Another Bible Blunder?

[RedEye]

It is a fact that if you continue to fabricate stories and events (ie. tell lies) that sooner or later you will contradict yourself because of not being able to remember what was stated earlier. This is called not being able to keep your lies straight.

Here is an example of Jesus telling us a "truth":

• John 3:13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven"the Son of Man.

There is no qualification here by Jesus. The author of John also tells us that Jesus is the Word (Logos) and was there with God right from the very beginning of everything (John 1:1-14). That means that Jesus (the Word) was right there alongside God (he was an aspect of God) in heaven until he came down to Earth for a brief time.

Let's now go back a few centuries before Jesus (allegedly) appeared in human form and look at Elijah (who incidentally performed similar miracles to Jesus including raising someone from the dead - a role model!):

• 2 Kings 2:11 As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.

So Elijah was taken up into heaven where Jesus was there waiting. How can that possibly be reconciled with what Jesus stated unequivocally in John 3:13? Did Jesus completely forget about Elijah? (Selective amnesia seems to be a common theme in the Bible). Isn't this just another instance of when you say enough things and you are making it up, it is impossible to keep the lies straight? Sooner or later you are caught out.

[marco]

Maybe it should be understood so that Elijah went to sky and Jesus to Gods place. Heaven has two meanings at least.

Also, the difference can be, the way it happened, Elijah was taken, Jesus ascended. It is not necessary the same thing.

And then I have the question, was Elijah really human, or was he an angel?

And if he was an angel, was he a "nobody"? It is amusing the lengths we go to in order to keep Jesus on the right side of divinity when he's on the wrong side of sense. Heaven has various meanings in that it can mean the sky, paradise or just a wonderful situation, even a lovely wine, such as Chateauneuf-du-pape. Are we confused contextually?

The simple truth is that the writers DID think heaven was up in the sky somewhere. Jesus thought so too and he may have thought heaven was guarded by asteroids, assuming Jesus had a sprinkling of astronomy in his head. Who knows what fantasies occupied the superstitious heads of ancient humans?


Your differentiation between Jesus "ascending" and Elijah being "taken up" is theology at its best.

[marco]

That's just one of the wonderful things about the wonderworld of religious make-believe ...

EVERYONE can choose their OWN meanings ...

And lots of people DO ...!

And if it's a matter of FAITH ...

NO ONE is ever WRONG ...

And no one needs trouble themselves with independently verifiable EVIDENCE

St. Augustine, the author of the tedious Confessions, suggested that once you believe, everything becomes easy to follow. If you think the bread becomes the body, it suddeny makes sense when you believe this. If you believe Jesus was a god, it's obvious he could turn water into chianti or claret. More interestingly the man from Hippo said: "Lord, make me pure but hold off a bit before you do so." There is wisdom.

On the further blunder bit, it is easy to overcome any suggestion of a blundering Lord. You believe he cannot lie, and so he didn't. Nobody came from heaven apart from yours truly here. Exceptions? Please read the small print!

[bjs]

[Replying to post 3 by Goose]

Both of these assumptions seems less likely than the assumption Jesus had a different contextual meaning in mind.

And "scripture" can mean just whatever you CHOOSE it to mean ....

Sure, as long as you dont care about accuracy or understanding.

Goose provided clear contextual reasons why the passage should be understood a certain way.

While I disagree with Marco, he attempted to provide a logical explanation why a different view is preferable.

You have not. At this point you are the only one who has commented on this thread who is in a wonderworld of make-believe. Instead of complaining, try debating.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 3 by Goose]

Both of these assumptions seems less likely than the assumption Jesus had a different contextual meaning in mind.

And "scripture" can mean just whatever you CHOOSE it to mean ....

Sure, as long as you dont care about accuracy or understanding.

Goose provided clear contextual reasons why the passage should be understood a certain way.

While I disagree with Marco, he attempted to provide a logical explanation why a different view is preferable.

You have not. At this point you are the only one who has commented on this thread who is in a wonderworld of make-believe. Instead of complaining, try debating.

I'm certainly not complaining about the wonderworld of angels and virgins and talking donkeys ...

That state if the mind that folks get themselves into provides plenty of fodder for debate ...

And blunders by the propagandists who wrote the "Word of God" provide much to ruminate over

Which is EXACTLY what I'm doing here.

And I even threw the biblical books of Enoch into the manger for a good chew.

Wholesome and holy they are.

[Goose]

Jesus provides a contextual qualification earlier in verse 5 of the same chapter.

No he doesn't.

Of course Jesus does. You ignored the whole argument and instead went off on some tangent about a pig and a camel. Care to address the argument?

"5 Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

When we consider the immediate surrounding context in which Jesus makes his assertion, that no one has ascended to heaven, is pertaining to other statements regarding how one is to attain eternal life and enter the kingdom of heaven through being born again (3:16) we have good reason to think Jesus had a more narrow context in mind than all ascensions.

People do contradict themselves, so "less likely" is an appeal to credit Jesus with infallibility.

Firstly, this isn't an alleged case of Jesus contradicting himself but contradicting the Old Testament scriptures. Secondly, the counter argument here has nothing to do with crediting Jesus with infallibility.

In order to argue a contradiction one must assume either:

• (1) Jesus had no knowledge of the story of the ascension of Elijah or;
  
  (2) Jesus was implying the account of Elijah's ascension was false.

