Is the Ascension Story an Embellishment?

[Gary]

I leave God's judgment to God.

What do you think the Bible teaches?

[seanD]

Neither. I'm merely saying that Paul and later gospel writers used some terms differently.

So, your argument is that Paul and the gospels were not at odds in regards to Jesus having a physical body that could be seen and handled, but just used different ways to describe it.

[Gary]

Source: Paul's Narrative Thought World by Ben Witherington III, Westminster John Knox Press, 1994, pp. 329-330

It is unlikely that Paul, when he talks about a "spiritual body," means an immaterial one. "Natural" body means a body animated and governed by a natural or physical life principle or force. Spiritual body does not mean a body without substance, but a body animated and vivified by God's Spirit. The eternal Spirit will be the force and life source animating this body; therefore it partakes of the eternal life the Spirit can give. Paul does not likely mean that it is similar to the Holy Spirit in its lack of material form.

© Copyright Original Source

" Spiritual body does not mean a body without substance, but a body animated and vivified by God's Spirit."

What proof do you have that Paul believed that the resurrected body was the reconstituted and Spirit-vivified bones and flesh of the dead believer and not a new "spiritual body", that has the outward appearance of the former earthly body, that will arise out of their graves?

[Gary]

Well, then I guess it comes down to the intentions of the OP. Are they here to engage and learn, maybe even challenge their own knowledge prowess about the subject, or are they here just to rant and rave and spew anti-Christian polemics? Like I said, in regards to the latter, been there done that; it's boring.

Let me address this complaint.

This thread is under the category of "Apologetics": reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine.

It is not under one of the Christian threads restricted to Christians; to discuss prayer requests or other intra-Christian topics. I am here presenting an argument against the probability of the central claim of Christianity: supernaturalism. I am here to present an argument in favor of reason and science, over resurrected dead bodies; levitating dead bodies; water-walking bodies, etc. I am not hear to learn the philosophical and theological intricacies of these supernatural/magical beliefs. I am here to prove these beliefs as very, very highly improbable, and because they are so highly improbable, that no educated, rational person should believe them to be any more real than the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus.

[Gary]

I think this is why general evangelism is so ineffective. I'd wager this board is full of former Christians who got the standard sales pitch. It's easy for some Christians to think themselves true evangelists by giving the boring boilerplate rather than getting their hands dirty and presenting viable belief options. Few of them would know how to effectively convey the Primacy of Christ view (or even know what it is) for example. There's a lack of sophistication in the mission field, and I think that explains the rise in skepticism. This is my humble opinion based on lots of observation and reading.

There are no viable belief options to orthodox/traditional Christianity. It is certainly viable (reasonable and rational) to be a Christian in the sense that you follow the humanistic and pacifist teachings of Jesus the man. But there are no reasonable and rational belief options regarding Jesus Christ the offspring of the copulation (allegedly in some non-sexual, non-physical manner) between a divine ghost and a human virgin; the reanimated-from-the-dead man/god, who currently rules the universe from somewhere in outer space (or in another dimension, if you are really avant garde.)

Dear Christian friends: Imagine if the Mayans still followed their ancient religion and believed the following: Although they do not perform any human sacrifices today, they honor and justify the human sacrifices done in the past as necessary, good, and holy. These sacrificed humans appeased the anger of God, giving the Mayan people the forgiveness of their evil doings against God. In other words, the shed blood of the tens of thousands of people who were sacrificed on Mayan alters for hundreds/thousands of years prior to the arrival of the Spanish atoned for the sins of the Mayan people.

How beautiful, right?

"What??" you say. "That is sick and barbaric!"

But dear Christians, have you ever stepped back and examined the underlying principles of your own (primitive) belief system? The Christian belief system can be boiled down to this:

"The Creator God was furious that humans ate his forbidden fruit. He cursed them to hard labor, sickness, suffering, and death. However, to redeem humans from his righteous fury for forbidden-fruit-eating, he sent himself, in the form of his Son, to be killed in a human sacrifice, so that his shed blood would atone for the sins of the entire people, thus appeasing the anger of...himself."

That is absurd, folks! That is crazier and more nonsensical than the beliefs of the Maya!

And imagine if educated Mayans came up with all sorts of philosophical and varied theological constructs for this core belief. What if there is an orthodox verison, a reformed version, and an evangelical version. Wouldn't you listen to these educated people chatter away about which version of this human sacrifice based belief system is correct and think to yourself: These people are certifiably NUTS!

That is how we former Christians/now agnostics or atheists see YOU.

It is madness, folks. Sheer madness. You can dress Christianity up with all kinds of fancy philosophical constructs, but bottom line: It is a belief system based on human sacrifice!

[whag]

Are you sure the two are perfectly synonymous? It was my understanding that what you refer to as "Holy Spirit epistemology" is simply to do with the self-authentication of the Holy Spirit in the believer's life, while Reformed Theology is the view that belief in God is properly basic. I can see how there's overlap between the two, but maybe you're more read up on the subject. Also, it's my understanding that Plantinga and Craig have slightly different views on Reformed Theology, which I suppose makes sense since Plantinga is a Calvinist and Craig is a Molinist.

They aren't, and I shouldn't have said that. They are related. Craig's view is based on Plantinga's points, such as self authentication being akin to the beliefs of Dufrense from Shawshank Redemption who knows epistemelogically (reliably) that he's not guilty of his wife's murder. Craig uses that example to compare the feelings of "theistic belief" surety to the certitude an innocent convict feels. I can't find the reference, but I could look for it if you want. Could be an interesting conversation.

[whag]

Let me address this complaint.

This thread is under the category of "Apologetics": reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine.

