Is the Ascension Story an Embellishment?

[Gary]

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.

Analysis:

[Bill the Cat]

No. It isn't

[Jedidiah]

No, it is not.

[One Bad Pig]

Wake me up when Gary says anything new.

[Truthseeker]

Premise A: The Universe, including all humans, exists and evolves according to the current consensual set of physical (natural) principles of physics. The set is complete--it is all we need to know about the universe.
or
Premise B: God created the observable universe and sustains it. But there exist things beside God that we can't study scientifically.

Gary, I guess you would insist that premise A is much more probable than B. I on the other hand would say that we need much more than scientific evidence to do more than guess what the "case" probabilities of these premises are. (This sentence is for the readers who need a reminder: "Case" probabilities differ in kind from "scientific" probabilities.)

[Gary]

Premise A: The Universe, including all humans, exists and evolves according to the current consensual set of physical (natural) principles of physics. The set is complete--it is all we need to know about the universe.
or
Premise B: God created the observable universe and sustains it. But there exist things beside God that we can't study scientifically.

Gary, I guess you would insist that premise A is much more probable than B. I on the other hand would say that we need much more than scientific evidence to do more than guess what the "case" probabilities of these premises are. (This sentence is for the readers who need a reminder: "Case" probabilities differ in kind from "scientific" probabilities.)

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.

[Bill the Cat]

BTdubs... Bethany is only roughly 1.5 miles from Jerusalem, or roughly a "Sabbath day's journey", not 5 miles

[psstein]

Bauckham's work, while flawed in other places, exhaustively discusses Luke's sources. It's not worth discussing if you haven't at least looked at it.

[Gary]

Bauckham's work, while flawed in other places, exhaustively discusses Luke's sources. It's not worth discussing if you haven't at least looked at it.

Can Bauckman prove with 100% certainty the sources for Luke's gospel and prove that we can be 100% certain of the accuracy of their testimony?

Answer: Of course not. The best he can do is tell us that he has a high degree of confidence in the sources of Luke's story. Again, educated, rational people must ask themselves this all important question: Which is more probable? That Bauckman is wrong or that "resurrected" dead bodies really do levitate into the clouds?

It's all a matter of probabilities, Stein. If you believe that levitating bodies are more probable than an imminent scholar being wrong, you have demonstrated to all your irrationality.

[Bill the Cat]

You-are-literally-too-stupid-to-insult.gif

[Gary]

BTdubs... Bethany is only roughly 1.5 miles from Jerusalem, or roughly a "Sabbath day's journey", not 5 miles

I checked and we are both wrong. Bethany is TWO miles from Jerusalem and a Sabbath journey is actually 0.5 miles (2,000 cubits). So to have traveled to Bethany is not the same as traveling a Sabbath journey. Even if the distance to Bethany is 1.5 miles, the difference between 1.5 miles and 0.5 miles is huge...for Jews considering a short trip on the Sabbath. To say that 1.5 miles is approximately 0.5 miles is preposterous.

There is still a discrepancy.

[Gary]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]13107[/ATTACH]

Ever consider using your brain more than your mouth in your discussions, Bill? Calling me an idiot does not change the fact that your Ascension story has more holes than Swiss cheese. Try again.

[robrecht]

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?

[seanD]

I'm not sure what you're arguing in the first paragraph, but I"m assuming you're saying that the author contradicted himself in his own two works. Why would he do that though? Assuming Luke wrote both works, which you and I agree, and I'm sure you assume he was redacting his work, why would he not fix the contradiction, assuming that you are right and it is a contradiction?

In the second paragraph, you actually proved the historical legitimacy of the story, or at least Luke's attempt to record it as accurately as it was described to him, as opposed to other stories of miracle ascensions into heaven written in that era that are garnished with religious spectacle.

[Gary]

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?

When I use the term "embellishment" I am not insinuating, necessarily, that someone lied. I believe that embellishments are a natural part of any oral story that is retold, over and over again, over many years/decades.

It is certainly possible that many of the "events" told in the Gospels were not meant to be taken literally. Maybe the entire Resurrection story is a theological construct, not an historical one. Maybe Bishop Spong is right: Jesus' resurrection was spiritual in nature, not physical. Maybe the authors of the Bible would be horrified to know that millions of Jesus followers, for the last 2,000 years, have come to believe that his dead body was literally resurrected, based on their theological allegories.

The bottom line is this: We will never know. These books were written by anonymous authors, decades after the alleged events, in far away lands, for purposes we can only...assume...