Did Jesus Christ really come down from heaven?

[FWI]

And, if he didn't; then he also didn't preexist…

There are basically four views of who Jesus Christ is:

* The first is that Jesus is God and existed eternally. He also came to earth in human form. This is a simple explanation of the Christ, in the Trinity doctrine.

* The second view is that there were two Gods, who existed eternally. Then, one of these Gods agreed to give up its divinity and take the form of a human being. This divine being is considered to be the God of the O.T.

* Thirdly, there are those who believe that Jesus Christ preexisted as a powerful angel. Then, he was born a human being.

* The last view is that the Christ didn't preexist, he isn't God and he didn't come down from heaven (as many believe). But, (now) the Christ is a god or a being having greater power than any being that exists (except his Father) and will eventually be subject to his Father. Where, the Christ was born of a physical woman and received his human nature from this woman. He also received his Godly nature from his Father or God. This is the position that I take…

Therefore, all four of these positions can't be correct! So, what rebuttals (with support) can you present to challenge the positions listed? It would also be helpful, but not necessary, if support for your position is included…

[brianbbs67]

Without reading all responses, Sampson's mother had an exact story as Jesus' mother. An Angel announced his birth and future greatness. So, such a thing had happened at least twice. (including Jesus) Maybe not so rare or set up by Sampson's story?

[FWI]

Without reading all responses, Sampson's mother had an exact story as Jesus' mother. An Angel announced his birth and future greatness. So, such a thing had happened at least twice (including Jesus). Maybe not so rare or set up by Sampson's story?

The OP was intended to be related to: Did the Christ come down from heaven (literally)? But, you do have a valid point. However, I disagree that the stories are exact. In, the mother of Samson's case, she was not told that the birth of her son would be a direct result of God's intervention, nor would Samson be labeled as the Son of God…Where, Jesus' mother was told that her son would be from the power of God and that he would be called the Son of the Highest. Traditionally, Samson mother was named Hazzelelponi and she was the wife of Manoah. She is referred to as being barren and not a virgin, thus was active in sexual activities. Mary, the mother of Jesus is referred to as being a virgin.

So, we also should consider Manoah and Joseph…In Judges 14, the term: mother and father is used five times to address the biological parents of Samson. Yet, in Matthew 1:25 it is recorded that Joseph did not know Mary (sexually), until after the birth of the Christ…So, the verse in John 6:42 is referring to Joseph (the step-father) as being the legal father under Israelite law and not genetically.

So, it seems that the only similarity of the two events is that an angel informed each of the two woman of their upcoming pregnancies. Yet, there is evidence (in the bible) that is very similar to Samson's mothers' experience. But, the experience of Mary, the mother of Jesus is unique and not referenced elsewhere in the bible…

[FWI]

Yahweh has other sons and daughters he says call no man on earth Father there is only one that probably explains why Mark did not mention Joseph. Matthew 23:9

This comment is not biblical…Mark refers to the 5th commandment of Yahweh and more (Mark 7:6-13): honor your father and mother, which would mean to give proper recognition and respect to our physical parents. Where, using the term father (in the proper context) is required…

So, what is meant by the law in Matthew 23:9? It is related to religious matters and requires that man not address other humans or entities by titles that suggest they have authority over them in spiritual understandings, which only God, His Son and the laws have. Hence, there are different ways to understand the bible's usage of the words: son, sons and daughters. One would be by begetting, which the Christ is the only one at this time, related to God. Another, would be by God creating sons, which applies to the angels. Then, there is the change required, which is explained in 2 Peter 1:1-4.

[tam]

Peace to you!

[Replying to post 1 by FWI]



In answer to the title of the thread:


Yes, Christ (Jaheshua) did really come down from heaven. He said it Himself:

For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. John 6:38


No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man. John 3:13

I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.� John 6:51

“Does this offend you? Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! John 6:61, 62

- Here above, He speaks of ascending to where He was before (in heaven). He could only ascend to where He was before if He was indeed there before.

