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]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #274]
... The narrative would need to have spread widely, while remaining uncorrupted.

Widely from where to where? "Widely" needs at least two points...

(A) < -------- wide --------> (B)

Point of origin (A)?
Point of arrival (B)?

Unless you have a different definition for "wide", your the statement is unsupported without point (A) and (B). Please provide the information needed to verify your claim.



IS IT IMPOSSIBLE OR UNLIKELY THE APOSTLES (EYEWITNESSES) OF THE ASCENTION TRAVELED TO THE COMMUNITIES WHERE THE GOSPELS WERE PENNED? ("too wide")

CONTEMPORARY: living or occurring at the same time
Definitions from Oxford Languages

In order to propose the idea that the narrative ( in the person of the eyewitnesses of the ascention) could not have reached the gospel writers, one must propose the distance between the two to have been "too wide" (meaning "too far") to be crossed either by their contemporaries ( the gospel writers) to reach them or for the Apostles to personally have reached the the communities where the writers penned the gospels*.

* Of course writers could have heard (ORAL TRANSMISSION) the narrative personally from the Apostles at ANY mutual reached location before they penned them

Here's the Distance from Jerusalem (the point of origin is the Mount of Olives, just outside Jerusalem) to a sampling of the Christian communites outside Palestine:

Antioch*: 300 miles
Tarsus: 370 miles
Corinth*: 800 miles
Ephesus*: 600 miles
Cyrene: 900 miles
Rome*: 1400 miles

* Each of these are among the locations proposed by various scholars as places a Gospel was written.

Which is proposed for which Gospel? Reference please.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #274]
... The narrative would need to have spread widely, while remaining uncorrupted.

Widely from where to where? "Widely" needs at least two points...

(A) < -------- wide --------> (B)

Point of origin (A)?
Point of arrival (B)?

Unless you have a different definition for "wide", your the statement is unsupported without point (A) and (B). Please provide the information needed to verify your claim.



IS IT IMPOSSIBLE OR UNLIKELY THE APOSTLES (EYEWITNESSES) OF THE ASCENTION TRAVELED TO THE COMMUNITIES WHERE THE GOSPELS WERE PENNED? ("too wide")

CONTEMPORARY: living or occurring at the same time
Definitions from Oxford Languages

In order to propose the idea that the narrative ( in the person of the eyewitnesses of the ascention) could not have reached the gospel writers, one must propose the distance between the two to have been "too wide" (meaning "too far") to be crossed either by their contemporaries ( the gospel writers) to reach them or for the Apostles to personally have reached the the communities where the writers penned the gospels*.

* Of course writers could have heard (ORAL TRANSMISSION) the narrative personally from the Apostles at ANY mutual reached location before they penned them

Here's the Distance from Jerusalem (the point of origin is the Mount of Olives, just outside Jerusalem) to a sampling of the Christian communites outside Palestine:

Antioch*: 300 miles
Tarsus: 370 miles
Corinth*: 800 miles
Ephesus*: 600 miles
Cyrene: 900 miles
Rome*: 1400 miles

* Each of these are among the locations proposed by various scholars as places a Gospel was written.

Which is proposed for which Gospel? Reference please.

No. That is not how 'God's logic' works.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that the gospel writings could NOT have originated in those places or the Claim must be taken as true.

If it doesn't work that way, nor does it work for the claims in the Bible from the nativity to the ascension.

[fredonly]

Which is proposed for which Gospel? Reference please.

As I said, there's no consensus. Raymond Brown lists some possibilies proposed by some scholars (Mark writing from Rome is popular, Antioch is proposed by various scholars for one of the Synoptics; there's no consensus on any of it). But why does it matter? The location of the earliest Christan communities show a wide geographic area, considering the slowness of travel at the time. Even if you clustered them in a set of 4 cities, it's still hundreds of miles - which would be the most optimistic of assumptions. You went off on this latest tangent because you wanted some feeling for how "widely" the narrative would need to have been spread. I've established a range from ~600 to 1400 miles.

[JehovahsWitness]

As I said, there's no consensus.

Fair enough.


FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN EXAMINING THE PROBABILITY OF DIRECT CONTACT BETWEEN THE APOSTLES AND ARAMAIC AND/OR GREEK SPEAKING CONTEMPORARIES FROM FOREIGN LOCATIONS

Here's the Distance from Jerusalem (the point of origin is the Mount of Olives, just outside Jerusalem) to a sampling of the Christian communites outside Palestine:

Antioch*: 300 miles
Tarsus: 370 miles
Corinth*: 800 miles
Ephesus*: 600 miles
Cyrene: 900 miles
Rome*: 1400 miles

* Each of these are among the locations proposed by various scholars as places a Gospel was written.

