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'm sorry I didnt respond faster to your request in Post #202. Would you like to address the issue raised in post #208 ?

[fredonly]

NO, I am not indicating /suggesting it probable the 3 evangelists received the ascension narrative. I am not indicating /suggesting it probable the 3 evangelists DID NOT received the ascension narrative. I don't think there is any basis to calculate probability from the data available. I am only claiming it is indeed possible they did and that *if* that were indeed the case there are logically valid reasons they might have chosen not to include a narrative in their work.

The sort of "probability" historians deal with is not mathematical, it's simply an argument of what is more likely. When there is no evidence that something occurred, there's no basis to claim it is likely that it occurred. The fact is: there's no evidence the evangelists received an ascension narrative. Possibility is cheap. It's possible an alien spacecraft pulled Jesus up with a tractor beam, but we don't spend time "proving" that didn't occur.

To IGNORE means to fail to "acknowledge" or to intentionally disreard or reject something. He that ignores (or disregards) must first have access to or knowledge of that which is intentionally being disregarded. So the alleged ignoring of the sequence of miraculous events, cannot logically be used as a premise to their never have receieved such a sequence. In short , you can't ignore a husband you don't have.

My assertion was a conditional: IF the evangelists received a narrative, THEN they "intentionally disregarded" it in the writing of their gospels. This seems unlikely - here's why:

Assume for the moment that the evangelists received a narrative that originated with the disciples. How would this narrative have reached them? The disciples were illiterate, so they didn't write it in a document that the evangelists received. They could only get it through oral stories told by those who were passing it along - people that Luke referred to as "servants of the word", and are commonly referred to as tradents::
One who is responsible for preserving and handing on the oral tradition, such as a teacher or preacher or missionary, in the form of apophthegms or similar pericopae.

So these pre-evangelist tradents would need to have considered it important to "preserve" the pericope of the Ascension. And yet, the evangelists were also preserving traditions. Would someone taking upon themselves the burden of preserving traditions choose to drop that particular one? The tradents must have considered the Ascension tradition important enough to preserve, and it does seem monumental, and to reflect important doctrine, but more broadly, there had to be some reasons, even if we can't know what they might have been. But WHATEVER those reasons - the evangelists would have inherited them, just as did each tradent in the chain of transmission. And that is why it seems unlikely the evangelists would break the chain of preserving the tradition.

[fredonly]

NO, I am not indicating /suggesting it probable the 3 evangelists received the ascension narrative. I am not indicating /suggesting it probable the 3 evangelists DID NOT received the ascension narrative. I don't think there is any basis to calculate probability from the data available. I am only claiming it is indeed possible they did and that *if* that were indeed the case there are logically valid reasons they might have chosen not to include a narrative in their work.

The sort of "probability" historians deal with is not mathematical, it's simply an argument of what is more likely. When there is no evidence that something occurred, there's no basis to claim it is likely that it occurred. The fact is: there's no evidence the evangelists received an ascension narrative. Possibility is cheap. It's possible an alien spacecraft pulled Jesus up with a tractor beam, but we don't spend time "proving" that didn't occur.

To IGNORE means to fail to "acknowledge" or to intentionally disreard or reject something. He that ignores (or disregards) must first have access to or knowledge of that which is intentionally being disregarded. So the alleged ignoring of the sequence of miraculous events, cannot logically be used as a premise to their never have receieved such a sequence. In short , you can't ignore a husband you don't have.

My assertion was a conditional: IF the evangelists received a narrative, THEN they "intentionally disregarded" it in the writing of their gospels. By modus tolens (link to definition), if it can be shown that they probably WOULD NOT "intentionally disregard" such a narrative then it follows that they did not receive it.

Here's why it's unlikely they would disregard such a narrative:

Assume for the moment that the evangelists received a narrative that originated with the disciples. How would this narrative have reached them? The disciples were illiterate, so they didn't write it in a document that the evangelists received. They could only get it through oral stories told by those who were passing it along - people that Luke referred to as "servants of the word", and are commonly referred to as tradents::
One who is responsible for preserving and handing on the oral tradition, such as a teacher or preacher or missionary, in the form of apophthegms or similar pericopae.

