GakuseiDon

"Heaven" could mean the higher heavens where the angels dwell, or the lower heaven where there are clouds. There is a certain ambiguity there so that the author of John may not feel that his statement contradicts the intent of the 2 King's author. But to me the presence of a chariot and horses of fire suggest that the author wanted to show Elijah being translated to the higher heavens, since fire was a spiritual substance. (John and 2 Kings being in contradiction doesn't worry me one way or the other)

OneInFundieville

But that begs the question whether or not Elijah's horse of fire left a contrail and have contributed to global warming...

John Kesler

I don't think that there is ambiguity unless one has a motivation to not accept what the texts say. I have already quoted 2 Kings 2, 1 Macc. 2, Sirach 48, and Malachi 4, which I think plainly show that Elijah was thought to have been taken to heaven without dying, with the expectation that he would make another appearance before the "day of Yahweh." For completeness, I can also add Josephus and Philo:


Okay, I hadn't made that connection before.

Even though John 3:13 was spoken by Jesus? If you say that Jesus didn't really speak John 3:13, then what about John 3:16?

GakuseiDon

Well, exactly. But I think you are only looking at this from an apologetics "contradiction vs non-contradiction" perspective. The deeper question IMO is: why did the author of John put those words in there? Did they not know the story about Elijah ascending to heaven? I'd say that it is possible though unlikely. Or did they know, but not worry? If the later, then they may have believed the story that Elijah didn't actually reach heaven. Or they may have had something else in mind -- e.g. they regarded the story as a myth. But if you are only concerned with the contradiction angle, then yes, I agree that it looks like one.

I don't see the relevance to this thread, and again, I'm not really concerned, at least at this stage.

John Kesler

My thought is that John 3:13 is a counter to gnostic belief in man's heavenly origins, so John has Jesus claim that only Jesus had gone to heaven and come to earth. I don't think that John was concerned about exceptions to the rule like Elijah and Enoch.

Glad to hear this.

What do you mean by "at least at this stage"? And even though it's off-topic, I am curious how you determine what words attributed to Jesus were actually spoken by him.

gstafleu

I wonder if this is really anti-gnostic. Let's have a look at the context, which is Jesus' chat with Nicodemus. Nicodemus starts with acknowledging that Jesus must have divine backing: "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him." Jesus has a response to that which looks like a non-sequitur: "Verily, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." The discussion was about Jesus' divine backing, not about other people's ability to see the kingdom of God. So Jesus is shifting the subject to what he thinks is a more important topic. Note that this is in part a shift from something external (Jesus' origins) to something internal (a persons ability to see god).

The way to get access to the divine kingdom is "to be born again," at least that is how it usually is translated. However, the word "anothen" (long o, rough transliteration) means not just "again" it also means "from above." Nicodemus takes it in the "again" sense, because he asks if one is supposed top crawl back into the womb! Jesus then sets him straight:
Another apparent non sequitur, what does the wind have to do with anything?

Well, the word for wind is pneuma, which is the same as the word for spirit. The wind of course sort of comes "from above." Jesus says that in order to see the kingdom of god, one has to be born both "of water and [of] the Spirit." There are the usual set of double meanings here. We can take "born" more or less literally, in which case "born of water" refers to the normal birth process. "Born of the spirit" is then "born again" in a spiritual (i.e. open to the divine way) fashion. Again, notice that anothen=again=from above=from the wind=from the spirit. You can also take "born" in the sense of "baptize," although it is more usual to see baptize as a form of birth. In either case, you have to be baptized not just with water (the standard, external, exoteric way of baptizing) but also with the wind/spirit, an internal, esoteric way of baptizing--a second stage of baptizing, so to speak. This then points to a third meaning: you have to be aware not only of the things of normal life (which is what water symbolizes), but also of spiritual things.

In that light, here is a slightly different translation of 6-8:
This does so far nor sound particularly anti-gnostic, does it?

Now we finally come to the bit about going to heaven. Jesus says:
First, notice the duality earthly-heavenly, which parallels water-spirit. Next comes the contentious bit: "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven". So far, this just repeats that in order to see the kingdom of god (go to heaven) one has to be born from the spirit (the one who came from heaven: the spirit comes from heaven, once you have been baptised by that spirit you can go to heaven too).

