Extra thought:If the apostles were having a mix of grief hallucinations, religious experiences, or some other pyschological phenomena, why were they suddenly so certain that Jesus wouldn’t suddenly show up again and seem to have a meal with them? The apostles simply are not still trying to figure out 40 days later what has happened and whether they’re going to see Jesus again in the same way. The ascension explains why. To say that they were having a mix of grief hallucinations, group religious experiences, pareidolia, cognitive dissonance and so forth does not. Furthermore, the switch from a physical kind of experience to a visionary experience isn’t explained by Hartke at all. Why shouldn’t they have reported the same type of experience all along if this was just some kind of natural phenomenon? If pressed, my guess is Hartke would punt to an alternative version of church history not found in Acts. In this version, perhaps he’d say that the apostles’ experiences were more uncertain, the experiences did taper off more slowly, and then Luke entirely fabricates the confidence of what they were experiencing, even though it is part of a subtle point that Luke is making. But this would attribute to Luke an anachronistic anticipation of a very specific kind of later skeptical objection.
You really proved the Cognitive dissonance point. Either ascending to heaven demonstrates it is above us or not. This symbolic gesture you proposed flies in the face of you other point about Jesus looking up to pray to the father. It obviously means heaven is supposed to above us, which you know is not the case, so instead of conceding, you divert to metaphorical explanation. Heaven is not up and hell is not down. The obvious answer is this proves ancient ignorance and the reliability of the bible.
If I, a former atheist, tell people that I've seen 4 miracles in my life and experienced the baptism of the holy spirit I'll be brushed off as crazy. Yet, I truly experienced the mentioned above. 1) I saw a blind man from birth who we knew from church receive sight after we prayed for him, after coming out of 3 days of fasting and praying. 2) I was fasting in my house, it was 11 am. There were piercing thoughts that suddenly came into my mind that said, "Go to church now the youth needs your help" I said to myself "this is crazy, the youth are still in school it's only 11 am". The thoughts got piercingly stronger, so I obeyed. Lo and behold, the youth were trying to cast out a demon of one girl and that's why they left school early because the episodes began in the bathroom. When i got to church the pastor son Jefte was there trying to help who had keys to the temple. I cast out the demon that possessed a girl from our church who I personally have always known. When she was with the youth she kept speaking in a foreign language to the youths that were trying to assist her. She began shaking violently as soon as she laid eyes on me as I entered the church and was foaming out her mouth and the demon was speaking thru her in Arabic. Mind you this girl only speaks spanish. This happened on a Wednesday before noon, on a day we don't conduct service. 3) During a long drought in where I am from I prayed and rain came down with no clouds visible. My mom and I filled plenty of jugs of water that help us through these bad times. The drought was a twofold stage caused by Hurricane Hugo. 4) I saw a person praying over a building and asking God to bring the fire of the holy spirit to those inside. We had a sharp argument about the bible, and when we went outside Alex prayed at one of the corners of the building saying, "God bring the fire of your spirit to this place". This event taught me that if you have the spirit of God inside you anything you pray for can happen, but being careful of the choice of words for God can make it very literal. Quite literally at that moment the building caught fire starting from the roof and no one knew how. 5) When i was praying and fasting for 5 days asking God to baptize me with the spirit, that night on the 5th day while music was playing I felt a heat and electricity mix together that ran all over body. My hearing got blocked to all external sounds and music, and all I heard was a sound of rushing winds, and at the sometime it felt i was underneath a waterfall. Incredible to accept by you the reader, but this is why no amount of atheistic argumentation can move my faith. Quote; "I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God." Un-Quote 1 Corinthians 2:3-5 NASB1995 I am grateful to God for these experiences! The problem is the church is in a slumber just as Jesus foretold it would happen. We need to keep our lamps (body) full of oil (holy spirit). I will show proofs and testimonial videos on my channel soon. As soon as this year is over I'll start working on my channel. If these things happened to me, then I already have an advantage over the atheist who says there is no God, and an advantage over the Christian whose faith is dwindling. Nothing anyone can say will shake me off my personal experiences which validate to me the Gospels are faithfully reporting truths.
