Did John Make a Mistake Here? If Not, Why Not?

[POI]

2 King 2:11 states -- "As they continued walking and talking, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them, and Elijah ascended in a whirlwind into heaven.". And yet, John 3:13 states -- "No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.".

For debate: Dear Bible inerrantists, as the title suggests, did John make a mistake here, in asserting that "no one has ascended into heaven except for the Son of Man", while 2 Kings instead tells its readers that another has ascended? If John did not make a mistake here, please explain why?

[Mr E]

2 King 2:11 states -- "As they continued walking and talking, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them, and Elijah ascended in a whirlwind into heaven.". And yet, John 3:13 states -- "No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.".

For debate: Dear Bible inerrantists, as the title suggests, did John make a mistake here, in asserting that "no one has ascended into heaven except for the Son of Man", while 2 Kings instead tells its readers that another has ascended? If John did not make a mistake here, please explain why?

Perhaps your understanding of the term 'son of man' is in some way lacking? How deeply have you looked into it?

Obviously we refer to scripture and books like Ezekiel who is referred to as son of man some 93 times. And we read also that Ezekiel presumably ascended into heaven, so either John is dumb and mistake prone as you are suggesting, or he didn't make a mistake at all, and was not referring to physical people, when speaking of ascension, neither Isaiah, Elijah, nor Ezekiel, nor John of Patmos, nor Jesus for that matter-- not to mention Enoch, who was 'taken up' long before any of them.

[POI]

2 King 2:11 states -- "As they continued walking and talking, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them, and Elijah ascended in a whirlwind into heaven.". And yet, John 3:13 states -- "No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.".

For debate: Dear Bible inerrantists, as the title suggests, did John make a mistake here, in asserting that "no one has ascended into heaven except for the Son of Man", while 2 Kings instead tells its readers that another has ascended? If John did not make a mistake here, please explain why?

Perhaps your understanding of the term 'son of man' is in some way lacking? How deeply have you looked into it?

Obviously we refer to scripture and books like Ezekiel who is referred to as son of man some 93 times. And we read also that Ezekiel presumably ascended into heaven, so either John is dumb and mistake prone as you are suggesting, or he didn't make a mistake at all, and was not referring to physical people, when speaking of ascension, neither Isaiah, Elijah, nor Ezekiel, nor John of Patmos, nor Jesus for that matter-- not to mention Enoch, who was 'taken up' long before any of them.

Thus far, it looks like maybe John goofed:

John 3:13 states -- No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. John 3:13 does not state -- No one has ascended into heaven except for the ones who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.

Further, in the Gospel of John, isn't the term "Son of Man" used exclusively by and exclusively in reference to Jesus?

[Mr E]

[Replying to POI in post #3]

Thus far, it looks like maybe John goofed:

John 3:13 states -- No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. John 3:13 does not state -- No one has ascended into heaven except for the ones who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.

Thus far, it seems like John had a better understanding of the term, than you do. Rather than alleging that "John goofed" -what is YOUR understanding of the term?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #3]

Thus far, it looks like maybe John goofed:

John 3:13 states -- No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. John 3:13 does not state -- No one has ascended into heaven except for the ones who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.

Thus far, it seems like John had a better understanding of the term, than you do. Rather than alleging that "John goofed" -what is YOUR understanding of the term?

The phrase appears 12 times in John's Gospel. In every single instance in John, it is spoken by Jesus himself to refer to His own identity, mission, and heavenly authority (e.g., John 1:51, 3:13-14, 5:27, 6:53, 8:28, 12:23, 13:31). Unlike the Old Testament—where the phrase or similar phrasing is used generally for human beings or specifically as a title for Ezekiel dozens of times—the crowds, disciples, or adversaries in John never use the title "Son of Man" to address or describe anyone else, nor do they use it of a different individual. When the crowd questions the phrase in John 12:34 ("Who is this 'Son of Man'?"), they are directly quoting back Jesus's own statement and asking Him to clarify which person He means.

As it stands, it looks like John was under the impression that the only one who ascended was Jesus, aka the 'Son of Man,'

[Mr E]

[Replying to POI in post #5]

The phrase appears 12 times in John's Gospel. In every single instance in John, it is spoken by Jesus himself to refer to His own identity, mission, and heavenly authority (e.g., John 1:51, 3:13-14, 5:27, 6:53, 8:28, 12:23, 13:31). Unlike the Old Testament—where the phrase or similar phrasing is used generally for human beings or specifically as a title for Ezekiel dozens of times—the crowds, disciples, or adversaries in John never use the title "Son of Man" to address or describe anyone else, nor do they use it of a different individual. When the crowd questions the phrase in John 12:34 ("Who is this 'Son of Man'?"), they are directly quoting back Jesus's own statement and asking Him to clarify which person He means.

What would John's understanding of the term be founded upon? He'd be familiar with all of the ancient usages of the term, right? The gospel of John is about Jesus-- of course when using the term it's in relation to Jesus. But in the book of Daniel it's in relation to Daniel, in Ezekiel to Ezekiel and so forth. It's not about physical individuals (people) but the spirit within them.

Read about what John of Patmos wrote about what he saw in spirit-- Then I looked, and a white cloud appeared, and seated on the cloud was one like a son of man!

In Daniel (in spirit) "I was watching in the night visions, and behold, One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven!"

In the book of Enoch the son of man is not merely a human prophet. He is a divine-human Redeemer who existed before creation. He dwells in heaven with God and he descends to manifest in the flesh.

