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]

CLAIM: THE GOSPEL WRITERS DID HEAR OF THE ASCENTION BUT ....DID NOT RECEIVE A NARRATIVE

... they didn't receive a narrative. .... had they received the narrative, most (if not all) would likely have [included] it.

FALSE PREMISE Had they received the narrative, most (if not all) would likely have [included] it.
CONCLUSION : They didn't receive a narrative.

FALSE PREMISE Had they not been a lesbians, most (if not all) women would date me.
CONCLUSION : Most women are lesbians.

=================================================


False Dichotomy / Dilemma: Either they include a narrative or they didn't receive one is a false dilemma. The reality is they may well have receieved one and chosen not to include it in favor of presenting the central import of what happened in the context of a theological teaching or belief. Which is "more likely" (including a narrative or alluding to the event in the context of a doctine or a central teaching?) ANSWER: Most proably the one they considered MORE IMPORTANT (see below) ...

... the significance of a dogma (like the Ascension) was more important than any historical details [the narrative] {*}of the associated event – not only to Luke, but to anyone involved in circulating traditions about Jesus.

{*} Clarification MINE

[fredonly]

JW - I previously asked you to provide ONE response to me instead of multiple ones. Please start doing so. I often read these posts on a phone, from the link I receive via email so I am likely to overlook a post if you split it up.

• CLAIM : "heaven is not up in the sky" -- > post #3 Strawman: No scripture states it is IN in the sky

It was the conventional wisdom in the 1st century that heaven was up in the sky. Kyle Greenwood discusses this in his book, Scripture and Cosmology: Reading the Bible Between the Ancient World and Modern Science

Examples:
Genesis 7:11-12: “ In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

Job 22:12-14: “Is not God in the heights of heaven? And see how lofty are the highest stars! Yet you say, ‘What does God know? Does he judge through such darkness? Thick clouds veil him, so he does not see us as he goes about in the vaulted heavens.”

Mark 9:2-4: “After six days Jesus took only Peter, James, and John and led them up a high mountain where they could be alone. Jesus’ appearance changed in front of them. His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone on earth could bleach them. Then Elijah and Moses appeared to them and were talking with Jesus.”

Isaiah 40:26 ” Lift up your eyes and look to the heavens”

Amos 9:2: ” Though they dig down to the depths below, from there my hand will take them. Though they climb up to the heavens above, from there I will bring them down.

access to heaven {the spiritual realm} can theoretically be from any direct including "up".

That’s a modern view, which is irrelevant (except for a modern apologetic rationalization). The Bible consistently conveys the 3-tier cosmology, with heaven located above the earth.

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.

My claim was that it was too monumental for the evangelists to ignore if they knew about it. You cite a possibility that they might merely allude to it, and not describe the event. But you’ve given no reason to think this is probable. Where’s your example of a historically based doctrine that the evangelists failed to relate in narrative, but alluded to? As I always do, I made the case that it is more probable that most (or all) evangelists would convey the narrative if they received one: in order for Luke to receive a historical, Ascension narrative, the disciples and chain of tradents would need to have considered the narrative itself sufficiently important to convey it, in a more or less intact fashion. Your theory depends on the assumption that most evangelists judged it differently than they were taught. So as I said, you’re grasping at a mere possibility – whereas I’m showing what is most probable. Grasping possibilities to deny a probability is a tactic of apologetics, not historical analysis.

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]

There is no evidence that the doctrine is based on a witnessed historical event unless you point to Luke/Acts. Allusions to a doctrine does no more than demonstrate what the evangelists believed. Like you, they believed what they were told – so their beliefs are no more relevant to a historical case than your own.

Let's start with this: My hypothesis is that Mark, Matthew, and John had not heard of an ascension.

You misunderstood. I wasn’t suggesting they did not receive a doctrine that Jesus ascended to heaven; rather: that they had not heard a description of a witnessed, historical event as described in Luke’s narrative.

