The Ascension

[fredonly]

Jesus' alleged Ascension to heaven is problematic text. Here's how Luke describes Jesus' ascension into heaven:

Luke 24:50-51
When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven.

Acts 1:8-9
But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” When he had said this, as they were watching, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.

Implications:
1. Heaven is actually up in the sky. Really?! We know that's where 1st centuryJews believed it to be. But it ain't so!

2. If Jesus actually ascended into the sky while his followers watched, why didn't Mark, Matthew and John relate the event? This would have been nearly as remarkable as his alleged Resurrection.

Heaven isn't up in the sky*, and it's absurd to think such a monumental event would be omitted by any evangelists. The best explanation for these curiosities is that the Ascension did not occur, and Luke made it up. Why do this? Perhaps to explain why Jesus wasn't around any more.

Apologists like to point to incidental historical accuracies in the New Testament, as evidence the Gospels are trustworthy history. But fictions like the Ascension show that the evangelists weren't averse to making stuff up to fit their purposes- so the Gospels can't be assumed to be historically accurate in terms of relating alleged miraculous events.

__________________
*William Lane Craig rationalizes Jesus flight as being a show for the disciples. They believed heaven was "up there", and so Jesus vanished from the earthly spatio-temporal plane in this way so they would know where he went. This does rationalize the event, but pure invention is a better explanation, especially in light of the silence of the other evangelists on it.

[JehovahsWitness]

And as I said, it's very unlikely the other evangelists would consider it too insignificant to write about. ....

Yes you keep repeating this assertion but perhaps you might like to outlined a few reasons why you believe this to be the case.

...Flying into the sky was as rare as rising from the dead: no one had ever previously done either.

Firstly I dont see how you can possibly prove that no one had ever previously done either.

In the context of our discussion, the Apostles are reported to have witnessed countless miracles, including Jesus walking on water, so as extraordinary as this levitation* was, as the writer if John explained , editorial choices had to be made. Perhaps you would like to present a theory as to why this would take precedent over other miracles* reported.

* The Jewish readership would have been very familiar with both resurrection and levitation accounts in the Hebrew bible

[The Nice Centurion]

....why didn't Mark, Matthew and John relate the event?

WHY DID ONLY LUKE REPORT THE ASCENTION ?

- Firstly, it is generally agreed that the Christian tradition was originally oral , so the first century Christian community would have recieved first hand accounts of the ascension from those that reported they witnessed the event (compare Acts 2:42).

- When the need for written accounts eventually arose, it may well be that Luke's account had a sufficient degree of detail that the later writers saw no need to include the ascension itself.

Who can bear that Hogwash

Now, to save face, you are saying that Mark and Matthew wrote after Luke

[fredonly]

Firstly I dont see how you can possibly prove that no one had ever previously done either.

There is no "proof" of historical events. There is merely best guess as to how to account for the data.

In the context of our discussion, the Apostles are reported to have witnessed countless miracles, including Jesus walking on water, so as extraordinary as this levitation* was, as the writer if John explained , editorial choices had to be made. Perhaps you would like to present a theory as to why this would take precedent over other miracles* reported.

It would have been the last time they'd seen Jesus, which made it a momentous occasion.

Flying was perhaps on par with walking on water - which 3 evangelists thought worth relating. But on top of that, it included going to heaven - an added dimension to the miracle.

Now make the case that it is more likely than not to be true, based on standard historiographical standards. Bear in mind that it's established that fictitious stories about Jesus were circulated- so what is it that makes this one more credible?

[JehovahsWitness]

... It would have been the last time they'd seen Jesus, which made it a momentous occasion. .... .

It was the last time the Apostles saw Jesus It was not the last time the Christian community for whom the gospel writers penned their accounts, had seen him. Jesus last mass appearances was up north in Galillee (which may have been the occassion the Apostle Paul refered to attended by upward of 500 disciples were present). Knowing he was departing it seems reasonable Jesus communicated his farewell directly to them so they understood the most important points , namely...

1. That believers were no longer going to physically see him.
2. That they were spread message the message of the good news
3. That he was returning to his Father in heaven and would continue to support them from there.