@@eternalgospels yeah that's hard to believe and if true would require some significant proof. If it was me I would question myself understanding that what's least likely shouldn't be taken as certain truths.
@@randyblackman6271 Lets be fair, the miracle of the rain could have been coincidence, and the building burning down can be coincidence as well. If fact, the investigators looked for any signs of foul play. They said it could have been a beer bottle on the roof that caused the fire. All I know it burned down right after Alex prayed at the corner. Not even 10 minutes after we caught the trolley it was set a blaze starting from the roof. Some investigators speculated it was either a beer bottle that condensed the suns rays or a gas line that erupted. They don't know they simply speculated. To us the event was extremely crazy and super coincidental. However, the experience of the demoniac girl, the healing of the blind man, and my personal experience of the baptism of the spirit are by far MY PERSONAL experiences that made my faith unbreakable. Soon, I will work in my channel, I am just still cough up by the new years eve drama. Once its over with, i will be uploading video testimonials from the people I mentioned above. I can not stress enough to Christians to stop the back and forth argumentations, and seek to be submerged in the spirit, for only then can real power be seen of the reality of God. The formula is quite simple, yet its hard to implement due to our sinful nature. The formula laid by Jesus is this; 1) Cleanse the heart thoroughly. If we have a bad thought about people, hatred, coveting women in our hearts, etc, etc, then we will be walking defiled hindering the work of the spirit. 2) Constant prayer and fasting is a must. 3) Avoid hypocrisy at all cost. 4) Love everyone as ones self. 5) Last but not least, believe in Jesus sacrifice as the means to become pure in front of God and partake constantly in the Holy supper. Faith in this is important above all else. I GUARANTEE YOU, if you follow the simple methods laid by Jesus, anyone can pull down the very essence of God on their bodies and extraordinary thing will happen. 1 Corinthians 2:5, ESV: so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. 1 Corinthians 2:5, KJV: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
@@azophiI’m not sure what u we’re trying to do with this but if you are saying God killed babies, you are a HYPOCRITE. You don’t even believe in a heaven and so you just arbitrarily kill babies by abortion, and yet you condemn God for ordering the killing of entire nations including babies. These babies would go to heaven after death, and do you not find it merciful to let them not feel pain at all when they died? And to let them not be burned and sacrificed by the wicked men and women of their nation that were doing so? L
It's also really nice that his criticisms of the Resurrection are arguing that the Gospels cast doubt on the Resurrection, rather than someone like Paulogia, who just asserts an Ad Hoc explanation of what happened and expects everybody to completely logically rebut (logical as opposed to evidental) everything he says rather than supporting his own side with evidence.
The Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts were definitely written less than fifty years after the resurrection and ascension of Jesus. It was more like around twenty years after the fact. Paul quotes from Luke's gospel in 1st Timothy 5:18, and Luke was writing the Book of Acts while traveling with Paul.
Another reason why most apologists don’t talk about the ascension is the facts required before the event. Most apologists will not argue for the resurrection of Jesus if the person they’re talking to does not believe in any God at all. A skeptic won’t believe in the resurrection if they don’t believe in God first. I think similarly, if a person does not believe in the resurrection they would not believe in the ascension which takes place after the death and resurrection of Jesus since they don’t grant the prerequisite facts. How could Jesus ascend into heaven if he was still in the grave. Anyway these last few videos really opened my eyes up minimal facts, maximal facts is definitely the way to go
I'm glad I've been able to help, but I will say that if the skeptic is at least willing to say atheism could be false, evidence for the resurrection is itself an argument for the existence of God. To put it loosely, the probability that God exists is higher if there is significant independent evidence that Jesus rose from the dead than if there is no evidence. This is true because the probability that the resurrection took place is zilch if there is no God and higher if there is. A robust case should in theory be able to flip and open minded skeptic. I'd argue a more minimal one probably won't. It is more than fine to back up and give arguments for God's existence if needed but I don't think it is always necessary.
Rest assured, no matter how Jesus went into heaven, the atheist would be there to call foul. They're committed to coming up with excuses, no matter how bad.
No matter how many inconsistencies the atheist brings up the theist will come up with an ad hoc explanation . They're committed to their irrational beliefs.
