First dude in heaven?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
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 excep ...[text shortened]... to heaven is a contradiction. (Unless Rajk is correct about him going to a different 'heaven' ).

You appear to have missed this part of my post, which completely refutes your argument.

I saw it. Didn't think much of your cherry picking without explanation. Try looking through all the translations. Even better, look at a word-for-word translation. It's a bit awkward no matter how you look at it. As such, it seems that translators have made of it what they will.

Clearly, here we are being told that 'only' Jesus the son of man has ascended in to heaven (I think you see that).

Just as Jesus didn't see himself as the only 'son of God' (see Matthew 5:9 for example), 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)

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"

This fits well with what I've been saying. It's also more straightforward and complete than what most of the translators have made of it. Take a look all of John 3:3-14 that way.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]You appear to have missed this part of my post, which completely refutes your argument.

I saw it. Didn't think much of your cherry picking without explanation. Try looking through all the translations. Even better, look at a word-for-word translation. It's a bit awkward no matter how you look at it. As such, it seems that translators have made o ...[text shortened]... lete than what most of the translators have made of it. Take a look all of John 3:3-14 that way.[/b]

I'm not sure the word for word translation 'fits well' with your argument, but will give thought to this later today when I have time.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]You appear to have missed this part of my post, which completely refutes your argument.

I saw it. Didn't think much of your cherry picking without explanation. Try looking through all the translations. Even better, look at a word-for-word translation. It's a bit awkward no matter how you look at it. As such, it seems that translators have made o ...[text shortened]... lete than what most of the translators have made of it. Take a look all of John 3:3-14 that way.[/b]

Just as Jesus didn't see himself as the only 'son of God' (see Matthew 5:9 for example),
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

You have Christ in the New Testament as "the only begotten Son" and "the Firstborn among many brothers" in the accomplishing of His salvation. So of course God's eternal purpose was to use the only begotten to secure for Himself many sons.

IE.

" Even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world to be holy and without blemish before Him in love, Predestinating us unto SONSHIP through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will." (Eph. 1:4,5)

Be care that the Modernist does not attempt to deny the incarnation by saying "Oh, but there are many sons of God, you know?"

The UNIQUE Son of God is the ONLY way the many sons can be saved and conformed to His image.

"Because whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, [unique Son] that He might be the Firstborn among many brothers." (Rom. 8:29)

Now there is a difference in how Matthew treats this truth and how John does. Matthew definitely has Jesus speaking to His disciples about their Father such that the many sons are taught as existing or virtually existing before the death and resurrection of Jesus.

John on the other hand handles the matter differently. The sons of God do not come into existence until Christ is resurrected. Up to that time they are servants and they are friends. But only AFTER His rising from the dead does He teach the His Father is their Father too.

" Jesus said to he, Do not touch Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My disciples and say to them, I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God." (John 20:17)

It is only at this juncture, after Christ has accomplished His redeeming death and life imparting resurrection, that He teaches that the disciples have "graduated" from being servants and "friends" to sons owning His Father as their Father also.

At any rate any implication that Jesus did not see Himself as the unique only begotten Son of God because of Matt. 5:9 is undermining a major teaching of the Bible. Christ is that unique Son of God. But His salvation surely was to produce many sons which He is leading into the glorious expression of the Divine Being.

" For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and through whom are all things, in leading many sons into glory, to make the Author of their salvation perfect through sufferings." (Heb. 2:11)

Christ returns in His office as the FIRSTBORN Son among many brothers.

"And when He brings again the Firstborn into the inhabited earth ... " (Heb 1:6a)

Though there are "sons of God" in Genesis (angels), and there is the mention of sons and daughters elsewhere, Jesus absolutely was the unique only begotten Son and in resurrection became the Firstborn Son from whom many brother sons are derived.

Now to the Son of Man concept:


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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As there was a unique Son of God there was is also a unique Son of Man.
Yes, son of man is not used the first time with Jesus Christ. But He is still that unique, one of a kind, one and only "Son of Man".

Be careful that the Modernist is not undermining the incarnation of God as a Man by using parts of the Bible in isolation.

So where might we see that there is a unique Son of Man ? Jesus taught that He was the unique Son of Man of the book of Daniel a Messianic Savior King ordained to an eternal kingdom by God

Compare:

" I watched in the night visions, And there with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming;

And He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him.

And to Him as given dominion, glory, and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations, and languages might serve Him.

And His kingdom is one that will not be destroyed." (Daniel 7:13,14)

Jesus just before His crucifixion to the high priest and the scribes and Pharisees:

" ... And the priest said to Him, I charge you to swear by the living God to tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God.

Jesus said to him, You have said rightly. Nevertheless I say to you, From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.

Then the priest tore his garments, saying, He has blasphemed! What further need do we have for witnesses? Behold, now you have heard the blasphemy." (Matt. 26:63-65)

Jesus did not teach that He was any old common "son of man". He identified Himself as the unique Messianic Son of Man who is the Son of God and has an eternal kingdom on the earth.

Originally posted by sonship
[b] Just as Jesus didn't see himself as the only 'son of God' (see Matthew 5:9 for example),
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

You have Christ in the New Testament as "the only begotten Son" ...[text shortened]... ist is not undermining the incarnation of God as a Man by using parts of the Bible in isolation.

So when we read: "No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man."

we can safely assume that Jesus is telling us that he alone has ascended into heaven?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
So when we read: "No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man."

we can safely assume that Jesus is telling us that he alone has ascended into heaven?