The addition of "—the Son of Man" makes this a bit more difficult, as it seems to restrict this whole going to heaven bit to Jesus himself. And that doesn't make much sense given what went on above, given that anyone reborn from the spirit above should be able to do it. Here we enter into a delicious bit of dual meanings that I'm sure will drive literalists crazy . First, the "Son of Man" does here not just mean Jesus, but also someone who believes in Jesus. In other words, by being born from the spirit one becomes like Jesus. Second, it indicates that one should not see Jesus, or divinity, as something outside oneself, but rather that it is something inside oneself--that (in)famous "inner Christ." The external Jesus thus serves as a "screening myth" for the concept of an internal Jesus: you only get knowledge (gnosis) of the internal Jesus once you have been born from the spirit (or spiritually reborn, if you will).

As a final hammering home of this duality we get "so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life." The external meaning of this is that Jesus should be held up as an example so that believers can go to heaven. The internal, "gnostic", meaning is that the idea of Jesus as inner divinity (Son of Man=me) should help the believer to lift himself up (up: in the direction of "from above," which is where the spirit comes from, in other words) to the level of inner divinity, at which point the believer achieves gnosis. So "Son of Man" here refers both to Jesus and the believer in Jesus at the same time! If you get a slight Baron of Münchhausen feeling here you're getting the idea.

So are you sure this bit is anti-gnostic ?

Oh, and just in case anyone thinks this is some gobbledygook I just made up on the spot: I'm pretty sure that this is standard mystic fare, one of the things yoga e.g. (along with other mystical methods and traditions) strives for.

Gerard Stafleu

GakuseiDon

I may be concerned later.

These days, it requires balls.

John Kesler

No, I am not at all dogmatic; I just suggested a possibility. Craig Evans thinks that John 3:13 is intended to answer the question posed by Proverbs 30:4, quoted below from the NASB.

CaliNORML

Personally, I think the link is elsewhere, I believe it is in the number 8.

Both Moses and Elijah had Eight in many laws and kept that day sacred. Remembering that our week was not always based on seven, Numbers and Deut. both have that specific law printed in the text today.

Jesus also went up on the mountain for Eight days till the transfiguration occured.

To me it is the Eight that links these three men and the events surrounding them at the transfiguration of Jesus.

KMS

JoeWallack

Everybody's Got Something To Hide Except For Me And My Markey

JW:

The Transfiguration (Go Figure):

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_9

And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There are some here of them that stand [by], who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power.

Conquering Death

-----And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart by -----themselves: and he was transfigured before them;

-----Disciples see Transformation

----------and his garments became glistering, exceeding white, so as no fuller on earth can whiten them.

----------Disciples see Heavenly white

---------------And there appeared unto them Elijah with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.

---------------Disciples Hear talking

--------------------And Peter answereth and saith to Jesus, Rabbi, it is good for us to be here:

--------------------Peter, James and John are present

--------------------and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah.

--------------------Jesus, Moses and Elijah are present

---------------For he knew not what to answer; for they became sore afraid.

---------------Disciples not able to talk

----------And there came a cloud overshadowing them: and there came a voice out of the cloud, This is my beloved Son: hear ye him.

----------Disciples see Heavenly white

-----And suddenly looking round about, they saw no one any more, save Jesus only with themselves.

-----Disciples see Transformation

And as they were coming down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, save when the Son of man should have risen again from the dead.

Conquering Death


JW:
The above is the Chiastic structure here I think but trying to see beyond this Author's literary style, what is he trying to Communicate? Pretty much everyone here can see the Positive communication. Moses and Elijah represent Torah and Prophets or all of the Jewish religion from the Past and Jesus is the authorized successor who represents the Future.

But what about the Negative communication? As always "Mark's" The Disciples are shown here as the Ironic Contrast. Even though the Reader does not Literally see what The Disciples saw here, the Reader can "see" or understand what it was that The Disciples actually saw. In Ironic Contrast The Disciples, who literally saw, do not "see" or understand what the Reader "sees" (understands). This is classic Greek tragedy of course. El-dipus T-ReX, look out!

Note that "Mark's" The Disciples can only React to what they literally saw, "let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah". They literally have no reaction to what it means, "For he knew not what to answer; for they became sore afraid." So let "Mark's" Readers understand.

I hereby name this Religious literary genre "Ironiclastic" which is the use of an extreme literary ironically contrasting style to undermine the existing religion. Ironically, "Mark's" Jesus was supposed to be the Jewish Messiah who's primary duty was to put an end to idol worship. Instead "Mark" Ironically created The ultimate idol from a Jewish standpoint, a man as god.



Joseph

Jesus. Name. The fleshy part of the trinity.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page