The Holy Trinity

[Fortigurn]

If they are, I think you have done a poor job or illustrating how they are "explicit". Is it fairly clear? Yes. But this is different from "explicit" which requires a direct association comment like "The Father is God." You can't provide this can you?

I think you misunderstand what I was proving. I was proving that God is referred to as one person, the Father. I do believe I have presented explicit statements from Scripture to that effect.

By the way, what is the difference between 'That they may know you [the Father] the only true God', and 'The Father is the only true God'?

What is the difference between 'There is one God, the Father', and 'The Father is the one God'? There is no difference.

What is the difference between 'Our God and Father', and 'Our Father and God'? There is no difference.

My idea of "explicit" is much stricter than yours. But this does not really matter. I'm quite willing to accept your own idea of "explicit"—I have no qualms about doing this. It just means when I previously said Scripture doesn't implicitly affirm Christ as God, or the Holy Spirit as God, or God as a Trinity, that I now affirm them all as "explicit" (according to same understanding by which you say the Father is explicitly God).

If you had explicit statements to that effect, you would have shown them to me by now. As it is, you haven't even presented me with statements as explicit as those which I have shown you.

How does it not constitute an explicit teaching of the Trinity?

Because an explicit statement of the concept of the trinity requires and explicit statement that God is three persons in one being. You have already acknowledged that there is no such explicit statement in Scripture.

The concept 'God is three persons in one being' is derived, as you have acknowledged, from a process of reasoning which seeks to harmonise a certain understanding of individual texts (none of which state the concept explicitly). It does not derive from any explicit statement of the concept in Scripture.

Any conclusion which is the result of a process of reasoning from the interpretation of several texts, none of which declare the conclusion explicitly, is not a conclusion which is stated explicitly.

I think it quite explicit that all three (The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are believed to be one God.

Actually you think it is quite explicit that all three (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit), are each believed to be God. You attempt to resolve the logical contradiction which this causes, by invoking the concept of the trinity - God as three persons in one being - a concept which is not declared explicitly anywhere in Scripture.

The correct teaching of the Trinity is one God in three eternal coexistent persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And all the significant hallmarks of the Trinity are "explicitly" taught in Scripture.

Thank you, that's basically a rephrase of what I've said in my last paragraph.

Let's say, I'm left unmoved by your previous comments as I feel you are simply reading what you want to read, and ignoring the obvious of what is said in John 1.

If you could actually articulate the reasons why you are left unmoved by my previous comments, that would help me discuss the issue with you.

If you reject my arguments but don't explain why, that doesn't leave me much to go on. It's not actually a conversation, is it?

[Byblos]

Nope. What you described above is your position, not mine.

Can we back up a bit so that I can see how I've misrepresented you? I understood you to be saying the following:

* The Word is eternal
* The Word cannot become anything other than eternal
* The Word became flesh

Are you or are you not saying this?

You are the one saying the Word became flesh (or Jesus) but Jesus is a mere man; therefore you just simply killed God.

Can you explain to me how I 'just simply killed God'?

It is really rather simple. You're the one who does not believe in the trinity because it is a 'logical contradiction'. I will show you how your argument itself leads to an inescapable fatal logical contradiction by summarizing it as follows:

Fortigurn's position:

The Word was with God. The Word is God (eternal). The eternal Word became a mere mortal being. Eternal became mortal, God dead. Fatal logical contradiction.

Our position:

The Word is eternal, Jesus is eternal (part of whom is the flesh that was resurrected, so it is now eternal as well; but the essence, i.e. the Word was and always remains eternal). Eternal still eternal. God not dead. No contradiction. End of discussion.

[Fortigurn]

14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

The Word became flesh (it doesn't say "became Jesus").

I agree that the Word became flesh. That flesh was Jesus. Yes, as I have pointed out, saying that 'the Word became Jesus' contradicts the trinitarian theology.

Nowhere does it say "that flesh" was "Jesus". Rather it says "the Word became flesh."

Yes, I agree that the Word became flesh. What flesh did it become, if it didn't become the flesh of Jesus?

It is therefore more correct to say Jesus is "the Word [who] became flesh".

Wouldn't it be more helpful to you if John had actually written that?

Jesus is "The Word" and "The Word [who] became flesh." Unless you wish to argue that God can stop being God (i.e., the Word stopped being God upon taking up fleshly form), then I think you're at a dead end.

You are assuming that the Word was Jesus to start with. I suggest you look up the word 'logos' in a standard lexicon and see if it means 'Jesus'.