Atheists are having less and less to argue about the Bible, so I see that they are trying to make something out of nothing “no pun intended” such as the ascension of Christ “where it says in the same manner as He ascended so He will descend from Heaven in the last days to judge the world. It’s really not that complicating to understand or believe. If it were done any other way “such as those other ways in the video” the atheist would say, “why did He choose to do it that way when generally Heaven was known to be believed to be up therefore why wouldn’t Jesus ascend into Heaven so that we would know that’s where He was going instead of just disappearing or going down or something which would’ve made it way more complicating”. Ya see.
So throughout the entire Old and New Testaments, God was just playing along with how people imagined heaven and earth was set up? It _was_ all a human allegory that God didnt want to disrupt or confuse, so he would talk from the sky, and have people other than Jesus also ascendy into the sky, and send manna to the Israelites from the sky, but it was all just to accomodate preconcieved human notions so they wouldnt get confused?
I would take issue with the ways proposed in the video as well (especially the ant man one, which was purely constructed for absurdity's sake). Thats not because im being difficult and refuse to accept anything, its because its not my idea that the core belief of this religion is a physical bodily resurrection, so im not responsible for the ramifications. If youre going to say that heaven is somehow in some other dimension, then anywhere that the body retreats to for 2000+ years until it comes back is going to be a stretch. It's not my fault that this situation is set up like this.
@@Greyz174 Unironically? Yes, God uses signs, symbols, and methods that the people of that time, place, and culture were aware of and understood. If God spoke to a person, did he do so using a language they didn't know? Naturally, God knows how to communicate his intent, just as we humans understand that the core of good communication is to meet the person where they are at, so to speak. As for the ressurection, the conquering of death and the recreation of the universe to be remade into a perfect and imperishable state is a hallmark of the religion. Jesus is the first of this new world, so his new and imperishable body is of utmost importance. He is the living proof, so to speak.
Also, even if it isn't mentioned, ascension is implied all over the Gospels. Jesus talks about how he will come back in the glory of the Father and with the angles. Return implies going away. If you read the Gospels diligently, you'll pick up the fact that Jesus did ascend
I struggled to rationalize the ascension until I realized that it was just the inverse of the incarnation. Jesus didn't ascend into space, flying toward the Andromeda galaxy like Superman, no. His ascension was a return to spirit, a return to the Holy Spirit that gave him birth in the first place. Not a materialistic flight to a materialistic heaven, rather it was the same process that we see described when Jesus suddenly appears and disappears after his resurrection, except in this case it was a persisting state.
As a Christian, the part I struggle with the most is the "he was lifted up and a cloud hid him from their sight." part. Definitely suggests physical movement in the sky.
The world manifests by God the Father through the Word of God, in whom human consciousness rests, aware of it or not. What we see is a mediation of God's meaning and where we are and what out beliefs are. People, everyone, Jews, pagan, believed The skies were the visible part of the gradient heaven/earth. That was the reality they manifested based on the meanings channeled from God. The incarnation of Christ, is the individualisation of humanity, which starts by the conscious withdrawal from God, but is finished by the conscious reunification with Him, but now as individuals. The manifestation of this IS to go to heaven. I our modern world views, heaven is inside us, but to them it was up. It's still a gradient, but the direction has changed, BECAUSE of the Ascension, which constitutes the Word of God going to heaven, which had to manifest as going up to everyone at the time. That is the prerequisite of His subsequent emanation from within, which causes our ability to participate as individuals, instead of as the more group soul with "the gods" we used to have. No matter the actual thing seen by the disciples, the only way it could possibly be described to regular people of the day, would be a goin up. People were not physically minded. Saying going up meant to them completely the same as going to heaven. I.E. going to the invisible to the eye, but more real, deeper, significant part of reality, from where all shape and meaning comes, from where love is, from where our souls emanate, AS our bodies. All written language, no matter when written, must use the ideas of the people to whom it is addressed. I do thing the disciples saw exactly that, and that that is how they could start the shift toward feeling heaven inside, by the identification with te Word of God, and that reality (earth) is what is projected onto the chaos through human consciousness, held together by God. It couldn't have happened today (and meant the same), because the event IS what made us start to see the world differently, and therefore change the order of how new creation manifests, compared to old creation.