These major doctrinal points are arguably of more import to the continuation and growth of the Christian community than the mere fact of an account of an additional miracle (albeit the last) on a par* with a previous demonstration of Jesus ability to defy gravity. They amount to the content of Matthew's conclusion.

... Flying was perhaps on par with walking on water - which 3 evangelists thought worth relating.

The fact that the detail of levitation had already been revealed to the Christian community in other gospels gives weight to arguments for not against later omission. Since three of the four gospels had reported Jesus miracle of walking on water, reporting his levitation on that occassion may well have been deemed unnecessary "repetition" by the later writers.

... it included going to heaven

Jesus return to heaven was indeed a major doctrinal point but as my post #4 demonstrated, all four gospels alluded or explained in detail that the risen Christ would go to heaven within their testimonies. The only thing "new" provided by Luke account was that Jesus levetated upwards the last time the Apostles saw him. The Apostles are not recorded as seeing Jesus enter heaven(the spirit realm), they did not see or hear the voice of God. All they saw is Jesus levitate up and eventually be obsured by the clouds. As personally edifying as this might have been, one can see why a writer might understand it is not, of itself particularly "mommentous" for the community as a whole, and chose to ommit it from their narrative.

JOHN 21:25

There are also, in fact, many other things that Jesus did, which if ever they were written in full detail, I suppose the world itself could not contain the scrolls written

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS


RELATED POSTS

Was Jesus levitation so mommentous its ommission from all four gospel accounts would be absurd?
viewtopic.php?p=1143375#p1143375

Is heaven "up"?
viewtopic.php?p=1143347#p1143347

Was Jesus resurrected in a spiritual or physical body?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 16#p753616

The Ascension: WHY did Jesus go "up"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 907#818907

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

JESUS RESURRECTION , ASCENTION and ... RESSURECTION CHRONOLOGY

[JehovahsWitness]

Now make the case that it is more likely than not to be true, based on standard historiographical standards. ..

The question I have chosen to deal with is #2 in the OP namely ....

2. If Jesus actually ascended into the sky while his followers watched, why didn't Mark, Matthew and John relate the event?

Your Opening Post focused on {quote} "the silence of the other evangelists "( an argument of gaps) and it is this I have addressed. I feel no compulsion to address addition requests.



Regards

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

[1213]

1. Heaven is actually up in the sky. Really?!

It could also be up, to higher dimension. In Biblical point of view there is at least two levels, the material/physical and the spiritual/mind/soul level. When Jesus ascended, it could be, as I believe, to higher state, which may look like ascending up to sky.

2. If Jesus actually ascended into the sky while his followers watched, why didn't Mark, Matthew and John relate the event? This would have been nearly as remarkable as his alleged Resurrection.

Maybe they thought it was obvious. It is also possible that the part has been lost.

[TRANSPONDER]

It's clever, I admit. Everywhere that is 'Up'on any partof the world would get to a heaven that is everywhere. But in fact Jesus could have easily travelled sideways, and the response 'That's silly, everyone knows heaven is "up there" is supporting the idea that heaven is above the sky dome. As JW says, everyone can have their opinion, but unless one has been sold the conventions, why would anyone credit them? The habit of quoting the Bible in support of a book the veracity of which is being questioned is like (In the classic video) "Saying that Hank is right because he says he's right".

The bill of good Christianity has sold us is that the reason the gospels say different things is 'Eyewitness'. But, If Mark, Matthew and John do not say a thing about the 40 day scripture lecture by Jesus and the ascension, why would the smart money not be on 'Luke made it up'. There is even evidence that he altered the gospel to include events derived from Paul There is no denying (only ignoring) that Luke altered the angelic message so the disciples were not told to go to Galilee. This a plain fact ignored and skipped over by the apologists hoping that everyone won't notice. Don't let them make fools of you,friends.

Luke invented Acts and altered the synoptic gospel. The evidence is there and quoting John having Jesus say (in an event none of the others record) he has yet to ascend to the Faith is only John's invented version.

