Is the Ascension Story an Embellishment?

[Gary]

Thus you are not dealing with probabilities involving divine action, because you have already ruled out that possibility. Your argument still amounts to "I don't believe it."

You just can't follow the topic of conversation, can you? I'm done trying to converse with you.

[Jedidiah]

You just can't follow the topic of conversation, can you? I'm done trying to converse with you.

Because you have no answer, and no argument. Bye.

[shunyadragon]

Thus you are not dealing with probabilities involving divine action, because you have already ruled out that possibility. Your argument still amounts to "I don't believe it."

Your logic is simple also regardless of probabilities? involving Divine action, your argument still amounts to "I believe it."

I do not think probability from a relatively objective historical perspective would likely include a supernatural explanation as the default conclusion.

[Jedidiah]

Your logic is simple also regardless of probabilities? involving Divine action, your argument still amounts to "I believe it."

I do not think probability from a relatively objective historical perspective would likely include a supernatural explanation as the default conclusion.

Keep in mind that I did not make any positive claim based upon probabilities. This you are clearly speaking past me, and not to anything I have claimed.

[rakovsky]

It is one thing to claim that your dead friend appeared to you, or even appeared to you and a group of friends. It is quite another to claim that your dead friend appeared to you and a group of friends and then levitated/ascended into a cloud! Yet this is the claim that Christians make regarding Jesus. After coming back from the dead, walking out of a sealed tomb, in a heavenly/supernatural body, Christians allege that Jesus rose from the earth, in front of multiple witnesses, and disappeared behind a cloud. Here is the source of this story:

Gospel of Luke:

Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them. 51 While he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven. 52 And they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, 53 and were continually in the temple blessing God.

Book of Acts:from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey away.

It's a pleasure writing to you, Gary.

The two stories of the Ascension go in different directions, and so they appear to contradict.
However, the contradiction is not absolutely unresolvable, and there are multiple options.
Answer 1. Mount Olivet is a geographic location in the vicinity of the demographic location of Bethany. This is like how the Everglades is in the vicinity of Miami or London is in the vicinity of the Thames.

Answer 2. To say they went as far as Bethany and came back from Mount Olivet is not a geographic inconsistency. If someone goes out to Bethany from Jerusalem and comes back from there, they will also come back fromMt Olivet, since the latter is on the way.

Answer 3. Depending on the topographical map, Bethany could still be on a slope that is part of the same broad slope that Mt Olivet makes. The valley does not run so do that Bethany would be on another Mount.

Analysis:

Yes, he maybe did not think it was a big deal. If you stay on western suburban Long Island and then tell someone you were in NYC, maybe you didn't think it was a big problem what you said.

He could have just ended the story there without adding in about the angels, saving that for Acts.

Mark maybe was written as a harmonization of Luke and Matthew that edited out discrepancies. Mark is part of the "synoptic problem".

Matthew is rather circumspect about the resurrection appearances - he only mentions one and even then does not write more than only part a chapter about it. There's alot missing from the gospels that people would like to know. What was Jesus' childhood like? we only have one incident after the birth narrative mentioned.

What about the Gospel of John? If this gospel were written by the Apostle John, he would have been an eyewitness to this fantastic supernatural event. So what does John say about the Ascension? Answer: Not one word! The Gospel of John ends with Jesus appearing to his disciples on the shores of the Sea of Tiberius, where he cooks them a fish breakfast.

John 20 is kind of the first ending of John. It says this:

"29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:"

It is basically telling you that alot is missing from the written version.

John 21 is the second ending. Who knows what the real story is about that. I mean, maybe that was supposed to happen before Jesus appeared to all the disciples together? Maybe this was the first appearance to peter that Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians?

What happened to the mountain top Ascension??

It could happen afterwards, after he finished telling them instructions at the table..
I think that's actually the intention - as a brief summary not in detail. Mark 16's ending of vs 9-20 looks like a compilation of narrations from other gospels. It was added in later after Mark finished.

It's hard to judge just from that if it's an embellishment. We are talking about some oral traditions written down years later.

If it was not two NT books saying Christ goes to Bethany and ascends and then they see two angels and come back from Mt Olivet, but rather two official Roman records saying Vespasian went to Bethany and gives a speech and two proconsuls give speeches and then they come back from Mt Olivet, people would be OK with the story. It's just when you add in the supernatural elements that people start to get really skeptical.

I explored that a bit on my thread about Calvin's demystifying of Christian traditions here:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...279#post306279

If we were talking about perfectly normal, materialistic occurrences like mineral water being healthy for you, pretty much everyone would be fine with this kind of claim. But when the issue becomes holy water imbued with supernatural properties, Calvin and the Reformed get really skeptical. The underlying reason for all this skepticism is the supernatural aspect. It's not an issue of whether the Ascension story has too many contradictions to be believable, or whether the Bible says that water can't be holy. In fact, there is at least one case in the Bible where physical water itself is repeatedly made miraculously healing and holy.

Peace.

