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.

[TRANSPONDER]

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?

What I meant was one should not be limited to thinking within the 'religious box' so to speak. I know it must be frustrating for the believers who want to limit the conversation to anything within the assumption that it's true. But the evidence does not support that. We will do no good in lying to ourselves in swallowing Luke's story. It takes Faith to prefer the belief that the ascension happened when nobody else even puts a scenario in place where it can happen. So far as the others are concerned, Jesus had gone to Galilee and that's what the disciples should do. The scene isn't convenient for an ascension at Bethany.

But Luke knows better, because of Paul's letters. That is why he invents a totally new ending.

We have (or so I'd argue) the Answer. The answer to all the questions and debates about the Gospels and the religion and the Bible. I know the Believers don't like it but that's where the evidence points, or so I'd say.

As to deeper meanings in all mythologies, I'd say that a human instinct is the reason for that. I have never seen any credible explanatory argument that makes a good case for anything else.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #301]

As to deeper meanings in all mythologies, I'd say that a human instinct is the reason for that.

What are you attempting to convey with these words?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #301]

As to deeper meanings in all mythologies, I'd say that a human instinct is the reason for that.

What are you attempting to convey with these words?

That inventing 'stories' (big invisible humans as stopgap explanations for the unknowns) is an evolved instinct. Looking to mythology for anything else is, I propose, a waste of time.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #303]

Looking to mythology for anything else is, I propose, a waste of time.

Which loops back to your comment re "conclusion" specifically the advice "be sure to look everywhere, and not just in the direction of the conclusion that that one has already arrived at."

If indeed, your proposition is based on conclusion.

My argument is that mythology (specific to viewing these through the framework of the Jungian Archetypes) is part of the "everywhere" you advise us to "be sure to look" whereas you refrain from agreement by proposing it "a waste of time" to look there, which taints your advise with contradiction.

Either look everywhere OR only look where one's "conclusion" has brought one to look. Those are distinct options and the reason for my comment;

"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 #303]

Looking to mythology for anything else is, I propose, a waste of time.

Which loops back to your comment re "conclusion" specifically the advice "be sure to look everywhere, and not just in the direction of the conclusion that that one has already arrived at."

If indeed, your proposition is based on conclusion.

My argument is that mythology (specific to viewing these through the framework of the Jungian Archetypes) is part of the "everywhere" you advise us to "be sure to look" whereas you refrain from agreement by proposing it "a waste of time" to look there, which taints your advise with contradiction.

Either look everywhere OR only look where one's "conclusion" has brought one to look. Those are distinct options and the reason for my comment;

"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..."

Partof the "Everywhere" is considering human myth -making as an evolutionary instinct, and a survival instinct, too, otherwise we wouldn't have it. I suggest that any other approach, trying to tell us something about the Cosmos, for instance, is misguided, and you do it if you like, I prefer not to, and you may disapprove as much as you like.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #303]

Looking to mythology for anything else is, I propose, a waste of time.

Which loops back to your comment re "conclusion" specifically the advice "be sure to look everywhere, and not just in the direction of the conclusion that that one has already arrived at."

If indeed, your proposition is based on conclusion.

My argument is that mythology (specific to viewing these through the framework of the Jungian Archetypes) is part of the "everywhere" you advise us to "be sure to look" whereas you refrain from agreement by proposing it "a waste of time" to look there, which taints your advise with contradiction.

Either look everywhere OR only look where one's "conclusion" has brought one to look. Those are distinct options and the reason for my comment;

"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..."

Part of the "Everywhere" is considering human myth -making as an evolutionary instinct, and a survival instinct, too, otherwise we wouldn't have it.

The JA framework allows us to probe into the Cosmos of the Mind and is a useful device for understanding the self in those terms. "Survival instinct" in and of itself is an externalized attempt at explanation for an internal - mindful - process and relatively useless for that.

I suggest that any other approach, trying to tell us something about the Cosmos, for instance, is misguided, and you do it if you like, I prefer not to, and you may disapprove as much as you like.

It is not that I approve or disapprove. The subject is not directly about the literal external cosmos. It is about religious mythology (in general - the ascension story specifically).
Therein, it appears you are misguided and therefore cannot understand or separate mythology from being something to be taken (and argued about) in any other way than literally.

Re that.
The "Unforgivable Sin" - Themes of Self-Realization, Connection, and Acceptance

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #303]

Looking to mythology for anything else is, I propose, a waste of time.