Believers will of course ignore all the evidence and insist on believing (unless their minds are still a bit ajar) but there is no valid reason for anyone else to buy these fiddled and fabricated tales.

[fredonly]

Now make the case that it is more likely than not to be true, based on standard historiographical standards. ..

The question I have chosen to deal with is #2 in the OP namely ....

2. If Jesus actually ascended into the sky while his followers watched, why didn't Mark, Matthew and John relate the event?

Your Opening Post focused on {quote} "the silence of the other evangelists "( an argument of gaps) and it is this I have addressed. I feel no compulsion to address addition requests.

My main point was: "Apologists like to point to incidental historical accuracies in the New Testament, as evidence the Gospels are trustworthy history. But fictions like the Ascension show that the evangelists weren't averse to making stuff up to fit their purposes- so the Gospels can't be assumed to be historically accurate in terms of relating alleged miraculous events. "

More than once, you said that I hadn't "proven" my claim, and I replied that I was engaged in historical analysis.. Your other responses were entirely apologetic: providing a reason why I might be wrong. I explicitly agreed I could be wrong, but that's besides the point because historians can rarely "prove" anything with certainty. Rather, they endeavor to develop the best guess based on available data. Here, the data point is: a brief story of Jesus flying into the sky and disappearing, written outside Palestine, at least 5 decades after the time of the alleged event. So there's no established provenance, the described event fails the criterion of dissimilarity (the described event is consistent with what a Christian might make up), it's singly attested. There's no evidence this story existed before Luke wrote it. I haven't even mentioned the fact that Jesus had died and that people can't fly (additional strikes against credibility. Unquestionably, the best explanation for Luke's story is that it's an invention - whether Luke himself made it up, or he heard it from someone else, is irrelevant. There's no historical case for this being an actual, historical event.

I don't blame you for begging off from challenging my historical claim, but repeatedly giving excuses for why the earlier Gospels (Mark, Matthew) failed to mention it doesn't undercut a single thing I said. Anyone who had last seen Jesus as he soared into the sky would certainly consider it a momentous occasion, your excuses notwithstanding. All my points stand (despite them not constituting an ironclad "proof"), and you've provided zero counterpoints (imagining why the other evangelists might have omitted the story is pure speculation, not evidence). The evidence supports my claim, and you evidently see no basis to challenge that as a historical conclusion.

[fredonly]

1. Heaven is actually up in the sky. Really?!

It could also be up, to higher dimension. In Biblical point of view there is at least two levels, the material/physical and the spiritual/mind/soul level. When Jesus ascended, it could be, as I believe, to higher state, which may look like ascending up to sky.

2. If Jesus actually ascended into the sky while his followers watched, why didn't Mark, Matthew and John relate the event? This would have been nearly as remarkable as his alleged Resurrection.

Maybe they thought it was obvious. It is also possible that the part has been lost.

I'm making a historical case. You've merely provided speculative reasons as to why my claims could be wrong, but you haven't shown that those speculations are a better explanation than the one I've given. That's the way history is done.

[JehovahsWitness]

My main point was: "Apologists like to point to incidental historical accuracies in the New Testament, as evidence the Gospels are trustworthy history. ....

If that was your main point why did you keep presenting your theories as to biblical omissions?

2. If Jesus actually ascended into the sky while his followers watched, why didn't Mark, Matthew and John relate the event? This would have been nearly as remarkable as his alleged Resurrection.

What is this question doing here? Did you not expect anyone to answer it?

And as I said, it's very unlikely the other evangelists would consider it too insignificant to write about....

Why did you post this? Were we to simply accept your declaration without asking for evidence or support for your conclusion?

Flying was perhaps on par with walking on water - which 3 evangelists thought worth relating. But on top of that, it included going to heaven - an added dimension to the miracle.

Why did you present this information? What is your point in posting this? Is it just completely irrelevant information, if your point is somehow relevant, why is the challenge not equally so?

Anyway I have responded to your posts in kind; if you stop presenting your conclusion regarding the gospel omissions , I will probably stop challenging you on them.