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 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?

You have presented no evidence to support this statement; so I see no reason to accept it as true.


JW

[fredonly]

You have presented no evidence to support this statement; so I see no reason to accept it as true.

Do you only believe claims as true if there's evidence for it?

[JehovahsWitness]

Read post#212.

POST 212

My assertion was a conditional: IF the evangelists received a narrative, THEN they "intentionally disregarded" it in the writing of their gospels.

I have already said (See post #224) that I dont know what " "intentionally disregarded" it in the writing of their gospels" means. I took it to mean "they intentionally chose not to INCLUDE a narrative in their gospels" which would look like this ....


INTENTIONALLY NOT INCLUDED



The question of debate is WHY was the narrative not included? In option #1 the reason is self evident but what about option #2? What is 2(b) in flow chart?

QUESTION Why was the narrative excluded in option #2?
ANSWER Because it was "intentionally excluded".
FOLLOW UP QUESTION But WHY was it intentionally excluded?

2. If Jesus actually ascended into the sky while his followers watched, why didn't Mark, Matthew and John relate the event { the narrative} ?

[fredonly]

The question of debate is WHY was the narrative not included? In option #1 the reason is self evident but what about option #2? What is 2(b) in flow chart?

Sure, if they didn't receive the narrative, then they couldn't report it.

But before answering 2b, consider the sequence of events that resulted in their receiving it. What needed to have occurred between the Ascension event and the evangelists receiving it?

[JehovahsWitness]

But before answering 2b, consider the sequence of events that resulted in their receiving it.

No not necessary, the premise is they received it { "if they recieved it then WHY did they not include it ..."} . HOW they recieved it is irrelevant. THAT they recieved the narrative is the starting point for scenario #2





POST 212

My assertion was a conditional: IF the evangelists received a narrative, THEN they "intentionally disregarded" it in the writing of their gospels.

[fredonly]

No not necessary, the premise is they received it

The premise of receiving the narrative entails prior events and circumstances that made it possible. As Shakespeare said, "What's past is prologue." Consideration of those events and circumstances is relevent.

[JehovahsWitness]

No not necessary, the premise is they received it

The premise of receiving the narrative entails prior events and circumstances that made it possible. ...

Irrelevant: The premise (hypotetical starting point for the argument is that it was not only possible but that it did indeed happen).

To illustrate :

IF my cousin had qualified for the Olympics , he might have won a medal

Now, my cousin might be 300 pounds overweight, have no athletic ability and there may be not a chance in China he in reality would qualify but if your premise begin with his qualifying then how he quaualified must be held outside of the argument.

SHIFT THE GOALPOSTS

You may introduced either a fictional Olympics (one that has fat unfit athletes ) or change the premis to an earlier point In the narrative but this would be "shift the goalposts"

For example , you may propose a new premise ...

- IF the Olympics accepted unfit non-athletes ... (NEW PREMISE : change to an entirely fictional event)
- IF my cousin lost weight and got fit .... (NEW PREMISE : change to an earlier starting point )

but both examples above have changed the original premise (shifted the goalposts)

CONCLUSION: The premise you have presented (see below) has no room for the journey to how the #2 In the flowchart came about, it presents a transmitted narrative as the initial premise which renders what happened prior to the reception of the narrative irrelevant to the argument at hand.

My assertion was a conditional: IF the evangelists received a narrative, THEN .....

[TRANSPONDER]

What a pile of denialist garbage. I can see that the repeat of a pointless point and waffy analogies about an overweight cousin, never mind insulting diagrams implying that that someone is too stupid to understand the point are just attempts at avoiding a simple concept that the axiomatic 'six year old daughter' could understand. The far more likely reason for only Luke having an Ascension -story is that he made it up.

I can only point up to those who have adherence to the claims of Christianity, that this is what it does - replaces reason (at least) with denial and we have seen it over and over with one Bible apologist after another.

addennum apologies for typos. My eyes don't get any better. I correct what I see.

[fredonly]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #237]

It's obvious what you're doing.

You know that I argued the chain of tradents would have had reasons for preserving the narrative, otherwise it wouldn't have made it to the evangelists. The evangelist would have inherited those reasons, and that explains why it's more likely they'd relate the preserved tradition of the narrative, if they received it.

To avoid admitting this, you assert those reasons are "irrelevant". This also explains
- why you were arguing semantics - it helped you duck the argument.
- why you claimed you needed "evidence" until I called you out for what is obviously inconsistency on your part.

I'm done with discussing this with you. You'll keep finding excuses to avoid admitting the obvious.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #237]

It's obvious what you're doing.

You know that I argued the chain of tradents would have had reasons for preserving the narrative, otherwise it wouldn't have made it to the evangelists. The evangelist would have inherited those reasons, and that explains why it's more likely they'd relate the preserved tradition of the narrative, if they received it.

To avoid admitting this, you assert those reasons are "irrelevant". This also explains
- why you were arguing semantics - it helped you duck the argument.
- why you claimed you needed "evidence" until I called you out for what is obviously inconsistency on your part.

I'm done with discussing this with you. You'll keep finding excuses to avoid admitting the obvious.

Indeed, and we have seen this many times before. The aim is to escape without admitting... not defeat, not that they are wromng, but that they have to rethink their beliefs based on evidence and logic. That's what they must reject after all the other ploys,subterfuges and dirty lawyer tricks have failed to fool us.

But is is not about (wish it was ) about getting the denialist faithful to be reasonable, but about letting the others (with minds not yet glued shut) just how bad and unworthy Biblical apologetics actually is.