First dude in heaven?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Come on old chap, even taking for example the book of Isaiah, it is commonly accepted (even among theist scholars) that there were multiple authors involved in its writing. - Is your position that all these authors 'met God?'

The authors more than likely not, but those people in the stories, yes.
Some of them I believe did too.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
You have requested (more than once) that non-believers give you their best 'biblical contradictions' for you to dispel.

Your lack of attempt to dispel this current contradiction regarding Elijah does seem to suggest you are theologically stumped.

I'm still working on "Money solves everything" for some dudes.

Okay. I think how I would take this as Elijah's experiencing probably not being accounted as an "ascension" to heaven, if that is where God took him.

John also says "No one has ever seen God. The only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father has declared Him."

This was pretty bold for John to say because all Bible students know that a number of appearances of God were recorded to people in the Old Testament. Apparently the Apostle John was saying that these no longer count.

Perhaps in a similar way Elijah's being caught up in a whirlwind qualitatively is far inferior to the Son of Man ascending into heaven after His act of utter obedience.

All of the heroes of the Old Testament ramp UP to the Perfect one. They are pre-figures, pointers to, sign posts leading the way to God incarnate in Christ.

At the moment I think that may be the way I would take your contradiction.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
You have requested (more than once) that non-believers give you their best 'biblical contradictions' for you to dispel.

Your lack of attempt to dispel this current contradiction regarding Elijah does seem to suggest you are theologically stumped.

There is no "contradiction". Just poor reading comprehension on your part.

Once again:

How is this not a biblical contradiction?

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 ThinkOfOne
There is no "contradiction". Just poor reading comprehension on your part.

Once again:

[b]How is this not a biblical contradiction?

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 ab ...[text shortened]... t he introduced in John 3:3 and restated in John 3:5-8. John 3:13 is a third iteration.

[/b]

I'll take poor reading comprehension over poor manners, any day of the week. I chose not to respond to your initial post as it wasn't very well thought through.

Again, "no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven..." (John 3:13).

Elijah did not 'come down from heaven' so if he did indeed go up to heaven, this contradicts with what Jesus claimed. - John 3:3 speaks of something entirely different and it is disingenuous to link the two. - "Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again."

Jesus speaks of people needing to be born again to see heaven, but this doesn't negate his declaration that, so far, only he had ascended there. - Elijah is an anomaly!!!

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I'll take poor reading comprehension over poor manners, any day of the week.

I chose not to respond to your initial post as it wasn't very well thought through.

Let's see how many ways you can go about avoiding addressing the point of my post.

Thus far we have:
1) You chose not to respond to it.

2) You irrationally complain about "poor manners" as a defense of your poor reading comprehension.

3) You assert that my " initial post as it wasn't very well thought through", but fail to establish a basis for that assertion.

You're really something GoaD.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Let's see how many ways you can go about avoiding addressing the point of my post.

Thus far we have:
1) You chose not to respond to it.

2) You irrationally complain about "poor manners" as a defense of your poor reading comprehension.

3) You assert that my " initial post as it wasn't very well thought through", but fail to establish a basis for that assertion.

You're really something GoaD.

Sorry, edited above post while you were replying.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Sorry, edited above post while you were replying.

John 3:3 speaks of something entirely different and it is disingenuous to link the two

In John 3:3, John 3:5-8 and John 3:13, Jesus establishes a prerequisite for " see[ing] the reign of God" / "enter[ing] into the reign of God" / going "up to the heaven" respectively.

That prerequisite is being "born from above" / being "born of the Spirit" / "descend[ing] from heaven" respectively.

How exactly are they necessarily speaking of "something entirely different "?

Do you really not understand that Jesus often speaks in metaphor and will often rephrase a metaphor in explaining the same concept? They are just different ways of saying the same thing.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b] John 3:3 speaks of something entirely different and it is disingenuous to link the two

In John 3:3, John 3:5-8 and John 3:13, Jesus establishes a prerequisite for " see[ing] the reign of God" / "enter[ing] into the reign of God" / going "up to the heaven" respectively.

That prerequisite is being "born from above" / being "born of the Spirit ...[text shortened]... metaphor in explaining the same concept? They are just different ways of saying the same thing.[/b]

"no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven..."

Still not getting from you where Elijah fits in to this equation. Perhaps you don't know?! (I refute that 'came down' refers to born of the spirit or is metaphorical).

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
"no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven..."

Still not getting from you where Elijah fits in to this equation. Perhaps you don't know?! (I refute that 'came down' refers to born of the spirit).

I refute that 'came down' refers to born of the spirit

You may not believe it, but you've done absolutely nothing to "refute" it".

Was that supposed to be an answer to the following question?:
"How exactly are they necessarily speaking of 'something entirely different'?"

If so, it falls woefully short.

You seriously can't wrap your mind around the concept of someone having been "born from above" as having "[come] down from heaven"?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]I refute that 'came down' refers to born of the spirit

You may not believe it, but you've done absolutely nothing to "refute" it".

Was that supposed to be an answer to the following question?:
"How exactly are they necessarily speaking of 'something entirely different'?"

If so, it falls woefully short.

You seriously can't wrap your m ...[text shortened]... around the concept of someone having been "born from above" as having "[come] down from heaven"?[/b]

I think Christians like Kelly and yourself like to use 'play on words' tactics to wriggle out of clear contradictions. Whereas Kelly tries to differentiate between 'ascend' and 'taken,' you fail spectacularly to render 'come down' as 'born from above.'

If I am required to justify refutation, please give me something to refute. Where is your biblical gravitas to support your proposition?! Why wasn't Jesus simply referring to himself as the only person who had come down from heaven, in the literal sense?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I think Christians like Kelly and yourself like to use 'play on words' tactics to wriggle out of clear contradictions. Whereas Kelly tries to differentiate between 'ascend' and 'taken,' you fail spectacularly to render 'come down' as 'born from above.'

If I am required to justify refutation, please give me something to refute. Where is your biblic ...[text shortened]... ply referring to himself as the only person who had come down from heaven, in the literal sense?

It's a simple question:

You seriously can't wrap your mind around the concept of someone having been "born from above" as having "[come] down from heaven"?

Any chance that you'll address it instead of dancing around it?

To be clear, I'm speaking of "concept" - not a 'play on words'

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
It's a simple question:

You seriously can't wrap your mind around the concept of someone having been "born from above" as having "[come] down from heaven"?

Any chance that you'll address it instead of dancing around it?

Simple answer:

Yes, I can get my head round such a notion.

Simple question:

Where is you evidence that this is what Jesus was saying, and not what I have suggested?

If it helps, here's another translation or two:

International Standard Version:
"No one has gone up to heaven except the one who came down from heaven, the Son of Man who is in heaven."

English Standard Version
"No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man."

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Simple answer:

Yes, I can get my head round such a notion.

Simple question:

Where is you evidence that this is what Jesus was saying, and not what I have suggested?

If it helps, here's another translation or two:

International Standard Version:
"No one has gone up to heaven except the one who came down from heaven, the Son of Man who ...[text shortened]... Version
"No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man."

Where is you evidence that this is what Jesus was saying, and not what I have suggested?

Keep in mind that you started with this question:
"How is this not a biblical contradiction?"

I've posted a reasonable alternative that wouldn't be a contradiction. An alternative that you've been unable to refute.

If you want to continue to insist that there's a contradiction, then it is incumbent on you to demonstrate that what you've suggested is necessarily true.

If you can't, then I've already shown an alternative that wouldn't be a biblical contradiction.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]Where is you evidence that this is what Jesus was saying, and not what I have suggested?

Keep in mind that you started with this question:
"How is this not a biblical contradiction?"

I've posted a reasonable alternative that wouldn't be a contradiction. An alternative that you've been unable to refute.

If you want to continue to insist th ...[text shortened]...
If you can't, then I've already shown an alternative that wouldn't be a biblical contradiction.[/b]

You appear to have missed this part of my post, which completely refutes your argument. (Please take particular note of 'the son of man' ).

International Standard Version:
"No one has gone up to heaven except the one who came down from heaven, the Son of Man who is in heaven."

English Standard Version
"No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man."

Clearly, here we are being told that 'only' Jesus the son of man has ascended in to heaven (I think you see that). Which means Elijah going up in to heaven is a contradiction. (Unless Rajk is correct about him going to a different 'heaven' ).

Anyone else want to dispute that the English Standard Version of the bible is telling us that only Jesus, the son of man, has ascended into heaven?

"No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man."