[POI]

What would John's understanding of the term be founded upon? He'd be familiar with all of the ancient usages of the term, right?

Don't know? Why? Since "John" is anonymous, unlike the writings from 'Paul', we have no true starting point? He could have been well-versed in the entire OT, or merely set out to 'enhance' the existing circulating Gospel(s), or somewhere in between? Why just ASSUME that John was well-versed in anything other than to achieve his specific goal(s), whatever that actually entailed?

The gospel of John is about Jesus-- of course when using the term it's in relation to Jesus.

Like I stated prior, not once does John refer the 'Son of Man' to anyone else but Jesus. So, how do you know for sure that John was aware of how the term was also used in other instances? We can only go by what he wrote. And all instances refer only to Jesus.

But in the book of Daniel it's in relation to Daniel, in Ezekiel to Ezekiel and so forth. It's not about physical individuals (people) but the spirit within them.

John shows no indication that the title "Son of Man' also applies to others; instead, he elevates the term to emphasize Jesus' divine origin, his authority to execute judgment, and his ultimate return to the glory he shared with the Father before the world began (e.g., John 1:51, 3:13–14, 5:27). Hence, it is your burden to demonstrate that he did. Can you do that? Or, are you instead just invoking wishful thinking?

Read about what John of Patmos wrote about what he saw in spirit-- Then I looked, and a white cloud appeared, and seated on the cloud was one like a son of man!

We're focused on John's possible mistake. In this context, I can care less as to what the author of Revelation wrote.

In the book of Enoch the son of man is not merely a human prophet. He is a divine-human Redeemer who existed before creation. He dwells in heaven with God and he descends to manifest in the flesh.

Again, we are focusing on what John thought.

[Bible_Student]

Or perhaps the heavens Jesus himself referred to—as recorded by John—are simply not the same "heavens" referred to in the account of Elijah.

The Bible does not say that Elijah died on that occasion. In fact, Elijah was still alive and active as a prophet at least five years later, evidently in the territory of Judah. ​​The Bible tells us: “Eventually a writing came to him [Jehoram, king of Judah] from Elijah the prophet.” This letter foretold Jehoram’s illness and death due to his wicked, idolatrous course. (2 Chron. 21:12-15) Further evidence that Elijah did not die when he was taken to the “heavens” is the fact that his servant and successor, Elisha, did not observe the customary mourning period for his master on that occasion.—Compare 2 Samuel 19:1; 1 Chronicles 7:22; 2 Chronicles 35:24.

What can be said about Enoch, the seventh man in the line from Adam? Regarding him, the Bible says: “Enoch kept walking with the true God. Then he was no more, for God took him.” (Gen. 5:24) As a prophet of Jehovah, Enoch foretold God’s coming with his myriads of angels to execute judgment against the ungodly. (Jude 14, 15) It is highly probable that persecution was unleashed against him because of his prophesying. Nevertheless, God did not allow Enoch’s opponents to kill him. Instead, God “took him”—evidently meaning that He cut short Enoch’s life while he was much younger than most of his contemporaries. It appears that, as in the case of Moses’ body, Jehovah disposed of Enoch’s body, for “he was not found anywhere.”—Heb. 11:5; Deut. 34:5, 6; Jude. 9.

For example, Peter stated that David had not ascended to heaven (Acts 2:34). And although that instance has nothing to do with the cases previously discussed, the question remains: if David—the quintessential royal representative of Christ’s reign—did not ascend to heaven, who else would have before Jesus?

John the Baptist is not, nor will he be, in heaven either, according to the teachings of Jesus himself:

Matt. 11:7 While these were on their way, Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John: “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed being tossed by the wind? 8 What, then, did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft garments? Why, those wearing soft garments are in the houses of kings. 9 Really, then, why did you go out? To see a prophet? Yes, I tell you, and far more than a prophet. 10 This is the one about whom it is written: ‘Look! I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way ahead of you!’ 11 Truly I say to you, among those born of women, there has not been raised up anyone greater than John the Baptist, but a lesser person in the Kingdom of the heavens is greater than he is. 12 From the days of John the Baptist until now, the Kingdom of the heavens is the goal toward which men press, and those pressing forward are seizing it. 13 For all, the Prophets and the Law, prophesied until John; 14 and if you are willing to accept it, he is ‘E·liʹjah who is to come.’ 15 Let the one who has ears listen.

[OneJack]

[Replying to POI in post #5]

As it stands, it looks like John was under the impression that the only one who ascended was Jesus, aka the 'Son of Man,'

If this statement by the author of the book of John were corrected to reflect the true identity involved, the reality would be as follows:

The author said that the only one who ascended to heaven was the man born of Mary [to whom God gave the names Jesus, Immanuel...], who—according to the declaration of the Lord's angel—would be called the 'Son of God.' It could not have been Jesus, per se, who ascended to heaven, because Jesus is Almighty God, who is always everywhere, and 'Jesus' is the name of God. However, the author of the Book of John erred in this regard, for the man born of Mary did not actually reach heaven—God's dwelling place—where flesh cannot enter. The Son of God was taken up, yet He did not reach the throne of God; God used him (the Son of God) as His (God's) vessel for His incarnation. It, thus, means that no one has yet ascended to the residence of the Almighty God, which is the 3rd Heaven.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #5]

As it stands, it looks like John was under the impression that the only one who ascended was Jesus, aka the 'Son of Man,'

If this statement by the author of the book of John were corrected to reflect the true identity involved, the reality would be as follows:

Thank you for acknowledging that John made a mistake.