Did Jesus come back to life and 'ascend' into the sky?

[Zzyzx]

The KEY question is "Did Jesus come back to life and 'ascend' into the sky?" because unless those claims are true, Christianity is based on fraud.

No contemporary historian, chronicler, recorder, or anyone else mentioned Jesus during his lifetime or anything he may have said or done.

Half a century later (40 to 60 years or more) four religion promoters wrote stories about him. The true identity of those 'gospel' writers is unknown to theologians and scholars, and none of them can be shown to have personally witnessed anything Jesus may have said or done.

"In the entire first Christian century Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence. Zero! Zip references!" Dr. Bart Ehrman Professor of Religious Studies

AND only ONE of the gospel writers (whoever wrote 'Luke' and 'Acts') described the 'ascension', and he admits in his introduction that he is recording what he heard from others.

I, for one, would NOT believe tales told by four people claiming that someone came back to life (because a tomb was supposedly found empty). I certainly would not believe a tale told by one person about what he had heard from others that, half a century earlier, someone 'rose up into the sky'.

[1213]

I, for one, would NOT believe tales told by four people claiming that someone came back to life (because a tomb was supposedly found empty). I certainly would not believe a tale told by one person about what he had heard from others that, half a century earlier, someone 'rose up into the sky'.

Yet you seem to expect everyone to believe your tales about the history. Why so?

[William]

[Replying to Zzyzx in post #1]

According to the stories, yes.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to William in post #3]

William,

You and I have been corresponding on another thread, and I apologize for the tardiness of my response, but I tested positive for both covid, and the flu, and then it was my wife, and now my daughter, and it has been an absolute mess here at my house for a couple of weeks to the point that this is the first time I have had felt like I have had a minute.

With that being said, I am glad you have responded here, because I believe we can continue better here on this thread, because I am eager to respond to this OP, when I get to the point where we have come clear of this ailment.

Thanks for the understanding,
Jack

[William]

[Replying to William in post #3]

William,

You and I have been corresponding on another thread, and I apologize for the tardiness of my response, but I tested positive for both covid, and the flu, and then it was my wife, and now my daughter, and it has been an absolute mess here at my house for a couple of weeks to the point that this is the first time I have had felt like I have had a minute.

With that being said, I am glad you have responded here, because I believe we can continue better here on this thread, because I am eager to respond to this OP, when I get to the point where we have come clear of this ailment.

Thanks for the understanding,
Jack

All good Jack.

I hope things improve for you and you wife and daughter. We can take up where we left off when you feel more recovered.

William

[AchillesHeel]

The Ascension narrative is one way to prove the story false. Ancient people during this time period literally believed heaven was located up in the sky. We now know through empirical confirmation that there is just billions of miles of outer space. So where exactly did Jesus "ascend" to? The narrative only makes sense if heaven was a physical location in the clouds (since that is where he is depicted as physically ascending to). But since we know that is false, then the narrative must be false as well.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Zzyzx in post #1]

The KEY question is "Did Jesus come back to life and 'ascend' into the sky?" because unless those claims are true, Christianity is based on fraud.

I agree, and even more important the Apostle Paul agreed when he told the Corinthians, "if Christ has not been raised your faith is useless." This is not just the "KEY question" it is the only question in that, if Christ was not raised there are really no more questions to ask. However, if Christ was raised this is the answer to our questions.

No contemporary historian, chronicler, recorder, or anyone else mentioned Jesus during his lifetime or anything he may have said or done.

Even if what you say were true, we still have enough facts and evidence which has convinced even the critical scholars (those who do not believe the resurrection) that the early followers of Jesus (including the Apostles) could not have made the reports of the resurrection up. In other words, we have enough evidence to know that these early followers were somehow convinced that Jesus had appeared to them alive after the crucifixion. We also know that these same scholars acknowledge that any alternative explanation of the facts and evidence we have are not very likely at all. With this being the case, we can eliminate your idea of "fraud" because even if the reports are false, we can know the reports were not based upon fraud on the part of those reporting.

