Heaven-Not Real

Con"s argument will be in three parts: I. Dying Declarations; II. (A) Dying Declarations continued along with (B) World Religions which believe in Heaven; and III. Doctors/Patients Disclaimer I: If you question the veracity of the Scriptures, for whatever reasons, start with these two objective, scholarly, and honest attempts to explore the truth of the Scriptures: Josh McDowell (an apologist), Evidence that Demands a Verdict and Pamela Binnings Ewen (a lawyer), Faith on Trial. Disclaimer II: There is a saying in evidence law: a brick is not a wall. It means, one brick (a piece of evidence) does not build the whole wall (or prove the case). But several pieces do. While some of these "bricks" may seem unconnected, read to the finish, weigh them all, and consider it whole. From these several bricks the case for heaven is built. The Pro asked to prove the existence of "the Christian [heaven]." Observe: Part I. Dying Declarations In our courts of law, the rules of evidence allow dying declarations to be introduced as evidence. Federal Rules of Evidence "804(b)(2). The rationale for why our courts allow this was explained in a 1975 case saying, "[t]he reliability of a dying declaration is " based on the premise that no one "who is immediately going into the presence of his Maker will do so with a lie upon his lips."" Commonwealth v. Douglas, 461 Pa. 749, 756 (Pa. 1975). The rules of evidence committee added further: "While the original religious justification for the exception may have lost its conviction for some persons over the years, it can scarcely be doubted that [upon death] powerful psychological pressures are present." Federal Rules of Evidence Committee Advisory Opinions to "804(b)(2). Either way, dying declarations are allowed into courts because they tend to be truthful statements, either from fear of having just uttered a lie and then meeting one"s Maker or from the psychological pressures associated with dying. Regarding dying declarations, two elements must be proved before they are allowed into court as a reliable and true testimony: 1) the declarant (the speaker) believes he is in fact dying and 2) the declarant believes his death is imminent. Commonwealth v. Knable, 369 Pa. 171; Commonwealth v. Lockett, 291 Pa. 319; Commonwealth v. DeLeo, 242 Pa. 510. We will look at three dying declarations made during Christ"s crucifixion because these statements are honest beliefs about what the declarants thought regarding Christ and heaven. First, the railing malefactor"the one who mocked Jesus while they were on the cross"said, "If thou be Christ, save thyself and us." Luke 23.39. If I were to submit this dying declaration into a court of law, I would first have to satisfy both of the abovementioned elements. So, first, this man derisively mocked Jesus to save him, which means he understood his life needed saving, which we can conclude means he understood that he was about to die; secondly, this man"s comment, made while being crucified, meant he could either 1) be saved or 2) die. Since he did mocked Jesus, we can infer he believed he was imminently going to die. So, the two elements being met, this declaration can be introduced as a true utterance into a court. Now notice two things about this man"s dying declaration and what they reveal about heaven: 1) he said, "If thou be Christ"" From this we should infer that this criminal understood that there was a distinguished one named Christ; 2) then, he said, ""save thyself and us"" which indicates that he truly believed that "if" this was in fact that distinguished Christ, Christ had an ability to save Himself ("save thyself") and criminals ("and us."). I submit this malefactor"s dying declaration to show two things: 1) this malefactor believed that there was, somewhere, a distinguished figure named Christ and 2) that this Christ had a power to save. Next, the second malefactor"s dying declaration begins with a rebuke of our first man: "Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward [crucifixion] of our deeds but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom." Luke 23.40-42. Again, for this to be accepted into court, the two elements of a dying declaration must be fulfilled. The first element"that the declarant believe he is in fact dying"is met and this we see when he said, "Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou are in the same condemnation." Luke 23.40. He understood that they were all condemned. Not condemned to just hang about but condemned to die. The second element can be met by an appeal to common knowledge, that Roman crucifixions were public because it mean those men hanging were criminals punished to die. Anyone on a cross could expect death soon. This man is no exception. Thus having met the two elements necessary for a dying declaration to be admitted into court, we can next examine this man"s statement to parse out what he believed to be true about heaven. First, this man understood Jesus to be innocent yet condemned; 2) he believed that they were about to meet God; 3) he believed Jesus possessed a kingdom (he said, "thy kingdom"); 4) he believed he could appeal to Jesus to enter His kingdom after death (that"s why he said "Lord remember me"). The last dying declaration to examine is from Jesus. He said, "Verily [surely] I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." Luke 23.43. Again, let us first fulfill the two requirements so this dying declaration would be admitted into court. The first and second elements are satisfied simultaneously: "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." Id. This means 1) Jesus believed He was to leave earth, go to paradise (put another way, He believed he was about to die) and 2) that this death was imminent, as a matter of fact, it would happen "Today." Id. The two elements being satisfied, this dying declaration can now be taken as a true statement and we can examine it for evidence as to what Jesus believed is true about heaven: 1) He believed there is another place after death (He called it paradise); 2) that men can go to this paradise; 3) that this place is His (we can infer this because Jesus did not deny the second malefactor"s statement when he referred to the next place as "thy kingdom"; 4) that Jesus resides there ("... WITH ME in paradise."). Luke 23.42,43. Now, let"s weave these three men"s dying declarations together for a summary of what they truly believed about heaven: 1. The first malefactor truly believed there existed a distinguished person named Christ that this Christ had an ability to save a man. 2. The second malefactor truly believed that upon death a man keeps living, that Jesus possessed a kingdom, that Jesus" kingdom followed this life, and that he could plea to Jesus to remember him in this next life. 3. Jesus truly believed that after this life He would keep living, that after this life men could keep living, that He and men could live together in this place He called paradise, and that this kingdom was His. Part I Summary: This establishes some truths about what these three men believed about Christ and heaven. In Part II, we examine more dying declarations in order to see if these other versions match the above. Also, because a dying declarant has little motivation to lie, little incentive to lie, their words can be relied upon as having more truth than deceit. Thus: the importance of examining these. Also, we will look at the prevalence of heaven throughout world religions. In part III, the last round, I want to explore doctors and patients. Those two groups frequent death, so I expect them to reveal evidence which, when added to the whole debate, should prove heaven exists. Last disclaimer: I site in-text & informally (apologies); at the end I will include the books I am consulting, titles and authors, for your continued reading. Respectfully, MSP