Why does he think Luke thought the earth was flat? Luke was a Greek. The Greeks had known the earth was round for twelve centuries before was born Luke.
I was quite literally thinking about this yesterday. Why would Jesus “ascend”? Heaven is not a physical place in our universe where one could actually “go”. It’s crazy that you dropped this video at this time.
@@TheGoogleScholar "says me?" Yes. It has your handle on it. You make a claim that Heaven is not a physical place in our Universe. Why do you make that claim?
@@thomasmaughan4798 Because it is unnecessary for a non-physical being to “live” in a physical place, especially considering that all time, space, and matter came into existence through said being.
@@TheGoogleScholar "Because it is unnecessary for a non-physical being to live in a physical place, especially considering that all time, space, and matter came into existence through said being." Well, assuming all of that is true, which i don't, then it is indeed a problem for Jesus to still have a body. But there's no indication that he discarded it. Consequently, a more reasonable conclusion is that Jesus still has it, and is physical, and lives in only one place at a time as a consequence of that physicality. It is not at all clear, or established, that all time, space and matter came into existence by this being or any other being. To be sure, it exists, and long ago it did not; and a "big bang" happened, and maybe it was caused and maybe it just magically happened and that's what universes DO.
“This is why it says: “When he ascended on high, he took many captives and gave gifts to his people.” He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.)” Ephesians 4:8, 10
I'm late but ANOTHER point: people in highly descriptive NDEs travel through the atmosphere and space on the way to and from (especially from) the afterworld/heaven. Then they smash back into their body. So Jesus ascending makes perfect sense.
A point I think you should emphasize in regards to the accusation about the Accession being an Ad Hoc explanation to explain why Jesus stopped appearing. He seemingly didn't stop appearing. He showed himself to Steven during his death (which probably wasn't just Steven seeing things since Luke was able to record it), of course Paul, and he also showed up to Peter to explain to him that the old covenant had passed and thus they were allowed to eat meat. Thus, if you are trying to frame the Accession as an internal critique, it falls apart given that there were other appearances, albeit Jesus appearing in visions, that happened after the accession.
To elaborate further, if the apostles were having a mix of grief hallucinations, religious experiences, or some other pyschological phenomena, why were they suddenly so certain that Jesus wouldn’t suddenly show up again and seem to have a meal with them? The apostles simply are not still trying to figure out 40 days later what has happened and whether they’re going to see Jesus again in the same way. The ascension explains why. To say that they were having a mix of grief hallucinations, group religious experiences, pareidolia, cognitive dissonance and so forth does not. Furthermore, the switch from a physical kind of experience to a visionary experience isn’t explained by Hartke at all. Why shouldn’t they have reported the same type of experience all along if this was just some kind of natural phenomenon? If pressed, my guess is Hartke would punt to an alternative version of church history not found in Acts. In this version, perhaps he’d say that the apostles’ experiences were more uncertain, the experiences did taper off more slowly, and then Luke fabricates the entirety of their confidence that they were experiencing, even though it is part of a subtle point that Luke is making. But this would attribute to Luke an anachronistic anticipation of a very specific kind of later skeptical objection
@@TestifyApologetics While Jesus is God, he is also a resurrected human. Have you ever thought about where Jesus actually is and what he is doing when he sends people a vision of himself, but not his physical presence?
@@truncated7644 am pretty sure Jesus is interceding for our sins which is why he only appears in visions after the ascension. (But I could be wrong but I think evidence supports that view)
@@universe8649 I guess I wonder what that means, if his sacrifice was sufficient, why is he interceding? But if he is doing that, how does he also appear in visions?
The Upper Room Discourse in John certainly implies Jesus is going to heaven, and says it has to happen before the imparting of The Holy Spirit, which occurred on Pentecost. Also, this guy suggested Acts was written fifty years after the ascension. Even secular scholars almost never date Luke or Acts in the 80s, and Christian scholars almost never date it past the early 60s, because of the cliffhanger ending.