QUESTION:

Does the book of ACTS not record Jewish proselytes (some of which became Christians) from as far a field as Mesopotamia, Egypt and Rome, being in direct contact with the Apostles shortly after they witnessed the events of the ascention? (Compare Acts 11:19)

....Pilgrimage to Jerusalem was embedded in the fabric of Judaism to a degree unparalleled in the ancient world since there was only one sanctuary in Jerusalem where sacrifice was permitted. Thus, unless they lived in the city of Jerusalem itself, most Jews travelled long distances to participate in the cult. .... [Various] sources* reaffirm the essential popularity of making pilgrimage to Jerusalem among diaspora Jews in general - The Jerusalem Temple in Diaspora: Jewish Practice and Thought during the Second Temple Period, Jonathan R. Trotter, Ph.D

* the writings of Philo and Josephus, ancient inscriptions, and early rabbinic literature

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

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

[fredonly]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #284]
You're again obsessing on a tangent. I never claimed travelling was overly problematic. My point was that a narrative had to be faithfully preserved across a wide geographic area for 50+ years (with multiple tellings and retellings) - which implies a strong motivation to preserve it.

[JehovahsWitness]

WHAT IS THE POINT BEING ARGUED?

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

JW

Yes, but which is more likely? To answer that, I ask: what needed to occur for the evangelists to receive a faithful rendition of the story?

WHICH IS MORE LIKELY?

The claim being argue is that it is more likely that the narrative was not received 1A than that it was preserved and recieved 2B (see quotation above). The reasons given for this "LIKELY NOT RECEIVED" position are that there would have been several factors that rendered receiving an accurate narritive unlikely. Those elements were as follows ....

SUPPORTING POINTS FOR THE CLAIM 1A IS MORE LIKELY THAN 2A

...My point was that a narrative had to be [a] faithfully preserved [ b] across a wide geographic area, for [c] 50+ years - which implies a strong motivation to preserve it.

notation MINE

NOTE I have changed the order if the points so they follow a smoother transition.

(a) Preservation {"My point was that a narrative had to be faithfully preserved"}
(b) the time ("My point was that a narrative had to be faithfully preserved ... for 50+ years ")
(c) the distance ("My point was that a narrative had to be faithfully preserved...across a wide geographic area")

Continued below / ...

[JehovahsWitness]

(a) Preservation {"My point was that a narrative had to be faithfully preserved"}
(b) timeline ("My point was that a narrative had to be faithfully preserved ... for 50+ years ")
(c) distance ("My point was that a narrative had to be faithfully preserved...across a wide geographic area")

I will now address each of these points seperately:

(a)PRESERVATION Preserving the narrative .... {"My point was that a narrative had to be [a] faithfully preserved....}

The narrative would only have had to be preserved in the minds of the Apostles. It is unlikely the surviving Apostles simply forgot the details of what happened (After all the details were not particularly intricate (i) Jesus levitated (ii) disapeared behind a cloud (ii) "angelic" visit that confirmed he went to heaven). Assuming most of the Apostles lived for a further 30 or 40 years (it seems reasonable to assume the Apostles were relatively young men at the time of the ascention) then chronologically, no "tradents" would have been necessary for the faithful preservation of the narrative for at least the time needed to theoretically reach one or more of the gospel writers who were their contemporaries

(b) TIMELINE {"My point was that a narrative had to be faithfully preserved ... for 50+ years "..}

The first of the gospels is said to have been written between 65-70 CE. Since the question under consideration is why the gospel writers did not include the narrative, this would include the first ( earliest ) of the gospels. If this was the gospel of MARK, the Apostles would only needed to remember the details (see point (a))for about 35-40 years maximum. Of course this assumes they didnt meet and share the narrative with the any of the writers earlier, which is not only possible , since they were contemporaries (within travelling distance of each other --> see point (c) below) )..., but given the nature and structure of the early Christian movement, arguably quite likely.

CONTEMPORARY: living or occurring at the same time
Definitions from Oxford Languages

(c) THE DISTANCE {"My point was that a narrative had to be faithfully preserved...across a wide geographic area "..}

As the leaders of a movement dedicated to proselytising, there is ample evidence the first "Christians" (which would include the Apostles) and their contemporaries (which would include the gospel writers ) travelled across the known world within that initial 30-50 year period following the ascention. The distances (as illustrated by the some of the first Christian converts coming from as far afield as Babylon - see post #284 for more on this point ) cannot reasonably be considered a factor in an argument that the gospel writers could not have recieved the narrative because they may have originated or eventually lived hundreds of miles from Jerusalem.

CONCLUSION: Can we prove any of the gospel writers met the Apostles? Even without disregarding the testimony of the early church Fathers, no. But any claim that the time, distance, memory loss or language represents insumountable logistical barriers to the possibility (or even liklihood ) that they could have , does not accurately reflect the first century origins of the Christian movement.

