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.

[fredonly]

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 comment doing here? Did you expect to present it without being challenged ?

Because their failure to report such an alleged event is best explained by the theory that the alleged event did not occur, and consistent with Luke (or an immediate source) making it up. Your rebuttal consisted of claiming Jesus' ascension must not have been that big a deal, since they didn't report it. That claim depends on assuming the ascension actually occurred, and then speculating as to why they didn't mention it.

[JehovahsWitness]

Because their failure to report such an alleged event is best explained by the theory that the alleged event did not occur ....

So you expect to maake such a claim and not be challenged? Nobody is to ask you to present support why you believe that is the "best" explaination?

Your rebuttal consisted of {snip: I know what my "rebuttal" was they are presented for anyone to read above. }

You presented some counterargument I counted argue your counted arguments. If none of your points were relevant and you do not wish for them to be challenged... why do you continue to make them?

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 conclusions regarding the gospel omissions , I will probably stop challenging you on them.

[JehovahsWitness]

... You've merely provided speculative reasons as to why my claims could be wrong, ...

Yes, and you have done exactly the same ..:

- it was a mommentous event
- it was the last time they would have seen Jesus
- levitation was "rare"
- 3 reported Jesus walking in water so 3 should have reported the ascension.

... you haven't shown that those speculations are a better explanation than the one I've given.

That is a matter of opinion.

[fredonly]

Because their failure to report such an alleged event is best explained by the theory that the alleged event did not occur, and consistent with Luke (or an immediate source) making it up. ....

So you expect to maake such a claim and not be challenged? Nobody is to ask you to present support why you believe that is the "best" explaination?

Your rebuttal consisted of {snip: I know what my "rebuttal" was they are presented for anyone to read above. }

You presented some counterargument I counted argue your counted arguments. If none of your points were relevant and you do not wish for them to be challenged... why do you continue to make them?

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 conclusions regarding the gospel omissions , I will probably stop challenging you on them.

JW - It's perfectly fine to challenge, and it's equally fine to respond with apologetics, as you did. Your apologia is perfectly fine to rationalize the preservation of your faith. However, apologetics does not undercut historical analysis - and that's what I've showed.

[JehovahsWitness]

JW - It's perfectly fine to challenge, and it's equally fine to respond with apologetics, as you did. ...

I know that. If you have any counter-arguments to my counter-arguments feel free to present them.

- See post #4 : original argument
- See post #14: response to your counter-arguments


I await your further input on the matter of the relevance if the gospel omissions under discussion.

Regards,


JW

[fredonly]

JW - It's perfectly fine to challenge, and it's equally fine to respond with apologetics, as you did. ...

I know that. If you have any counter-arguments to my counter-arguments feel free to present them.

I admitted I can't prove your faith is wrong - so it's logically possible your apologia is true. On the other hand, you declined to make a historical case for the ascension, so there's nothing for me to rebut.

[JehovahsWitness]

I admitted I can't prove your faith is wrong ...

I dont recall requesting you to prove anything regarding my faith. You presented a series of suppositions ["speculations"] as to why the gospel writers ommitted reporting the ascension ...

... It would have been ...

- a mommentous event
- the last time they would have seen Jesus
- levitation were "rare"
- 3 reported Jesus walking in water so 3 should have reported the ascension.]

I couter-argued the above in post #14

I await further (relevant) input .

JW





JW

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to fredonly in post #1]
Yeah, until today christians handle the event of The Ascension like something they are ashamed of.
Jesus Movies never show it (with one exception known to me in one rarely known movie) and when was the last time you heard about one preacher preach about The Ascension.

Further we have also The Assumption of Mary;

(Mary also ascended. But since she didnt do it by her own power like Christ, we tend to call it The Assumption.)
https://aleteia.org/2021/05/13/ascensio ... ifference/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary

Furthermore we have traditional myths about Jesus instead of ascending traveling to India, Nepal and Japan.
(There are visitable graves of Christ in India and Japan.)

And I wont eben start with mormon mythology which has Jesus instead of really ascending traveling on a cloud to Zarahemla (perhaps in Panama?) for preaching to the Nephites who needed it badly.

Gospelists might have had a reason to feel uncomfortable with the Ascension (as well as christians today dont like to mention it too often) and therefore refused to write about it.

Mark and Matthew might have been reluctant in their theology to picture Jesus definitively as the christian god (who therefore is able to ascend by his own power.)

But what about John?

[fredonly]

I admitted I can't prove your faith is wrong ...

I dont recall requesting you to prove anything regarding my faith. You presented a series of suppositions ["speculations"] as to why the gospel writers ommitted reporting the ascension

Let's start with this: My hypothesis is that Mark, Matthew, and John had not heard of an ascension. Do you agree? If not, then what leads you to believe they had heard of it?

[JehovahsWitness]

My hypothesis is that Mark, Matthew, and John had not heard of an ascension. Do you agree? If not, then what leads you to believe they had heard of it?

Did you not see post #4 ? That point has been addressed.