The Word became flesh. It was no longer 'word', it was 'flesh'. As I have said, I can show you other examples of this grammar pattern in the New Testament. You can then see for yourself if X remains X after X becomes Y.

You are reading something into the text to fit your own preconceived ideas.

Could you explain why please? I have already told you that this same grammar pattern is used elsewhere in the New Testament. I can provide the examples.

If "the Word" is God, and God becomes flesh, then God does not cease being God (for it is logically impossible, in virtue of who God is, for God to cease being God).

Well yes, this is precisely why we know that the 'Word' here is not ontologically 'God' in the sense you understand it. That is precisely my point. God cannot become 'flesh' (Y), and cease being 'God' (X).

But here we have something which can become Y, at which point it ceases being X. Therefore we do not have an ontological reference to God, in the sense you understand it.

What you are doing is actually requiring that the Greek here be contradicted. You require that 'the Word became flesh' must not actually mean 'the Word became flesh'. You require that this Greek phrase (which always means that X became Y, and ceased to be X), in this case actually means that X became Y, and remained X.

Can you understand why I am objecting to the fact that your theological interpretation contradicts the actual Greek grammar here?

Jesus is the Word that became flesh, and this did not mean the Word ceased... as Colossians 1:16-17 says:

• 16 For by him [the Son—as revealed by the previous verses] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
  17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

And so Christ, the Son, was before all things and by the Son all things were created (just like the Word in John 1:10).

I agree that Jesus is the Word made flesh. I do not believe that Jesus was the Word, which then became flesh. By the way, Colossians 1 is speaking of the new creation (have a look at the context, and have a look also at some standard orthodox commentaries), and in Scripture the Father is said to have been the creator of all things in Genesis 1 (even Christ said this). I can provide you with plenty of quotes to this effect.

We also read in Philippians 2:

• 5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
  6Who, being in very nature God,
  did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
  7but made himself nothing,
  taking the very nature of a servant,
  being made in human likeness.
  8And being found in appearance as a man,
  he humbled himself
  and became obedient to death—
  even death on a cross!
  9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
  and gave him the name that is above every name,
  10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
  in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
  11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
  to the glory of God the Father.

Here we see in verse 6 that Christ was in the very nature God (just like the Word in John 1:1). This means Christ existed as God before he became flesh. If Christ is God, then by virtue of being God, he cannot cease being God even if he takes upon himself fleshy human form.

I really hate to say this, given the responses I've had earlier, but the translation 'in very nature God' is completely inaccurate. I have found only one translation which actually goes this far, and I have half a dozen modern, evangelical, trinitarian translations which say otherwise. Most of them translate 'in the form of God', or 'like God'.

This, of course, is not a statement that he is God. If you are in the form of X, then you are not X. If you are like X, then you are not X.

The relevant Greek word here is MORFH, which most certainly does not mean 'very nature'. It means form, shape, outward appearance, fashion, kind, or sort, and always refers to that which can be visibly seen with the eye.

I can provide you with a host of textual evidence for this fact, from Greek literature, from the Greek translation of the Old Testament, and from the New Testament itself.

This is also evidenced by the fact Christ had to "humble" himself as a man (v. something Christ would not need to do if he was no longer God but only a man.

I don't follow your argument here. The text says that equality with God was not something he grasped at (something he couldn't have grasped at if he was already God - you can't grasp at something you already have), but chose to humble himself instead.

The parallel is with Adam, who (though in the image and likeness of God), did choose to grasp at equality with God, and did not humble himself.

[Fortigurn]

It is really rather simple. You're the one who does not believe in the trinity because it is a 'logical contradiction'. I will show you how your argument itself leads to an inescapable fatal logical contradiction by summarizing it as follows:

Fortigurn's position:

The Word was with God. The Word is God (eternal). The eternal Word became a mere mortal being. Eternal became mortal, God dead. Fatal logical contradiction.

I have explained before that this is a misrepresentation of my position, because I do not believe that the 'Word' here is an ontological statement describing the Divine being. I believe that the 'Word' here is exactly what it was in the Old Testament - the Word of God - which is, qualitively, Divine.

Since I do not believe that the 'Word' here is a Divine being, there is no contradiction.

Our position:

The Word is eternal, Jesus is eternal (part of whom is the flesh that was resurrected, so it is now eternal as well; but the essence, i.e. the Word was and always remains eternal). Eternal still eternal. God not dead. No contradiction. End of discussion.

