This one little peice of scripture is bothering me

[help_the_lord]

No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven (John 3:13)


2 Kings 2:1And it came to pass, when the LORD would take up Elijah into heaven by a whirlwind, that Elijah went with Elisha from Gilgal.

2 Kings 2:11And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.


How do these 2 fit together? I'm sort of confused?

 

[Isolation]

I knew someone who tried to say that Christ was Elijah, but he says John the Baptist was Elijah.

 

[cubinity]

Maybe the opposite is true.
Rather than trying to argue that Jesus is Elijah, why not try to consider that Jesus might have been Elijah.
Wild, huh?

 

[Isolation]

Maybe the opposite is true.
Rather than trying to argue that Jesus is Elijah, why not try to consider that Jesus might have been Elijah.
Wild, huh?

Well, that is one way to look at scripture, to ignore it

 

[cubinity]

Well, that is one way to look at scripture, to ignore it

Did it work when someone who disagreed with you accused you of the same?

Perhaps I would have gotten more out of something like: "Hm, I disagree. This verse says, _______, which seems to show that your consideration of Elijah being Jesus is misplaced. What do you think."

Yes, that would have been not only more polite, but also would have helped me learn from whatever insight into the Scriptures you have.

That's okay.

Do you mind sharing with me the Scripture I am apparently ignoring, that I might better understand your accusation and learn the error of my previous statement. Thanks.

 

[Isolation]

Sorry I did not mean to be offensive to you

But I was saying that it shows a distinction from Elijah and Christ in such verses as Mark 9:12, or simply reading Malachi 4. He comes before the Lord. Or for instance Matt 17:9-13 also making a clear distinction between the two. Also, he meets up with moses and elijah when he was transfigured. The disciples were going to make a tabernacle for all three of them. This is another seperation that clearly shows he could not be elijah.

I am sorry if I offended you

 

[cubinity]

Sorry I did not mean to be offensive to you

But I was saying that it shows a distinction from Elijah and Christ in such verses as Mark 9:12, or simply reading Malachi 4. He comes before the Lord. Or for instance Matt 17:9-13 also making a clear distinction between the two. Also, he meets up with moses and elijah when he was transfigured. The disciples were going to make a tabernacle for all three of them. This is another seperation that clearly shows he could not be elijah.

I am sorry if I offended you

No prob. I got nothing but love for you, Iso!

Anyway, yes, you are clearly right that these verses make a clear distinction between Jesus and Elijah.

However, I disagree that Elijah came before the Lord because of John 1:1. Nobody comes before the Lord.

I also disagree that the disciples were going to make tabernacles to all three. It was a hasty idea suggested by Peter, which the author suggests he said for inadequate reasons.

Finally, I agree that the OP's verse is troubling. It seems to somehow indicate that Elijah descended, which is why he was also able to ascend.

What do you think?

 

[Isolation]

No prob. I got nothing but love for you, Iso!

Anyway, yes, you are clearly right that these verses make a clear distinction between Jesus and Elijah.

However, I disagree that Elijah came before the Lord because of John 1:1. Nobody comes before the Lord.

I also disagree that the disciples were going to make tabernacles to all three. It was a hasty idea suggested by Peter, which the author suggests he said for inadequate reasons.

Finally, I agree that the OP's verse is troubling. It seems to somehow indicate that Elijah descended, which is why he was also able to ascend.

What do you think?

well i understand john 1:1, so yes in that.
But I mean for Christ to start his ministry, it was required to do the baptism of remission, so he could pay the sins off through his own blood.

he had to come first to prepare the lord

the tabernacles thing i understand and yes you are correct.

And I have no idea on that verse.
It doesn't mean Christ is Elijah.
But that God has made a few choices for himself that some wouldn't see death
But maybe Christ was speaking in a more general sense? idk

 

[cubinity]

well i understand john 1:1, so yes in that.
But I mean for Christ to start his ministry, it was required to do the baptism of remission, so he could pay the sins off through his own blood.

he had to come first to prepare the lord

the tabernacles thing i understand and yes you are correct.

