost"? What believer would desire to be LOST as a means of obtain that relief? Can you see how your position which assumes this immediate exchange makes no sense in light of verse 4?

The only explanation of "unclothed" and "naked" that makes sense is what I already said: that Paul is saying our desire is not to die and wait in the grave without a body until the resurrection when we get our new body - as Job so plainly says - but that we would SKIP that part and go straight to be with Jesus.

 

[Phoneman-777]

Brother, may I refer you back to my posting # 13. That is what I said. The things you talk about in the above posting are so far removed from what I said that I'm not even sure you read my post.

• The Father's House - a "zillion miles from earth"??? I stated clearly that the Father's House in scripture is five things to which I gave scriptures for
• "Geographical location on earth"? - where does this come from? Read what I said.
• "Banquets and Mansions?" - these are your thoughts. I disagreed with the rendering "Mansions". You are the one who likes to think about mansions and banquets
• "Jesus coming back in the first century to take the Church to Mansions"??? Read what I said in posting # 13.

And you have been invited to give an exegesis on John 14 multiple times - yet you refuse. What kind of debate is this? It looks more like a Crusade to obfuscate. You have yet to address one of my statements from posting # 13 as it stands.

C'mon brother. Let's address John 14 (i) in its entirety, (ii) within context of what SCRIPTURE says the House of God is, and (iii) within the context of the whole Book of John. If you don't want to, let us call it off.

Can you not see that when Jesus says "I go to prepare a place", this demands that Jesus leave from the place He is speaking (Earth) and travel to another place ("My Father's house") to make the preparations? I just don't see any way around this.

 

[Phoneman-777]

Abraham's bosom is the same place as paradise. Jesus told the thief on the cross that he would be with Jesus this day in paradise. Abraham's bosom was a literal place according to the bible. That was the "old heaven", the place where the OT saints that accepted Christ as their savior went just prior to the death of their earthly bodies.

Paradise is up, not down. It is where the Tree of Life is, which is where the River of Life is, and that River flows from the throne of God...which means Paradise is where the throne of God is...which begs the question: how can Abraham's Bosom be an "old heaven" when Paradise is the same heaven it's always been and always will be? Abraham's Bosom of Comfort is a symbol for the Comforter which comforts His church. It's a parable, brother

 

[Absolutely]

Paradise is up, not down. It is where the Tree of Life is, which is where the River of Life is, and that River flows from the throne of God...which means Paradise is where the throne of God is...which begs the question: how can Abraham's Bosom be an "old heaven" when Paradise is the same heaven it's always been and always will be? Abraham's Bosom of Comfort is a symbol for the Comforter which comforts His church. It's a parable, brother

The rich man and Lazarus is not a parable.

Also hell was adjacent to paradise.

 

[garee]

Paradise is up, not down. It is where the Tree of Life is, which is where the River of Life is, and that River flows from the throne of God...which means Paradise is where the throne of God is...which begs the question: how can Abraham's Bosom be an "old heaven" when Paradise is the same heaven it's always been and always will be? Abraham's Bosom of Comfort is a symbol for the Comforter which comforts His church. It's a parable, brother

Abraham's Bosom, the unseen holy place of God . Neither up or down for the believer. Our help comes from within .We are temples . He is the open door.

 

[KJV1611]

Then why would Paul have to clarify in verse 4 that our groaning is not to be unclothed?

"For we that are in [this] tabernacle do groan, being burdened: NOT for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life."​

​

Were believers walking around groaning from their earthly burdens with a misplaced desire to find relief from them in death without a body when, if you are correct, that is both ludicrous and impossible? Are you suggesting being "unclothed" means "lost"? What believer would desire to be LOST as a means of obtain that relief? Can you see how your position which assumes this immediate exchange makes no sense in light of verse 4?

The only explanation of "unclothed" and "naked" that makes sense is what I already said: that Paul is saying our desire is not to die and wait in the grave without a body until the resurrection when we get our new body - as Job so plainly says - but that we would SKIP that part and go straight to be with Jesus.

It's just a biblical principle that nakedness is not a good thing, we as believers are never naked. But that's really not the point I'm trying to make. Take a look at what 2 Corinthians says.

(2Co 5:4) For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.

When is mortality swallowed up?