CONCESSION :

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

You seem to just be going through my posts the same way you did the 1st time: instead of trying to understand, you’re looking for “gotchas”. Had you read the subsequent post where you brought this up, you’d know that I retracted it -I explained that I careless when I said this because I was focused on showing the ascension didn’t happen. You clarified that you weren’t challenging that, but instead were challenging the inference I had made in the Op: “If Jesus actually ascended into the sky while his followers watched, why didn't Mark, Matthew and John relate the event? . This focused my attention on that implication, which resulted in my evaluating it and realizing my original claim made no sense.

CLAIM: THE GOSPEL WRITERS DID HEAR OF THE ASCENTION BUT ....DID NOT RECEIVE A NARRATIVE

... they didn't receive a narrative. .... had they received the narrative, most (if not all) would likely have [included] it.

Again, you said you read all my posts, so you know I showed why it is more likely that most evangelists would relate the narrative if they received it. Respond to that reasoning.

Either they include a narrative or they didn't receive one is a false dilemma.

That’s not my claim. But it's tautologically true that EITHER they RECEIVED a narrative or they DID NOT RECEIVE a narrative. There’s no evidence Mark, Matthew, or John received a narrative, so it’s ad hoc to claim they did. As I said above, it's POSSIBLE (the apologists refuge), but I showed that it's improbable.

... the significance of a dogma (like the Ascension) was more important than any historical details [the narrative] {*}of the associated event – not only to Luke, but to anyone involved in circulating traditions about Jesus.

{*} Clarification MINE

You falsely claimed the quote was mine. It was you who said it. For some inexplicable reason, you put it in a quotation the first time you said it, and now in your sloppy reading of past posts, you assumed I said it.

[fredonly]

JW - I previously asked you to provide ONE response to me instead of multiple ones. Please start doing so. I often read these posts on a phone, from the link I receive via email so I am likely to overlook a post if you split it up.

• CLAIM : "heaven is not up in the sky" -- > post #3 Strawman: No scripture states it is IN in the sky

It was the conventional wisdom in the 1st century that heaven was up in the sky. Kyle Greenwood discusses this in his book, Scripture and Cosmology: Reading the Bible Between the Ancient World and Modern Science

Examples:
Genesis 7:11-12: “ In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

Job 22:12-14: “Is not God in the heights of heaven? And see how lofty are the highest stars! Yet you say, ‘What does God know? Does he judge through such darkness? Thick clouds veil him, so he does not see us as he goes about in the vaulted heavens.”

Mark 9:2-4: “After six days Jesus took only Peter, James, and John and led them up a high mountain where they could be alone. Jesus’ appearance changed in front of them. His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone on earth could bleach them. Then Elijah and Moses appeared to them and were talking with Jesus.”

Isaiah 40:26 ” Lift up your eyes and look to the heavens”

Amos 9:2: ” Though they dig down to the depths below, from there my hand will take them. Though they climb up to the heavens above, from there I will bring them down.

access to heaven {the spiritual realm} can theoretically be from any direct including "up".

That’s a modern view, which is irrelevant (except for a modern apologetic rationalization). The Bible consistently conveys the 3-tier cosmology, with heaven located above the earth.

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.

My claim was that it was too monumental for the evangelists to ignore if they knew about it. You cite a possibility that they might merely allude to it, and not describe the event. But you’ve given no reason to think this is probable. Where’s your example of a historically based doctrine that the evangelists failed to relate in narrative, but alluded to? As I always do, I made the case that it is more probable that most (or all) evangelists would convey the narrative if they received one: in order for Luke to receive a historical, Ascension narrative, the disciples and chain of tradents would need to have considered the narrative itself sufficiently important to convey it, in a more or less intact fashion. Your theory depends on the assumption that most evangelists judged it differently than they were taught. So as I said, you’re grasping at a mere possibility – whereas I’m showing what is most probable. Grasping at possibilities to deny a probability is a tactic of apologetics, not historical analysis.