The problem is that the grammar here says that X became Y. You translate it as 'X added Y to itself without ceasing to be X, and became XY'.

Why do you translate it like that? That is not what the grammar means. This is verifiable.

[Byblos]

It is really rather simple. You're the one who does not believe in the trinity because it is a 'logical contradiction'. I will show you how your argument itself leads to an inescapable fatal logical contradiction by summarizing it as follows:

Fortigurn's position:

The Word was with God. The Word is God (eternal). The eternal Word became a mere mortal being. Eternal became mortal, God dead. Fatal logical contradiction.

I have explained before that this is a misrepresentation of my position, because I do not believe that the 'Word' here is an ontological statement describing the Divine being. I believe that the 'Word' here is exactly what it was in the Old Testament - the Word of God - which is, qualitively, Divine.

What in the world does 'qualitatively divine' mean? I will tell you what it means from your point of view. You do not have a choice but to dance around the Word being God specifically because it leads you to the fatal logical contradiction I lead you to. So hmm, how do I (Fortigurn) escape that? Oh yes, I will invent 'qualitative divinity' in order to make the whole argument fit my (Fortigurn) understanding.

And I believe the reason you have to do it is that you do not believe in the concept of soul or spirit that is eternal and that is evident from the other thread 'The RCC and the nature of the afterlife'. In other words, if you admit that the Word is fully, not qualitatively eternal and that Jesus is divine then you will have no choice but to admit that the notion of eternal soul does exist and, by the same fatal logical contradiction, your entire belief system will simply fall apart.

[Jbuza]

I know, I know I said I was done, but I just can't keep my mouth shut.

Why would God allow worship of JEsus, Why would he allow people to Bow down to Jesus? God is a Jealous God, and allows worship of JEsus because Jesus is Divine.

Romans 14:11 - For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

1 John 4:2 - Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

1 John 4:3 - And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

[Fortigurn]

What in the world does 'qualitatively divine' mean?

It means 'having the qualities of God', as is expressed in the footnotes of the standard evangelical trinitarian translation the New English Translation (not to mention other orthodox trinitarian commentaries).

I will tell you what it means from your point of view.

It's not simply my point of view, I'm quoting standard evangelical scholarship here. Are you unaware of this position within standard evangelical scholarship?

[Fortigurn]

I know, I know I said I was done, but I just can't keep my mouth shut.

Why would God allow worship of JEsus, Why would he allow people to Bow down to Jesus? God is a Jealous God, and allows worship of JEsus because Jesus is Divine.

Romans 14:11 - For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

1 John 4:2 - Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

1 John 4:3 - And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

I recommend a word study on the Greek word LATREUW (often translated 'worship'). It doesn't necessarily refer to the worship of God. It is used of honour given to men also (I've already linked to a study of this word, and the concept of the worship of Christ).

But that aside, let me show you this:

Philippians 2:
10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow —in heaven and on earth and under the earth—

11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

See that? What is the purpose of bowing to Christ? To recognise that he is Lord, not that he is God, to the glory of God, the Father, not to the glory of 'God the son'.

It couldn't be simpler.

[Fortigurn]

The Word became flesh. It was no longer 'word', it was 'flesh'. As I have said, I can show you other examples of this grammar pattern in the New Testament. You can then see for yourself if X remains X after X becomes Y.

I commented on this line of thought quite a while ago. But I really think you're missing the nature of life. Both body and spirit together make life, and Jesus was no different.

I believe that both body and spirit together make life. This is why I believe that life ends when body and spirit are no longer together. I do not belive that we continue to live elsewhere, out of the body.

The eternal nature of Jesus is the Word; essentially His spirit. The Word became flesh means that the Word became Jesus' body also.

Where does the Bible say this?

It's like when we die, we all believe that WE continue to exist. Just as we continue to exist without a body, so too did Jesus exist as the Word before (and after) becoming flesh.

I don't believe that when we die we continue to exist.

Just to reinforce the eternal and unending spirit of Jesus, note that it's His spirit by which we have eternal life.

Actually it's by the spirit of the Father.

Clearly, the Word coexisted at that time with the body/flesh of Jesus.

Where does the Bible say this?

Note also that the Jesus ascended to 'where he was before' which would also indicate that Jesus existed before being born of flesh.

John 6:54-56, 61-63
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.
...
Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

I've dealt with this passage before.

[Byblos]

What in the world does 'qualitatively divine' mean?

It means 'having the qualities of God', as is expressed in the footnotes of the standard evangelical trinitarian translation the New English Translation (not to mention other orthodox trinitarian commentaries).