 

[KJV1611]

Paradise is up, not down. It is where the Tree of Life is, which is where the River of Life is, and that River flows from the throne of God...which means Paradise is where the throne of God is...which begs the question: how can Abraham's Bosom be an "old heaven" when Paradise is the same heaven it's always been and always will be? Abraham's Bosom of Comfort is a symbol for the Comforter which comforts His church. It's a parable, brother

Jesus said TODAY you will be with me in paradise. Jesus died that day and went to the heart of the earth for three days and three nights. While he was in the heart of the earth, he preached to the spirits of those who died before the flood. That's not a parable.

 

[garee]

The rich man and Lazarus is not a parable.

Also hell was adjacent to paradise.

Hell is the living sufferings we experience in these earthen bodies of death. The one appointment we will all be right on time.

That portion of the parable that uses the word hell is part of the whole series of parables .It is not the first in that series that began in chapter 15. Chapter 16 is the last in the series of parables .The others build towards the end teaching. teaching us how to walk by faith searching for the meaning hid in the parable of "Two teaching Masters"

The unbelieving Jew. Pharisees with Sadducees walked by sight after the temporal what the eyes see. And not by faith the eternal vision we hear in our hearts. God giving us his understanding.

.They insisted in communication through necromancy called workers with familiar spirits an abomination of desolation .Making the understanding of faith we have of the father not seen to no effect.

The idea that one, what Catholics call patron saints could come and warn his family. Twice it was shown as impossible. (a fixed chasm) Twice the person in the parable refused to hear the word of God to show he was not given ears to hear.

Seeking after the dead as Saul seeking Samuel was forbidden. The teaching master that does work in us with us to give us the understanding of the unseen faith is in respect the witness of God . Using two to represent the one work of one God . (the father and the Son. )

The written law as to letter (death) is represented by Moses. And the prophets Elisa coming in the power to represent the unseen law of faith, the prophets. representing new born again life

Again the context of the whole series of parables.. "No man can serve two teaching masters" One seen the temporal and the other our unseen Holy Father.

Luke 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him. And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

Law and the prophets , or Moses and Elisa . (sola scriptura)

Note . . .(purple in parentheses) my added comments.

Luke 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. (Then he refusing to hear the understanding of the word of God) said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; (the word of God) let them hear them.( The word of God the gospel of our salvation) And he said, ( refusing to hear ) Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, (the gospel of salvation). neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Faith does not come by seeing. They saw Jesus raised and remained in unbelief.

 

[Corban]

Can you not see that when Jesus says "I go to prepare a place", this demands that Jesus leave from the place He is speaking (Earth) and travel to another place ("My Father's house") to make the preparations? I just don't see any way around this.

Here is what I wrote in my posting # 13. In it is the journey of Jesus which, for some unknown reason, you refuse to acknowledge.

Corban posting # 13 - third-last and second-last paragraph

Now let us recount the events of Christ GOING AWAY and RETURNING. Christ dies and both Matthew 12:40 and Ephesians 4:9 tells us that our Lord DESCENDED to the "heart of the earth". This is again confirmed by Acts Chapter 2 which says that our Lord's soul was not LEFT in Hades (v.27) and that this escape from Hades was by the resurrection (v.31-32). Shortly after this resurrection, our Lord Jesus meets a woman near the tomb and admonished her NOT to touch Him BECAUSE He had "NOT YET ASCENDED to His Father" (Jn.20:17). But that night He appears to His disciples and tells them to "handle and touch Him" (Lk.24:39). That means that our Lord Jesus had died, gone to Hades for three days and nights, RISEN, met the woman at the tomb (who may not touch Him), ASCENDED to the Father and RETURNED (so they could touch Him).

And then, having gone, and come again, as He predicted in John 14, HE BREATHED THE HOLY SPIRIT INTO THE DISCIPLES AND THEY BECAME THE HOUSE OF GOD (Jn.20:22). At "that day" the disciples were , where our Lord Jesus had been in John 14, IN THE FATHER AND THE FATHER IN HIM, AND THAT DAY was resurrection day.

I think our conversation is over.

 

[garee]

My question is why are the Jesuits a reference point for Christians. I thought the Reformation sorted that out.

My next question is why is the Bible interpreted with human cultural traditions? I thought that the Lord was pretty clear that (i) Jewish traditions did not explain the Word, but "made it of none effect" (Mk.7:13), and (ii) we may not interpret scripture with our private thoughts (2nd Pet.1:20).

But I have another proposal. The Title is a doctrine based on John Chapter 14, and there is some pretty wild conjecture in these few posting up to now. Without addressing any one person, I propose that John Chapter 14 does not teach going to heaven, but how to get God into man. Consider these points.

