Let's consider the claimed 'ascension' tale

[Zzyzx]

There are serious reasons to doubt the authenticity of the story of Jesus rising up into the sky.

First: Many 'gods' are said to have 'ascended' or flown away into the sky. That is a common theme in ancient mythology, folklore, and religions. The bible tale is NOT original or unique -- but is just one of many similar tales.

Second: The Christian 'ascension' is described by only ONE gospel writer -- whose true identity is unknown to theologians and scholars. The writer of "Luke", whoever he was, admitted in his introduction that he was reporting what he heard from others. Thus, the ONE description of the 'resurrection' was written half a century later by someone who was not present to witness the 'event' but had heard about it from others.

Third: Would any rational person believe a recent claim of someone rising up into the sky if told by ONE person who admittedly just heard about it and was not present when it was supposed to occur?

[POI]

[Replying to Zzyzx in post #1]

Right. It's almost as if indoctrination, and/or credulity, and/or special pleading (or other fallacious reasoning), and/or geographics, and/or tribalism accounts for adhering to this particular asserted tale -- but discarding all others?

[William]

[Replying to Zzyzx in post #1]

The Christian 'resurrection' is described by only ONE gospel writer

Are you confusing the resurrection event with the ascension event?

[Zzyzx]

[Replying to William in post #3]

Thanks, that was a mistake. Now edited and corrected. Appreciate the comment.

[OneJack]

There are serious reasons to doubt the authenticity of the story of Jesus rising up into the sky.

First: Many 'gods' are said to have 'ascended' or flown away into the sky. That is a common theme in ancient mythology, folklore, and religions. The bible tale is NOT original or unique -- but is just one of many similar tales.

Second: The Christian 'ascension' is described by only ONE gospel writer -- whose true identity is unknown to theologians and scholars. The writer of "Luke", whoever he was, admitted in his introduction that he was reporting what he heard from others. Thus, the ONE description of the 'resurrection' was written half a century later by someone who was not present to witness the 'event' but had heard about it from others.

Third: Would any rational person believe a recent claim of someone rising up into the sky if told by ONE person who admittedly just heard about it and was not present when it was supposed to occur?

It should be the Son of God, per se, not Jesus, rising up into the sky. Don't you know that Jesus, or Immanuel, or Mighty God, or Eternal Father, is the Almighty God who dwelt His fullness in the Son of God, per se, the flesh/physical vessel of the Almighty God in His incarnation? The Son of God was the one who died and was resurrected, then was lifted up after his resurrection.

[Zzyzx]

It should be the Son of God, per se, not Jesus, rising up into the sky. Don't you know that Jesus, or Immanuel, or Mighty God, or Eternal Father, is the Almighty God who dwelt His fullness in the Son of God, per se, the flesh/physical vessel of the Almighty God in His incarnation? The Son of God was the one who died and was resurrected, then was lifted up after his resurrection.

Are 'the son of god' and 'Jesus' different characters or entities?

Did a body NOT 'ascend' into the sky?

[OneJack]

It should be the Son of God, per se, not Jesus, rising up into the sky. Don't you know that Jesus, or Immanuel, or Mighty God, or Eternal Father, is the Almighty God who dwelt His fullness in the Son of God, per se, the flesh/physical vessel of the Almighty God in His incarnation? The Son of God was the one who died and was resurrected, then was lifted up after his resurrection.

Are 'the son of god' and 'Jesus' different characters or entities?

The Son of God, per se, was the man whom Mary brought forth, and the physical vessel of the Almighty God in His incarnation. Jesus, or Immanuel, or Mighty God, or Eternal Father, is the name of the Almighty God who dwelt His fullness in the Son of God, per se; hence, the name Jesus, or Immanuel, or Mighty God, or Eternal Father.

Did a body NOT 'ascend' into the sky?

Yes, the physical body of the Son of God, per se, was lifted and hidden by the clouds after his resurrection.

[POI]

There are serious reasons to doubt the authenticity of the story of Jesus rising up into the sky.

First: Many 'gods' are said to have 'ascended' or flown away into the sky. That is a common theme in ancient mythology, folklore, and religions. The bible tale is NOT original or unique -- but is just one of many similar tales.

Second: The Christian 'ascension' is described by only ONE gospel writer -- whose true identity is unknown to theologians and scholars. The writer of "Luke", whoever he was, admitted in his introduction that he was reporting what he heard from others. Thus, the ONE description of the 'resurrection' was written half a century later by someone who was not present to witness the 'event' but had heard about it from others.

Third: Would any rational person believe a recent claim of someone rising up into the sky if told by ONE person who admittedly just heard about it and was not present when it was supposed to occur?

It should be the Son of God, per se, not Jesus, rising up into the sky. Don't you know that Jesus, or Immanuel, or Mighty God, or Eternal Father, is the Almighty God who dwelt His fullness in the Son of God, per se, the flesh/physical vessel of the Almighty God in His incarnation? The Son of God was the one who died and was resurrected, then was lifted up after his resurrection.

1) What Zzyzx is essentially alluding to is that other figures from antiquity are also said to have ascended into the sky, and with just as much 'veracity' as the assertion(s) from your collective holy text(s). It wasn't an uncommon storyline. And it was a storyline that the Bible may have even borrowed from, as we have notable figures from antiquity, such as Romulus for example, who was said to have ascended into the sky around 715 BC. This stated founder of Rome was believed to have been taken up to heaven in a cloud during a storm, as reported by historians like Livy and Plutarch. His ascension was so central to Roman belief that it was celebrated as a holiday. Why do you discard this claim?

2) Or how about Augustus? Augustus was said to have ascended into the sky (apotheosis) shortly after his death on August 19, 14 AD. The official declaration of his deification occurred on September 17, 14 AD. A senator named Numerius Atticus swore that he saw the spirit of Augustus ascending from his funeral pyre to heaven. Why do you discard this claim?

[Zzyzx]

Yes, the physical body of the Son of God, per se, was lifted and hidden by the clouds after his resurrection.

WHY believe that tale? It was reported by only ONE gospel writer (true identity unknown to theologians and scholars), who admitted he had only heard it from others and had not witnessed it himself.

An anonymous writer who was not present, writing half a century later, says that someone 'rose up into the sky' -- and people BELIEVE that tale???????????

Perhaps believers are convinced that they MUST believe to avoid the threat of 'eternal torture after you die'.

[OneJack]

Yes, the physical body of the Son of God, per se, was lifted and hidden by the clouds after his resurrection.

WHY believe that tale?

Are you privy to how and why I believe the issue? Do I believe because I came to read it in the bible?

It was reported by only ONE gospel writer (true identity unknown to theologians and scholars), who admitted he had only heard it from others and had not witnessed it himself.

So, why have you believed he was an anonymous gospel writer?

An anonymous writer who was not present, writing half a century later, says that someone 'rose up into the sky' -- and people BELIEVE that tale???????????

How did you know he was not present? Were you there at the scene at the time of the said ascension?

Perhaps believers are convinced that they MUST believe to avoid the threat of 'eternal torture after you die'.

Saying perhaps means what?