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.

[fredonly]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #290]
I see no value in continuing with you, but thanks for your input.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #290]
I see no value in continuing with you, but thanks for your input.

You're most welcome, it's been great fun!






JEHOVAH'S WITNESS


RELATED POSTS

Did only Luke allude to the ascention?
viewtopic.php?p=1143351#p1143351

Was Jesus levitation so mommentous its ommission from all four gospel accounts would be absurd?
viewtopic.php?p=1143375#p1143375

Is heaven "up"?
viewtopic.php?p=1143347#p1143347

Was Jesus resurrected in a spiritual or physical body?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 16#p753616

The Ascension: WHY did Jesus go "up"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 907#818907

How long did the Apostles live ? [1st century length of life]
viewtopic.php?p=1144976#p1144976

Were the gospel writers contemporaries of the Apostles?
viewtopic.php?p=1144976#p1144976

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

JESUS RESURRECTION , ASCENTION and ... BIBLE AUTHORSHIP & TRANSMISSION

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to fredonly in post #1]
I just had thought flash no one came up with, YET

WHAT IF Mark, Matthew and John all WROTE their gospels BEFORE Jesus ascended to heaven 40 days after The Resurrection
(And for some reason were unable to add the ascension later to the script.)

That would be the ultimative explanation!

OF COURSE this three evangelists hardly could have been able to describe an event that had not happened yet!

NO MATTER how sensational and miraculous this FUTURE EVENT might be

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #290]
I see no value in continuing with you, but thanks for your input.

None really, as the point has been made and the sub - point that arguing about the case for reliable narrative transmission is irrelevant and denialist, because the whole point of nobody but Luke having the Ascension is that it was invented, not transmitted.

Anyone who can't see by now that the responses are either denialist or evasive and probably both, is never going to see it, and our pal Jw can scuttle away supposing that he has won yet again by refusing to accept compelling points and evidence and thinking that is a Win., And that is par for the course with Bible apologetics.

One point worth laboring, perhaps is that this is (of course )that this is not the only thing that damn the case for Bible veracity. The Resurrection account differs radically and contradicts all the others, which is why the Resurrections are the 2nd most disprovable part after the nativities. Our pal 1213 attempted as response at least but it relied totally on ignoring what the Bible said and denial of it when pointed out and that (until the other side gives up and they can scamper off thinking they won, and in their minds, they win if they can maintain denialist Faith in the face of compelling evidence - that's how it works.

Everything from no sermon in Mark to no Transfiguration in John to no Johannine sermons in the Synoptics and no Penitent thief in anyon but Luke would be compelling evidence that we have invention here, not excusable slips of memory, even wihout clearLucan fiddling like introducing Antipas into the trial to have him do the flogging and get Rome off the hook. Because the Gospels were written by Romani Christians, not Jewish disciples, which is proven by nonsense like David and the Shewbread, and the Blasphemy charge.

The evidence is there and the only thing I don't understand is why nobody seems to know this, and apparently ignore it when it is pointed out.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to fredonly in post #1]
I just had thought flash no one came up with, YET

WHAT IF Mark, Matthew and John all WROTE their gospels BEFORE Jesus ascended to heaven 40 days after The Resurrection
(And for some reason were unable to add the ascension later to the script.)

That would be the ultimative explanation!

OF COURSE this three evangelists hardly could have been able to describe an event that had not happened yet!

NO MATTER how sensational and miraculous this FUTURE EVENT might be

Nice try, but it doesn't really work, does it? According to Luke - Acts, Jesus ascended into heaven on the Sunday just after Cleophas and his companion have returned from their pointless trip to Emmaeus which they abandon and was (I reckon) merely invented to get the reader out of the way while Jesus appears to Simon, which Luke hears from Paul happened but knows nothing about it, and the supposed time may have been when it was still light enough, though John says it was evening, but you can't trust any of this stuff.

Point is, it supposedly happened on resurrection -day and when the disciples supposedly came to write their accounts, there is no possible way they could not have known, except of course if it never happened and was an invention of Luke's - and one of many.

So nice effort but it does not work, and the only matter you have to consider, is whether the evidence counts or faithbased denial counts more than evidence, rason and what the Bible says. Faith or evident facts? That's the choice.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #295]

Such are the stories of human mythology.

The deeper meanings will elude the believer and non-believer alike...and treating the stories in that manner means one does not have to apologize for them...

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #295]

Such are the stories of human mythology.

The deeper meanings will elude the believer and non-believer alike...and treating the stories in that manner means one does not have to apologize for them...

If one looks for deeper meanings, be sure to look everywhere, and not just in the direction of the conclusion that that one has already arrived at, That is something to be apologised for, even more than ignoring the evidence of fabrication, addition and invention in those stories.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #297]

If one looks for deeper meanings, be sure to look everywhere, and not just in the direction of the conclusion that that one has already arrived at,

Out of interest, what is the "conclusion" you have "already arrived at"?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #297]

If one looks for deeper meanings, be sure to look everywhere, and not just in the direction of the conclusion that that one has already arrived at,

Out of interest, what is the "conclusion" you have "already arrived at"?

In respect of which mythology? The topic? I already said; I arrived, eventually, at the conclusion that it was invented by Luke, because no other gospel has it. That's without all of the other indications that Luke just invented stuff. His Nativity story, the messianic declaration at Nazareth, the miracle catch of fish at the calling of disciples, Antipas involved in the trial, the penitent thief, and that's just the start.

[William]

Such are the stories of human mythology.

The deeper meanings will elude the believer and non-believer alike...and treating the stories in that manner means one does not have to apologize for them...

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #297]

If one looks for deeper meanings, be sure to look everywhere, and not just in the direction of the conclusion that that one has already arrived at,

Out of interest, what is the "conclusion" you have "already arrived at"?

In respect of which mythology?

Any.

The topic?

That is one example of the many, yes.

I already said; I arrived, eventually, at the conclusion that it was invented by Luke, because no other gospel has it. That's without all of the other indications that Luke just invented stuff. His Nativity story, the messianic declaration at Nazareth, the miracle catch of fish at the calling of disciples, Antipas involved in the trial, the penitent thief, and that's just the start.

What were you meaning in relation to your comment answering my own, then?