**

He is also the firstborn of all creation:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. Colossians 1:15

I know some interpret that as meaning only that He is appointed as firstborn over all creation, but, Paul also makes clear that ALL THINGS were created THROUGH Christ (in which case Christ existed long before He was born in the flesh, or nothing would have been created before he was born in the flesh <- and that is logically impossible):

For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things... Colossians 1:16, 17

and,

yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. 1 Corinthians 8:6

FROM the Father (who is the one true God, whose name is JAH)... THROUGH the Son (who is the Holy One of God).


**


He said also that He saw things with His Father (in His Father's presence):


"I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father.� John 8:38


And of course there are His words about having been before Abraham, and the words from the beginning of John which state that the Son - the Word - was with God in the beginning, and that He became flesh.


**

The above are just some verses that speak to Christ as having an existence (and life) before coming down from heaven (and being born as a man). But He is also present in the scriptures (which testify to Him) as having existed (and had life) before coming down from heaven.


The following are just two examples:


He is the Tree of Life (from the Garden of Eden/Paradise).

We know that Adam and Eve needed to eat from the Tree of Life in order to live forever. We know - because Christ has told us - that in order for us to live forever, we must eat of HIM. We also know - because Christ has told us - that He is the LIFE.

The Tree of Life = the Life = Christ.

There are not two different things/beings from whom we must eat in order to live forever. Adam and Eve needed to eat of the Tree of Life in order to live forever... just as Christ has told us that we must eat of Him in order to live forever:

“I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. John 6:35

I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. John 6:51

Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.� John 6:57, 58

“I am the way and the truth and the life." John 14:6

"I am the resurrection and the life." John 11:25



Is He not also described as the Root (of David); as well as the Vine, and are not those who are in Him described also as branches (and are not branches also in trees?)


“I am the true vine, and My Father is the keeper of the vineyard. He cuts off every branch in Me that bears no fruit, and every branch that does bear fruit, He prunes to make it even more fruitful." John 15:1, 2

If anyone does not remain in Me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers. Such branches are gathered up, thrown into the fire, and burned. John 15:56


(Paul speaks of those in Christ as being branches as well - natural branches for Israel and grafted in branches for Gentiles; from Romans 11 if I am not mistaken.)


Other beings are described as trees in scripture. The Tree of Life is Christ (the LIFE).



**


Christ is also Wisdom, from Proverbs 8. And Wisdom was brought forth from God, born, formed long ago (from long before the words were written down), as master worksman at the Father's side (which is corroborated with how Paul and John describe all things coming from the Father THROUGH the Son).

I cannot read Proverbs 8 without seeing my Lord.

Does Christ not call to us as Wisdom is described as calling out to all mankind? (Matt 11:28; Rev 22:17; Matt 22:14).

Does Christ not speak to us trustworthy and true things (as Wisdom does) - Christ being the Truth, as the One who speaks the truth, as the One who bears witness to the truth, and speaking only as He has learned from His Father, that His Father has taught Him to say?

Is it not by Christ that kings reign? (Rev 5:10 KJV; Rev 20:4, 6; Luke 22:29, 30)

And of course from the end of Proverbs 8:


For those who find me find life
and receive favor from [the LORD].


Is Christ not the Life? Do those who find Christ not find life?



If anyone wishes to know the truth of this - or ANY - matter, then one should turn to Christ, ask Him. He is the One to whom we must listen, after all.


**


In summary, as per the 4 proposals from the OP: Christ having an existence (and life) before becoming human necessarily disputes the 4th proposal of the OP; Christ being brought forth, having been born (as shown in Proverbs 8), disputes the first two proposals from the OP (that He was eternally existing). The 3rd proposal is technically true - since angel simply means messenger, and Christ is the Word of God after all. But Christ is more than an angel - He is higher than the angels/arkangels, and second only to God. He is the Son of God, the Holy One of God, the Heir (for whom God created all things), the only begotten/born Son (of God).





May anyone who wishes them be given ears to hear and to be able to get a sense of these things. May anyone wishes and anyone who thirsts, hear and come, as the Spirit (Christ) and the Bride say to you, "Come! Take the free gift of the water of Life!"

