Let's consider the claimed 'ascension' tale

[Zzyzx]

There are serious reasons to doubt the authenticity of the story of Jesus rising up into the sky.

First: Many 'gods' are said to have 'ascended' or flown away into the sky. That is a common theme in ancient mythology, folklore, and religions. The bible tale is NOT original or unique -- but is just one of many similar tales.

Second: The Christian 'ascension' is described by only ONE gospel writer -- whose true identity is unknown to theologians and scholars. The writer of "Luke", whoever he was, admitted in his introduction that he was reporting what he heard from others. Thus, the ONE description of the 'resurrection' was written half a century later by someone who was not present to witness the 'event' but had heard about it from others.

Third: Would any rational person believe a recent claim of someone rising up into the sky if told by ONE person who admittedly just heard about it and was not present when it was supposed to occur?

[Zzyzx]

So, why have you believed he was an anonymous gospel writer?
And
How did you know he was not present? Were you there at the scene at the time of the said ascension?

------------
From: agapebiblestudy (dot) com/Luke_Gospel/Luke_Lesson_1.htm

"The Gospel According to St. Luke is written by a man believed to be the only Gentile, Holy Spirit inspired New Testament writer who carefully researched and recorded the events of Jesus' life and ministry for his target audience of Gentile Christians. It is also the only Gospel that is a two-part work "the second part being the Acts of Apostles. St. Luke's Gospel provides the longest and most complete account of the advent and earthly life of the Messiah "from the divine announcement and birth of His precursor, St. John the Baptist, to the Annunciation, birth and early childhood of Jesus, to His ministry to the lost sheep of Israel, and finally with the climax of His Gospel in Jesus' victorious death, glorious Resurrection and heavenly Ascension.

Authorship

The oldest title of this Gospel is "The Gospel According to Luke," stressing that even though the work is anonymous it was believed that the identity of the inspired writer was St. Luke, the companion of St. Paul (Col 4:14; 2 Tim 4:11). The oldest references to Luke as the author of the third Gospel identifies him as from the Christian community of Sts. Paul and Barnabas in Antioch, Syria (Acts 12:19-26) and is found in an ancient Greek prologue stating, "this is Luke the Syrian Antiochean" (estin ho Lukeas Antiocheus Sysros), and later in the Latin form Lucas Antiochensis Syrus. Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea in the Holy Land records the same tradition in his 4th century AD Church History where he writes: Loukas de to men genos on ton ap', "by descent Luke was of those from Antioch" (History Eccl., 3.4.6), and in the 5th century St. Jerome repeats the same information concerning St. Luke (De vir. Ill 7). It is from this tradition that scholars, ancient and modern, have assumed that Luke was a Greek Gentile convert. Flavius Josephus wrote that Antioch (Syria) was a prosperous Hellenistic (Greek culture) city that was the capital of Syria, "ranking third among the cities of the Roman world because of its size and prosperity" (The Jewish Wars, 3.2.4 [29]).

Luke has been identified as the writer from the so-called "we passages" in the Book of Acts (Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-21:18 and 27:1-28:16). The writer of Acts mostly writes from a third-person perspective, but in the "we passages" he changes to the first person, an indication that he was personally an eyewitness to the events and was a traveling companion of St. Paul. Additional evidence cited is that Luke is not mentioned by name in any of the "we passages" when the indication is that he is among Paul's companions, which suggests that he is the likely companion who recorded the events.

Some scholars have suggested that St. Luke was a Hellenistic Jew, but most scholars identify him as a Gentile convert. The Church Fathers unanimously identify the writer as St. Luke, the doctor and companion of St. Paul on his missionary journeys:

Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord who reclined at His bosom, also published a Gospel, while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia (Bishop Irenaeus, 140-202 AD; emphasis added).
As to the four Gospels, which alone are indisputable in the Church of God under heaven, I learned from the tradition that the first to have been written was that of Matthew, who was formerly a tax-collector, but later an Apostle of Jesus Christ. It was prepared for those who were converted from Judaism to the faith, and was written in Hebrew letters. The second was that of Mark, who composed it under Peter's guidance ... The third, the Gospel which was praised by Paul, was that of Luke, written for gentile converts. Last of all, there is that of John (Origen, 185-253/54 AD, director of the prestigious school of Christian Catechesis and Theology in Alexandria, Egypt; emphasis added).
The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke, the well-known physician, which, after the ascension of Christ, Luke wrote in his own name from what he had learned when Paul associated him with himself as a companion of his journey (Muratorian Fragment c. 155/200 AD).

