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]

My point was that there is no good reason for those evangelists to refrain from {including a narrative} it.

[ * ] Reworded for clarity

... I showed it to be more likely that most evangelists would report the narrative if they received it.

So your argument boils down to the following. ...

[ A ]--> The gospel writers never received a narrative : 3 supportive arguments [one of which clarification outstanding]- See post #155

[ B ]--> that since there exists no other way to adequately convey the IMPORT that the writers must have attributed to Jesus' going to heaven but through a narrative, the fact they did not include a narrative can be considered overwhelming proof they never recieved one (see point (A) above.

Is this a fair summary of your analysis ?

JW

False dichotomy: Is relating a narrative the ONLY way to testify to an important event?

No....

[fredonly]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #161]
Please answer the question I asked in my prior post;

Are you, perhaps, not challenging my "best explanation" analysis but simply arguing that your apologetic answer is still a "good" answer, even if not the best?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #161]
Please answer the question I asked in my prior post;

Are you, perhaps, not challenging my "best explanation" analysis ...

I cannot answer this because I have yet to identify and clarify what this best analysis is ? See post #161 above

[TRANSPONDER]

My point was that there is no good reason for those evangelists to refrain from {including a narrative} it.

[ * ] Reworded for clarity

... I showed it to be more likely that most evangelists would report the narrative if they received it.

So your argument boils down to the following. ...

[ A ]--> The gospel writers never received a narrative : 3 supportive arguments [one of which clarification outstanding]- See post #155

[ B ]--> that since there exists no other way to adequately convey the IMPORT that the writers must have attributed to Jesus' going to heaven but through a narrative, the fact they did not include a narrative can be considered overwhelming proof they never recieved one (see point (A) above.

Is this a fair summary of your analysis ?

JW

False dichotomy: Is relating a narrative the ONLY way to testify to an important event?

No....

No...but (apart from the ducking and diving that is only too painbfully evidence, you are still doing it wrong. Possibly though not understanding the way it works.r

No. Any hypothetical explanation for a set of data (the Bibltext regarding the ascension, particularly. For example, Jesus was beamed up by a flying saucer.

"Ridiculous" you will say. "Not to be seriously considered." If so you will understand how 'Best explanation' works.

The Best Explanation is that it was not handed down as a narrative or oral tradition, but was invented by the Luke writer. That other possibilities exist is irrelevant, unless you can show why they are better contenders for why nobody but Luke has the ascension material, that he invented it is the go -to explanation.

I know this is outside of your comfort zone - logical reasoning rather than bias confirmation, but try to understand how it works.

Just try saying to yourself - "I still have faith that it happened, but I can see the validity of the skeptical explanation." You may find that you can argue rationally without your head exploding.

[fredonly]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #161]
Please answer the question I asked in my prior post;

Are you, perhaps, not challenging my "best explanation" analysis ...

I cannot answer this because I have yet to identify and clarify what this best analysis is ? See post #161 above

If you don't understand the analysis, then the only logical answer is: no. You can't challenge something you fail to grasp.

You asked for links to specific posts I'd made, so you could supposedly try again to understand my analysis. But you evidently didn't try to understand them the first time, so I have no reason to think you would a second time - so I decline your request to point you at specific posts. If you seriously want to understand, read all my posts.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #161]
Please answer the question I asked in my prior post;

Are you, perhaps, not challenging my "best explanation" analysis ...

I cannot answer this because I have yet to identify and clarify what this best analysis is ? See post #161 above

If you don't understand the analysis, then the only logical answer is: no. You can't challenge something you fail to grasp.

Correct

I decline your request to point you at specific posts.

Duly noted

[JehovahsWitness]

If you seriously want to understand, read all my posts.

Okay I just re-read all your posts:

• CLAIM : "heaven is not up in the sky" -- > post #3 Strawman: No scripture states it is IN in the sky/ access to heaven {the spiritual realm} can theoretically be from any direct including "up". CONCESSION: "sure"

• CLAIM [ post #5] Had Jesus returned to heaven its "absurd" that all 4 did not report it.
  REASONS PRESENTED : Jesus return to heaven was a "monumental [event]" [ post #8 ] & [ post #10 ] --> Strawman Nobody was implying the event {Jesus return to heaven} was not monumental, only that reporting a NARRATIVE is not the only way to testify to it.

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 went to heaven within their testimonies. The only thing "new" provided by Luke' s testimony was that Jesus levetated upwards the last time the Apostles saw him [and they received an angelic confirmation of his return]

[JehovahsWitness]

My hypothesis is that Mark, Matthew, and John had not heard of an ascension.