It is not under one of the Christian threads restricted to Christians; to discuss prayer requests or other intra-Christian topics. I am here presenting an argument against the probability of the central claim of Christianity: supernaturalism. I am here to present an argument in favor of reason and science, over resurrected dead bodies; levitating dead bodies; water-walking bodies, etc. I am not hear to learn the philosophical and theological intricacies of these supernatural/magical beliefs. I am here to prove these beliefs as very, very highly improbable, and because they are so highly improbable, that no educated, rational person should believe them to be any more real than the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus.

Now you're going overboard, and I'm disrespecting you. That's just provocative and nothing more.

[whag]

There are no viable belief options to orthodox/traditional Christianity. It is certainly viable (reasonable and rational) to be a Christian in the sense that you follow the humanistic and pacifist teachings of Jesus the man. But there are no reasonable and rational belief options regarding Jesus Christ the offspring of the copulation (allegedly in some non-sexual, non-physical manner) between a divine ghost and a human virgin; the reanimated-from-the-dead man/god, who currently rules the universe from somewhere in outer space (or in another dimension, if you are really avant garde.)

Dear Christian friends: Imagine if the Mayans still followed their ancient religion and believed the following: Although they do not perform any human sacrifices today, they honor and justify the human sacrifices done in the past as necessary, good, and holy. These sacrificed humans appeased the anger of God, giving the Mayan people the forgiveness of their evil doings against God. In other words, the shed blood of the tens of thousands of people who were sacrificed on Mayan alters for hundreds/thousands of years prior to the arrival of the Spanish atoned for the sins of the Mayan people.

How beautiful, right?

"What??" you say. "That is sick and barbaric!"

But dear Christians, have you ever stepped back and examined the underlying principles of your own (primitive) belief system? The Christian belief system can be boiled down to this:

"The Creator God was furious that humans ate his forbidden fruit. He cursed them to hard labor, sickness, suffering, and death. However, to redeem humans from his righteous fury for forbidden-fruit-eating, he sent himself, in the form of his Son, to be killed in a human sacrifice, so that his shed blood would atone for the sins of the entire people, thus appeasing the anger of...himself."

That is absurd, folks! That is crazier and more nonsensical than the beliefs of the Maya!

And imagine if educated Mayans came up with all sorts of philosophical and varied theological constructs for this core belief. What if there is an orthodox verison, a reformed version, and an evangelical version. Wouldn't you listen to these educated people chatter away about which version of this human sacrifice based belief system is correct and think to yourself: These people are certifiably NUTS!

That is how we former Christians/now agnostics or atheists see YOU.

It is madness, folks. Sheer madness. You can dress Christianity up with all kinds of fancy philosophical constructs, but bottom line: It is a belief system based on human sacrifice!

You're like a synthesized, automated Richard Dawkins. All the phrases are recycled from his lexicon. You should at least try to emulate the braver and more linguistically superior Christopher Hitchens or Thomas Paine. I think they were more respectful, but I may be wrong. I'm not a student of any skeptic orator.

[Adrift]

What proof do you have that Paul believed that the resurrected body was the reconstituted and Spirit-vivified bones and flesh of the dead believer and not a new "spiritual body", that has the outward appearance of the former earthly body, that will arise out of their graves?

I don't really see how your question follows directly from anything I wrote, or cited from Witherington. But you've claimed to have read N.T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God; So why don't you tell me?

[Adrift]

They aren't, and I shouldn't have said that. They are related. Craig's view is based on Plantinga's points, such as self authentication being akin to the beliefs of Dufrense from Shawshank Redemption who knows epistemelogically (reliably) that he's not guilty of his wife's murder. Craig uses that example to compare the feelings of "theistic belief" surety to the certitude an innocent convict feels. I can't find the reference, but I could look for it if you want. Could be an interesting conversation.

I'm curious, have you actually read any of Plantinga or Craig's books on this subject, or is this all just from bits and pieces you've gleaned from webpages?

[whag]

I'm curious, have you actually read any of Plantinga or Craig's books on this subject, or is this all just from bits and pieces you've gleaned from webpages?

No, but I don't think one needs to read both books to understand the subject of the inner witness. It's a pretty simple concept. I've read Reasonable Faith and as well as Craig's blog and the passages Craig footnoted if they're available to me. I don't buy or borrow each book footnoted in a book on this or any subject typically. Some references show up on the web (where us would it be displayed but the web?)

Let's say I hadn't though. In terms of comprehending what these things are, what fundamental part am I misunderstanding about religious epistemelogical certitude and how it's arrived at?

The part about Dufrense was from a blog, I believe, although Plantinga used a more generic term rather than a character from a movie.

[Gary]

I don't really see how your question follows directly from anything I wrote, or cited from Witherington. But you've claimed to have read N.T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God; So why don't you tell me?

I'm not sure what Paul meant other than that a "new body" is resurrected.

[Gary]

You're like a synthesized, automated Richard Dawkins. All the phrases are recycled from his lexicon. You should at least try to emulate the braver and more linguistically superior Christopher Hitchens or Thomas Paine. I think they were more respectful, but I may be wrong. I'm not a student of any skeptic orator.

It is my position that belief systems that request honor and respect for human sacrifice should be given the very opposite. These belief systems need exposure for what they are---barbarism--- not respect.

[Adrift]

No, but I don't think one needs to read both books to understand the subject of the inner witness.

Hmm.

Let's say I hadn't though. In terms of comprehending what these things are, what fundamental part am I misunderstanding about religious epistemelogical certitude and how it's arrived at?

What indeed?...

[Adrift]

I'm not sure what Paul meant other than that a "new body" is resurrected.

Maybe you should reread it then.