Dating the Gospel of Luke

Bible scholars are generally of two opinions on the dating of the Gospel of Luke. Some scholars favor a later date, placing the work after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. These scholars claim that Luke 21:20 is an accurate historical description of the Roman siege of the city in 70 AD. However, Luke's Gospel does not describe the Roman army's destruction of Jerusalem but only gives Jesus' prophecy the city's siege by a foreign army. These "late date" scholars assume that predictive prophecy is impossible. Other scholars, however, date the writing of the book prior to 70 AD and suggest a date between 58 and 63 or perhaps 67 AD, referring to Bishop Irenaeus' testimony that the Gospels of Mark, Luke and John were written after the deaths of Sts. Peter and Paul in Rome that occurred in 64/67 AD. They also offer the argument which points out, if Jesus' destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple had been fulfilled as He had prophesied, the inspired writers would surely have noted the accuracy of His prophecy. The accuracy of the fulfillment of biblical prophecy is continually stressed in all the Gospels. Scholars who prefer the earlier dates also cite the historical evidence in the Book of Acts that can be corroborated by secular documents and the fact that Luke's Gospel was written before the book of Acts. The last chapter of Acts ends abruptly with St. Paul's first imprisonment in Rome, which can be dated to c. 63 AD, prior to the great fire that destroyed much of Rome in 64 AD that began Rome's organized persecution of Christians during the reign of the Emperor Nero. In the Book of Acts the Romans are more or less ambivalent toward Christians and Paul is even rescued by Roman offcials (Acts 21:30-32).

[POI]

[Replying to OneJack in post #10]

I noticed you skipped right over post 8?

[OneJack]

So, why have you believed he was an anonymous gospel writer?
And
How did you know he was not present? Were you there at the scene at the time of the said ascension?

------------
From: agapebiblestudy (dot) com/Luke_Gospel/Luke_Lesson_1.htm

"The Gospel According to St. Luke is written by a man believed to be the only Gentile, Holy Spirit inspired New Testament writer who carefully researched and recorded the events of Jesus' life and ministry for his target audience of Gentile Christians. It is also the only Gospel that is a two-part work "the second part being the Acts of Apostles. St. Luke's Gospel provides the longest and most complete account of the advent and earthly life of the Messiah "from the divine announcement and birth of His precursor, St. John the Baptist, to the Annunciation, birth and early childhood of Jesus, to His ministry to the lost sheep of Israel, and finally with the climax of His Gospel in Jesus' victorious death, glorious Resurrection and heavenly Ascension.

Authorship

The oldest title of this Gospel is "The Gospel According to Luke," stressing that even though the work is anonymous it was believed that the identity of the inspired writer was St. Luke, the companion of St. Paul (Col 4:14; 2 Tim 4:11). The oldest references to Luke as the author of the third Gospel identifies him as from the Christian community of Sts. Paul and Barnabas in Antioch, Syria (Acts 12:19-26) and is found in an ancient Greek prologue stating, "this is Luke the Syrian Antiochean" (estin ho Lukeas Antiocheus Sysros), and later in the Latin form Lucas Antiochensis Syrus. Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea in the Holy Land records the same tradition in his 4th century AD Church History where he writes: Loukas de to men genos on ton ap', "by descent Luke was of those from Antioch" (History Eccl., 3.4.6), and in the 5th century St. Jerome repeats the same information concerning St. Luke (De vir. Ill 7). It is from this tradition that scholars, ancient and modern, have assumed that Luke was a Greek Gentile convert. Flavius Josephus wrote that Antioch (Syria) was a prosperous Hellenistic (Greek culture) city that was the capital of Syria, "ranking third among the cities of the Roman world because of its size and prosperity" (The Jewish Wars, 3.2.4 [29]).

Luke has been identified as the writer from the so-called "we passages" in the Book of Acts (Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-21:18 and 27:1-28:16). The writer of Acts mostly writes from a third-person perspective, but in the "we passages" he changes to the first person, an indication that he was personally an eyewitness to the events and was a traveling companion of St. Paul. Additional evidence cited is that Luke is not mentioned by name in any of the "we passages" when the indication is that he is among Paul's companions, which suggests that he is the likely companion who recorded the events.