I live in northern protestant Europe where the teachings of Rudolf Bultmann are still predominant in academia; a NT professor in my country recently suggested that the Ascension of Christ should be regarded as pure myth and removed from the calendar as such (it's a holiday in Europe, so - the guy basically suggested, we skipped a day of rest and just worked instead... Even the local atheists had to acknowledge that this proposal probably wasn't a good idea... I don't get the embarrassment either, though. The appearances of Jesus after the resurrection are, admittedly, somewhat sparse in the New testament, say - compared to his ministry, and the Ascension only briefly attested by Luke, but - this strikes me as oddly more plausible than multiple and detailed descriptions of the 40 days would - with a grand finale Ascension in the end to round it up. Jesus just leaves them, and then the 2 angels going: don't just stand there! Close your mouths and head on home - time to get the church started!
A few years ago, prof. Niko Huttunen aptly wrote about the ascension. He ask, "How to explain the ascension to the audience so that the audience understands it?" And he answer, "Of course, using language, idioms and concepts that the audience uses too! And so did the one who wrote the Luke-Acts." The language that is used by the author of Luke-Acts to describe Jesus' ascension into heaven is quoted directly from the language that is used in ancient times to describe the Roman emperor’s fire-burial and exaltation as god. The most connetctifying factor is the cloud that carries the soul of the emperor and the soul of the Christ into the heavenly gods. The reason why the author of Luke-Acts did so was that one wanted to make an assimilation or parallel between the Roman emperor and Jesus to show that the new religion is not a threat to the empire and that Christians consider Jesus equal to the emperors.
I've never felt embarrassed about the Ascension. I just don't normally have reason to bring it up. If you're talking about Columbus discovering the New World, the focus is going to be on him sailing west and finding the Americas. How many people talk about him sailing back east and returning to Spain and then making three more round trips? Are they embarrassed that he kept leaving on his magical sail ship, finally never to be seen by the Americans again after 1504? No, that's just not the most relevant thing to be talking about.
great response, and good points from both sides. I do think Hartke brings up an area of interest, but he bases a lot of his argument on silence, so his argument seems weak. That being said, I also think the apologetic responses have been weak as well, but it’s only ineffective because those arguing with the ascension probably don’t believe in a resurrection in the first place xD
So I think the issue is that unless we believe that either a) heaven is physically above us right now, or b) that Jesus is still ascending, Jesus in fact apparated away. So the question is why did he seemingly go out of his way to make it appear as though he was literally ascending to a physical heaven above us, when in fact he was going to disappear once out of sight? By my lights even the language of ascending TO heaven or ultimately descending FROM heaven borders on inaccurate. In reality he ascended to some point in space and then "teleported" (or however we'd like to describe it). It's not intended to be a knock down argument, but it does plausibly lower our credence with respect to the historicity of the sole canonical explanation as to why Jesus's ministry ended following his death. Alternatively, this account fits quite nicely with the hypothesis that this description was constructed by a later author based on their limited understanding of cosmology. Perhaps we have some independent reason(s) for thinking that Christianity is true, but I do genuinely think considerations regarding the ascension weigh in favor of a natural explanation evaluated in isolation.
@@Kingrich_777 I think that's probably the route one would need to take, however this explanation also raises the probability that an author would include such an account as a literary device vs something that actually happened in history. What's more, the symbolism only works through the lens of ancient cosmology; divorced from this context, Jesus going "up" would be as significant as Jesus walking into the distance or sinking into the earth, etc. I also wonder if we're to understand that after the time spent between Jesus and the disciples they still believed heaven was above them? If not it seems likely Jesus' ascension would have been confusing if anything. All things considered it strikes me as a detail an ancient author who believed heaven was above would have included, but not something Jesus would have been likely to do.
@@chipperhippo oh I’m not saying that Jesus never actually ascended. It was a real historical event. I’m just saying that Jesus(Hallowed be His name) came up into the clouds to give the disciples a literal picture highlighting a symbolic message of God being “above” is. He also likely went up to Heaven and vanished just like that out of view into another dimension. It’s not like there’s a house on the literal clouds called Heaven. He went up and disappeared most likely.
In his last remark about the ascension being reliant on the resurrection to be true and therefore lack of evidence for it calls the resurrection itself into question only shows how credible it is. It goes both ways. If there is sufficient evidence for the resurrection; it makes the ascension far more plausible.
