Do you believe in zombies?

[JimL]

Aping me still isn't helping, Jim.

I'm not the one that needs help little piggy. Like I said, you just don't realize it, and probably never will.

[One Bad Pig]

I'm not the one that needs help little piggy. Like I said, you just don't realize it, and probably never will.

I see you've descended into attempts to belittle me rather than defend your execrable reading abilities. Keep digging, Jim.

[tabibito]

No, I don't mock them, because it's an oft used expression which we all understand to simply mean its a downpour. Thats not analogous to the passage in John 3., so I have know idea why you would use it analogously. Apparently you don't have anything analogous, because you are wrong.


Well, it doesn't take a whole lot of thought for the believer to accept that, even though it isn't saying any such thing. It's as plain as the nose on your face what Jesus is saying. "no one has gone up to heaven" and that means "no one has gone up to heaven." It may be true that he is the only one to have come down from heaven and so the only one on earth with knowledge of heaven, but that's irrelevant as to whether or not anyone else has gone up to heaven. Jesus here is clearly saying no one else has gone up to heaven. You can't possibly be as stupid as you're looking right now. This is why we don't take most believers seriously- because 99% of them will deny the most obvious facts. And you are right, there are difficult passages in the bible. This isn't one of them. The problem is that if you recognize it for what it actually says it would mess with your beliefs, and that is just not something that you can allow to happen.

"Plain as the nose on your face" would be explicit statements that heaven was the destination - As I recall, no destination was explicitly stated (admittedly I could be wrong on that); and that is without taking into account the subtle distinction between "going up" and "getting taken up"

[Teallaura]

Ah, interesting. So Elijah ascended, but he never died. But if that's true how do you explain John 3:13 where Jesus says: no one has gone up to heaven except for himself? And also, because it just occured to me when thinking about this, Moses died, right? And Moses was at the transfiguration, correct? So he must have been resurrected prior to Jesus, yes?

Sorry I didn't get to this sooner.

The first question about John 3:13 has been answered fairly well, I think. Jesus is the only One Who can come and go from Heaven as He pleases.

The second hasn't been addressed that I saw (haven't fully caught up so I could be wrong). My answer is no, not necessarily. Peter and the other apostles saw Moses and Elijah - but they neither touched nor spoke to them (Peter babbled as Jesus). So we don't know if Moses was physically present or not. Even if he was, was he already in a glorified body?

But I think we're probably missing the mark entirely here - Jesus would be the first fruits even if He were not the first resurrected. The concept of the first fruits comes from the OT (Exodus and Leviticus, if memory serves) and refers to the first born or produced (from plants) all of which are the Lord's - including first born male children. Jesus became the first fruit when He became incarnate, not when He was resurrected. In completing His work, in crucifixion and resurrection, He completes His dedication, just as a first born lamb would be dedicated at the temple.

Paul follows metaphorically with the idea that Jesus is the first fruit of many brothers through His death and resurrection. Paul has an eye toward the New Creation - and no, Moses has not been resurrected in that sense - no one, other than Jesus, has.

All that said, it's a good question - but I think it does more damage to hyper-literalism than anything else, my poor answer notwithstanding.

[tabibito]

Do you hear a parrot on loop? Or a broken record player? Wait, I shouldn't know what a record is! It was like a big CD, right??

Not only that, but as my daughter exclaimed in amazement on her first encounter with a record, they're double sided.

[Teallaura]

Only problem is that it doesn't say or infer any of that. It simply says that no one has gone up to heaven except the one who has come down from Heaven, the son of man. That's an obvious contradiction since Elijah, Enoch and Moses obviously went up prior to Jesus according to the bible.

Again, it says nothing about ascension and descention, it merely states that no one has gone up to heaven except for the one who has come down from heaven.


All irrelevant stuff. Elijah, Enoch, Moses, according to the OT, all went to heaven prior to Jesus.

Um, okay, no - Jesus existed before ANY of them and was in Heaven. Also, the pre-Incarnate Christ is believed to be The Angel of the Lord (and yes, it's distinct from other angels - the only one to ever argue with God in Scripture) so even the 'going up' part is no problem (and of course, Jesus would have been present in Eden so He still proceeds them all).

EDIT: ARGH, never mind - you're reading the passage hyper-literally and objecting on those grounds. My mistake.

[mossrose]

Well, my take is that the only zombies around here are Jim and his friends.

They think they are alive and living, but they are dead in their sins, walking around, blind to their true condition.

Only Jesus can give them true life.