[shunyadragon]

But what about a literary device by a singular author as opposed to oral embellishments of an anonymous oral tradition retold by many? That was my question.

It is not considered a literary device by Traditional Christianity.

[metacrock]

It is not considered a literary device by Traditional Christianity.

embellishment is possible but just being part of oral tradition doesn't make it embellishment. The point of oral tradition was to keep it straight.

[robrecht]

It is not considered a literary device by Traditional Christianity.

Exegetes are not bound by your characterizations of what you think is 'Traditional Christianity'.

[Rushing Jaws]

Gary, what exactly do you mean by 'an embellishment'? Are you speaking of 'actual events' vs 'fictional elements'?

I propose that there is a totally different category, namely that of a 'literary device' that is not meant to relate to actual historical events or fabricated nonhistorical events intended to be understood and falsely accepted as historical events, but rather to to the artistic construction of literary and dramatic works. In this sense, the ascension of Jesus functions as something like but also opposite to the well known contemporary literary device known as the deus ex machina (Greek ἀπὸ μηχανῆς θεός). Rather than resolve the tension of a tragedy or comedy, the ascension at the end of the gospel of Luke and the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles actually sets up the continuation of the story of Jesus and the Holy Spirit among his people that follows in the Acts of the Apostles.

If this is correct, the Ascension is not to be understood as primarily as an historical event or embellishment intended as a fabricated quasi-historical event, but rather as a dramatic pause between the first and second volumes of Luke's literary work. It would be comparable to the meal on the road to Emmaus during which the presence of Jesus was made known to his disciples in the Eucharistic breaking of the bread.

Thoughts?

That does not do justice to the Ascension as a "stage" in the Exaltation of the Risen and Glorified Christ. IMO, it is not historical, not because it is less real than history, but because history is less real than it. Which is surely what one should expect, as the One Who Ascends is not mere man, but God the Word made flesh. Since there is no adequate way of expressing a Divine Event in something as human words and human concepts, the more than human reality of the Ascension risks looking like what it is not: a myth invented by men.

[Rushing Jaws]

Your logic is simple also regardless of probabilities? involving Divine action, your argument still amounts to "I believe it."

I do not think probability from a relatively objective historical perspective would likely include a supernatural explanation as the default conclusion.

Probability is something encountered in the natural (IOW, non-supra-natural) world. Does probability have any place in what is supra-natural ? STM the answer is, not.

[shunyadragon]

Exegetes are not bound by your characterizations of what you think is 'Traditional Christianity'.

It is not considered a literary device by Traditional Christianity.

[Truthseeker]

STM the answer is, not.

STM = "Seems to me"?

[robrecht]

It is not considered a literary device by Traditional Christianity.

Again, your characterization of the views of 'Traditional Christianity' has no relevance to those who desire to understand texts.

[robrecht]

That does not do justice to the Ascension as a "stage" in the Exaltation of the Risen and Glorified Christ. IMO, it is not historical, not because it is less real than history, but because history is less real than it. Which is surely what one should expect, as the One Who Ascends is not mere man, but God the Word made flesh. Since there is no adequate way of expressing a Divine Event in something as human words and human concepts, the more than human reality of the Ascension risks looking like what it is not: a myth invented by men.

I don't think your nonhistorical theological view of the supernatural reality behind the text is incompatible with my literary view of the text.

[Rushing Jaws]

I think that both statements are irrational and illogical. A better statement is this:

"We have no idea...yet...as to the origin of the universe. But instead of throwing up our hands in despair and using the ol' standby explanation---"a god did it"---let's keep investigating and searching for the answer."

Unfortunately, many Christians believe that there is a direct link between believing the supernatural claims of the Bible and believing in a Creator. The truth is, no such correlation can be proven. It is very possible that the Resurrection and Ascension are purely mythical events and this would have no effect on the question of whether a Creator God or Gods exist/exists. The existence of a Creator God in no way validates the existence of Yahweh-Jesus Christ.

God is not an explanation. If the universe in its entirety were all thoroughly and perfectly understood, bar nothing, belief in the God revealed in Jesus Christ would be totally legitimate. Belief in God is not a result of ignorance of the universe, it is a result of knowing Jesus Christ.

If God were an explanation, taking the place of yet-unknown info, why is there Christian scholarship at all ? Logically, if God is why there is thunder, why can God not be why there are broken legs, tectonic plates, feline asthma, economic recessions, quasars, snowdrifts, gravity, or anything else that needs explaining ? Not only is this "god of the gaps"-ism, it is not Christian theism at all. If thunder is why there is belief in God or gods, it is not logical for God the Explanation of thunder to explain thunder, and nothing else. The logical step is for those who explain thunder by God or gods, to explain everything by God or gods - the workings of the internal combustion engine, hair loss, atomic fission, computers, coelocanths, whatever it may be. So, why Christians do not explain things in that way ? Because they do not believe that God is a "god of the gaps", and they don't believe that God is an explanatory device. My main gripe with your post is that it treats some of the more naive Christian ideas as though they were all that Christians had to offer.