(which water is holy spirit, poured out from Christ and given to whomever He chooses)


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[FWI]

[Replying to post 24 by tam]

Thank you for your input…

Since, I am unaware of your position related to the preexistence of Jesus and how that understanding correlates with your belief in who is God. Could you inform me of these positions (so I won't just presume)? This will help me in responding to your comments. Also, how did the preexistent Jesus, become flesh?

[tam]

Peace to you!

[Replying to post 24 by tam]

Thank you for your input…

Since, I am unaware of your position related to the preexistence of Jesus and how that understanding correlates with your belief in who is God. Could you inform me of these positions (so I won't just presume)?

God = the Most Holy One = Jah(veh)

Son of God = the Holy One = Jaheshua


The Son of God was born. God (the Most Holy One) always existed.

Also, how did the preexistent Jesus, become flesh?

I do not know the exact science, if that is what you were asking. But as far as I can understand, He emptied Himself, and came to be formed again in the womb of Mary (via holy spirit: the blood and breath and seed of JAH). He would still have been Himself (the spirit that He is), but in a new body (this flesh with its blood that we are all currently 'clothed' with).


Peace again to you!

[FWI]

[Replying to post 24 by tam]

Yes, Christ (Jaheshua) did really come down from heaven. He said it Himself: For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. John 6:38 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man. John 3:13 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.� John 6:51 Does this offend you? Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! John 6:61, 62

Well, it seems that there is a "figurative intent" (John 6:38 & John 3:13) that is being applied incorrectly as a real or actual event. The truth is the bible states that God's power came from heaven and impregnated Mary and the result was the birth of Jesus (Matt. 1:18-21 & Luke 1:26-35)! There is no reference to a preexistent being coming down from heaven to impregnate Mary…Because, if that was the case, then this being or a preexistent Jesus would be his own father, not God. This reality can't be overlooked or explained away! Because, the bible makes it clear that God used the genetic make-up of the line of King David to complete the requirements of the process known as human conception. Then, God added His essence or nature in conjunction with the human nature, which resulted in the newly born Jesus. Which, permitted Jesus to have a relationship with God that no other human has.

The idea that Jesus was physical, having flesh in heaven is beyond belief…Yet, this is what John 6:51 seems to imply. The same type of event occurred in Exodus, but to believe that manna actually came down from heaven (daily for about 40 year) is a real stretch. So, it is pretty clear in John 6 that the Christ was not suggesting that his followers would need to eat his flesh to be saved. This is only a figurative statement…They wouldn't understand what the Christ was telling them until after Pentecost. Hence, the Christ being in the mind of God (in heaven) makes it real to God (and later on to the Christ). Yet, it wasn't real to the others in heaven, until the birth of Jesus occurred (on this earth). In Luke 2:8-14, even the heavenly hosts were praising God, because of the birth of the Christ. Since, it is the power of God that gives real life, not the flesh. Thus, the necessary means to complete the impregnation of Mary did come down from heaven! But, the means came from the power of God, not from a preexisting being (John 6:61-63).

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. Colossians 1:15

The most obvious problem for Col. 1:15 being a support verse for a preexistent Christ is included in the verse itself. The term "firstborn or born" is related to humankind and not to a celestial being, which can only be created! The Greek word "prototkos" (G4416) has been translated into the English word: firstborn. Which, is simply defined as: first in order of "birth," the eldest. Where, the Greek word "gennao" (G1080) has been translated into the English word: born. Therefore, there should be no confusion that these terms refer to the physical and not a preexisting celestial being! This is obvious in all uses of the word (firstborn) in the O.T. and N.T. Thus, the Christ being the "firstborn" is related to the New Covenant and not the beginning of God's creation, where the Christ hadn't been born yet. It is proposed that the Christ was in the mind or plan of God since the fall of the angels, but the Christ didn't exist (as a being) until "born" of Mary.