I do not bring any of the above up, thinking that this somehow is proof of the resurrection. Rather, it is to demonstrate that it really does no good for one to attempt to claim that we do not have very good evidence, when the fact is we have enough evidence to "KNOW" (as one historian who is not a Christian puts it) we can be "Certain" (as two more atheist scholars has it) that these early followers, including the Apostles had some sort of experience of Jesus alive after death.

Of course, we can debate what may have occurred which caused the above to be fact, but what is not under debate is the fact that something extraordinary occurred, and whatever it was, it is a fact that these events have had one of the most, if not the most significant impacts in the history of the world and counting. The point is, no matter which explanation you choose, you are left with a most extraordinary tale, and it does not matter in the least which you believe to be the least extraordinary.

Half a century later (40 to 60 years or more) four religion promoters wrote stories about him.

First, and again, even if what you are saying were fact which we can know to be true (and it is not which we will see in a moment) it is from these what you refer to as "stories" that we can be certain of the fact that the reports were not made up. The point I am making is, it is a waste of your time to attempt to discredit the authors, or the reports, when the fact would still remain that it is from this very same material, we can know the reports were not based upon what you refer to as fraud.

Next, you throw the years out there as being "40 to 60 years or more" as if this is a fact we can know, when this is not the case in the least. My friend, I know, you know, and even the scholars know we have very good evidence that the author of the letters addressed to Theophilus was a traveling companion of Paul. We can be certain we have this evidence, because the critical scholars are forced to come up with alternative explanations for this evidence we have, which in and of itself demonstrates this evidence, otherwise there would be no need in the alternatives. I mean, it is really amazing! We cannot read these letters addressed to Theophilus in the natural way in which they were written, rather we are asked to jump through all sorts of mental hoops in order to avoid the idea that the author traveled with Paul, because this would give us an author who was alive at the time of the events he records.

At any rate, even if we were to grant the "40 to 60 years" (which we cannot) this still would not eliminate the author from being alive at the time of the events. Because you see, we know that Paul was alive at the time of the events, and we know Paul authored letters 30 to 40 years after the events, and we know that Paul did not die of old age. In other words, if Paul would have continued to live to old age, and continued to write letters to the Churches, he could have had letters "40 to 60 years out" and been alive at the time of the events.

One more thing I would like to point out here and that is the fact that you refer to the authors as "religion promoters." Well, the one thing we can demonstrate is the fact that the overwhelming majority of the NT was addressed to audiences who were already believers. With the letters addressed to Theophilus, along with the letters of Paul, we are already at the majority of the NT which is addressed to believing audiences, which would go on to demonstrate that this material was not intended to promote Christianity to the unbeliever, and it is certainly a fact that the authors had no idea about any sort of Bible.

The true identity of those 'gospel' writers is unknown to theologians and scholars, and none of them can be shown to have personally witnessed anything Jesus may have said or done.

You see, now this is a true statement which we can agree upon. However, since we cannot insist upon who the authors were, then we cannot insist that the authors are not Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and we also cannot insist that none of the authors were personal witnesses of the events they record. One thing we can know is the fact that Paul was alive at the time of the events, and we can also know that Paul knew those who were making the claims very well, and we can also know he heard those claims come from the very lips of those who claimed to have personally witnessed the events. The point I am making is, either way we go we are left with the possibility of the authors being Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, along with knowing that Paul was alive at the time, and would have personally known these very folks, and heard the claims they were making from their very lips.

"In the entire first Christian century Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence. Zero! Zip references!" Dr. Bart Ehrman Professor of Religious Studies

Yep, and we are still left with the fact that even Dr. Bart Ehrman admits to the fact that we have enough evidence to be "certain" that the early followers (including the Apostles) had some sort of experience of Jesus alive after the crucifixion. Because you see, Ehrman was one of the atheist scholars I was referring to. I mean, look at the argument Ehrman is making? Nothing mentioned of Jesus. "Zero! Zip references!" However, we can know Jesus existed because Ehrman admits that we have enough facts and evidence to know that the followers of Jesus "certainly" had some sort of experience of Jesus alive after the crucifixion. Exactly what kind of argument is that?