If you were to imagine a sheet of paper as representing a 2d universe the people in this 2d universe would be totally unaware of the table its sitting on or your hand directly above it. Only if you were to stick your finger into the sheet of paper would they be able to observe a cross section of your finger. You've now taken your 3d finger and entered a 2d universe. You withdraw your finger and all the wile these 2d people were watching. You could do this from either side of the paper. And it would appear to them that you are either above or below. This holds true for us witnessing higher dimensional beings entering and exiting our dimension. So Him ascending into the sky makes total sense and if anything adds credibility to their story.
I like the illustration, but theoretically, if you truly lived in a 2D world, you couldn't observe 3D motion outside of 2D. There is no reference for up or down on a flat plane; there's only back and fourth, side to side, etc. So a 3 dimensional invasion of the space would seemingly appear out of nowhere, at least as far as I understand it.
@@jdm11060 true. But you could go a step further and say life can't exist in 2d. because molecules,cells and the like couldn't exist in 2d. If I could reIllustrate. When you place the tip of your finger into the 2d plane it would start as a small dot and expand into the size of your finger. And the reverse on the way out. It would really depend on how intelligent the 2d people are. They know lat and long but vertical is unobservable (but still there) so if they were at least somewhat aware of a vertical dimension, let's say they call it hevens and hell. I think you could conclude it came from above. Or it just expanded out of nothing. Maybe that makes sense. I'm no expert
@@MadebyKourmoulisI think you're right on that. An ascension for a 3D person would look like a shrinking/disappearing act to the 2D observer, but is nonetheless an actual ascension. For us in 3D land, I suspect the ascension of a 4D being would be similarly weird to witness, yet no less a literal ascension. It may truly be for our limited mind's sake that God, in his goodness, performed what looked like an actual 3D ascension to illustrate the reoccurring point in scripture of a 4D reality of God in heaven "above," as it were. I'm totally speculating, because it's fascinating to think about, and I'm glad I'm not the only one! Cheers, brother!
Do you think phenomenologically the Ascension appeared to be Jesus ascending into the sky until he was no longer visible due to atmospheric clouds, or him ascending and being enveloped by a cloud (perhaps the Shekinah) and thus disappearing? Seems like Luke's account slightly underdetermines this?
It was necessary for Jesus to "go away"-Jn. 16:7, in order for Him to send the Holy Spirit to the Church. If He had not ascended back to heaven, the Holy Spirit would not descend on the Church. His "going away" was the ascension.
I believe CS Lewis made brief discussion on the Ascension in the essay "Transposition" contained the essay collection "The Weight of Glory". There's also a reference to the book "Flatland". Basically, how is it supposed to look when Jesus enters the Heavenly realm? Why not also include ascension into the clouds? Why would this be an embarrassing issue? ISTM the critic raising the objection here is several decades late to the party. CS Lewis answered him 70 years ago.
@Nathan Danielson One of the many memorable quotes from that collection that I absolutely love is "Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered."
You're betting your soul as well. Christianity isn't the only religion out there, so if it results being false and another god is actually the real one you end up in hell. Things aren't so simple
One problem I found is that if I have any chance to defend the resurrection at all, I get 3 seconds to say something before I get interrupted and before I have a chance to come back, the conversation has moved on. With a minimal facts approach, I could just throw in one of these facts quickly. Just to stop them in their tracks. But the maximal facts argument, can only e used when the sceptic really wants to hear all the evidence. In all my discussions with sceptics over the last 20 years, I have yet to meet one. It just seems impractical. But I live in Britain, so it’s probably different over here.
While I do agree with Hartke that aspects of the ascension are inconvenient for us Christians, I definitely think the accusation that apologists "shy away from it" to be misplaced. As you said, it simply isn't something that meets the criteria for a minimal fact, so why would they go out of their way to discuss it? How would it add to their argument?