And I have no idea on that verse.
It doesn't mean Christ is Elijah.
But that God has made a few choices for himself that some wouldn't see death
But maybe Christ was speaking in a more general sense? idk

Oh, yeah, now I remember reading more about your view of the baptism and how that shapes Christ's story. Interesting stuff.

I hope someone chimes in that does have some idea how these verses relate. I would be interested in finding out more about this, too.

 

[dcyates]

No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven (John 3:13)


2 Kings 2:1And it came to pass, when the LORD would take up Elijah into heaven by a whirlwind, that Elijah went with Elisha from Gilgal.

2 Kings 2:11And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.


How do these 2 fit together? I'm sort of confused?

To the best of my knowledge, this is really a question of authority and of the legitimacy of one's testimony.
In the ancient world, a person's character and status was very much tied to where they were from. Additionally, one's testimony about their place of origin was considered truly authoritative and legitimate only if they were indeed from there. Even if you were born in one location but spent most of your life in another locale, your testimony about that place was to be regarded as suspect. (Years ago, an aquaintance was once visiting the village of Kom al-Akhdar in the south of Egypt and was asking an elderly man there about the village traditions. The man was in his sixties and seemed to be an appropriate person to ask concerning such things. The man offered a few remarks but was soon interrupted by other villagers who told my friend not to bother listening to the man since he wasn't from there. "He wouldn't understand -- he is not from this village," they said.
"How long has he lived here?" my friend asked.
"Only 37 years," they answered calmly.
LOL! Poor fellow -- he didn't understand, he was an outsider -- only 37 years -- clearly not long enough to be allowed to publicly testify to the village traditions!)
Anyway, in the previous verses, Jesus declares, "Truly, truly, I tell you, we speak of what we know and testify to what we have seen; yet you do not receive our testimony" (v. 11). Therefore, I think what is intended by verse 13 is to emphasize that of all those who have ascended to the heavenly realms, the only one truly qualified to legtimately and authoritatively testify about it is the only one who is actually FROM there, "the Son of Man," Jesus himself.

 

[privatepop]

No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven (John 3:13)

No one ascends into heaven by their work, but it is by Christ’ work who came down from heaven.

 

[daviddub]

To the best of my knowledge, this is really a question of authority and of the legitimacy of one's testimony.
In the ancient world, a person's character and status was very much tied to where they were from. Additionally, one's testimony about their place of origin was considered truly authoritative and legitimate only if they were indeed from there. Even if you were born in one location but spent most of your life in another locale, your testimony about that place was to be regarded as suspect. (Years ago, an aquaintance was once visiting the village of Kom al-Akhdar in the south of Egypt and was asking an elderly man there about the village traditions. The man was in his sixties and seemed to be an appropriate person to ask concerning such things. The man offered a few remarks but was soon interrupted by other villagers who told my friend not to bother listening to the man since he wasn't from there. "He wouldn't understand -- he is not from this village," they said.
"How long has he lived here?" my friend asked.
"Only 37 years," they answered calmly.
LOL! Poor fellow -- he didn't understand, he was an outsider -- only 37 years -- clearly not long enough to be allowed to publicly testify to the village traditions!)
Anyway, in the previous verses, Jesus declares, "Truly, truly, I tell you, we speak of what we know and testify to what we have seen; yet you do not receive our testimony" (v. 11). Therefore, I think what is intended by verse 13 is to emphasize that of all those who have ascended to the heavenly realms, the only one truly qualified to legtimately and authoritatively testify about it is the only one who is actually FROM there, "the Son of Man," Jesus himself.

Absolutely beautiful.

 

[zairsmith]

I think that God is giving you a overall view of things in 2kings 2:1 and then giving you a descriptive insight of how it actually happened when the whirlwind came in 2kings 2:11 So, I think God in a sense, is given the readers a preview of whats to come for us...God will come down and take us where he is. I think John (3:13) speaks of something doesn't necessarily relate to 2kings. Because Jesus ascended by his on power and will descend again by his own power. Whereas Elijah was taken up by God

I felt the same way when I read about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The bible first tells you that the cities were destroyed before telling how they were destroyed.

Hope this helps

God Bless