(1) Is highly unlikely given that:

• (i) The story of Elijah's ascension was well known to Jews.
  (ii) Jesus was a Jew and demonstrates familiarity with the scriptures.
  (iii) Jesus speaks of an obscure detail relating to Moses raising up a snake in verse 14 (cf. Numbers 21:9)
  (iv) Jesus reveals knowledge of Elijah elsewhere (Matthew 17:11-12).

(2) Is highly unlikely given that:

• (i) Jesus was a Jew who affirmed the authority of scripture (Matthew 5:17, 15:3).
  (ii) Jesus appeals to scripture as validation for his own messiahship (Matthew 26:64, John 5:39).
  (iii) Jesus understood himself as the fulfilment of scripture (Matthew 5:17, Luke 4:21)

In order to demonstrate a contradiction one simply writes Christ's statement "Nobody has gone to heaven," beside the statement that Elijah went to heaven.

No, that would only show there is a discrepancy. Theres more to proving a contradiction than merely juxtaposing two statements and saying, "Hey look everybody a contradiction!"

For there to be a contradiction there must be (A) and ~(A) at the same time in the same sense. Ive offered more than enough argumentation to overturn the underlying assumptions that it is a contradiction.

[ttruscott]

St. Augustine, the author of the tedious Confessions, suggested that once you believe, everything becomes easy to follow. If you think the bread becomes the body, it suddeny makes sense when you believe this.

What is the proof that only believers are subject to this belief syndrome and secular materialists are not??? If it is a human characteristic to accept the corollaries and implications of a belief more once the belief is committed then nothing about this attack on believers for a pretend gullibility means anything.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 13 by bjs]

Instead of complaining, try debating.

AND ...

I hasten to modestly point ...

I am in a state of the mind that assents to the proposition that I have posted WAY more debate topics than anyone else ...

And I'm only trailing the eloquent Marco in the stats for the number of posts.

My sharp style is very blunt ... but hey, that's how I was created and leopards don't change their spots or Ethiopians their skins.

And as for NOT debating ...

You owe me responses on two of the toes on the feet of clay that are the very fundamental foundations of Christianity.

Pointless fumbling in the folds of the cassocks if the whole idol is being exposed as a gaudy fake.

[Tart]

[Replying to post 3 by Goose]

Both of these assumptions seems less likely than the assumption Jesus had a different contextual meaning in mind.

And "scripture" can mean just whatever you CHOOSE it to mean ....

How would this be different the you "choosing"? Or redeye "choosing"?

No difference AT ALL ...!

That's just one of the wonderful things about the wonderworld of religious make-believe ...

EVERYONE can choose their OWN meanings ...

And lots of people DO ...!

And if it's a matter of FAITH ...

NO ONE is ever WRONG ...

And no one needs trouble themselves with independently verifiable EVIDENCE

Ok, well I dont believe that...
What you are essentially saying is that everyone interpretation is just as valid as anyone's else.... Someone could choose to interpret it as nonsense (which is what atheist do)... Which means, you are supporting an idea that interpretation becomes meaningless. So ill dismiss your interpretation as meaningless, which is what you are assuming the position of... I however think Interpretation is meaningful, and there is context in which it is to be understood...

[RedEye]

Isn't this just another instance of when you say enough things and you are making it up, it is impossible to keep the lies straight? Sooner or later you are caught out.

You've caught us! Centuries of biblical scholars have been trepidatiously waiting for someone to catch them up on this discontinuity. The horror!

Except your quote is wrong: John 3:13 No one has ever gone into heaven EXCEPT the one who came from heaven"the Son of Man.

My quote is not wrong. Most standard Bible translations have either "except"or "but" or "save".

In the best editions the word except, even or that is, is put in [ ], which denote that they are theological words added into the text supposed to make our understanding easier...they are not in the text. The Greek is clear: No one has ever gone into heaven if not one who came from heaven"the Son of Man... https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/3-13.htm

Which has exactly the same meaning. That is why the vast majority of Greek to English translations maintain the intended meaning. No word has been added. Instead "if not" has been correctly translated as "except" or "but" or "save".

If adding theological word is proper usage of scripture then I will add my own: No one has ever gone into heaven if they did not come down from heaven [LIKE] the Son of Man who came from heaven. This fits PCE theology perfectly without any contradiction with Elijah and Enoch at all.

As explained, no words have been added. You can't just add words in an ad hoc manner. Do you really believe that the various Bible translators were idiots?

A slew of orthodox commentaries upon this verse is on the next page at https://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/3-13.htm though I know the orthodox folk here will put this to rest.

Who cares? I'm only concerned with what the text actually states, not what other Christians imagine it states.

[RedEye]

• John 3:13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven"the Son of Man.

There is no qualification here by Jesus. The author of John also tells us that Jesus is the Word (Logos) and was there with God right from the very beginning of everything (John 1:1-14). That means that Jesus (the Word) was right there alongside God (he was an aspect of God) in heaven until he came down to Earth for a brief time.

• 2 Kings 2:11 As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.

So Elijah was taken up into heaven where Jesus was there waiting. How can that possibly be reconciled with what Jesus stated unequivocally in John 3:13? Did Jesus completely forget about Elijah?

Maybe it should be understood so that Elijah went to sky and Jesus to Gods place. Heaven has two meanings at least.

Are you claiming that there is more than one heaven?

Also, the difference can be, the way it happened, Elijah was taken, Jesus ascended. It is not necessary the same thing.

There is no such qualification in the text. Please don't invent your own scripture.

And then I have the question, was Elijah really human, or was he an angel?

Why don't you tell us?