Which loops back to your comment re "conclusion" specifically the advice "be sure to look everywhere, and not just in the direction of the conclusion that that one has already arrived at."

If indeed, your proposition is based on conclusion.

My argument is that mythology (specific to viewing these through the framework of the Jungian Archetypes) is part of the "everywhere" you advise us to "be sure to look" whereas you refrain from agreement by proposing it "a waste of time" to look there, which taints your advise with contradiction.

Either look everywhere OR only look where one's "conclusion" has brought one to look. Those are distinct options and the reason for my comment;

"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..."

Part of the "Everywhere" is considering human myth -making as an evolutionary instinct, and a survival instinct, too, otherwise we wouldn't have it.

The JA framework allows us to probe into the Cosmos of the Mind and is a useful device for understanding the self in those terms. "Survival instinct" in and of itself is an externalized attempt at explanation for an internal - mindful - process and relatively useless for that.

I suggest that any other approach, trying to tell us something about the Cosmos, for instance, is misguided, and you do it if you like, I prefer not to, and you may disapprove as much as you like.

It is not that I approve or disapprove. The subject is not directly about the literal external cosmos. It is about religious mythology (in general - the ascension story specifically).
Therein, it appears you are misguided and therefore cannot understand or separate mythology from being something to be taken (and argued about) in any other way than literally.

Re that.
The "Unforgivable Sin" - Themes of Self-Realization, Connection, and Acceptance

It is more that mental studies are one thing, and is not relevant to topic. Using the human mind as a gap for God (or a 'god'of some sort) on a religious debate forum is another, and has to be called. It is just like I/C, NDEs or appeal to indeterminacy to try to make an I/D case, in fact.


Religious mythology - unless part of the theism debate, is also not relevant to the forum. If ever I discuss Buddhist, or Hindu of Egyptian or Babyl;onian mythology, it is always in the context of the debate, bot irrelevant studies of old mythologies. I at least would not dream to try to smuggle an ancient religion into the debate as an argument disguised as a chat about mythology. I would rather one was honest about what they were trying to pull.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #307]

is not relevant to topic.

I don't see why not, but you can report my posts to the admin since you feel so strongly about it. Perhaps they will agree with you. Perhaps they will not.

In the mean time, we have both had the opportunity to say where we stand on the subject of Ascension - I think it (as a mythology) is aligned with the mysteries of the human mind. You do not. So what? There is nothing more we need to say about that.

I at least would not dream to try to smuggle an ancient religion into the debate as an argument disguised as a chat about mythology. I would rather one was honest about what they were trying to pull.

Fortunately the subject is not about what you think about you or what you think about me.

[William]

....why didn't Mark, Matthew and John relate the event?

WHY DID ONLY LUKE REPORT THE ASCENSION ?

- Firstly, it is generally agreed that the Christian tradition was originally oral , so the first century Christian community would have recieved first hand accounts of the ascension from those that reported they witnessed the event (compare Acts 2:42).

- When the need for written accounts eventually arose, it may well be that Luke's account had a sufficient degree of detail that the later writers saw no need to include the ascension itself.

In any case, all four gospels witness to a Christ risen from the dead and raised to heavenly glory (see below) which may well have been deemed as more important than his means of departure.

MATTHEW 28:18

Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.

CHAPTER 24: 30, 31 " ...and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a great trumpet sound, and they will gather his chosen ones

MARK 13:26, 27

And then they will see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And then he will send out the angels and will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds, from earth’s extremity to heaven’s extremity.

JOHN 20:17

Jesus said to her: “Stop clinging to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers+ and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father+ and your Father and to my God+ and your God.’”

I think those are adequate points.

Was Jesus levitation so momentous its omission from a gospel would be absurd?

I think it is fair to say that its exclusion does warrant some thought as to why, but doesn't necessarily have to be a made up story. It may or may not have happened, just like all the other things in the story of Jesus. They may be the mystical workings of the collective human psyche holding deeper truths which the mythology is built around.
Or perhaps even a mix of inner workings and outward expressions.

Is heaven "up"?

Strictly speaking, when something appears to rise from the earth, is is not going "up" but "out". The significance of this truth cannot be understated.

The Ascension: WHY did Jesus go "up"?

OUT.
Some of the mythology has it that he also went IN - into the earth for a time - before coming out again.

Another mythology has it that Jesus is going to return to the earth "sometime" and if so, he will be coming IN.

[SiNcE_1985]

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.

If all the Gospels had recorded Jesus' ascension into Heaven (as Acts does), would you have become a believer?

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.