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]

....

I was commenting on the implication: [[the evangelists had received the eyewitness account]]....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.

Forgive me but its still not clear and to avoid confusion its best to be clear: When you say " the eyewitness account" to what are you referring ?

(a) the written narrative as it appears in the gospel of Luke
(b) a supposed oral narrative as could have been recounted by those that witnessed what happened
(c) other ...: please explain

[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

I argued that if they HAD received {an eyewitness account of an ascension}, it's more likely they'd relate it.

I understand that; however you are still propose a probability (albeit a hypothetical one), based on a provable premise namely that a "monumental" event is {quote} "more likely" than not to be related by a gospel writer as a narrative. Do you have any evidence to support this ?

[William]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #182]

based on a provable premise namely that a "monumental" event is {quote} "more likely" than not to be related by a gospel writer as a narrative. Do you have any evidence to support this ?

Are you arguing that The Ascension event should not be considered a monumental event?

[TRANSPONDER]

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

I argued that if they HAD received {an eyewitness account of an ascension}, it's more likely they'd relate it.

I understand that; however you are still propose a probability (albeit a hypothetical one), based on a provable premise namely that a "monumental" event is {quote} "more likely" than not to be related by a gospel writer as a narrative. Do you have any evidence to support this ?

It is a logical premise (not provable because everything is 'possible explanations'with varying degrees of validation) utilising Occam's razor - the explanation that explains the (most) facts without unneccessary multiplication of logical entities is the one to be preferred or 'Simplest explanation is the best.

Even Theist apologists use this but in the flawed 'Holmes dictum' "When all other possibilities have been eliminated, whatever remains, no matter how improbabale, must be the truth".

This of course doesn't work where there are unknown factors but works well enough where all parameters (excluding the supernatural) is known.

So the more probable hypothesis is, yes; there is no credible reason why nobody else recorded even a hint of the ascension other than Luke. Mark doesn't even record the appearance of Jesus. Finger in ears denial aside it is beyond reasonable doubt that if the ascension was true, someone other than Luke would have mentioned it, just as someone should have mentioned Antipas involved in the trial, the leg -breaking, the tomb guard, Jesus appearing to the women on the way to report to the disciples, the evening appearance (not in Mark or Matthew) and of course not the 4r0 day scriptural lecture by the risen Jesus and the ascension.

And this is why the contradictions are real, terminal and all through the gospels,.

[fredonly]

Forgive me but its still not clear and to avoid confusion its best to be clear: When you say " the eyewitness account" to what are you referring ?

I'm referring to the sequence of events described in Luke/Acts.
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 1:9-11
After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”

Key elements of the narrative include:

• Jesus flew up into the sky and entered heaven
  This flight was witnessed by some disciples

This narrative can only be historical if those witnesses reported what they'd seen to others - i.e. they provided an eyewitness account, and this account was passed down over the 50+ years between the year of the alleged event (~30AD) and the writing of the Gospel (~80-90AD),

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

I argued that if they HAD received {an eyewitness account of an ascension}, it's more likely they'd relate it.

I understand that; however you are still propose a probability (albeit a hypothetical one), based on a provable premise namely that a "monumental" event is {quote} "more likely" than not to be related by a gospel writer as a narrative. Do you have any evidence to support this ?

Not one element of Jesus' life is provable, everything we think we know about him is based on best guesses from the limited data that we have: the Gospels and Acts, supplemented by Paul's letters, other historical documents (like Josephus) and some archaelogy. As I've said, I'm applying the practices of historians to develop a best guess to answer the historical question did Luke relate an eyewitness account or is the story a fiction*? Those are the only two possibilities, and I've provided you my reasoning, based on data and other analysis, as to why it seems more likely that Luke made it up.

* I have mostly been referring to Luke making it up, but of course he may have received an invented story.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #184]

So the more probable hypothesis is, yes; there is no credible reason why nobody else recorded even a hint of the ascension other than Luke.

I think this is reasonable re any aspect of the overall story which can be agreed to be "monumental" it that the "monumental" need be regarded as important to the overall story.

Since it is missing from all of the other tellings, it has to come under question.
We might all agree that such a happening would be monumental in and of itself, but as a type of capping stone (which the idea of The Ascension is) re the rest of the structure of said story, that this is missing does bring into serious question whether the story as Luke told it, is real and true, since it is not told by any of the other Gospel writers.

Mark doesn't even record the appearance of Jesus.

Do any of the others mention Marks presence?

Finger in ears denial aside it is beyond reasonable doubt that if the ascension was true, someone other than Luke would have mentioned it, just as someone should have mentioned Antipas involved in the trial, the leg -breaking, the tomb guard, Jesus appearing to the women on the way to report to the disciples, the evening appearance (not in Mark or Matthew) and of course not the 4r0 day scriptural lecture by the risen Jesus and the ascension.

Sticking with the Jungian Archetype Framework as a basis for explaining the apparent contradictions/omissions;

One possibility is that something did happen to each of these tellers of the story, not in "real life" as it were, but more of an internally inspired/directed event tailored on their own beliefs and expectations and presented as a vision (superimposed upon realities background) in which they were able to lucidly participate.

