Great site -- it is good to have something to stir the grey matter.
 
I disagree with your answer to the question Have any but Jesus ascended to heaven?

I guess the first question to consider is whether the word heaven is referring to the 
same place in each passage.  A simple reading suggests they are as they are both entirely 
consistent with the picture of heaven given in the rest of the Bible.  They are both already 
in existence (ie not the 'new heaven'), they are both figuratively 'up' and they are both a 
non-earthly place (Elijah's body could not be found and it's described as the home 
Jesus came from)

With that established, the next question to address is the one given in the quiz; have any 
but Jesus ascended to heaven?  This needs to be answered before we can understand these two passages. 
 (of course you can ignore the question by saying that heaven doesn't exist with in time, but as there 
are clear passages which relate heaven to earth, I think a study is warranted. )  A look at other 
relevant passages is therefore crucial.  I would suggest that the most relevant passages are the 
ones relating to people going to heaven, excluding any prophetic/apocalyptic texts.  I think it's wise 
to at least initially not look at apocalyptic texts so that the question isn't looked at a stance based on 
any millennialist theory.  Prophetic texts dealing with the resurrection of the saints are understood in 
many ways. However, there should be little variation in how historic texts are interpreted, so these 
seem to be a good place to start.  (It must be remembered that historic texts should drive the way we 
understand prophetic texts - not the other way round.  eg. the historic accounts we read about the life 
of Jesus determine how we understand the prophesies relating to him.)

I think a key passage is the transfiguration as this is when we next meet Elijah, 
and this puts it into NT context.  Now, however, we read that he appears in glory.  This suggests that 
he has come from the glorious kingdom of heaven, and has his heavenly body.  I haven't looked any up, 
but I'm sure some of the angel passages have similar descriptions.  A question to ask is that if he hadn't 
been in heaven, where had he been and how had he gained the knowledge to be able to discuss Jesus' death?  
More crucially, if he hadn't been in heaven, why did it say that that's where he went in 2 Kings?  
Both passages seem to support each other very well and so I think that we can be quite sure that 
Elijah did indeed go to heaven.  Additional points to note on this is that as the transfiguration is in 
the NT so there are no language/cultural/revelation debates here.  Also, the natural assumption must 
be there where ever Elijah had been, so had Moses.  Moses of course had died, which indicates that 
the dead had gone to heaven also.

Other passages which may help answer this question are the passages about Enoch's translation, 
the death of David's son, the story of the rich man and Lazarus and the death of Stephen.  
(I've not looked at any reference material so this probably doesn't cover everything we could.)  
Regarding Enoch, we read (both in Genesis and Hebrews) that God took him so that he wouldn't 
taste death.  I think that few people would doubt that this refers to Enoch going to heaven.  
If there were some kind of soul suspension it would be hard to separate that from death, and the 
quite firmly past tense language of both passages would seem a little out of place (as God would 
still be in the process of taking him).

David's son is interesting for a number of reasons, mainly regarding the 'do babies go to heaven' question.  
However, there is also a help to us here in the passage (in 2 Samuel something) as David speaks 
about going to join his son after his life (suggesting that his son got there first).  Of course, there 
is the question about how trustworthy David's theology is - that I suppose is another debate.

The story about Lazarus is admittedly a story, but shouldn't be ignored, particularly as it's the only 
parable we read which gives a character a name, perhaps indicating that it was based on a real person, 
adding to the true ring of the story.  In the story we see 'time' in heaven (assuming we're past the 
Abraham's bosom debate) existing along side time on earth, and people in heaven at the same time 
as people on earth.

So far we have much support for the idea that others apart from Jesus have ascended to heaven.  
So far though, these are all pre-resurrection passages.  Therefore, Stephen's story makes interesting 
reading. As he dies, he sees a vision of heaven opening and utters to God to receive  his soul.  
Again this suggests an immediate journey to heaven.

The only passage I can think of which could be used to argue otherwise is the Saul/medium/Samuel story.  
However, there are numerous explanations of this which help it not to be an obstacle.

Therefore, if all of these passages point towards others ascending to heaven, how do we read the 
passage from John?  If we look at the passage as a whole we see that it's part of a conversation about 
the source of knowledge.  Jesus claims that he has lots because he has come from heaven (slight 
powerphrase here) and as no one else on earth has been in heaven, this is an exclusive claim. 
 I haven't looked at the passage since  last week, but I think this is the gist of the passage. Therefore, 
in its context, it doesn't contradict 2 Kings but just speaks about men who are currently on the earth.