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

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

[TRANSPONDER]

But again, has to be said, the go - to hypothesis is NOT a preferred one that can be made to look possible, but the one that is more probable. I guess we all realise that the Believers assume that the Christian preference for the gospels being transmitted narrative, and so long as doubts about whether the Galileans to communicate in Greek or the narrative could be transmitted from Judea to Rome, then it remains the basic hypothesis - the Gospels are reliable.

But that was not to objection.The objection was that If the gospels were invented, or largely so, then transmission of narrative is tangent as fredonly said, or a red herring as I said, and is based on a false idea of what the argument and objection was. It is that, if the Ascension is not in the synoiptics, the default or more probable theory - logically - is that it was invented by Luke. It is near impossible that all three other gospels could have forgotten it or had a reason to leave it out.

The only serious question is whether you introduced an irrelevant question deliberately or you misunderstand the logic of the discussion.

Since you earlier tried a tangental question of whether proposed leaving out of the ascension (so you do know what the topic is) was an immediate reaction, or thought about first, which is irrelevant to whether they did leave it out or never heard of it in the first place, I'd propose the probable answer is that you know very well what you are trying to pull.

[fredonly]

CONCLUSION: Can we prove any of the gospel writers met the Apostles? If we disregards the testimony of the early church Fathers, no.

Papias' testimony (Papias is the only "church father" to make such claims) isn't disregarded- it's shown to be inconsistent with the facts. The consensus of critical scholars is that there were decades of oral transmission, which you prefer to deny.

But any claim that the time, distance, memory loss or language represents insumountable logistical barriers to the possibility (or even liklihood ) that they could have , does not accurately reflect the first century origjns of the Christian movement.

I never said anything about "barriers", much less anything being "insurmountable". I presented this for context: decades of oral transmission from tradent to tradent. For a story such as this to be handed down, time after time, while preserving those key elements, they would surely have had a strong, shared motivation.

You haven't presented any reason to doubt this - rather, you suggest that some disciples (eyewitnesses) lived well beyond their life expectancy, made the rounds to all the places evangelists lived. You've given no reason to think your convenient theory probable. I also wonder why you think Mark's Gospel was copied by Matthew and Luke, if they had a more direct source of information.

So basically, your excuse to reject my argument depends on convenient apologetic assumptions and a rejection of critical scholarship. All this, to deny that there would have needed to be a strong, shared motivation to share a story told by eyewitnesses about a monumental, doctrinally important, event - probably the greatest miracle they had ever seen him perform (no one is said to have witnessed the reanimation of his corpse).

[JehovahsWitness]

.... I ask: what needed to occur for the evangelists to receive a faithful rendition of the story?

... I presented this for context: decades of oral transmission from tradent to tradent. ...

You surely are not refering to a transmission of the narrative from the Apostles to the gospel writers...

(a)PRESERVATION Preserving the narrative .... {"My point was that a narrative had to be [a] faithfully preserved....}

The narrative would only have had to be preserved in the minds of the Apostles. It is unlikely the surviving Apostles simply forgot the details of what happened (After all the details were not particularly intricate (i) Jesus levitated (ii) disapeared behind a cloud (ii) "angelic" visit that confirmed he went to heaven). Assuming most of the Apostles lived for a further 30 or 40 years (it seems reasonable to assume the Apostles were relatively young men at the time of the ascention) then chronologically, no "tradents" would have been necessary for the faithful preservation of the narrative for at least the time needed to theoretically reach one or more of the gospel writers who were their contemporaries

(b) TIMELINE {"My point was that a narrative had to be faithfully preserved ... for 50+ years "..}

The first of the gospels is said to have been written between 65-70 CE. Since the question under consideration is why the gospel writers did not include the narrative, this would include the first ( earliest ) of the gospels. If this was the gospel of MARK, the Apostles would only needed to remember the details (see point (a))for about 35-40 years maximum. Of course this assumes they didnt meet and share the narrative with the any of the writers earlier, which is not only possible , since they were contemporaries (within travelling distance of each other --> see point (c) below) )..., but given the nature and structure of the early Christian movement, arguably quite likely.

CONTEMPORARY: living or occurring at the same time
Definitions from Oxford Languages

QUESTION 1 : Are you suggesting that contemporaries need "tradents"?



QUESTION 2 : If at least some of the Apostles lived to 60 * and the earliest gospel writer penned his work at aged 40, could they have met ?

[ * ]J D Montague (Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 1994) compared the length of life of men who survived into adulthood in ancient Greece and Rome with similar samples from three other periods. He concluded that individuals born before 100 BC lived as long (median 72 years) and those born after 100 BC an average of 66.


source:https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epdf/1 ... 9408700112

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

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