The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Raymond_Reddington
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

ascended into heaven - verses do not contradict each other

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Raymond_Reddington
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/25/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 481 times Debate No: 57153
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

John 3:13
states, "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."

2 Kings 2:1
And 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 2:11
And 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.

" The Bible does not say that Elijah ascended to heaven. It says that he was taken up. The word 'ascend' means to go up. It pictures someone or something that goes up of its own strength. The word 'ascend' comes from the Latin word for 'climb' and it literally means to climb up. We speak of someone ascending the stairs. The first biblical use of the word is in Genesis 28:12 where Jacob sees "a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it.

John 3:13 does not teach that no one has ever seen or entered heaven. It teaches that no man ever climbed up into heaven by his own power. The only one who has ever ascended to heaven in His own strength is the One who originated in heaven and came down to earth before He ascended."
Raymond_Reddington

Con

I accept. Since pro is the instigator and affirming the resolution she has the full burden of proof to show that there is definitely no contradiction in these verses.

Definitions
Ascend- Go up or climb
It is important to note that this basically means increased in altitude. If the end destination is heaven then this results in a clear contradiction.

My opponent tries to draw the distinction between going up out of one's own strength and being "taken up" but this is irrelevant as both fit the definition. In both cases the individual is going up into heaven. My opponent makes the claim that ascending "pictures someone or something that goes up of its own strength" which is a ridiculous. She is simply ignoring the definition that she presented "The word 'ascend' means to go up". There are know qualifiers here such as "by oneself" or "with ones own strength. My opponent is simply giving her interpretation of the word which is incorrect and should be considered irrelevant. The original Latin meaning of the word should also be ignored because many words in the English language have vastly different meanings than their Latin counterparts.

My opponent makes a bold claim about john 3 when she says "John 3:13 does not teach that no one has ever seen or entered heaven. It teaches that no man ever climbed up into heaven by his own power."

Here is the context:
John 3:10-15
10 "You are Israel"s teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things? 11 Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven"the Son of Man.[e] 14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up,[f] 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him."

Nowhere in this passage is the qualifier "by his own strength" found. My opponents analysis is simply her biased and subjective interpretation of a clear contradiction in scripture.

We can conclude that in John 3:13 Jesus claimed no one had ascended into heaven yet when it states clearly that Elijah ascended into heaven. I've tried to keep my argument short since the contradiction is incredibly clear.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

Con gives a translation that says "no one has ever gone into heaven". i gave a translation that says 'ascend'. i pointed out that the use of the word ascend means to climb up etc as in the stairs to heaven example. ascending something implies one's own abilities. con simply tries to use another definition or spin on what it means to ascend. con is simply stomping his foot and saying 'nuh ugh'.
Raymond_Reddington

Con

John 3:10-17 New King James Version
10 Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? 11 Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.[a] 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but[b] have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

Notice that again, it is never said "by his own strength".

"i pointed out that the use of the word ascend means to climb up"
She actually said "The word 'ascend' means to go up." She then said the original Latin meant to climb up. Words rarely stick to their original Latin meanings and a quick glance at the definition of "ascend" shows that the meaning is different. Not only that, but to climb would not make since in this context. "To climb" requires an object for one to climb. Pro is just reiterating her first round without addressing any of my points.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

you just chose to change the passage to something that didn't say ascend. so i focused on that as it seemed to be the crux of your argument.

about the ascend doesnt have the words of one's own strength. it doesn't, but it's implied. the examples i gave show that when one ascends, it is implied. like the example of climbing stairs. there were no stairs, but to ascend would be to somehow travel with one's own effort, as with the stairs. perhaps it's not necessaily the only way ascend could be used, but it's the only way it's been shown to use.... so we have suffiicnet effort to say it very well could be what was intended to be expressed, something requiring one's own effort and such.
Raymond_Reddington

Con

I didn't change the passage, it was just the NIV version. To climb is absolutely not implied in the word ascend. When you get in an airplane there is a reason they say the plane is beginning ascent or descent. Most of pro's argument is centered around the idea that to ascend requires use of one's own strength which is blatantly false. She has failed to offer evidence. The only way to vote is Con.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
i actually admit i'm stretching it. i wanted to play devil's advocate. but it's possible that what i stetched could be true, so i just went with it.
Posted by POPOO5560 2 years ago
POPOO5560
I think in the 4 gospels the places where ascension are mentioned are fabrications its not appearing in the earliest manuscript...
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
dairygirl4u2cRaymond_ReddingtonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: pro didn't meet BoP
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
dairygirl4u2cRaymond_ReddingtonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Con deserves credit for a good effort, but this debate was impossible for Con to win. Pro needs to work on capitalization.
Vote Placed by ArcTImes 2 years ago
ArcTImes
dairygirl4u2cRaymond_ReddingtonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to meed the BoP.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
dairygirl4u2cRaymond_ReddingtonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to meet BOP, to climb does not mean ascend, as you could climb down. Thus arguments go to Con. Pro also had some major fails in terms of Capitalization, so grammar goes to Con as well.