Hence, all things pertaining to the New Covenant were created through the Christ and since he was the firstborn of the New Covenant, he was before all of those who came afterwards (Col. 1:16-17 & 1Cor. 8:6)…The bible explains it this way: the Christ was first of the firstfruits, the firstfruits would be the bride of the Christ and those invited to the wedding banquet. Then, would come the judgement period (not hell) for the remainder of mankind.

Since, the Christ was a prophet, he was allowed to see into the future (through his mind), but he also was allowed to see into the past (through his mind)…“Hear my words: If there is a prophet among you, I the Lord make myself known to him in a vision; I speak with him in a dream (Numbers 12:6-8). Yet, with Moses it is stated that God directly communicated with him in a way that is more than a dream. But, in Hebrews 3:1-3, God communicated with the Christ in a much worthier way! We can only imagine what this much worthier way is…To take a crack at it: I introduce that it was an exceedingly advanced method of extrasensory perception. Thus, the Christ's statement in John 8:38 is explained.

And of course there are His words about having been before Abraham, and the words from the beginning of John which state that the Son - the Word - was with God in the beginning, and that He became flesh.

In Romans 8:29-33, it is stated that God predestined the Christ and the firstfruits. It is also stated that it is God who justifies. Therefore, it would be no surprise that the Christ predated Abraham and even Adam/Eve! Not actually, but in the mind of God and His plan…However, your previous remarks didn't include that the Christ was God? Is this an added belief, beyond what was explained to me? Yet, in John 1:1, the word is God's word, not a separate entity or personality.

He is the Tree of Life (from the Garden of Eden/Paradise).

Sorry, but I don't agree with this statement. The tree of life was a real tree and was used in a way to provide a choice. Where, making the right choice, God (the Supreme Being) would extend the life of Adam/Eve. But, making the wrong choice resulted in a limited life. This idea that the Christ is the tree of life is a modern opinion and not taught in the O.T., nor in the N.T.

Additionally, the suggestion that the Christ is the bread of life also seems to be misunderstood…Because, it is a metaphor or parable! In Matthew 4:1-4, the Christ counters the attempt of the adversary to deceive him stating: It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God (the Supreme Being). This statement also settles the belief that John 1:1 is stating that the Word is the Christ, which it isn't. The Christ makes it clear that it is the Supreme Being's Words, which gives life and the Christ spoke these words. So God (through the Christ) gave the words of life…

So, how does the Christ fit into the picture?

When, the Christ introduced the symbols of the cup and bread, he stated that his followers should do this in remembrance of him. Yet, what were they/we to remember? The actions of the Christ would seem to be important and a worthy remembrance. But, the most important aspect would be to remember the words that his Father gave him to give mankind. This was his task, he became the most important messenger of all time! And, because of this message, he was murdered…However, he was without sin, yet he died anyways. The Christ had the right to claim that he shouldn't die, because he didn't sin and he did suggest this! But, he also stated: Not my will, but your (God's) will be done. This seemed to be a game changer and shows that the Christ honored his Father and His will, as well as, His words. Yet, the Christ died, was buried and resurrected. Thus, God declares that mankind (as a whole) will be resurrected from the dead, because of what His only begotten Son accomplished. However, there is no going to heaven or hell after one dies, there is only the resurrection…I'll stop here, unless further information is requested.

Finally, it is no secret that the book of John is a Trinitarian work and has many statements that are stand lone claims, which fit only into the Trinitarian belief system and not into the belief system of the rest of the bible. This reality should warrant a closer look into the writings…

[tam]

Peace to you FWI,

[Replying to post 24 by tam]

Yes, Christ (Jaheshua) did really come down from heaven. He said it Himself: For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. John 6:38 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man. John 3:13 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.� John 6:51 Does this offend you? Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! John 6:61, 62

Well, it seems that there is a "figurative intent" (John 6:38 & John 3:13) that is being applied incorrectly as a real or actual event.

I see no reason that the above should be taken figuratively. Christ does not just say that He came down from heaven, He also speaks of ascending to where He was before (meaning He had been there previously, and when He did ascend, it was to where He was before). And from John 3:13, He does not just say that He came down from heaven, He says that He had already been heaven (no one has gone into heaven EXCEPT the Son of Man).

