- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29595
2 Kings 2:1 tells us quite clearly that Elijah was taken up by a whirlwind into heaven. Why is it then that some 900 years later we have Jesus telling us, "no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven..." (John 3:13).
How is this not a biblical contradiction? (I will casually shrug off the '3 heavens' argument).
16 Jun 17
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeDid he ascend or was he taken?
2 Kings 2:1 tells us quite clearly that Elijah was taken up by a whirlwind into heaven. Why is it then that some 900 years later we have Jesus telling us, "no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven..." (John 3:13).
How is this not a biblical contradiction? (I will casually shrug off the '3 heavens' argument).
16 Jun 17
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeThe man is a clown 😀 .. not Elijah, Kelly jay.
Come on Kelly, that's just splitting hairs.
Did Elijah go to heaven 'before' Jesus or not?
Here is the explanation. Paul said that there are several levels of heaven. Even in the old Jewish writings like the Midrash, these things are easily explained. Birds fly in the heaven. Nobody has entered the heaven which is the abode of God.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29595
16 Jun 17
Originally posted by Rajk999What became then of poor old Elijah. If he was merely taken up into the atmosphere, presumably he was returned to Earth at some location or another?
The man is a clown 😀 .. not Elijah, Kelly jay.
Here is the explanation. Paul said that there are several levels of heaven. Even in the old Jewish writings like the Midrash, these things are easily explained. Birds fly in the heaven. Nobody has entered the heaven which is the abode of God.
"And when they urged him till he was ashamed, he said, Send. They sent therefore fifty men; and they sought three days, but found him not." (Kings 2:17).
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeHow is this not a biblical contradiction?
2 Kings 2:1 tells us quite clearly that Elijah was taken up by a whirlwind into heaven. Why is it then that some 900 years later we have Jesus telling us, "no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven..." (John 3:13).
How is this not a biblical contradiction? (I will casually shrug off the '3 heavens' argument).
You've taken the verse out of context.
Jesus is not saying that no one has ever ascended up to heaven - period.
He's saying that no one has ever ascended up to heaven without having been "born from above" - without having been "born of the spirit".
In John 3:13, Jesus is rephrasing the concept he introduced in John 3:3 and restated in John 3:5-8. John 3:13 is a third iteration.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeThere are more than 2 heavens ie more than atmosphere plus God's abode. Jewish writings list 7 heavens.
What became then of poor old Elijah. If he was merely taken up into the atmosphere, presumably he was returned to Earth at some location or another?
"And when they urged him till he was ashamed, he said, Send. They sent therefore fifty men; and they sought three days, but found him not." (Kings 2:17).
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29595
16 Jun 17
Originally posted by Rajk9992 Chronicles 21:12-15 records a letter sent by Elijah, some 10 years AFTER his heavenly chariot ride. Wouldn't this seem to support the argument that he was returned to Earth somewhere?
There are more than 2 heavens ie more than atmosphere plus God's abode. Jewish writings list 7 heavens.
"Jehoram received a letter from Elijah the prophet, which said: “This is what the Lord, the God of your father David, says: ‘You have not followed the ways of your father Jehoshaphat or of Asa king of Judah. But you have followed the ways of the kings of Israel, and you have led Judah and the people of Jerusalem to prostitute themselves, just as the house of Ahab did."
From the wording of this letter, it is clear that Elijah wrote it after these events had occurred, for he speaks of them as past events, and of the diseases as future, Two years after the king became diseased the king died, having reigned only eight short years.
www.ecclesia.org/truth/enoch.html
17 Jun 17
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeI would say that is seems likely that he returned to earth. Although I would not discount the possibility that he wrote it from above.
2 Chronicles 21:12-15 records a letter sent by Elijah, some 10 years AFTER his heavenly chariot ride. Wouldn't this seem to support the argument that he was returned to Earth somewhere?
"Jehoram received a letter from Elijah the prophet, which said: “This is what the Lord, the God of your father David, says: ‘You have not followed the ways of you ...[text shortened]... ased the king died, having reigned only eight short years.
www.ecclesia.org/truth/enoch.html
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeThis is what you are going on about a letter 10 years after the fact, it is the same
2 Chronicles 21:12-15 records a letter sent by Elijah, some 10 years AFTER his heavenly chariot ride. Wouldn't this seem to support the argument that he was returned to Earth somewhere?
"Jehoram received a letter from Elijah the prophet, which said: “This is what the Lord, the God of your father David, says: ‘You have not followed the ways of you ...[text shortened]... ased the king died, having reigned only eight short years.
www.ecclesia.org/truth/enoch.html
Elijah, was it a letter written by him before he left? How do you know?
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29595
17 Jun 17
Originally posted by KellyJayWell, the biblical passage refers to him as 'Elijah the prophet' so i think it highly likely we are talking about the same guy.
This is what you are going on about a letter 10 years after the fact, it is the same
Elijah, was it a letter written by him before he left? How do you know?
And I don't see how it could have been written in advance when he speaks of things that haven't happen yet in a past tense. (Even if he was a prophet).
17 Jun 17
1 edit
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeI'll look into it, I'm really not familiar with your complaint.
Well, the biblical passage refers to him as 'Elijah the prophet' so i think it highly likely we are talking about the same guy.
And I don't see how it could have been written in advance when he speaks of things that haven't happen yet in a past tense. (Even if he was a prophet).
Only a prophet could write about things in advance.