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]

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

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?

Answer: the disciples would need to have accurately conveyed the story, and everyone in a long line of tradents would have to faithfully convey the story, preserving it even when translated from Aramaic to Greek. That is unlikely (there is research that shows that oral stories tend to be corrupted in the telling and retelling).

Already this possibility is less likely than the alternative, but let's examine further. For this possibility to have occurred, it implies each individual tradent had a strong motivation to faithfully preserve the story, which would require each generation of tradents to pass along this motivation to the next generation. And yet, 3 of the 4 evangelists broke the chain and failed to embrace the motivations of the tradents from whom they heard it. That makes it even less likely.

[JehovahsWitness]

what needed to occur for the evangelists to receive a faithful rendition of the story?

Okay so when (what year ) do you think the ascension occurred (year)
When year do you belive the gospels (all of them) were written (year) ?




JW




https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/st ... ritten.cfm

[William]

Growth of mythology.

[TRANSPONDER]

what needed to occur for the evangelists to receive a faithful rendition of the story?

Okay so when (what year ) do you think the ascension occurred (year)
When year do you belive the gospels (all of them) were written (year) ?




JW




https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/st ... ritten.cfm

We have to be careful what we say. But this is a trick and nothing more. Apart from the case that the ascension never happened (so nobody should even be asking this question of ascension -deniers) the date of such a proposed event is unknown (1). Demanding an answer to a pointless and unanswerable question , apparently as something atheism has to answer or their case fails, is nothing more than dirty tricks.

Same with the date of the gospels. Even without my assertion that the lost synoptic original had to have been written after the Jewish war and Mark appeared maybe a decade later than that, just about start of the 2nd c.John has been dated (Ryland fragment) to sometime 2nd c, Matthew has to be later and Luke probably latest of all.I suspect around the time of Eusebius and his writings.

Trying to pin the case of debatable dating just shows that you have no case, but only subterfuges. If anyone needed a warning to stay clear of Christianity and its' apologists, and especially JW's, you have provided it.

(1) What might help only date we can get a handle on is Paul's escape from Damascus ,which seems to be 36/7 AD. This was during the war between Antipas and Aretus and Josephus says the people reckoned Anitpas lost ass God's punishment for his execution of the baptist.

So how long since could that be? Five years, ballpark figure?which would put the crucifixion a year or so after 31 AD. This is a bit short of firm dates, but is more than I ever heard from any Bible apologist.

[fredonly]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #252]
Jesus' crucifixion is most commonly dated to AD30. The Resurrection and Ascension (we're assuming the Ascension as a premise; this entails a prior Resurrection) would have been the same year.

Mark - AD65-75
Matthew- AD80-90
Luke- AD80-90
John - AD90-100 (final editing)
Q - before Matthew and Luke
Passion Narrative - Before Mark

These dates are derived from Raymond Brown's "An Introduction to the New Testament" - wherein he surveys various dates proposed by scholars.
All were originally written in Greek, by unknown authors, and deemed to have been written outside Aramaic speaking Palestine.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #252]
Jesus' crucifixion is most commonly dated to AD30. The Resurrection and Ascension (we're assuming the Ascension as a premise; this entails a prior Resurrection) would have been the same year.

Mark - AD65-75
Matthew- AD80-90
Luke- AD80-90
John - AD90-100 (final editing)

Okay locations please (all four) ...and year if the ascention.

[fredonly]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #256]
Resopond to my argument, and do your own research.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #256]
Resopond to my argument, and do your own research.

If your argument is that the narrative could have been lost between the event and the gospel writers, it is obviously relevant when (and where) the account of the gospels were penned written in relation to the event in question. If you want your supposition to be taken seriously, you need to present the evidence supporting it. Point (c) refers to the "post-Apostolic tradents" which I took to be a reference to those from whom the gospel writer sourced their work.

C) The post-Apostolic tradents (the indirect and direct sources for the evangelists) also transmitted this story.

I'm not making any claims but if I do, I'll be sure to "do my own research" should the need arise, in the meantime you need to present the parimeters of this statement before I can argue for or against it.

[fredonly]

If your argument is that the narrative could have been lost between the event and the gospel writers, it is obviously based on when the account of the gospels were penned written in relation to the event in question.

I know that, and this is why I gave you the approximate years; these represent a range of views among various critical scholars. As I said earlier, about 5 decades elapsed between the alleged event andthe writing of Luke's Gospel.

[JehovahsWitness]

If your argument is that the narrative could have been lost between the event and the gospel writers, it is obviously based on when the account of the gospels were penned written in relation to the event in question.

I know that, and this is why I gave you the approximate years; these represent a range of views among various critical scholars. As I said earlier, about 5 decades elapsed between the alleged event andthe writing of Luke's Gospel.

Okay but now let's deal with specifics , if you claim "five decades" state clearly from when (starting point - the event) to when and where (the location where the gospels were written may indicate how far the narrative would have had to travel).


Then (and only) then we can look at how likely it is that the narrative was lost between the event and the gospel writers; leading to your ultimate argument that the gospel writer's may not have RECIEVED the narrative.

JW