"Boy who came back from heaven" recants his story

[Scrawly]

Two who went and never came back.

Actually Elijah did return when Jesus was transfigured.

Paul was having a vision. He did not really go to heaven.

1Boasting is necessary, though it is not profitable; but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. 2I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a man was caught up to the third heaven. 3And I know how such a man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows— 4was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak (2.Cor 12:1-4).

[Raphael]

Two who went and never came back. Paul was having a vision. He did not really go to heaven.

Errr, Paul himself says he doesn't know if it was a vision or if he was physically there.

I can appreciate the point you're trying to make, but if Paul wasn't clear as to whether or not it was a vision or in person, I would hesitate at stating it was just a vision.

[mossrose]

As I already pointed out, the first verse of that passage is referring to visions. What follows in the account of the man would logically be included in the discussion of "visions".

If you think I am in error, then please tell me what you all think Jesus was saying in John 3:13.

[mossrose]

Actually Elijah did return when Jesus was transfigured.

I don't believe he returned in a physical body as he was taken up into heaven. However he returned it was not as if he had had an out of body experience. And it was also centuries later.

[Raphael]

As I already pointed out, the first verse of that passage is referring to visions. What follows in the account of the man would logically be included in the discussion of "visions".

If you think I am in error, then please tell me what you all think Jesus was saying in John 3:13.

Paul's experience was post the resurrection.

You could be correct that it was just a vision, but Paul makes it plain, even repeating himself, that he was unable to say if it was a vision or if he was physically there (if it was indeed himself he was talking about). I think if he is uncertain about it, we should avoid stating that it was definitely a vision and cound't be a cse of physically being there.

[Scrawly]

If you think I am in error, then please tell me what you all think Jesus was saying in John 3:13.

Gill comments:

"And no man hath ascended into heaven,.... Though Enoch and Elias had, yet not by their own power, nor in the sense our Lord designs; whose meaning is, that no man had, or could go up to heaven, to bring from thence the knowledge of divine and heavenly things; in which sense the phrase is used in Deuteronomy 30:12, and which may be illustrated by John 1:18; wherefore inasmuch as Nicodemus had acknowledged Christ to he a teacher come from God, our Lord, would have him know, that he was the only teacher of heavenly things, as being the only person that had been in heaven, and in the bosom of the Father; and therefore, if he, and the rest of the Jews, did not receive instructions from him, they must for ever remain ignorant; for there never had been, nor was, nor could be, any mere man that could go up to heaven, and learn the mysteries of God, and of the kingdom of heaven, and return and instruct men in them.."

Source: http://biblehub.com/john/3-13.htm

[mossrose]

Paul's experience was post the resurrection.

You could be correct that it was just a vision, but Paul makes it plain, even repeating himself, that he was unable to say if it was a vision or if he was physically there (if it was indeed himself he was talking about). I think if he is uncertain about it, we should avoid stating that it was definitely a vision and cound't be a cse of physically being there.

My point still stands. If he was there physically or not, he was not permitted to speak of what he heard or saw. Which is the exact opposite of what people who have "heaven" experiences are doing nowadays.

Regardless of whether this was post resurrection, I see nothing in the rest of the NT that negates what Jesus stated in John 3.

[mossrose]

Gill comments:

"And no man hath ascended into heaven,.... Though Enoch and Elias had, yet not by their own power, nor in the sense our Lord designs; whose meaning is, that no man had, or could go up to heaven, to bring from thence the knowledge of divine and heavenly things; in which sense the phrase is used in Deuteronomy 30:12, and which may be illustrated by John 1:18; wherefore inasmuch as Nicodemus had acknowledged Christ to he a teacher come from God, our Lord, would have him know, that he was the only teacher of heavenly things, as being the only person that had been in heaven, and in the bosom of the Father; and therefore, if he, and the rest of the Jews, did not receive instructions from him, they must for ever remain ignorant; for there never had been, nor was, nor could be, any mere man that could go up to heaven, and learn the mysteries of God, and of the kingdom of heaven, and return and instruct men in them.."

Source: http://biblehub.com/john/3-13.htm

Pretty much what I said.

[Scrawly]

Pretty much what I said.

Very well then.

[37818]

mossrose,

You have given some excellent insights.

[mossrose]

mossrose,

You have given some excellent insights.

[Cerebrum123]

I really don't think it could be Paul based on this.

2 Corinthians 12:5 I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses. 6 Even if I should choose to boast, I would not be a fool, because I would be speaking the truth. But I refrain, so no one will think more of me than is warranted by what I do or say,

He would be heavily contradicting himself if he were the one who experienced that, and I don't think he's that stupid.

[37818]

I really don't think it could be Paul based on this.

2 Corinthians 12:5 I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses. 6 Even if I should choose to boast, I would not be a fool, because I would be speaking the truth. But I refrain, so no one will think more of me than is warranted by what I do or say,

He would be heavily contradicting himself if he were the one who experienced that, and I don't think he's that stupid.

So, can you cite one commentator, besides you, who think that man v. 2 was not referring to himself?

[One Bad Pig]

Wash your mouth out....errr you typed that.....go wash them hands. St Nick is an awesome and hardworking fellow. (and prone to punching out heretics)

The concept of Santa Claus bears almost no resemblance to St. Nicholas.

[One Bad Pig]

My point still stands. If he was there physically or not, he was not permitted to speak of what he heard or saw. Which is the exact opposite of what people who have "heaven" experiences are doing nowadays.

As I understand it, what Paul experienced was inexpressible - he literally did not have the words to express what he saw.

There is a story related in The Ladder of Divine Ascent by St. John Climacus where a rather unstudious monk died and came back to life a short time later. Without a word, the monk bricked up the entrance to his cave from the inside, leaving only a hole for food to enter. When he was dying several years later, the other monks asked him what he'd experienced. All he said was, "those who die will never sin again."