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]

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 .....

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #237]

It's obvious what you're doing.

Not at all ; I am just holding you to the conditions of the premise YOU presented.

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

[JehovahsWitness]

COULD THERE BE A REASON THE GOSPEL WRITERS MIGHT HAVE MADE A DELIBERATE DECISION NOT TO INCLUDE A NARRATIVE THEY KNEW ABOUT IN THEIR WRITINGS?


You have in fact already presented a "reason" to go in box 2(b) namely that they "intentionally disregarded" {The narrative} in the writing of their gospels ; presumed to mean despite having recieved the narrative they deliberately and consciously chose not to include it in their own gospels.



That however does not really get us closer to the point of the question in the OP#2 " which is WHY would they choose to exclude a narrative if they knew of one?"

Before dismissing such a choice "unlikely" we must at the very least examine what the possible reasons might have been. Which bring us full circle: could it be that there were considerations the gospel writers had that took precedent over the depiction of the specific supernatural events depicted in Luke's narrative? It just so happens that with a little promoting , you have yourself presented a possible rationale for such a decision.

So the significance of the observable actions would reasonably take precedent over the action themselves

More correctly: the significance of a dogma (like the Ascension) was more important than any historical details of the associated event – not only to Luke, but to anyone involved in circulating traditions about Jesus. So it may very well be that Luke received the dogma of an Ascension, without it being framed in a narrative at all. But Luke’s own methodology was to present dogma in narrative form, so he created the narrative.

CONCLUSION Nobody can know for sure why a writer chooses to include a particular detail over another, but a reasonable guess would be that goal of the gospels writers was that their readership understood and believed the "the significance of a dogma" and that this goal (for the majority of gospel writers) took precedent over and above the details of the narrative.

[fredonly]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #241]
The premise "my cousin qualified for the olympics" entails that he met the qualifications. An entailment is not an additional assumption – it is a logical consequence. Read this article. You're arguing that we should ignore the logical consequences of a premise, which is ludicrous. Your knowledge of logic seems to be extremely limited.

[JehovahsWitness]

... An entailment is not an additional assumption – it is a logical consequence.

Nobody is suggesting otherwise , but no assumptions/deductions/entaiments/suppostions/facts or wishes concerning what lead to the premise can change the premise itself. The cousin qualified/the narration was recieved. The arguments that follow the premise ( the logical consequences of the premise as stated) must be based in what IS not on what might have preceeded it. One might qualify the premise (these are the "FAT OLYMICS" held for the athletically challenged) but this is still discussing the premise as it stands.

In short this premise is

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

and nobody is suggesting we do not explore the logical consequences of THIS premise ; only not those of an alternative or unstated previous one.


You are more than welcome to start ANOTHER premise (for example : If your cousin is too fat to qualify for the Olympics its unlikely he did) but let us not pretend it isn't another (different ) premise , that this divergence has a bearing on the standing of the original or that you have not set the premise under discussion aside.




JW

[fredonly]

no assumptions/deductions/entaiments/suppostions/facts or wishes concerning what lead to the premise can change the premise itself.

I didn't change the premise of my argument(see [ post #136]). My premise is the conditional statement:

If the Narrative is true then A&B&C

where A, B, and C are entailments of the “Narrative being true”:
A) the events Luke described actually happened.
B) the witnesses actually spread the story
C) The post-Apostolic tradents (the indirect and direct sources for the evangelists) also transmitted this story.


Here’s my argument:
1. If the Narrative is true then A&B&C
2. ~(A&B&C)
3. Therefore ~(the Narrative is true) (modus tollens)

We CAN treat "the Narrative is true" as a premise, but it leads to a reductio ad absurdum:
1. The Narrative is true
2. The Narrative is true entails (A&B&C)
3. ~(A&B&C)
4. Therefore (A&B&C) & ~(A&B&C) --- a contradiction.

This did not "change the premise" as you allege, it falsified it.

[JehovahsWitness]

THE GOSPEL WRITERS DID NOT INCLUDE THE NARRATIVE BECAUSE THEY DID NOT RECEIVE THE SPECIFICS OF THE ASCENSION

I didn't change the premise of my argument(see [ post #136]).

POST 136

... they may merely have received an assertion that Jesus ascended with no specifics.

QUESTION: Is "with no specifics" not the equivalent of "No narrative "?

Key elements of the narrative include:

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

... I'll add the interaction with the angels (or "men dressed in white").

[fredonly]

QUESTION: Is "with no specifics" not the equivalent of "No narrative "?

It is the equivalent of "no narrative". That's why I mentioned the specifics.

[TRANSPONDER]

THE GOSPEL WRITERS DID NOT INCLUDE THE NARRATIVE BECAUSE THEY DID NOT RECEIVE THE SPECIFICS OF THE ASCENSION

I didn't change the premise of my argument(see [ post #136]).

POST 136

... they may merely have received an assertion that Jesus ascended with no specifics.

QUESTION: Is "with no specifics" not the equivalent of "No narrative "?

Key elements of the narrative include:

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

... I'll add the interaction with the angels (or "men dressed in white").

Idiocy shouted in caps is stillidiocy. IF there was a reason that THREE of the writers did not receive the ascension narrative (while Luke did) we don't know how or why and asking for specifics is irrelevant and a distraction and I'd guess you know that.

The more probable explanation is that Luke made it up and there is other evidence of this that you either forgot or ignored - Luke changed to angelic message to make sense of his addition.

You have no case,so are quibbling and trying to set mousetraps in order to avoid facing the unwelcome truth. The ascension did not happen, not more than (on evidence) the resurrection.

[JehovahsWitness]

QUESTION: Is "with no specifics" not the equivalent of "No narrative "?

It is the equivalent of "no narrative". That's why I mentioned the specifics.

Okay.

they may merely have received an assertion that Jesus ascended with no specifics.

So the short concise version of your argument in Post #136 is essentially the that the gospel writers might not have received the narrative; which is circuit 1A of this flow chart



1A is certainly a possibility. .. but then so is 2A

JW

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes, that's right. We did not need a map to work out that either the writers did receive the narrative in which case we should have a convincing reason why none but Luke should even have mentioned it (bear in mind this is without the clue that Luke altered the synoptic common text to accommodate his diversion) OR the go- to hypothesis is that Luke made up all up, and bear in mind the clues that the amendment was because of what was in Paul's letters.

I think everyone managed to find their way there without a map.. Never mine unhelpful diversions like a kneejerk decision to leave the thing out vs a reasoned decision to leave it out, when the Real problem is any valid reason any of them (let alone all but Luke) should have left it all out for any reason.

It does not stand to reason. It can only stand to unknowing - which has been put right, so they are now 'without excuse' - or Faithbased denial, which is understandable, but not very creditable.