Is the Ascension Story an Embellishment?

[Adam]

Here is the problem:
In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus ascends on the same day that he was resurrected. In the Book of Acts the ascension occurs forty days later. So there is still a major discrepancy even if the two stories are talking about the same location of the Ascension. In addition, the Acts story has angels. I think what most likely happened is that the story had become more and more embellished by the time "Luke" got around to writing his second book, the Book of Acts, so he included these "new" details in his new book. Why he described the location differently is anyone's guess.

According to current critical scholars, you have it backwards. "The Ascension of Jesus" (NAB title) Acts 1:6-12 would seem to be "Luke's" history of it, but the summarization in Luke 24:50-53 would tend to be regarded as a later interpolation. This is based partly on Marcion's version of Luke not having these verses (nor likely 48 and 49 either). For those seeking the original version, go to Acts and not the added concluding verses in Luke. Even apart from these considerations, no one asserts the Ascension was the same day as the Resurrection! The version in Acts does leave time for the various Resurrection accounts as found outside Luke-Acts as in Galilee in both Matthew 28 and John 21 and in Paul and Gospel to the Hebrews.

For those unwilling to accept the current suggestions by the scholars, a similar resolution is effected by asserting we should insert a break in time between Luke 24:and 49. The other Resurrection appearances can then be fitted in there. These difficulties have long been recognized.

[Gary]

According to current critical scholars, you have it backwards. "The Ascension of Jesus" (NAB title) Acts 1:6-12 would seem to be "Luke's" history of it, but the summarization in Luke 24:50-53 would tend to be regarded as a later interpolation. This is based partly on Marcion's version of Luke not having these verses (nor likely 48 and 49 either). For those seeking the original version, go to Acts and not the added concluding verses in Luke. Even apart from these considerations, no one asserts the Ascension was the same day as the Resurrection! The version in Acts does leave time for the various Resurrection accounts as found outside Luke-Acts as in Galilee in both Matthew 28 and John 21 and in Paul and Gospel to the Hebrews.

For those unwilling to accept the current suggestions by the scholars, a similar resolution is effected by asserting we should insert a break in time between Luke 24:48 and 49. The other Resurrection appearances can then be fitted in there.

My, my, my.

Rip another page out of your Bibles, dear Christians. The "experts" have found another act of fraud in your Bible.

Yes, you read that right: F-R-A-U-D. Your Bible contains so many "interpolations" (that's scholar-talk for "fraud") that if you rip them all out, your Bible is going to be not only "holy", but "holey"! So just what can you trust to be the actual "Word of God" when reading your Bible for daily devotions? Here is a list of known or suspected interpolations (acts of fraud by a copying scribe):

1. The long ending to the last chapter of the Gospel of Mark
2. The story of the Woman caught in Adultery
3. The story of the Angel stirring the water at the Pool of Bethesda
4. The Johannine Commae
5. The last chapter of the Gospel of John

And now we can add:

6. The last chapter of the Gospel of Luke

Here's a dirty little secret that I will let you Christian lay people in on: A growing number of conservative Protestant pastors no longer believe that the Bible is "without error". What they really believe now is this: the MESSAGE of the Bible is without error. In other words, the Bible can be chock FULL of historical errors and interpolations (scribal additions and embellishments)...just as long as Jesus really did, literally, rise from the dead...everything's good!

The wheels are coming off of the wagon, folks. It's time to just admit the obvious: It is ALL a tall tale.

[Gary]

According to current critical scholars, you have it backwards. "The Ascension of Jesus" (NAB title) Acts 1:6-12 would seem to be "Luke's" history of it, but the summarization in Luke 24:50-53 would tend to be regarded as a later interpolation. This is based partly on Marcion's version of Luke not having these verses (nor likely 48 and 49 either). For those seeking the original version, go to Acts and not the added concluding verses in Luke. Even apart from these considerations, no one asserts the Ascension was the same day as the Resurrection! The version in Acts does leave time for the various Resurrection accounts as found outside Luke-Acts as in Galilee in both Matthew 28 and John 21 and in Paul and Gospel to the Hebrews.

For those unwilling to accept the current suggestions by the scholars, a similar resolution is effected by asserting we should insert a break in time between Luke 24:and 49. The other Resurrection appearances can then be fitted in there. These difficulties have long been recognized.