1. John 20:30-13 tells us of the purpose of all that is written in the book of John. That we may believe in Jesus and HAVE God's divine LIFE.
2. John Chapter 1 introduces the theme of John. Seven things are presented so that God may achieve BETHEL - the House of God
3. John Chapter 2 introduces the Wedding Feast for a Bride who is the house of God - the BODY of Jesus Christ
4. John Chapter 3 introduces how God, a Spirit, makes His home (or House) by coming to dwell in the spirit of man by a New Birth which imparts eternal life

If we interpret scripture privately, the sky is the limit for mischief. But if we interpret scripture using scripture alone, the House of God is SIX things:

1. The Tabernacle of the Wilderness (Ex.25:8 etc.)
2. Solomon’s Temple (1st Ki.6:1 etc.)
3. Zerubbabel’s Temple (Ezr.1:2-5; Jn.2:16)
4. Our Lord Jesus’ physical Body (Jn.2:19-22)
5. The Church (1st Tim.3:15)
6. Our bodies (1st Cor.6:19)

So, to call the Father's House in John 14 Heaven has no scriptural basis. Granted, He dwells there, and has the True tabernacle which Moses and David copied there, but scripture NEVER calls this the "Father's HOUSE". In John 14 our Lord Jesus said that He would go and prepare an "abode" (the word "mansions" in the KJV is not warranted), and that He, "... will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also." (John 14:3). Notice the tense. Our Lord Jesus would go away, and come again, so that His disciples would, IN THAT DAY OF HIS RETURN, be where Jesus was as He spoke John 14:3. And verse 20 tells where the disciples will be "AT THAT DAY"! "At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you." That means that the theme of the Father's House is upheld in this Chapter again and the Father's House is God IN MAN.

Now let us recount the events of Christ GOING AWAY and RETURNING. Christ dies and both Matthew 12:40 and Ephesians 4:9 tells us that our Lord DESCENDED to the "heart of the earth". This is again confirmed by Acts Chapter 2 which says that our Lord's soul was not LEFT in Hades (v.27) and that this escape from Hades was by the resurrection (v.31-32). Shortly after this resurrection, our Lord Jesus meets a woman near the tomb and admonished her NOT to touch Him BECAUSE He had "NOT YET ASCENDED to His Father" (Jn.20:17). But that night He appears to His disciples and tells them to "handle and touch Him" (Lk.24:39). That means that our Lord Jesus had died, gone to Hades for three days and nights, RISEN, met the woman at the tomb (who may not touch Him), ASCENDED to the Father and RETURNED (so they could touch Him).

And then, having gone, and come again, as He predicted in John 14, HE BREATHED THE HOLY SPIRIT INTO THE DISCIPLES AND THEY BECAME THE HOUSE OF GOD (Jn.20:22). At "that day" the disciples were , where our Lord Jesus had been in John 14, IN THE FATHER AND THE FATHER IN HIM, AND THAT DAY was resurrection day.

I propose that John 14 does not address HEAVEN, but the House of God - the Church (1st Tim.3:15). I am aware that this myth of going to a "mansion" in heaven is a cherished one. I am aware that many Priests and Pastors have used it as comfort at a funeral service, and I am aware that going to heaven at death is a widespread belief. But the facts of scripture NEVER address dead men going to heaven, and NEVER addresses heaven as the final destiny of men. John 14 was a prophecy about the THREE DAYS starting with Christ's death, where He "prepared" a place that was inaccessible because of sin, and came back to His disciples and made them the House of God.

"What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?" (1st Corinthians 6:19)

We must be careful how we hear what the Spirit says to the believers. Jesus never used the human touch as evidence in regard to his corrupted flesh which he informs us it profits nothing.

Walking by sight after the corruptible dead things of this world is not walking by faith. . trusting the unseen things of God . .

The touched with the woman was the kind where virtue goes out. Not until he wedding supper when he will share his new wine with his bride in her new wine skin.

The other example like that with doubting Thomas touching has to do with Christ teaching them not to be faithless and doubt but rather believe. exercise the faith that works from within. He never encouraged worshiping God not seen by the temporal things seen.

Mark 5:30 And Jesus, immediately knowing in himself that virtue had gone out of him, turned him about in the press, and said, Who touched my clothes?

In other words. . .wait until you receive your new incorruptible body. Don't touch my clothes before the ceremony . You might wrinkle them .