[rogue06]

Sorry buddy, you're the one in a hole, it's just that you've been there so long, you no longer realize it.

facepalm3.gif

[JimL]

Aping me still isn't helping, Jim.

I don't expect anything will, OBP. Many people would just as soon die for their religious beliefs rather than seriously question and abandon.

[JimL]

Sorry I didn't get to this sooner.

The first question about John 3:13 has been answered fairly well, I think. Jesus is the only One Who can come and go from Heaven as He pleases.

That may be true Tea, but that is not what Jeus was saying. What he said was that "no one has gone up to heaven" not down from heaven, but "no one has gone up to heaven.

The second hasn't been addressed that I saw (haven't fully caught up so I could be wrong). My answer is no, not necessarily. Peter and the other apostles saw Moses and Elijah - but they neither touched nor spoke to them (Peter babbled as Jesus). So we don't know if Moses was physically present or not. Even if he was, was he already in a glorified body?

That seems to be irrelevant as to whether or not they went up to heaven. They were there, they were said to be speaking with Jesus, so they were obviously there, as the story goes.

But I think we're probably missing the mark entirely here - Jesus would be the first fruits even if He were not the first resurrected. The concept of the first fruits comes from the OT (Exodus and Leviticus, if memory serves) and refers to the first born or produced (from plants) all of which are the Lord's - including first born male children. Jesus became the first fruit when He became incarnate, not when He was resurrected. In completing His work, in crucifixion and resurrection, He completes His dedication, just as a first born lamb would be dedicated at the temple.

That's one possible way to explain it, but being first doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense when you consider that Jesus would be the only one in that category anyway. Jesus would be the first among himself.

Paul follows metaphorically with the idea that Jesus is the first fruit of many brothers through His death and resurrection. Paul has an eye toward the New Creation - and no, Moses has not been resurrected in that sense - no one, other than Jesus, has.

What do you mean by; Moses was not resurrected in that way? And btw, on re-reading the transfiguration in Matthew, I noticed that Elijah not only was resurrected, but for all of the naysayers and critics of me, according to the bible, Elijah also came back down, "but I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased.

All that said, it's a good question - but I think it does more damage to hyper-literalism than anything else, my poor answer notwithstanding.

Well thank you, appreciate that, as well as your thoughtful and non-combative responses.

[One Bad Pig]

I don't expect anything will, OBP. Many people would just as soon die for their religious beliefs rather than seriously question and abandon.

Nope, still not helping. I'm more than willing to closely examine my beliefs and follow the evidence, Jim - much as you'd like to insinuate otherwise. I was raised a fundamentalist Protestant, I wasn't a practicing Christian in my Navy years, and only came back to faith after seriously examining the evidence. I'm now Eastern Orthodox. That is not a small shift, Jim. Your pathetic attempts (and they are pathetic) to raise doubts are so far off base that they merely confirm the utter bankruptness of your position. I pity you, because you are so far away from winning this debate that you don't even realize how soundly you're being beaten. Now, you've abandoned even attempting to debate the evidence, and have sunk to bad psychoanalysis.

[Teallaura]

That may be true Tea, but that is not what Jeus was saying. What he said was that "no one has gone up to heaven" not down from heaven, but "no one has gone up to heaven.

Okay, so we have two possibilities: Jesus is irrational (Scripture does NOT bear this reading) or something else is going on. From a variety of parables and sayings, we know that Jesus uses hyperbole and exaggeration to make His points. We also know from linguistics that turns of phrase may be perfectly understandable to the hearer but not to the translated reader.

So the most likely - and indeed, the only rational - reading is that Jesus is not speaking literally, but figuratively. That's what the others have been trying to get across. To read the phrase literally is to engage in hyper-literalism. Jesus is hinting at the substantive difference that He alone can claim to have come FROM Heaven to reveal Heavenly things. No other prophet ever even remotely said anything like that.

Jesus is establishing His bona fides, not expounding on what happens after death. His listeners would have understood well enough (and did, going by the Scripture) - it's when Greek gets translated into English that we lose the nuance.

That seems to be irrelevant as to whether or not they went up to heaven. They were there, they were said to be speaking with Jesus, so they were obviously there, as the story goes.

It is - your question was a good one related to first fruits but this is an artifact of my misunderstanding where you were going.

That's one possible way to explain it, but being first doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense when you consider that Jesus would be the only one in that category anyway. Jesus would be the first among himself.

For now - but not in the New Creation which was what I thought you were getting at (that Moses and Elijah refuted Him as first fruit).