The truth is the bible states that God's power came from heaven and impregnated Mary and the result was the birth of Jesus (Matt. 1:18-21 & Luke 1:26-35)! There is no reference to a preexistent being coming down from heaven to impregnate Mary…Because, if that was the case, then this being or a preexistent Jesus would be his own father, not God. This reality can't be overlooked or explained away! Because, the bible makes it clear that God used the genetic make-up of the line of King David to complete the requirements of the process known as human conception. Then, God added His essence or nature in conjunction with the human nature, which resulted in the newly born Jesus. Which, permitted Jesus to have a relationship with God that no other human has.

Perhaps I was unclear, but I did not suggest that Christ impregnated Mary, Himself. Mary was the mother (in whom Christ was conceived and from whom He inherited His human flesh and blood), and God is the Father (who provided holy spirit: which is not a person here, but is the breath, blood and SEED of JAH).

The idea that Jesus was physical, having flesh in heaven is beyond belief…Yet, this is what John 6:51 seems to imply.

No, not this flesh with its blood (the flesh and blood that we have as humans which has sin and death in it), but rather He would have had the glorified body (the spirit body).

The same type of event occurred in Exodus, but to believe that manna actually came down from heaven (daily for about 40 year) is a real stretch.

I have no problem accepting that manna actually down from heaven (daily). Why would that be a stretch?

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. Colossians 1:15

The most obvious problem for Col. 1:15 being a support verse for a preexistent Christ is included in the verse itself. The term "firstborn or born" is related to humankind and not to a celestial being, which can only be created!

I agree that most celestial (spirit) beings are created. But Christ was born (as a Son). He was born from God via the womb of spiritual realm (the woman above) and holy spirit (the breath, blood and seed of God).

The Greek word "prototkos" (G4416) has been translated into the English word: firstborn. Which, is simply defined as: first in order of "birth," the eldest. Where, the Greek word "gennao" (G1080) has been translated into the English word: born. Therefore, there should be no confusion that these terms refer to the physical and not a preexisting celestial being! This is obvious in all uses of the word (firstborn) in the O.T. and N.T. Thus, the Christ being the "firstborn" is related to the New Covenant and not the beginning of God's creation, where the Christ hadn't been born yet. It is proposed that the Christ was in the mind or plan of God since the fall of the angels, but the Christ didn't exist (as a being) until "born" of Mary.

I think your reasoning here is being based on the unproven statement that a spiritual being cannot be born. If a spiritual being can be born, then those words can apply to Christ having been born in the beginning (before creation).


(And Christ would have been in the mind of God LONG before the fall of the angels, since everything was made FOR Him (Colossians 1:16). )

Hence, all things pertaining to the New Covenant were created through the Christ and since he was the firstborn of the New Covenant, he was before all of those who came afterwards (Col. 1:16-17 & 1Cor. 8:6)…The bible explains it this way: the Christ was first of the firstfruits, the firstfruits would be the bride of the Christ and those invited to the wedding banquet. Then, would come the judgement period (not hell) for the remainder of mankind.

Yes, He is first in all these things as well.

And of course there are His words about having been before Abraham, and the words from the beginning of John which state that the Son - the Word - was with God in the beginning, and that He became flesh.

In Romans 8:29-33, it is stated that God predestined the Christ and the firstfruits. It is also stated that it is God who justifies. Therefore, it would be no surprise that the Christ predated Abraham and even Adam/Eve! Not actually, but in the mind of God and His plan…However, your previous remarks didn't include that the Christ was God? Is this an added belief, beyond what was explained to me? Yet, in John 1:1, the word is God's word, not a separate entity or personality.

That is because John 1:1 does not make the claim that Christ is God (the Most Holy One of Israel, whose name is JAH). Some people interpret it to mean that, I know, but they do so in error. In John 1:1, the Word is Christ, and He is the Word who became flesh. He is also divine, but He is not the Most Holy One of Israel, whose name is JAH. He is the Son of that One (the Son of God).