[OneJack]

The KEY question is "Did Jesus come back to life and 'ascend' into the sky?" because unless those claims are true, Christianity is based on fraud.

No contemporary historian, chronicler, recorder, or anyone else mentioned Jesus during his lifetime or anything he may have said or done.

Half a century later (40 to 60 years or more) four religion promoters wrote stories about him. The true identity of those 'gospel' writers is unknown to theologians and scholars, and none of them can be shown to have personally witnessed anything Jesus may have said or done.

"In the entire first Christian century Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence. Zero! Zip references!" Dr. Bart Ehrman Professor of Religious Studies

AND only ONE of the gospel writers (whoever wrote 'Luke' and 'Acts') described the 'ascension', and he admits in his introduction that he is recording what he heard from others.

I, for one, would NOT believe tales told by four people claiming that someone came back to life (because a tomb was supposedly found empty). I certainly would not believe a tale told by one person about what he had heard from others that, half a century earlier, someone 'rose up into the sky'.

The Son of God, per se, died on the cross and was resurrected afterward. But Jesus, on the other hand, is the Almighty God who incarnated Himself in the bodily flesh of the Son of God.

[Zzyzx]

[Replying to 1213 in post #2]

What are my "tales about the history" to which you refer?

[Zzyzx]

[Replying to Zzyzx in post #1]

Apology for the delay in responding to your response. I missed notifications. Sorry to hear about the flu problems.

In other words, we have enough evidence to know that these early followers were somehow convinced that Jesus had appeared to them alive after the crucifixion.

With this being the case, we can eliminate your idea of "fraud" because even if the reports are false, we can know the reports were not based upon fraud on the part of those reporting.

Does people believing something assure that what they believe is true? Many people claim to have seen and/or interacted with Elvis after he died. Shall we believe all of them? If some made up their reports, would that constitute fraud?

Next, you throw the years out there as being "40 to 60 years or more" as if this is a fact we can know, when this is not the case in the least.

Who was the author of "Luke"? When did he write, and where did he reside while writing?

What is the date of production of the earliest available manuscript of the gospel?

At any rate, even if we were to grant the "40 to 60 years" (which we cannot) this still would not eliminate the author from being alive at the time of the events. Because you see, we know that Paul was alive at the time of the events, and we know Paul authored letters 30 to 40 years after the events, and we know that Paul did not die of old age. In other words, if Paul would have continued to live to old age, and continued to write letters to the Churches, he could have had letters "40 to 60 years out" and been alive at the time of the events.

"The letters of Paul, known as the Pauline epistles, were written between approximately 48 AD and 67 AD. Key letters include Galatians (around 48 AD), 1 Thessalonians (around 50-51 AD), and Romans (around 57-58 AD) among others."
From: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

One more thing I would like to point out here and that is the fact that you refer to the authors as "religion promoters." Well, the one thing we can demonstrate is the fact that the overwhelming majority of the NT was addressed to audiences who were already believers. With the letters addressed to Theophilus, along with the letters of Paul, we are already at the majority of the NT which is addressed to believing audiences, which would go on to demonstrate that this material was not intended to promote Christianity to the unbeliever, and it is certainly a fact that the authors had no idea about any sort of Bible.

Are preachers/clergy somehow NOT promoters of religion?

Yep, and we are still left with the fact that even Dr. Bart Ehrman admits to the fact that we have enough evidence to be "certain" that the early followers (including the Apostles) had some sort of experience of Jesus alive after the crucifixion.

"Many scholars, including Bart Ehrman, agree that the early followers of Jesus, particularly the Apostles, believed they had experiences of seeing Jesus alive after his crucifixion. However, the nature of these experiences—whether they were visions, hallucinations, or something else—remains a topic of debate among historians."
From: garyhabermas (dot) com - and - ehrmanblog (dot) org