I’m not understanding the weight of this argument. Even today, if for the sake of arguments an incarnate God in the flesh was here in 2023…a cool way for him to make an exit would be to fly away. Let alone an incarnation of God catering to a pre-scientific worldview that believed in a 3 tiered universe. I also don’t understand why the ascension would be a major talking point, I’ve kind of been under the impression that coming back from death was the grand finale that people would have been fixated on. You know, the whole “Is death the end” thing lol
The Apostle John recorded the ascension of Christ Jesus is great detail. Have any of these apologist read the Revelation of Jesus Christ? John was given a throne room perspective of the ascension and coronation of Christ Jesus.
In another note Luke wasn't the only one who wrote about the ascension, in short Mark says Jesus was received in heaven so Mark and Luke attest to it, the testimony of two or more is valid.
studying the ascension and yes seems to be avoided although a book written by Gerritt Scott Dawson has great insight on Christ Ascension. would like your view on his book
First of all, it doesn't matter if a document is dated to 85 AD and is found to be trustworthy or a document is dated to 62 AD and is riddled with issues. I wouldn't press the early dating argument super hard anymore. That said, I think you're not getting the nuances. The argument arises from our other information about Luke's usual practice in the book of Acts. For example, there is his blow-by-blow account of the ship voyage and the arrival in Rome, and his interest in Paul's other court appearances. Far more striking than his not mentioning the fire or the destruction of Jerusalem is Luke's not mentioning the outcome of Paul's upcoming hearing before the Emperor. This also fits together with the "summary" style of the end of Acts. Luke likes action, and it seems there was very little going on during the two years of Paul's house arrest. (From Luke's perspective.) Luke has been keenly interested in what is going to happen to Paul. It is therefore somewhat unlikely that he would cut his book's narrative off without telling what happened in Paul's hearing if he were writing significantly later. The only reasonable alternative hypothesis (to his sending the book off while Paul is still in prison) that I have seen is that of Colin Hemer which would scarcely move the writing date later by more than a year or two--to perhaps 63. Hemer suggests that Luke was exercising discretion after Paul had been released and was re-establishing his ministry in Asia Minor. Paul indicates in Philippians and Philemon that he intends to do this, and 2 Timothy seems to indicate that he was re-arrested in the midst of a ministry in which he re-visited the churches he had previously founded. Another point in favor of an early date is that Luke is writing for Theophilus, the same convert/recipient for whom he wrote his Gospel. He has no reason to delay getting his work to Theophilus by any long period of time, once the events he recounts in it have taken place. Why would he "sit on" his work for all that time rather than sending it to Theophilus for his edification? In fact, it may be his desire to send his work to Theophilus while kicking his heels in Rome waiting for Paul's trial that prompts the abrupt ending of the book if there was no sign of scheduling the hearing.
@@TestifyApologetics it absolutely matters when it was dated and which was written first. If Mark used Peter as his source, his gospel was written first since other gospels repeat him verbatim. The earliest dating for Mark is 64 AD, after Peter’s death, according to your own church fathers. If you’re proposing that Luke was written within 6 years of Mark’s first draft (before Matthew?!), you’re not being intellectually honest or consistent. You can’t claim church authority for traditional authorship and then conveniently ignore when those same authors say the gospels were composed.
I can when they're in basic agreement about who composed them even if there are minor disagreements about when they were composed. FWIW Origen says Luke Acts was written when Pail was still alive. But you ignored my point about reliability. It doesn't matter if say Acts was written in 64 or 84 so much as its written by a witness and we can find historical confirmations and various other reasons to trust their information. That stands wholly apart from what the fathers said about dating or even authorship
So when Jesus was baptized a dove descended from heaven, so his baptism was made up Matt 3:16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”
Craig: The ascension is a deep study and I don't use it because it's not necessary to the case I've made. Testify: He doesn't use it because it doesn't fit his criteria. Can you provide a quote where he says what you claim he did? Otherwise it sounds like you are just strawmanning.