Emphasis MINE

post #4 (LINKED HERE) : [1] The fact that the early Christians are recorded as being in close association with the Apostles who represented the "leadership" of the movement and [2] that all four gospel writings include allusion or specific mention of a risen Christ returning to heaven. Given the role Christs return to heaven played in their faith, it is much more likely then that, had the Apostles witnessed the ASCENTION they would have communicated that to their brethren which included the gospel writers

CLARIFICATION on this point --> post #79

CONCESSION :

... we have 3 (speculative) explanatory hypotheses to compare:

1) If Jesus actually ascended [ * ] the evangelists knew about it
2) If Jesus actually ascended [ * ] the evangelists didn’t know about it
3) the Ascension did not happen (either Luke made it up, or he heard/read about it from someone else who made it up)
[ * ] Reworded to accurately reflect the speculative nature as per the OP

... I do agree that #1 is more likely than #2, so we can drop #2 from the analysis ...

... it is likely that the evangelists heard Jesus ascended to heaven (I don't dispute that)...

[TRANSPONDER]

If you seriously want to understand, read all my posts.

Okay I just re-read all your posts:

• CLAIM : "heaven is not up in the sky" -- > post #3 Strawman: No scripture states it is IN in the sky/ access to heaven {the spiritual realm} can theoretically be from any direct including "up". CONCESSION: "sure"

• CLAIM [ post #5] Had Jesus returned to heaven its "absurd" that all 4 did not report it.
  REASONS PRESENTED : Jesus return to heaven was a "monumental [event]" [ post #8 ] & [ post #10 ] --> Strawman Nobody was implying the event {Jesus return to heaven} was not monumental, only that reporting a NARRATIVE is not the only way to testify to it.

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 went to heaven within their testimonies. The only thing "new" provided by Luke' s testimony was that Jesus levetated upwards the last time the Apostles saw him [and they received an angelic confirmation of his return]

JW

Still doing it wrong. This is using the claim as the evidence (there was a thread to show that a claim is not evidence of the claim), so the claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem is only the claim the nativities were concocted to support; that Jesus resurrected is the claim that the accounts were concocted to support - the claim is not evidence to unite the four contradictory accounts.

So the claim that Jesus ascended is not validation for the contradictory account of an ascension (that even you have to admit is daft and Jesus had to pretend to ascend up to heaven rather than vanish like Bilbo at his party just because that is what the disciples expected) that contradicts with the other gospels because they don;'t have it and you've been ducking and diving (as I said) in tying to explain why this stunning event was unreported by the other gospels.

The best explanation is that Luke made it up, and we know he fabricated because he altered the angelic message. The evidence of the better explanation is there so you have to try to wriggle with stuff like appeal to other possibilities, which is bad logic.

[TRANSPONDER]

My hypothesis is that Mark, Matthew, and John had not heard of an ascension.

Emphasis MINE

post #4 (LINKED HERE) : [1] The fact that the early Christians are recorded as being in close association with the Apostles who represented the "leadership" of the movement and [2] that all four gospel writings include allusion or specific mention of a risen Christ returning to heaven. Given the role Christs return to heaven played in their faith, it is much more likely then that, had the Apostles witnessed the ASCENTION they would have communicated that to their brethren which included the gospel writers

CLARIFICATION on this point --> post #79

CONCESSION : THE OTHER GOSPEL HAD NOT HEARD OF ASCENTION

... we have 3 (speculative) explanatory hypotheses to compare:

1) If Jesus actually ascended [ * ] the evangelists knew about it
2) If Jesus actually ascended [ * ] the evangelists didn’t know about it
3) the Ascension did not happen (either Luke made it up, or he heard/read about it from someone else who made it up)
[ * ] Reworded to accurately reflect the speculative nature as per the OP

... I do agree that #1 is more likely than #2, so we can drop #2 from the analysis ...

Red Herring

Strawman

Ok progress. So it is more likely (if it happened as reported which more likely it didn't) they would all have known about it.

So the bottom line of Gospel doubt - contradiction. And just as bad as contradiction by reporting is contradiction by not reporting what in all reason, they should.

The transfiguration; the raising of Lazarus, the women running into Jesus while John has them at a lot the what happened to Jesus.

We saw the excuses, inventions and evasions fail, and it is not one isolated occurrence; the Gospels are shot through with contradictions, omissions and falsifications.

You may have faith in spite of the evidence - it's what we call'Blind Faith', but can you not at least that doubter have good reason to doubt and that 'it was made up by Luke' is the best explanation?