And what are the 'qualities' of God? Eternality. Thank you for finally acknowledging that the Word is eternal. Given that, and given that the Word was God, ergo the Word is eternal and the Word is God.

I will tell you what it means from your point of view.

It's not simply my point of view, I'm quoting standard evangelical scholarship here. Are you unaware of this position within standard evangelical scholarship?

I am well aware, thank you again. Are you aware that evangelical scholarship still maintains the trinitarian doctrine? You argue as if evangelical scholars have all of a sudden converted to Christadelphianism.

What is curious, however, is your lack of of response to the following, which I will take as a sign of agreement on your part:

You do not have a choice but to dance around the Word being God specifically because it leads you to the fatal logical contradiction I lead you to. So hmm, how do I (Fortigurn) escape that? Oh yes, I will invent 'qualitative divinity' in order to make the whole argument fit my (Fortigurn) understanding.

And I believe the reason you have to do it is that you do not believe in the concept of soul or spirit that is eternal and that is evident from the other thread 'The RCC and the nature of the afterlife'. In other words, if you admit that the Word is fully, not qualitatively eternal and that Jesus is divine then you will have no choice but to admit that the notion of eternal soul does exist and, by the same fatal logical contradiction, your entire belief system will simply fall apart.

[Fortigurn]

And what are the 'qualities' of God? Eternality. Thank you for finally acknowledging that the Word is eternal. Given that, and given that the Word was God, ergo the Word is eternal and the Word is God.

This is a very confused paragraph, which makes a serious error in committing the fallacy of equivocation - twice.

If you acknowledge that the Word was God qualitatively, then you cannot claim that the Word was God ontologically. In this statement of yours, you want to have it both ways, which is not possible.

Either you understand the LOGOS to be qualitatively Divine, or you hold the LOGOS to be ontologically Divine, but you can't argue that the Greek here can be translated in two different ways simultaneously.

I am well aware, thank you again.

Really? If you were 'well aware', then why did you attribute this idea to me, and why did you appear so scornful of it? I suggest you were not aware at all, and that when you claimed it was my invention (supposedly created to avoid a doctrine in which I allegedly refuse to believe), you were saying what you believed to be true.

Are you aware that evangelical scholarship still maintains the trinitarian doctrine?

Of course I am.

You argue as if evangelical scholars have all of a sudden converted to Christadelphianism.

On the contrary, I am simply showing you that the understanding of THEOS here as speaking qualitatively of the LOGOS is not an understanding unique to my denomination.

What is curious, however, is your lack of of response to the following, which I will take as a sign of agreement on your part:

I did in fact respond to that. You claimed that 'qualitative' was my 'invention', right here:

You do not have a choice but to dance around the Word being God specifically because it leads you to the fatal logical contradiction I lead you to. So hmm, how do I (Fortigurn) escape that? Oh yes, I will invent 'qualitative divinity' in order to make the whole argument fit my (Fortigurn) understanding.

Emphasis mine. This contradicts completely your claim that you were 'well aware' that standard evangelical scholarship understands that the LOGOS here is qualitatively Divine. If you really understood that, if you were really 'well aware' of that, then why on earth did you claim that this was my 'invention'?

I did respond to that part of your post. I responded to that by pointing out that you were completely inaccurate in claiming that the 'qualitative' argument was my 'invention'.

And I believe the reason you have to do it is that you do not believe in the concept of soul or spirit that is eternal and that is evident from the other thread 'The RCC and the nature of the afterlife'. In other words, if you admit that the Word is fully, not qualitatively eternal and that Jesus is divine then you will have no choice but to admit that the notion of eternal soul does exist and, by the same fatal logical contradiction, your entire belief system will simply fall apart.

This I didn't respond to because it's simply untrue. The fact that I do not believe in the immortal soul has nothing to do with the fact that I don't believe in the trinity.

What amazes me is the fact that you think it does. You seem to be turning Jesus into simply an 'immortal soul' in search of a body.

[Byblos]

And what are the 'qualities' of God? Eternality. Thank you for finally acknowledging that the Word is eternal. Given that, and given that the Word was God, ergo the Word is eternal and the Word is God.

This is a very confused paragraph, which makes a serious error in committing the fallacy of equivocation - twice.

No it is not. It is what 1 John says. The Word was with God, the Word was God. God is eternal (or are you saying he is not?), the Word is eternal, The Word is God.

If you acknowledge that the Word was God qualitatively, then you cannot claim that the Word was God ontologically. In this statement of yours, you want to have it both ways, which is not possible.