Some scholars have suggested that St. Luke was a Hellenistic Jew, but most scholars identify him as a Gentile convert. The Church Fathers unanimously identify the writer as St. Luke, the doctor and companion of St. Paul on his missionary journeys:

Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord who reclined at His bosom, also published a Gospel, while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia (Bishop Irenaeus, 140-202 AD; emphasis added).
As to the four Gospels, which alone are indisputable in the Church of God under heaven, I learned from the tradition that the first to have been written was that of Matthew, who was formerly a tax-collector, but later an Apostle of Jesus Christ. It was prepared for those who were converted from Judaism to the faith, and was written in Hebrew letters. The second was that of Mark, who composed it under Peter's guidance ... The third, the Gospel which was praised by Paul, was that of Luke, written for gentile converts. Last of all, there is that of John (Origen, 185-253/54 AD, director of the prestigious school of Christian Catechesis and Theology in Alexandria, Egypt; emphasis added).
The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke, the well-known physician, which, after the ascension of Christ, Luke wrote in his own name from what he had learned when Paul associated him with himself as a companion of his journey (Muratorian Fragment c. 155/200 AD).

Dating the Gospel of Luke

Bible scholars are generally of two opinions on the dating of the Gospel of Luke. Some scholars favor a later date, placing the work after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. These scholars claim that Luke 21:20 is an accurate historical description of the Roman siege of the city in 70 AD. However, Luke's Gospel does not describe the Roman army's destruction of Jerusalem but only gives Jesus' prophecy the city's siege by a foreign army. These "late date" scholars assume that predictive prophecy is impossible. Other scholars, however, date the writing of the book prior to 70 AD and suggest a date between 58 and 63 or perhaps 67 AD, referring to Bishop Irenaeus' testimony that the Gospels of Mark, Luke and John were written after the deaths of Sts. Peter and Paul in Rome that occurred in 64/67 AD. They also offer the argument which points out, if Jesus' destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple had been fulfilled as He had prophesied, the inspired writers would surely have noted the accuracy of His prophecy. The accuracy of the fulfillment of biblical prophecy is continually stressed in all the Gospels. Scholars who prefer the earlier dates also cite the historical evidence in the Book of Acts that can be corroborated by secular documents and the fact that Luke's Gospel was written before the book of Acts. The last chapter of Acts ends abruptly with St. Paul's first imprisonment in Rome, which can be dated to c. 63 AD, prior to the great fire that destroyed much of Rome in 64 AD that began Rome's organized persecution of Christians during the reign of the Emperor Nero. In the Book of Acts the Romans are more or less ambivalent toward Christians and Paul is even rescued by Roman offcials (Acts 21:30-32).

In short, you believe because you have read them, is that so?

[OneJack]

There are serious reasons to doubt the authenticity of the story of Jesus rising up into the sky.

First: Many 'gods' are said to have 'ascended' or flown away into the sky. That is a common theme in ancient mythology, folklore, and religions. The bible tale is NOT original or unique -- but is just one of many similar tales.

Second: The Christian 'ascension' is described by only ONE gospel writer -- whose true identity is unknown to theologians and scholars. The writer of "Luke", whoever he was, admitted in his introduction that he was reporting what he heard from others. Thus, the ONE description of the 'resurrection' was written half a century later by someone who was not present to witness the 'event' but had heard about it from others.

Third: Would any rational person believe a recent claim of someone rising up into the sky if told by ONE person who admittedly just heard about it and was not present when it was supposed to occur?

It should be the Son of God, per se, not Jesus, rising up into the sky. Don't you know that Jesus, or Immanuel, or Mighty God, or Eternal Father, is the Almighty God who dwelt His fullness in the Son of God, per se, the flesh/physical vessel of the Almighty God in His incarnation? The Son of God was the one who died and was resurrected, then was lifted up after his resurrection.

1) What Zzyzx is essentially alluding to is that other figures from antiquity are also said to have ascended into the sky, and with just as much 'veracity' as the assertion(s) from your collective holy text(s). It wasn't an uncommon storyline. And it was a storyline that the Bible may have even borrowed from, as we have notable figures from antiquity, such as Romulus for example, who was said to have ascended into the sky around 715 BC. This stated founder of Rome was believed to have been taken up to heaven in a cloud during a storm, as reported by historians like Livy and Plutarch. His ascension was so central to Roman belief that it was celebrated as a holiday. Why do you discard this claim?


2) Or how about Augustus? Augustus was said to have ascended into the sky (apotheosis) shortly after his death on August 19, 14 AD. The official declaration of his deification occurred on September 17, 14 AD. A senator named Numerius Atticus swore that he saw the spirit of Augustus ascending from his funeral pyre to heaven. Why do you discard this claim?

I don't believe these claims because the Lord told us that no one has ever ascended to heaven, and no one is now in heaven. He's all alone in Heaven.