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]

There is no evidence that the doctrine is based on a witnessed historical event unless you point to Luke/Acts. Allusions to a doctrine does no more than demonstrate what the evangelists believed. Like you, they believed what they were told – so their beliefs are no more relevant to a historical case than your own.

Let's start with this: My hypothesis is that Mark, Matthew, and John had not heard of an ascension.

You misunderstood. I wasn’t suggesting they did not receive a doctrine that Jesus ascended to heaven; rather: that they had not heard a description of a witnessed, historical event as described in Luke’s narrative.

CONCESSION :

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

You seem to just be going through my posts the same way you did the 1st time: instead of trying to understand, you’re looking for “gotchas”. Had you read the subsequent post where you brought this up, you’d know that I retracted it -I explained that I was careless when I said it, because I was focused on showing the ascension didn’t happen. You clarified that you weren’t challenging that, but instead were challenging the inference I had made in the Op: “If Jesus actually ascended into the sky while his followers watched, why didn't Mark, Matthew and John relate the event? . This focused my attention on that implication, which resulted in my evaluating it and realizing my original claim made no sense.

CLAIM: THE GOSPEL WRITERS DID HEAR OF THE ASCENTION BUT ....DID NOT RECEIVE A NARRATIVE

... they didn't receive a narrative. .... had they received the narrative, most (if not all) would likely have [included] it.

Again, you said you read all my posts, so you know I showed why it is more likely that most evangelists would relate the narrative if they received it. Respond to that reasoning.

Either they include a narrative or they didn't receive one is a false dilemma.

That’s not my claim. It’s tautological that EITHER they RECEIVED a narrative or they DID NOT RECEIVE a narrative. There’s no evidence Mark, Matthew, or John received a narrative, so it’s ad hoc to claim they did.

... the significance of a dogma (like the Ascension) was more important than any historical details [the narrative] {*}of the associated event – not only to Luke, but to anyone involved in circulating traditions about Jesus.

{*} Clarification MINE

You falsely attributed that quote to me. It was you who said it. For some inexplicable reason, you put it in a quotation the first time you said it, and now in your sloppy reading of past posts, you assumed I said it.

[JehovahsWitness]

JW - I previously asked you to provide ONE response to me instead of multiple ones. Please start doing so. I often read these posts on a phone, from the link I receive via email so I am likely to overlook a post if you split it up.

ANSWER TO REQUEST: No; I will post as I please. Feel free to report and posts you feel violate forum guidelines. May I suggest you respond when and if your circumstances permit. Request refused.

[JehovahsWitness]

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.

CLAIM [ post #172] The ascention was too monumental to be ignored

My claim was that it was too monumental for the evangelists to ignore if they knew about it.

--> Strawman : None of the Evangelists {quote} "ignored" the return or Christ to heaven. All four testified to a risen Christ returned to the spirit realm in glory. See post #4

[fredonly]

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.

It's kind of hilarious that you created a strawman (distorting my argument) to form the basis of accusing me of creating a strawman.

"Straw man fallacy is the distortion of someone else’s argument to make it easier to attack or refute. Instead of addressing the actual argument of the opponent, one may present a somewhat similar but not equal argument." -- source

My theory is that BECAUSE the event was so monumental it is more likely that the evangelists would have related it. You countered with possible reasons why they might not, but mere possibilities unsupported by analysis that shows they're probable, does not undercut an explanatory hypothesis shown to be more probable.

My claim was that it was too monumental for the evangelists to ignore if they knew about it.

None of the Evangelists {quote} "ignored" the return or Christ to heaven.

