The Ascension

[fredonly]

[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]

[William]

[JehovahsWitness]

[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]

[fredonly]