This idea is somewhat supported by the Transfiguration story, (the occasion upon which Jesus took three of his disciples, Peter, James, and John), up on a mountain, where Moses and Elijah appeared and Jesus was transfigured, his face and clothes becoming dazzlingly bright.)

In the case of the above, lucid experiences of this nature appears to be able to be shared by individual participating minds - something of a theory I have not come across but suspect if I did a search, I could find something...but it reminds me of a forum discussion (specific to Astral Travelling techniques and other related things) where the participants wondered if they could create a "place" in the astral specific to the agreed requirements, so that they could verify whether they could experience this collective creation as individuals and report back what they had experienced to each other and see where they could take that.

Doing a quick search I got the following.

Astral Pulse Island
Posted on January 7, 2011 by xanth18
I wanted to bring back to light a project we had going on over at the Astral Pulse called “Astral Pulse Island“. It was initiated, I believe, by the site owner along with the help of the other moderators at the time (5 – 8 years ago).

Basically, the goal was to create a stable “place” in the Astral (my guess is it would be in Focus 27, if you’re a Monroe model fan) that people could use as a meeting place. The island, with it’s golden sand and giant pyramid in the middle is a very easy place to recognize should you manage to make it there.

I use the image on the linked page as my background for my computer so I’m always staring at it and visualizing it. The more people who do this, the more stable the area will be. I believe it’s already a permanent fixture at this point though, unless it’s been “uncreated” on purpose.

Anyway, give the link a click and read up. It’s a great project. We have a forum section devoted just to it, and I’d like to bring this project back to life!

Whether or not one can experience a lucid event (within the mind) which can be shared with others (others can experience the exact same event in the exact moment) is unknown by still possible (if an overall mind is involved) and of course none of that is useful to empirical science (which requires collaboration of objective reality events rather than subjective ones) but it is still useful in relation to the overall subject of minds and what these can and do assist in achieving.

In Luke's telling, he may have experienced the ascension as described, (or believed it true if told of it by another) because of his own cultural beliefs and how these effect the playing-out within his mind - as a type of expectation he would have regarding the claims Jesus made and (since the claims are believed to being true) how that should "play out" to the end, as far as Luke is concerned.

In other words, someone who was sent by God, taught stuff, suffered death at the hands of those in power-positions, was resurrected and hung around for a number of days...before...well...before what exactly?

Thus Luke finishes off the unfinished but removing Jesus from the planet entirely - afterall, every such human (re Greek and Roman myth) which reaches such a point, all receive divine status which (according to those cultures) also requires some type of Ascension event.

So yes - we are left to wonder what cultural beliefs prevented the other gospel writers from mentioning said ascension. So how do they "end" their "witness"?

[JehovahsWitness]

Forgive me but its still not clear and to avoid confusion its best to be clear: When you say " the eyewitness account" to what are you referring ?

I'm referring to the sequence of events described in Luke/Acts.

So you are not refering to the actual manuscripts (text) penned by the author of Luke ; you are refering to the knowledge of what happened as described therein ie "knowledge that Christ rose into the sky and was testified by angels to have gone to heaven" .

....I've argued it is improbable the evangelists would ignore the knowledge of what happened on the occassion of the ascention in their writing, which implies (per modus tolens) they [had no knowledge of the ascention [ * ] .

[*] ie knowledge that the Apostles witnessed a risen Christ that levetated into the sky and was testified by angels to have gone to heaven

It is the {knowledge of the sequence events as described in Luke's narrative }... that they ignored in writing their Gospels...

IS THERE ANYTHING INACCURATE IN THE ABOVE?

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

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

... 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 ...

[fredonly]

It is the {knowledge of the sequence events as described in Luke's narrative }... that they ignored in writing their Gospels...

IS THERE ANYTHING INACCURATE IN THE ABOVE?

Yes, it's inaccurate. Strictly speaking, "knowledge"= a justified belief that is actually true. The question is: whether or not the evangelists received an account of a sequence of events witnessed by disciples (that included the key elements I described), and which these disciples passed along, and was then repeated through a series of tradents.

The disciples were almost certaiy illiterate, so they couldn't have made a written record.

[JehovahsWitness]

It is the {knowledge of the sequence events as described in Luke's narrative }... that they ignored in writing their Gospels...

IS THERE ANYTHING INACCURATE IN THE ABOVE?

Yes, it's inaccurate. Strictly speaking, "knowledge"= a justified belief that is actually true.

Okay.

KNOWLEDGE - Definitions from Oxford Languages ·

facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

Let's try again ...

[fredonly]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #189]
A standard dictionary reflects common usage. Philosphers use a more precise definition:

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"Knowledge is always a true belief; but not just any true belief. (A confident although hopelessly uninformed belief as to which horse will win — or even has won — a particular race is not knowledge, even if the belief is true.) Knowledge is always a well justified true belief — any well justified true belief."