I acknowledged no such thing. That is your argument. The qualitative issue was resolved to me when I said one of the attributes of God is eternality and that is an attribute of the Word as well, wich makes the Word God as clearly stated by 1 John. You are confusing the issues, a typical and expected reaction from you when you are cornered.

Either you understand the LOGOS to be qualitatively Divine, or you hold the LOGOS to be ontologically Divine, but you can't argue that the Greek here can be translated in two different ways simultaneously.

Already answered above.

I am well aware, thank you again.

Really? If you were 'well aware', then why did you attribute this idea to me, and why did you appear so scornful of it? I suggest you were not aware at all, and that when you claimed it was my invention (supposedly created to avoid a doctrine in which I allegedly refuse to believe), you were saying what you believed to be true.

The attribute to you, sir, is NOT the evangelical 'qualitative' argument but rather the way you are using it to prove the non-eternality of the Word, something you are misunderstanding and misquoting from 'qualitative' argument.

Are you aware that evangelical scholarship still maintains the trinitarian doctrine?

Of course I am.

You argue as if evangelical scholars have all of a sudden converted to Christadelphianism.

On the contrary, I am simply showing you that the understanding of THEOS here as speaking qualitatively of the LOGOS is not an understanding unique to my denomination.

But what is unique to your side of the argument is that a qualitative attribute does not include eternality. It does.

What is curious, however, is your lack of of response to the following, which I will take as a sign of agreement on your part:

I did in fact respond to that. You claimed that 'qualitative' was my 'invention', right here:

You do not have a choice but to dance around the Word being God specifically because it leads you to the fatal logical contradiction I lead you to. So hmm, how do I (Fortigurn) escape that? Oh yes, I will invent 'qualitative divinity' in order to make the whole argument fit my (Fortigurn) understanding.

As pertaining to the eternality of the Word not being part of the qualitative attribute yes. I still maintain that position.

Emphasis mine. This contradicts completely your claim that you were 'well aware' that standard evangelical scholarship understands that the LOGOS here is qualitatively Divine. If you really understood that, if you were really 'well aware' of that, then why on earth did you claim that this was my 'invention'?

Already answered above.

I did respond to that part of your post. I responded to that by pointing out that you were completely inaccurate in claiming that the 'qualitative' argument was my 'invention'.

Already answered.

And I believe the reason you have to do it is that you do not believe in the concept of soul or spirit that is eternal and that is evident from the other thread 'The RCC and the nature of the afterlife'. In other words, if you admit that the Word is fully, not qualitatively eternal and that Jesus is divine then you will have no choice but to admit that the notion of eternal soul does exist and, by the same fatal logical contradiction, your entire belief system will simply fall apart.

This I didn't respond to because it's simply untrue. The fact that I do not believe in the immortal soul has nothing to do with the fact that I don't believe in the trinity.

What amazes me is the fact that you think it does.

It's a personal observation and I think it fits.

You seem to be turning Jesus into simply an 'immortal soul' in search of a body.

[/quote]

I am not turning Jesus into anything, you are. I am saying Jesus is eternal. You're the one saying he wasn't but then he became. Complete contradiction in terms and substance.

[August]

Hey Fortigurn, do you agree with this statement:

"That being so begotten of God, and inhabited and used by God through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, Jesus was Emmanuel, God with us, God manifested in the flesh-yet was, during his natural life, of like nature with mortal man, being made of a woman of the house and lineage of David, and therefore a sufferer, in the days of his flesh, from all the effects that came by Adam's transgression including the death that passed upon all man, which he shared by partaking of their physical nature."

[Jbuza]

"You belong to this world here below, but I come from above. You are from this world, but I am not from this world. That is why I told you that you will die in your sins. And you will die in your sins if you do not believe that 'I Am Who I Am' " (John 8:23-24).

IT appears that you have explanations for every evidence that says Jesus is Who he is.

Hebrews 1

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high: 4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? 6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. 7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. 8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. 9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. 10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: 11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; 12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail. 13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? 14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

[Believer]

It's like when we die, we all believe that WE continue to exist. Just as we continue to exist without a body, so too did Jesus exist as the Word before (and after) becoming flesh.

I don't believe that when we die we continue to exist.

Hmm, now Fortigurn claims that we do not continue to exist in a different form after death. Does this too mean that we do not exist after Christ's second coming? If no, clearly you are not Christian for the Christian belief is this. This is one of the reasons we become a Christian, to meet our maker in heaven.