What do you mean by; Moses was not resurrected in that way? And btw, on re-reading the transfiguration in Matthew, I noticed that Elijah not only was resurrected, but for all of the naysayers and critics of me, according to the bible, Elijah also came back down, "but I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased.

Okay, a lot to cover here:
1) Moses is not resurrected as we will be in the New Creation - because that hasn't yet happened (I am skipping the eternal perspective here - it complicates this unnecessarily for a non-believer but yeah, there is another answer to this). This brings into question whether Moses was physically present or not - from a theological perspective, it's a non-issue.

2) Elijah can't be resurrected - he didn't die. Whether he appears bodily in the transfiguration is unknown - I presume so but Scripture doesn't give us a definitive answer. Yes, he appears. We presume he's been to Heaven - it only proves the passage in question isn't intended literally.

3) John the Baptist is the 'Elijah' that the passage speaks of - it's a fulfillment of prophecy. Remember Elisha? It's the same idea - John inherits the mantle as Elisha did. Notice that elsewhere, Pharisees ask John specifically if he is Elijah - they are reading literally what is intended figuratively. Hence, John denies being literally Elijah.

Well thank you, appreciate that, as well as your thoughtful and non-combative responses.

[JimL]

Nope, still not helping. I'm more than willing to closely examine my beliefs and follow the evidence, Jim - much as you'd like to insinuate otherwise. I was raised a fundamentalist Protestant, I wasn't a practicing Christian in my Navy years, and only came back to faith after seriously examining the evidence. I'm now Eastern Orthodox. That is not a small shift, Jim. Your pathetic attempts (and they are pathetic) to raise doubts are so far off base that they merely confirm the utter bankruptness of your position. I pity you, because you are so far away from winning this debate that you don't even realize how soundly you're being beaten. Now, you've abandoned even attempting to debate the evidence, and have sunk to bad psychoanalysis.

Like I said OBP, it's unlikely that anything will help. It's a deeply instilled belief. I have found that those who claim to examine the evidence are merely examining ways in which to confirm what they already believe. Tweb is a good study for that, no matter what contradictions are pointed out to the believers, they will always find a way, even if nonsensical, to put a different spin on it. It's bad enough that you've been taught to believe things like your long dead and buried body will emerge from its 6 ft under resting place and ascend on up like a rocket to some heavenly realm beyond the clouds, but what is worse is that you're thoughts on the matter are fixed, and unbeknownst, even to yourself, you're incapable of escaping the thought labrynth you've helped to imprison yourself in. Actually I find it a bit sad, although as the bible points out, blessed too are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth!

[tabibito]

Like I said OBP, it's unlikely that anything will help. It's a deeply instilled belief. I have found that those who claim to examine the evidence are merely examining ways in which to confirm what they already believe. Tweb is a good study for that, no matter what contradictions are pointed out to the believers, they will always find a way, even if nonsensical, to put a different spin on it. It's bad enough that you've been taught to believe things like your long dead and buried body will emerge from its 6 ft under resting place and ascend on up like a rocket to some heavenly realm beyond the clouds, but what is worse is that you're thoughts on the matter are fixed, and unbeknownst, even to yourself, you're incapable of escaping the thought labrynth you've helped to imprison yourself in. Actually I find it a bit sad, although as the bible points out, blessed too are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth!

A significant proportion of the criticisms that have been presented over the years are self evidently specious. Even if it could be demonstrated that the balance of the criticisms is valid (including those that have already been eliminated after a bit of digging), you would have succeeded in doing no more than demonstrate that the Bible is not wholly accurate. Satisfactory evidence for the concept that the Bible is not wholly accurate is already acknowledged by a significant number of Christians.

I'll ask again - where does it explicitly say that anyone was physically taken up to heaven? The evidence for that needs to be presented before any claim of inconsistency need be entertained. If you interpret Elijah, for example, being taken up as "taken up to heaven" rather than to Sheol, what do you base that assessment on?

[JimL]

A significant proportion of the criticisms that have been presented over the years are self evidently specious. Even if it could be demonstrated that the balance of the criticisms is valid (including those that have already been eliminated after a bit of digging), you would have succeeded in doing no more than demonstrate that the Bible is not wholly accurate. Satisfactory evidence for the concept that the Bible is not wholly accurate is already acknowledged by a significant number of Christians.

I'll ask again - where does it explicitly say that anyone was physically taken up to heaven? The evidence for that needs to be presented before any claim of inconsistency need be entertained. If you interpret Elijah, for example, being taken up as "taken up to heaven" rather than to Sheol, what do you base that assessment on?

2 Kings 2.