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]

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

No, not at all. I've chosen to

(a) ensure any premises I challenge are accurate by seeking to identify clearly what is being claimed.
(b) respond to any claim my challenges are invalid due to wording by seeking agreement on wording

Perhaps you missed my explanation above ....

* 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 ...?")

[JehovahsWitness]

THEY IGNORED IT {THE NARRATIVE }》 IN THEIR WRITING

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

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

...I'm saying it is unlikely the evangelists had knowledge of a narrative containing the 3 key elements I identified

I think anybody would find it difficult to derive that from : "I didn't say they ignored it completely I said they ignored it in their writing". How.... "I said they ignored it in their writing" ...becomes -->> "it is unlikely the evangelists had knowledge of a narrative " is beyond me. (It sounds like you are restating your conclusion when I was challenging the premise that lead you to that conclusion)

[fredonly]

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

No, not at all.

Case in point:

...I'm saying it is unlikely the evangelists had knowledge of a narrative containing the 3 key elements I identified

I think anybody would find it difficult the above derive from "I didn't say they ignored it completely I said they ignored it in their writing".

Even if you didn't derive it, my response certainly clarified it for you, and that should be all that mattered. And yet, rather than respond to the point I clarified (and have previously clarified), your response is limited to criticizing my choice of words by asserting that no one else would have understood it in the sense I intended. I'm not going to debate how others might interpret it, but I absolutely assure you I would clarify my meaning to anyone who did misinterpret it - as I've done to you.

[JehovahsWitness]

...Even if you didn't derive it, my response certainly clarified it for you, and that should be all that mattered.

It didnt clarify it for me because I still dont know what .... " I said they ignored it in their writing" means. Does this mean "they saw the narrative in {quote} "their writing", but chose to ignore it? Does it mean they were aware of the narrative and chose to ignore it in their heads ? You've already said it doesnt mean they were aware of the narrative and chose not to INCLUDE it in their gospel writings.... So no, it is a complete mystery to me what the expression .."they ignored it in their writing" means.


Further clarification requested but not expected,


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

...I'm saying it is unlikely the evangelists had knowledge of a narrative containing the 3 key elements I identified

okay .... So do you no longer hold to the statement below ?

It occurred to me that the same reasons that support the notion that the Evangelists would have heard of the event (monumental, theologically significant) also imply they’d feel compelled to pass this along .

In post 109 I sought clarification about what you were refering to when you said "pass this along"
viewtopic.php?p=1143950#p1143950

To which you replied ...

Hee's what I mean: to pass along essentially the same narrative that Luke relates. ...

[fredonly]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #225]
See post#213.

I'll respond if and when you show you've made an effort to understand the reasoning I've presented multiple times. There is common meaning behind them all - and your job is to figure out what that is. It's not really hard - you just have to stop obsessing on words or phrases that CAN be interpreted in multiple ways, and seek the meaning they all have in common.

[JehovahsWitness]

...stop obsessing on words or phrases that CAN be interpreted in multiple ways, and seek the meaning they all have in common.

Okay

My theory is that BECAUSE the event was so monumental it is more likely that the evangelists would have related it.

It occurred to me that the same reasons that support the notion that the Evangelists would have heard of the event { the same narrative that Luke relates} (monumental, theologically significant) also imply they’d feel compelled to pass this along .

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

...I'm saying it is unlikely the evangelists had knowledge of a narrative containing the 3 key elements I identified

[TRANSPONDER]

persistent evasion. It doesn't matter how the narrative was 'passed along' - it only matter that the writers either knew it or they didn't. If they did not it is not credible that they would all have known it but only Luke wrote it.

The alternatives (neither much good) is they didn't know, or they did know but chose to omit it (and whether on impulse or after deliberation is irrelevant and frankly an attempt at distraction.

If they didn't know it means (in all reason) it didn't happen and Luke made it up, and we even know why.

[JehovahsWitness]

THE OTHER GOSPEL WRITERS COULD NOT HAVE KNOWN ABOUT THE NARRATIVE SINCE THEY DID ONT INCLUDE 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

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.

Granted. However I am not pointing out a tautology, I am pointing out that your central argument is based on a false dichotomy, namely that the ONLY route to the gospel writers not including a narrative is to not know about it. Excluding the possibility that they knew about it and chose to not include it in their gospels.

[fredonly]

I am pointing out that your central argument is based on a false dichotomy, namely that the only route to the gospel writers nit including a narrative is to not know about it.

Which demonstrates that you failed to comprehend my argument. Want to try again?

Read post#212.