So these pre-evangelist tradents would need to have considered it important to "preserve" the pericope of the Ascension. And yet, the evangelists were also preserving traditions. Would someone taking upon themselves the burden of preserving traditions choose to drop that particular one? The tradents must have considered the Ascension tradition important enough to preserve, and it does seem monumental, and to reflect important doctrine, but more broadly, there had to be some compelling reasons, even if we can't know what they might have been. But WHATEVER those reasons - the evangelists would have inherited them, just as did each tradent in the chain of transmission. And that is why it seems unlikely the evangelists would break the chain of preserving the tradition.

[TRANSPONDER]

Are you indicating that you believe it probable the 3 evangelists received the Ascension narrative, but made the editorial choice to omit it?

Lets not talk about "beliefs" (I'm not here to talk about "beliefs" especially mine) but in answer to your question : NO, I am not indicating /suggesting it probable the 3 evangelists received the ascension narrative. I am not indicating /suggesting it probable the 3 evangelists DID NOT received the ascension narrative. I don't think there is any basis to calculate probability from the data available. I am only claiming it is indeed possible they did and that *if* that were indeed the case there are logically valid reasons they might have chosen not to include a narrative in their work.

JW

Usual category error. Despite your attempt to dismiss 'possible - probable' excuses for why the evangelists other than Luke left out the Ascension (never mind evasive semantics about 'ignore',' which shows you know you are in trap and are trying to find a way of escaping), the probability is (taken with equally bad other contradictions) that none of the other evangelists had ever heard of it.


I suppose you wouldn't care to reprise what other reasons there might have been for the omission.? I don't recall anything even slightly persuasive so far. Fred says above that one would expect them to preserve this event if they knew of it. Even if one of the excuses I listed is suggested, who would give those any credit other than the Faithful looking for an excuse?

[JehovahsWitness]

FALSE PREMISE

IF the evangelists received* a narrative, THEN they "intentionally disregarded" it in the writing of their gospels.

DISREGARD
Definitions from Oxford Languages

pay no attention to; ignore

This claim implies that not including something is the equivalant of " paying no attention /ignoring it". This is a false equivilency. To illustrate : A coach that decides not to include a player in his team, may have spent a long time examining the athletes performance; (payng attention to his strength and weaknesses) to finally decide against playing him in a match. If the Gospel writers were aware of the sequence of events, (regardless of how they became aware) if it happened and they were indeed aware of the sequence of events of the ascention, they may well have paid attention to it but still have decided not include a narrative.

Fallacy of false equivalenc: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/uy/ ... alence.jpg

[TRANSPONDER]

FALSE PREMISE

IF the evangelists received* a narrative, THEN they "intentionally disregarded" it in the writing of their gospels.

DISREGARD
Definitions from Oxford Languages

pay no attention to; ignore

This claim implies that not including something is the equivalant of " paying no attention /ignoring it". This is a false equivilency. To illustrate : A coach that decides not to include a player in his team, may have spent a long time examining the athletes performance; (playng attention to his strength and weaknesses) to finally decide against playing him in a match. If the Gospel writers were aware (regardless of how they became aware) if it happened and they were indeed aware of the sequence of events of the ascention, they may well have paid attention to it but still have decided not include a narrative.

Fallacy of false equivalenc: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/uy/ ... alence.jpg

Do you really think you are misleading anyone with this dickering about the definition of a usage when anyone with two brain cells to bang together know what his argument is.

You are only shining a spotlight on your own inability to make a plausible counter - case and are wagging a red -herring at us that really doesn't smell of anything, other than this lot apparently.



You are well dead and buried and You're not fooling anyone'. I'd say this day, you have done the cause of atheism a deal of good and the reputation of JW apologetics a deal of no good.

[fredonly]

If the Gospel writers were aware of the sequence of events, (regardless of how they became aware) if it happened and they were indeed aware of the sequence of events of the ascention, they may well have paid attention to it but still have decided not include a narrative.

Here's what I actually said:

IF the evangelists received a narrative, THEN they "intentionally disregarded" it in the writing of their gospels.

Here, I had substituted "intentional disregard" for "ignore", which I took directly from the definition of "ignore" that you posted. I didn't say they ignored it completely, I said they ignored it in their writing.

Why do you quibble on this semantic trivia? This was the least significant thing I wrote in that post - and you "intentionally disregarded" all that. The rest of the post laid out more explicitly my point.

[JehovahsWitness]

FALSE PREMISE

IF the evangelists received* a narrative, THEN they "intentionally disregarded" it in the writing of their gospels.

DISREGARD
Definitions from Oxford Languages

pay no attention to; ignore

This claim implies that not including something is the equivalant of " paying no attention /ignoring it". This is a false equivilency. To illustrate : A coach that decides not to include a player in his team, may have spent a long time examining the athletes performance; (payng attention to his strength and weaknesses) to finally decide against playing him in a match. If the Gospel writers were aware of the sequence of events, (regardless of how they became aware) if it happened and they were indeed aware of the sequence of events of the ascention, they may well have paid attention to it but still have decided not include a narrative.

Fallacy of false equivalenc: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/uy/ ... alence.jpg

I didn't say they ignored it completely, I said they ignored it in their writing.

Emphasis MINE

So are you saying they may have been aware of the narrative (or at least parts thereof) but may have chosen not to include ("ignore") the narrative in their gospel (their writing)? Is that what you mean ? If not please clarify*

* This is important because the conclusion is based upon the premise; if the premise is erroneous the conclusion may be incorrect. Further , if the objection to a challenge is based on the wording {" that's not what I said/thats not what I meant.."} the response to the objection must also be based the wording {"did you mean .../are you saying ...?")

[TRANSPONDER]

FALSE PREMISE

IF the evangelists received* a narrative, THEN they "intentionally disregarded" it in the writing of their gospels.

DISREGARD
Definitions from Oxford Languages

pay no attention to; ignore

This claim implies that not including something is the equivalant of " paying no attention /ignoring it". This is a false equivilency. To illustrate : A coach that decides not to include a player in his team, may have spent a long time examining the athletes performance; (payng attention to his strength and weaknesses) to finally decide against playing him in a match. If the Gospel writers were aware of the sequence of events, (regardless of how they became aware) if it happened and they were indeed aware of the sequence of events of the ascention, they may well have paid attention to it but still have decided not include a narrative.

Fallacy of false equivalenc: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/uy/ ... alence.jpg

I didn't say they ignored it completely, I said they ignored it in their writing.

Emphasis MINE

So are you saying they may have been aware of the narrative (or at least parts thereof) but may have chosen not to include ("ignore") the narrative in their gospel (their writing)? Is that what you mean ? If not please clarify*

* This is important because the conclusion is based upon the premise; if the premise is erroneous the conclusion may be incorrect. Further , if the objection to a challenge is based on the wording {" that's not what I said/thats not what I meant.."} the response to the objection must also be based the wording {"did you mean .../are you saying ...?")

This is still evasive. it is deliberately evasive as it alters nothing. The question is whether the writers (other than Luke) knew of the Ascension or not. If they didn't, it is incredible that they could have been one of the 12 or got Jesus' story from them and not have known of the Ascension.

If they did know of it, it is equally incredible that none but Luke would even mention it.

The mental process by which they supposedly chose to include this striking event (not to mention just saying what happened) is irrelevant and is, as I said,just evasion to escape from the more credible conclusion.

Luke made it up.

Jut to be clear about the extent of this quite reprehensible wriggling, it tries to make a supposed decision to omit what they knew either kneejerk or after a long decision - which there is no way to know and each of the writers could have had different reasons - the subject of discussion, when it if irrelevant and is just a reprehensible (as I say) effort to evade the question that put you on the spot.

Again I am glad I am not a Christian and have to resort to this sort of twisting and wriggling. It is the desire to refuse to admit real problems with the Bible that makes decent and honest people do things like that.

[fredonly]

So, despite my request that you refrain from arguing trivial semantics, you've chosen to continue to do so.

I choose to stop indulging you on that. I made my meaning clear. I can't force you to be reasonable.

So are you saying they may have been aware of the narrative (or at least parts thereof) but may have chosen not to include ("ignore") the narrative in their gospel (their writing)? Is that what you mean ? If not please clarify*

No. I'm saying it is unlikely the evangelists had knowledge of a narrative containing the 3 key elements I identified. You would know this, if you were trying to understand what I said instead of arguing semantics.

In this context, "unlikely" does not equate to "impossible". But as I've explained multiple times (and you have ignored) historians typically base their judgement on liklihood when the established facts are limited, as they are in this case.

Bringing up a mere possibility, as you've done here, has zero bearing on an argument for likelihood. It's possible Jesus was an alien life form; it's possible the evangelists took hallucinogenics...the possibilities are as endless as they are irrelevant. Unless you can show that my liklihood argument is problematic, or that there is an alternative of greater likelihood, then there's nothing further to discuss. I don't expect you to graciously concede my point, and I'm not interested in indulging your semantic arguments.