Its a mysterious passage. And it appears to me to mean He was here on earth yet somehow present in heaven too at the same time.

He ascended as in the past.
He is the only one who ascended - past tense.
Yet He came down.

The Recovery Version -

"And no one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended out of heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven." (John 3:13)

As I said before, I think any being taken up to heaven of Elijah (if that is were he went) seems to the Lord Jesus to not count qualitatively compared to the Son of Man.

He is walking on the earth. But inwardly, somehow in His inner being, He is still there in the heavens.

The passage is mysterious. And I think by experiencing Jesus Christ we might come into more of a realization of what He must have taught there.

I hope you realize that you have to experience Christ and God for much of the Bible to become more comprehensible.

Paul tells the Colossians that their life is hidden with Christ in God. He tells them they should set their minds on the things which are above where Christ is at the right hand of God and not on the things on the earth.

" If therefore you were raised together with Christ, seek the things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God.

Set your mind on the things which are above, not on the things which are on the earth.

For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.

When Christ our life is manifested, then you also will be manifested with Him in glory." (Col. 3:1-4)

I think this experience is touching perhaps a little bit of what Jesus was speaking of in John 3. He is on earth but He is somehow present far above, transcendentally in heaven. Only He has qualitatively so walked to ascend right up into heaven.

Originally posted by sonship
[b] Just as Jesus didn't see himself as the only 'son of God' (see Matthew 5:9 for example),
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

You have Christ in the New Testament as "the only begotten Son" ...[text shortened]... ist is not undermining the incarnation of God as a Man by using parts of the Bible in isolation.

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.

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

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I'm not sure the word for word translation 'fits well' with your argument, but will give thought to this later today when I have time.

How so?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
How so?

Patience grasshopper. I said i would get back to you later today.

‘One day is like a thousand years.’ 2 Peter 3:8

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Patience grasshopper. I said i would get back to you later today.

‘One day is like a thousand years.’ 2 Peter 3:8

You assume too much.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Patience grasshopper. I said i would get back to you later today.

‘One day is like a thousand years.’ 2 Peter 3:8

You are screwing up that verse. That verse is mistakenly looked at by many as you are
now. The point to it isn't that a day is as a thousand years with the focus upon the amount
of time in a day or a thousand years, it is that with God, time is nothing. He is the
Beginning and the End, time is meaningless to him unlike to us. To us we suffer through
a day one at a time, God is eternal, timeless, and endless, so a day and a thousand years
are the same to Him, not us.

2 Peter 3:8
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are screwing up that verse. That verse is mistakenly looked at by many as you are
now. The point to it isn't that a day is as a thousand years with the focus upon the amount
of time in a day or a thousand years, it is that with God, time is nothing. He is the
Beginning and the End, time is meaningless to him unlike to us. To us we suffer through
a d ...[text shortened]... s one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

When you have nothing to say, say nothing

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]You appear to have missed this part of my post, which completely refutes your argument.

I saw it. Didn't think much of your cherry picking without explanation. Try looking through all the translations. Even better, look at a word-for-word translation. It's a bit awkward no matter how you look at it. As such, it seems that translators have made o ...[text shortened]... lete than what most of the translators have made of it. Take a look all of John 3:3-14 that way.[/b]

Try looking through all the translations.

I did. All of them decimate your argument.

Even better, look at a word-for-word translation.

Unsurprising you think it better (necessary?) to resort to a word for word translation, bearing in mind that all recognised translations support my position.

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)

I see sonship has already educated you on 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"

Even your desperate word for word translation doesn't circumnavigate the glaring description of only the son of man having gone up to heaven. (After of course your weak argument that Jesus did not see himself as the only son of man is tossed to the side).

This fits well with what I've been saying. It's also more straightforward and complete than what most of the translators have made of it. Take a look all of John 3:3-14 that way.

Your word for word translation fits as well as a tank top on an elephant. John 3:3-14 makes good reading, but doesn't advance your crumbling argument one iota.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
[b]Try looking through all the translations.

I did. All of them decimate your argument.

Even better, look at a word-for-word translation.

Unsurprising you think it better (necessary?) to resort to a word for word translation, bearing in mind that all recognised translations support my position.

there's no reason to believ ...[text shortened]... elephant. John 3:3-14 makes good reading, but doesn't advance your crumbling argument one iota.

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

I did. All of them decimate your argument.
Hardly

All of the following plainly state that EVEN Jesus had "ascended up to heaven" and "came down from heaven".

King James Bible
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Jubilee Bible 2000
And no one has ascended up to the heaven but he that came down from the heaven, even the Son of man, who is in the heaven.

King James 2000 Bible
And no man has ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man who is in heaven.

American King James Version
And no man has ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

American Standard Version
And no one hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended out of heaven, even the Son of man, who is in heaven.

Unsurprising you think it better (necessary?) to resort to a word for word translation, bearing in mind that all recognised translations support my position.

As I've shown, they don't.

I see sonship has already educated you on this.

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'.

Even your desperate word for word translation doesn't circumnavigate the glaring description of only the son of man having gone up to heaven. (After of course your weak argument that Jesus did not see himself as the only son of man is tossed to the side).

This and your other 'point' also hinge on your false assertions.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
All you have is a list of vague, baseless, repetitive, if not laughingly incorrect assertions.

[b]I did. All of them decimate your argument.
Hardly

All of the following plainly state that EVEN Jesus had "ascended up to heaven" and "came down from heaven".

King James Bible
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from h ...[text shortened]... is tossed to the side). [/b]

This and your other 'point' also hinge on your false assertions.[/b]

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!