He is the Tree of Life (from the Garden of Eden/Paradise).

Sorry, but I don't agree with this statement. The tree of life was a real tree and was used in a way to provide a choice. Where, making the right choice, God (the Supreme Being) would extend the life of Adam/Eve. But, making the wrong choice resulted in a limited life. This idea that the Christ is the tree of life is a modern opinion and not taught in the O.T., nor in the N.T.

I shared many things to support that statement, so I have nothing more to add to it other than what was already shared. If anyone who wishes to know the truth of this - or any other matter - they should take the matter to the Truth (Christ Jaheshua).

Additionally, the suggestion that the Christ is the bread of life also seems to be misunderstood…Because, it is a metaphor or parable! In Matthew 4:1-4, the Christ counters the attempt of the adversary to deceive him stating: It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God (the Supreme Being). This statement also settles the belief that John 1:1 is stating that the Word is the Christ, which it isn't. The Christ makes it clear that it is the Supreme Being's Words, which gives life and the Christ spoke these words. So God (through the Christ) gave the words of life…

Christ is the Word of God (and also the true manna from heaven and also the Life) from whom we must eat in order to have life and to live forever. These are His words (that He spoke from God). But yes, God does give us life through Christ, including the water of Life (which water is holy spirit, poured out from the innermost portions of Christ, the same river of the water of life that is flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb, Rev 22:1, 2).

So, how does the Christ fit into the picture?

When, the Christ introduced the symbols of the cup and bread, he stated that his followers should do this in remembrance of him. Yet, what were they/we to remember? The actions of the Christ would seem to be important and a worthy remembrance. But, the most important aspect would be to remember the words that his Father gave him to give mankind. This was his task, he became the most important messenger of all time! And, because of this message, he was murdered…However, he was without sin, yet he died anyways. The Christ had the right to claim that he shouldn't die, because he didn't sin and he did suggest this! But, he also stated: Not my will, but your (God's) will be done. This seemed to be a game changer and shows that the Christ honored his Father and His will, as well as, His words. Yet, the Christ died, was buried and resurrected. Thus, God declares that mankind (as a whole) will be resurrected from the dead, because of what His only begotten Son accomplished. However, there is no going to heaven or hell after one dies, there is only the resurrection…I'll stop here, unless further information is requested.

We eat and drink in remembrance of Christ (He Himself, of what His flesh and His blood truly are - real food and real drink) and in order to remain in Him and Him in us... but I see no reason to argue against us also remembering His words and teachings from the Father.

He also meant for us to actually eat the bread (that symbolizes His flesh) and drink the wine (that symbolizes His blood). He who is faithful in what is least will be faithful in what is much.

Finally, it is no secret that the book of John is a Trinitarian work and has many statements that are stand lone claims, which fit only into the Trinitarian belief system and not into the belief system of the rest of the bible. This reality should warrant a closer look into the writings…

It actually is not a trinitarian work. It can be made to appear that way to some I suppose, due to the erring pen of the scribes as well as the teachers who teach false.

But there is no trinity being taught in the gospel of "John".


**


Peace again to you, and to your loved ones,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Elijah John]

And from John 3:13, He does not just say that He came down from heaven, He says that He had already been heaven (no one has gone into heaven EXCEPT the Son of Man).

Was Christ wrong here? There are at least two others who have ascended( or have been taken up to) Heaven. Enoch, and Elijah. Both before Christ did according to Scripture.

[tam]

Peace to you, EJ,

And from John 3:13, He does not just say that He came down from heaven, He says that He had already been heaven (no one has gone into heaven EXCEPT the Son of Man).

Was Christ wrong here? There are at least two others who have ascended( or have been taken up to) Heaven. Enoch, and Elijah. Both before Christ did according to Scripture.

Christ is never wrong. So any misunderstanding would be on us (perhaps due at least in part to the erring pen of the scribes). I don't see where Enoch is said to have gone into heaven, mind you.


The point I was making, however, is that Christ had already been to heaven (since He said no one had gone into heaven EXCEPT Him).


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy