First dude in heaven?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Funny how you are now relying on the word 'EVEN', despite it not featuring in your own word for word translation:

"and no one hath gone up to the heaven except he who out of the heaven came down the son of man who is in the heaven."

Hilarious!

You seriously can't wrap your mind around the fact that my pointing out those other translations was in direct response to your assertions that "all [of the other translations] decimate [my] position" and that " all recognised translations support [your] position"?

The fact is that they don't. The fact is that your assertions are false. Laughably so.

Talk about "hilarious".

As I said, "All you have is a list of vague, baseless, repetitive, if not laughingly incorrect assertions. "

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You seriously can't wrap your mind around the fact that my pointing out those other translations was in direct response to your assertions that "all [of the other translations] decimate [my] position" and that " all recognised translations support [your] position"?

The fact is that they don't. The fact is that your assertions are false. Laughably so.
...[text shortened]... All you have is a list of vague, baseless, repetitive, if not laughingly incorrect assertions. "

Here you go sir:

New International Version
No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man.

New Living Translation
No one has ever gone to heaven and returned. But the Son of Man has come down from heaven.

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

Berean Study Bible
No one has ascended into heaven except the One who descended from heaven--the Son of Man.

Berean Literal Bible
And no one has gone up into heaven except the One having come down out of heaven, the Son of Man.

New American Standard Bible
"No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
No one has ascended into heaven except the One who descended from heaven--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.

NET Bible
No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven--the Son of Man.

New Heart English Bible
No one has ascended into heaven, but he who descended out of heaven, the Son of Man.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And no man has gone up to Heaven except he who went down from Heaven: The Son of Man - he who is in Heaven.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
No one has gone to heaven except the Son of Man, who came from heaven.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven.

Darby Bible Translation
And no one has gone up into heaven, save he who came down out of heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven.

Weymouth New Testament
There is no one who has gone up to Heaven, but there is One who has come down from Heaven, namely the Son of Man whose home is in Heaven.

World English Bible
No one has ascended into heaven, but he who descended out of heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven.

Young's Literal Translation
and no one hath gone up to the heaven, except he who out of the heaven came down -- the Son of Man who is in the heaven.

Quick thread recap:

Elijah going to heaven is an anomaly. (Thank goodness Jacob only went there in a dream).

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Here you go sir:

New International Version
No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man.

New Living Translation
No one has ever gone to heaven and returned. But the Son of Man has come down from heaven.

English Standard Version
No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the ...[text shortened]... to the heaven, except he who out of the heaven came down -- the Son of Man who is in the heaven.

Evidently you lack the wherewithal to wrap you mind around the fact that my pointing out those other translations was in direct response to your assertions that "all [of the other translations] decimate [my] position" and that " all recognised translations support [your] position".

I'll try to lay it out as simply as I can for you.

You made two assertions:
1) "all [of the other translations] decimate [my] position"
2) "all recognised translations support [your] position"

For those assertions to be true, there cannot be ANY translations that:
1) don't "decimate [my] position"
2) don't "support [your] position"

I've already posted a handful of translations which prove your assertions false.

What don't you understand about the above?

Given how slow you are on the uptake, how'd you manage to dupe a school into giving you a degree in theology or anything else?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Evidently you lack the wherewithal to wrap you mind around the fact that my pointing out those other translations was in direct response to your assertions that "all [of the other translations] decimate [my] position" and that " all recognised translations support [your] position".

I'll try to lay it out as simply as I can for you.

You made two asse ...[text shortened]... uptake, how'd you manage to dupe a school into giving you a degree in theology or anything else?

Similarly sir, you seem to be struggling in wrapping you own mind around the fact that 'you' said it was 'better' to use the word by word translation, which unfortunately decimates your argument rather than support it. In desperation you scrape around for the handful of translations that can be stretched to your point, while simultaneously ignoring the overwhelming plethora of translations that support my position.

Is that about right?

Edit - Degree envy noted.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Similarly sir, you seem to be struggling in wrapping you own mind around the fact that 'you' said it was 'better' to use the word by word translation, which unfortunately decimates your argument rather than support it. In desperation you scrape around for the handful of translations that can be stretched to your point, while simultaneously ignoring t ...[text shortened]... of translations that support my position.

Is that about right?

Edit - Degree envy noted.

Similarly sir, you seem to be struggling in wrapping you own mind around the fact that 'you' said it was 'better' to use the word by word translation, which unfortunately decimates your argument rather than support it.

The following is what I posted:

Using YLT as a basis, the word-for-word translation without punctuation and capitalization looks like this:
"and no one hath gone up to the heaven except he who out of the heaven came down the son of man who is in the heaven"

By all means, detail exactly how the above "decimates [my] argument rather than support it".

In desperation you scrape around for the handful of translations that can be stretched to your point, while simultaneously ignoring the overwhelming plethora of translations that support my position.

You seriously STILL can't wrap your mind around the fact that my pointing out those other translations was in direct response to your assertions that "all [of the other translations] decimate [my] position" and that " all recognised translations support [your] position"?

Even after I laid it out as simply as I did?

Edit - Degree envy noted.

Trying to have a logical discussion with you is almost as bad as trying to have one with FMJ. Similarly, I'd question any degree that he may claim to have. That said, hopefully you can feel my pain.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]Similarly sir, you seem to be struggling in wrapping you own mind around the fact that 'you' said it was 'better' to use the word by word translation, which unfortunately decimates your argument rather than support it.

The following is what I posted:
[quote]Using YLT as a basis, the word-for-word translation without punctuation and capitalizati ...[text shortened]... y, I'd question any degree that he may claim to have. That said, hopefully you can feel my pain.[/b]

By all means, detail exactly how the above "decimates [my] argument rather than support it".

Your word by word translation still refers to the son of man being the only person to have ascended into heaven. - You alone it seems do not believe this refers to Jesus. (Indeed, sonship goes as far as it say it refers to an omnipresent Jesus, both on Earth and heaven, which differentiates his situation from Elijah).

You seriously STILL can't wrap your mind around the fact that my pointing out those other translations was in direct response to your assertions...

I get that. Of the 20 or so translations presented, 3 or 4 can be misused to back up your strange position, but I still maintain the assertion that 'all' render your position untenable.

Anyway, any comment on what became of Elijah? (bearing in mind Jesus said he alone had ascended into heaven). Another heaven? Returned to Earth?

Please don't mention FMJ in my presence.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
[b]By all means, detail exactly how the above "decimates [my] argument rather than support it".

Your word by word translation still refers to the son of man being the only person to have ascended into heaven. - You alone it seems do not believe this refers to Jesus. (Indeed, sonship goes as far as it say it refers to an omnipresent Jesus, both ...[text shortened]... ded into heaven). Another heaven? Returned to Earth?

Please don't mention FMJ in my presence.[/b]

Classic. Let's see, you don't want FMJ mentioned in your presence, yet you insist on making FMJ-like posts? You keep making vague, baseless, repetitive, if not laughingly incorrect assertions in a desperate attempt to deflect from the fact that you keep making vague, baseless, repetitive, if not laughingly incorrect assertions. It really is like trying to have a logical discussion with FMJ.

Seriously, get a hold of yourself. You spew nonsense and to make up for it, you spew even more nonsense. FMJ. GoaD. Po-tay-toe. Po-tah-toe. Don't believe it? Reread our discussion thus far.

Have you forgotten this exchange?:

ToO:there's no reason to believe that he saw himself as the only 'son of man' (Ezekiel was also referred to as 'son of man' for example)

GoaD: I see sonship has already educated you on this.

ToO: Did you actually read what jaywill wrote? He only asserts that "Jesus did not teach that He was any old common 'son of man' " - not that He was the ONLY 'son of man'.

Do you need me to break it down even more simply for you?

Do you really not understand that in Aramaic, "son of man" is the usual designation for "man"?

Are you at all familiar with the fallacy of argumentum ad populum? How exactly is that not what you're doing?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Classic. Let's see, you don't want FMJ mentioned in your presence, yet you insist on making FMJ-like posts? You keep making vague, baseless, repetitive, if not laughingly incorrect assertions in a desperate attempt to deflect from the fact that you keep making vague, baseless, repetitive, if not laughingly incorrect assertions. It really is like trying to ...[text shortened]... l familiar with the fallacy of argumentum ad populum? How exactly is that not what you're doing?

So nothing on Elijah, hey?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
So nothing on Elijah, hey?

More FMJ-like deflection from GoaD. What else is new.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
More FMJ-like deflection from GoaD. What else is new.

I look forward to the day sir when you actually win an argument.

See you in 2043.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I look forward to the day sir when you actually win an argument.

See you in 2043.

Classic. You keep making vague, baseless, repetitive, if not laughingly incorrect assertions in a desperate attempt to deflect from the fact that you keep making vague, baseless, repetitive, if not laughingly incorrect assertions. It really is like trying to have a logical discussion with FMJ.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne

Jesus taught that He was the unique "only begotten Son" (John 3:16) of God of course.

That's a dubious assertion. Biblical scholars and translators don't seem to be able to agree who's speaking in John 3 from as early as after 3:10. The NIV for example has Jesus stop talking after 3:15. Others through 3:21 and at least one through to the end of the chapter.

What do YOU believe ?

Do you believe Jesus did not speak verse 16 ?
Do you believe that your "dubious" scholars of the 20th or 21rst Century know better than the Evangelist John what Jesus taught (if John inserted the saying) ?

I doubt that you have a similar conspiracy theory about words not spoken by Jesus when it comes to one of your favorite - John 8:34-36.

" ... Everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin. And the slave does not abide in the house forever; the son does abide forever.

If therefore the Son sets you free, you shall be free indeed."

You try to cast doubt on Jesus claiming to be the unique Son of God. But here "the son" and "the Son" underscore Christ's uniqueness as the Father's "only begotten" Son.

Name the scholars who have caused you to doubt John 3:16 is authentically His words. Give me some names. I'd like to look them up.

When it comes to John 3:16, it seems much more likely that it is commentary by the writer of John.

That reads to me like conspiracy theory with a slightly paranoid bias.

You want me to believe this - Jesus probably didn't say He was the only begotten Son of God. Rather John said it. And we know that the Apostle John needs to come and sit at ThinkOfOne's feet to learn a few things about what Jesus REALLY taught.

Yet John was there with Him, over 19 centuries before you.
Are you paranoid that John is out to trick you ?

The phrasing in that part of the chapter has much more in common with the writer of John than with the words of Jesus. I imagine that if you knew His voice, you would have recognized how little it sounds like him.

That it bears something of John's style of writing is not consequential.
I agree that the hallmarks of his style come through.
I still give him the freedom to give his testimony which I think if faithful.

There's no reason why I should imagine that John needed to consult with you to get what Jesus essentially taught.

Besides, the synoptics have plenty of confirming passages showing that Jesus proclaimed Himself the unique Son of God - ie. only begotten.
ie.

"He said to them, But you, who do you say that I am?
And Simon Peter answered and said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.

And Jesus answered and said to him, Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in the heavens." (Matt. 16:15-17)

ie. And in the parable of the slaves sent and killed by the vinedressers [the priests) finally the unique son is sent by the owner of the vinyard -

" And the vinedressers took his slaves and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. Again, he sent some other slaves, more than the first, and they did likewise to them.

Then latter he sent to them his son, saying, They will respect my son.

But the vinedressers, when they saw the son, said among themselves, This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and take possession of his inheritance.

And they took him and cast him out of the vineyard and killed him." (Matt. 21:35-37)

There is an obvious distinction between the "slaves" as holy men and prophets that God sent to Israel and the "son" - the heir. Jesus taught that He was the unique only begotten Son of God.

Your modernist twist is teaching that the Son of God was just another prophet or holy "slave" at best. I don't buy that.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Classic. You keep making vague, baseless, repetitive, if not laughingly incorrect assertions in a desperate attempt to deflect from the fact that you keep making vague, baseless, repetitive, if not laughingly incorrect assertions. It really is like trying to have a logical discussion with FMJ.

I think you're repeating that.

Typo:

I meant to write this:

That it bears something of John's style of writing is not consequential.
I agree that the hallmarks of his style come through.
I still give him the freedom to give his testimony which I think is [edited] faithful.