[Zzyzx]

So, why have you believed he was an anonymous gospel writer?

"The earliest reference to the four Gospels’ authorship under the names they have now is in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History. Himself a resident of Palestine, Eusebius was a bishop and historian whose life spanned between the 3rd and 4th centuries—some 200 years after the Gospels were composed. This is more than enough time for a mistaken tradition of authorship to have developed."
From: thecollector (dot)com

How did you know he was not present? Were you there at the scene at the time of the said ascension?

Luke 1 Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus,

[OneJack]

So, why have you believed he was an anonymous gospel writer?

"The earliest reference to the four Gospels’ authorship under the names they have now is in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History. Himself a resident of Palestine, Eusebius was a bishop and historian whose life spanned between the 3rd and 4th centuries—some 200 years after the Gospels were composed. This is more than enough time for a mistaken tradition of authorship to have developed."
From: thecollector (dot)com

How did you know he was not present? Were you there at the scene at the time of the said ascension?

Luke 1 Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus,

Your basis of belief is the bible, words written in the bible, do I get it right?

[POI]

I don't believe these claims because the Lord told us that no one has ever ascended to heaven, and no one is now in heaven. He's all alone in Heaven.

1) Why do you trust what the Bible says about who has or hasn't ascended into the sky?
2) If we have just as much 'evidence' for others, who have been claimed to have ascended into the sky, are you calling these other claims lies, other?
3) Many, including Orthodox Jews and other groups, do not accept Jesus as the living/risen god. We have no better evidence for the claim that Jesus ascended into the sky, verses others who have also been claimed to have ascended into the sky. Why is the NT claims the exception?

[OneJack]

I don't believe these claims because the Lord told us that no one has ever ascended to heaven, and no one is now in heaven. He's all alone in Heaven.

1) Why do you trust what the Bible says about who has or hasn't ascended into the sky?

Why would I trust the Bible when its account of who has ascended into the sky is incomplete? The Lord taught us that He made the people see the Son of God lifted until he was hidden in the clouds; He took the body of the Son of God and placed him inside the ark of the covenant, hidden somewhere in the Middle East, beside the body of Moses. This is why I believe the story of the Son of God when he was lifted and taken by the clouds is true.

2) If we have just as much 'evidence' for others, who have been claimed to have ascended into the sky, are you calling these other claims lies, other?

Who are they, btw?

3) Many, including Orthodox Jews and other groups, do not accept Jesus as the living/risen god.

The premise - Jesus as the living/risen god - is skewed; hence, they would really not accept it, and even I myself will not accept it. The one who got resurrected was the Son of God, per se, not Jesus, who is the Almighty God. Jesus was the Spirit and Life that was in the Son of God during His (Jesus) incarnation.

We have no better evidence for the claim that Jesus ascended into the sky, verses others who have also been claimed to have ascended into the sky. Why is the NT claims the exception?

I don't care about the NT account, and I don't use it as the basis of my belief in this issue.

[POI]

The Lord taught us

When you say 'the Lord taught us', do you mean he provided personal revelation to prophets, in which they wrote down for us to follow? Which in turn, would be what we read in the Bible? Or, are you instead saying something completely different? If so, please specify where and how this is exactly being taught? And how you know this is not counterfeit in reality?

[OneJack]

The Lord taught us

When you say 'the Lord taught us', do you mean he provided personal revelation to prophets,

It's like a teacher teaches his/her students. There were times in a Q&A session.

in which they wrote down for us to follow?

No! You have nothing to follow from what the Lord has taught us, except for you to decide to come to the Lord so that He may shepherd and guide you on what you must follow and put into practice for you to be saved and have eternal life.

Which in turn, would be what we read in the Bible?

It doesn't have to be that way because the Lord will be the one to shepherd you until the end; hence, no need to take anything from what the Lord has taught us.

Or, are you instead saying something completely different?

Yes, it is completely different because you don't have to take anything with what the LORD has taught us. Your decision to come to the Lord is more essential than those revelations from the Lord.

If so, please specify where and how this is exactly being taught?

The Lord has finished shepherding us in 2014, but His means of responding instantly to our call [on Him] continues to date. The way the Lord Jesus taught the apostles during His incarnation is similar to how the Lord taught us, except that He (the Lord) dwelt His fullness in the Son of God for approximately 33 years, without leaving the body of the Son of God.

And how you know this is not counterfeit in reality?

The Lord has proven Himself to us that He is the Almighty God, beyond reasonable doubt. He brought our spirits to the third heaven.