There's your strawman again: you distorted what I said. It is the alleged eyewitness account of the ascension that we've been discussing, and that they ignored in writing their Gospels - if, as you allege, they received that account. I explained why this is improbable - which you are free to rebut, but rebut MY claims, not some strawman version of them. Why do you think it PROBABLE the evangelists would NOT relay this eyewitness account of a monumental event that they had allegedly received?

post #4[/url]

Where do the Evangelists discuss a "spirit realm"? Did you mean they all testified to the ascension? Please point me at the verses in Mark and Matthew where they reference an ascension. (Mark 16:9-20 was added later, by a scribe, so is irrelevant). I know John alludes to it, but he also claims Jesus was with God from the beginning, which is obviously not a claim supportable as history. So in both cases, it appears John (writing 60-70 years after the alleged event) is just alluding to some doctrine he was taught. But critically, John's belief that Jesus ascended to heaven doesn't imply he had knowledge of an eyewitness account of it.

[JehovahsWitness]

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.

CLAIM [ post #172] The ascention was too monumental to be ignored

My claim was that it was too monumental for the evangelists to ignore if they knew about it.

--> Strawman : None of the Evangelists {quote} "ignored" the return or Christ to heaven. All four testified to a risen Christ returned to the spirit realm in glory. See post #4

Please point me at the verses in Mark and Matthew where they reference an ascension.

See --> post #4

[JehovahsWitness]

UNSUPPORTED PREMISE [ post #176] The monumentality of a biblical event increases the liklihood of a narrative.

.... BECAUSE the event was so monumental it is more likely that the evangelists would have related it {in narrative form}

{added for clarity}

--> unsupported claim No actual evidence has been presented to support this claim

[JehovahsWitness]

PREMISE: THE GOSPEL WRITERS DID RECIEVE A NARRATIVE .... BUT IGNORED IT

It is the alleged {eyewitness account of the ascension} ... that they ignored in writing their Gospels...

REQEST FOR CLARIFICATION: Are you here suggesting that the other gospel writers ignored the gospel of Luke's narrative? ( which implies they all had access to it)....Or are you suggesting that the gospel writers ignored the {probably oral} transmission of Christs going to heaven as communicated by any claimed eyewitnesses of his final depature ?


JW

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

[fredonly]

Please point me at the verses in Mark and Matthew where they reference an ascension.

See --> post #4

You seem to be completely in the dark about the research into the historical Jesus. You pointed to passages about a “Son of Man”. This isn’t a reference to an ascension, it’s a reference to a “Son of Man” coming from heaven. This was an apocalyptic prophecy Jesus made, clearly tied to Daniel 7:13-14. Jesus wasn’t talking about himself, so it has nothing to do with his alleged Ascension. This is most apparent in Mark, but is further edited by Matthew – when he alters Jesus’ words (as related in his source-Mark) to fit his personal belief that Jesus is the “Son of Man”.

UNSUPPORTED PREMISE [ post #176] The monumentality of a biblical event increases the liklihood of a narrative.

.... BECAUSE the event was so monumental it is more likely that the evangelists would have related it {in narrative form}

{added for clarity}

--> unsupported claim No actual evidence has been presented to support this claim

Evidence for something that didn't happen!? LOL! There's no evidence those 3 evangelists received an eyewitness account of an ascension, so it's ad hoc to claim they did. I argued that if they HAD received it, it's more likely they'd relate it. If you disagree with my reasoning, then show that it is more probable that they would NOT relate an eyewitness account of a monumental event that they received. Matthew made up narratives to convey doctrine he thought important, so it seems pretty odd to think he'd pass on the opportunity to convey an actual eyewitness account of something so monumental.

REQEST FOR CLARIFICATION: Are you here suggesting that the other gospel writers ignored the gospel of Luke's narrative? ( which implies they all had access to it)....Or are you suggesting that the gospel writers ignored the {probably oral} transmission of Christs going to heaven as communicated by any claimed eyewitnesses of his final depature ?

I was commenting on the implication: IF [the evangelists had received the eyewitness account]], THEN (material implication) [they ignored it in the writing of their Gospels]. I've argued it is improbable the evangelists would ignore it in their writing, which implies (per modus tolens) they did not receive the eyewitness account.