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.
The Ascension
Moderator: Moderators
- The Nice Centurion
- Sage
- Posts: 963
- Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:47 pm
- Has thanked: 20 times
- Been thanked: 99 times
Re: The Ascension
Post #311You mean the validity of the Book of Mormon ?SiNcE_1985 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2024 6:56 pmIf all the Gospels had recorded Jesus' ascension into Heaven (as Acts does), would you have become a believer?fredonly wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 10:17 am 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.
Probably not.
If you aren't going to believe based on Jesus' resurrection from the dead, his healing the sick, and various other miracles...then the whole ascension thing is just a way to move the goalpost.
The recording of the ascension in the Gospels is irrelevant to those who don't believe in the validity of the book in the first place.
You are right in suggesting that we should try to approach the problem from a Nephite point of view!
Nephites knew that Jesus did not really ascend to one of the Three Heavens, but sat down on a cloud which by sheer luck transported him above the town of Zarahemla WHERE HE VISITED THE NEPHITES, which was written down on Golden Plates that would be known as the book THIRD NEPHI
After doing stuff in the Nephite Metropolian Area, Christ ascended again.
Now, there is only one Book in the bible and only one Book within the pages of BoM that describes an ascending Jesus.
I wonder why !
“If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. But if you drown a man in a fish pond, he will never have to go hungry again
”
"Only Experts in Reformed Egyptian should be allowed to critique the Book of Mormon
"
"Joseph Smith can't possibly have been a deceiver.
For if he had been, the Angel Moroni never would have taken the risk of enthrusting him with the Golden Plates
"
"Only Experts in Reformed Egyptian should be allowed to critique the Book of Mormon
"Joseph Smith can't possibly have been a deceiver.
For if he had been, the Angel Moroni never would have taken the risk of enthrusting him with the Golden Plates