Ok, let's see if you are right. Can we squeeze Matthew, the longer version of Mark, and John's post resurrection appearances into the story in the first chapter of the Book of Acts and ignore the fraudulentBut lo, the disciples disobeyed Jesus, left Jerusalem, and went back to Galilee, to the Sea of Tiberius to fish; not wanting to wait for the coming of the Holy Spirit in Jerusalem. But Jesus forgave them of their disobedience and appeared to them on the seashore, in Galilee, and cooked a fish breakfast for them over a fire, while telling them the best fishing spots to throw their nets. He went on to tell them the manner in which Peter would die (crucified upside down) and (insinuated) that John would not die. Then: He took them to the top of a mountain in Galilee to give them the Great Commission. Next, he told them to return to Jerusalem, and he would meet them there, so that he could take them to the top of another mountain between Jerusalem and Bethany, from which he would tell them that they could drink poison and handle poisonous snakes, and...Yea...that works...

[Adam]

fraudulent last chapter of the Gospel of Luke?

I wrote about Luke 24:50-53 and perhaps 48 and 49--neither I nor anyone else regards Luke 24 as a whole as an interpolation. Personally I believe an eyewitness wrote it--Simon the son of Cleopas, the other person on the Walk to Emmaus.

[seanD]

ReallyGaryafter spending forty days in Galilee because his disciples had disobeyed his command to remain in Jerusalem, helping the disciples catch a lot of fish in the Sea of Tiberius, cooking his disciples fish breakfasts, and giving them the Great Commission on a Galilean mountain) he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them. While he blessed them, he parted from them, and was carried up into heaven. And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and were continually in the temple blessing God.


Give
me
a
break!

Luke doesn't mention the meeting in Galilee in either his gospel or in Acts. I think your issue is not between the gospel of Luke and Acts but with Luke/Acts and the other gospels?

[Gary]

Luke doesn't mention the meeting in Galilee in either his gospel or in Acts. I think your issue is not between the gospel of Luke and Acts but with Luke/Acts and the other gospels?

My issue is with all of it. There are too many difference in the stories to make them compatible.

It is a tall tale.

[robrecht]

I don't agree with your definition of magic. Here is one I agree with:

Magic: the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

Source: https://www.google.com/search?source....0.5qG3HarA9PA

Belief in any being who performs acts using supernatural forces is a belief in magic...by the definition above.

So would this be your functional definition of god(s), ie, any being who performs acts using supernatural forces? If so, how would you define 'supernatural'?

[Gary]

So would this be your functional definition of god(s), ie, any being who performs acts using supernatural forces? If so, how would you define 'supernatural'?

I guess that would be one definition. But maybe the Creator has always existed. Maybe the Creator does NOT use supernatural powers. Maybe the Creator functions at all times within the laws of nature/science. Maybe the laws of nature have always existed too.

We don't know, but let's keep researching the issue without making any hasty assumptions.


Supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

[robrecht]

I guess that would be one definition. But maybe the Creator has always existed. Maybe the Creator does NOT use supernatural powers. Maybe the Creator functions at all times within the laws of nature/science. Maybe the laws of nature have always existed too.

We don't know, but let's keep researching the issue without making any hasty assumptions.


Supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

I think about all of these possibilities too. So do you have any functional definition of God/god(s)?

[Gary]

I think about all of these possibilities too. So do you have any functional definition of God/god(s)?

Not really, except when speaking to believers of one particular (alleged) god, such as Yahweh/Jesus, Allah, etc.

[robrecht]

Not really, except when speaking to believers of one particular (alleged) god, such as Yahweh/Jesus.

I don't think Yahweh wants to be defined. When asked his name, he said something like, 'I will be who I will be' . The author(s) of the story of the burning bush in Exodus seems to consider this to be an etymology of the 'name' YHWH, ie, something like, 'He who is'.

[Gary]

I don't think Yahweh wants to be defined. When asked his name, he said something like, 'I will be who I will be' . The author(s) of the story of the burning bush in Exodus seems to consider this to be an etymology of the 'name' YHWH, ie, something like, 'He who is'.

How do you know that Yahweh exists?

[robrecht]

How do you know that Yahweh exists?

He seems real to me. I like thinking about him and trying to figure him out. He seems to regard this with a light-hearted sense of humor most of the time.

[Gary]

He seems real to me. I like thinking about him and trying to figure him out. He seems to regard this with a light-hearted sense of humor most of the time.

And invisible, imaginary friends are very real to some children. These invisible, imaginary friends make the child feel safe, loved, happy, etc. This fact demonstrates that we cannot base our belief in the existence of an invisible being solely by how our belief about this alleged invisible being makes us feel. There must be other evidence for adults to believe in an invisible being and still claim to be rational and logical. Do you have other evidence?

[seanD]

My issue is with all of it. There are too many difference in the stories to make them compatible.

It is a tall tale.

Well, yeah, I know that. But as a skeptic, you want to focus on one issue at a time, because then it just sounds like anti-Christian ranting (heard it before, been there done that) which won't get very many responses.