He says it's an appearance. It seems like a very important one. It doesn't really fit the criteria in the kind of passage-by-passage approach he utilizes, and so it's not something that he can really "mine out" as something that is strongly historically attested, from what I understand of his view. Craig doesn't think it's necessary to his case because he feels like he can make the case the other way using his set of core facts even if we can't say with much confidence that other parts could contain contradictions and embellishments. But a kind of a historical agnosticism regarding parts of the gospels and a confidence about other parts is odd and kind of downgrades historical reliability. It would be better to say If the author has given us reasons to trust him in many various parts, then the whole of his entire narrative is probably good. If I sampled a slice of bread in at the ends and in the middle, I assume the whole loaf is probably good. I don't take a slice by slice approach. I'm open to being wrong, and perhaps I could email him and ask him to clarify.
@@TestifyApologetics Please forgive the long post below. I appreciate you responding to me. If you are going to claim the motives of a person for using or not using something as a part of an argument, it seems necessary to at least provide a quote otherwise just say "The ascension wouldn't be able to be established using Craig's methodology." "But a kind of a historical agnosticism regarding parts of the gospels and a confidence about other parts is odd and kind of downgrades historical reliability." This just doesn't logically follow. I can argue that my teaching of an 8th grade class was a well-attested event without downgrading the historical reliability of my eating a snack in private. My eating a snack in private is as historically reliable as it is apart from how I argue for my teaching of the 8th grade class. If you want to argue that it is a downgrade in historical reliability by virtue of it being comparatively less attested, that should be without contestation. The fact that 20 people attested to the first event and no people other than myself attested to the second means that the first is better attested (practically tautological). Consider further a court case, if a lawyer uses evidence to show that the defendant is guilty, they are under no obligation to use a different, less well-established piece of evidence. This is not to say they are implying that the other evidence is less reliable. In fact, it may be that the veridicality of the prior evidence only goes to SUPPORT the latter evidence. If the case can be made sufficiently without an appeal to another piece of evidence which can be more easily countered then why not do it that way? In practice, arguments for the resurrection get bogged down not only in the same issues you believe will be avoided ("how do you know they actually saw what they claimed and aren't just making it up") but also in new counter-arguments like contradictions. I've seen Bart Ehrman debate on this and he just digs up a bunch of contradictions and the Christian has to spend so much time defending against contradictions that his own case isn't as well developed.
I’m going to start with a question. Which is easier? To stone a man or for that same man to catch every stone tell you why you’re wrong for throwing it and then throw it away? Which man is more impressive?? Anyways I think the ascension is not mentioned for one other reason and it’s funny we came so close on both sides but I think that the eyewitnesses ESPECIALLY SUPER EARLY MARK who can’t get the words Son of Man away from Jesus for more than a chapter figured that by the end the listener who probably knew about Daniel 7 and who is the Son of Man? What happens to him? And why? Would’ve come to the end of the gospel and answered the question for themselves. Or idk Imagine this……… “Ssoo Where’s Jesus again?” -And Peter would’ve said “😐….Well kid he’s the son of man, like He literally said it for the 20th time only a few chapters ago…” “Chapters?” “NVM!! Do you remember what Jesus said would happen at his “totally fair and legitimate trial by night” 😤 now THATS fake news of the century! Am I right J.M.?! 🤨 “I’m almost done & nicknames was a Lord Jesus and you Twelve thing please just call me my pen-name Mark and are you SURE you don’t want me to just add the ascension in? I’ve got a lot of space” “Nah they’d get the reference, who wouldn’t? 🙄 you remember what Daniel says in HIS account kid? Right?” 🧐“Oh yeah the S.o.M. Ascends into heaven is presented before The Ancient of Days (Yahweh) and sits on a throne at his right hand where all humanity worships him and his kingdom reigns forever.…The End…right?” 🤓 And Mark would’ve said…. “weeellll need you would be but my boy Luke you remember Paul’s doctor friend? Yeah he’s still working on something he’s calling “The Acts of the Apostles” says it’s gonna be HUUGEE bigger than his first account bbuuuttt sure kid let’s say “The End for now” and go for some boiled fish, I heard Johnnie and James went out fishing last night…..” “Sure!….but why not just call it ACTS?” “THATS BRILLIANT KID I’ll tell Theophilus to tell Luke next I see him he should be in town for next Pentecost!!!” …… Fade to black? Who’s the kid?! 🤷🏿♂️ I wasn’t there YOU GET THE POINT ALREADY!! Daniel 7 now shoo!!
Actually,, the Ascension would be embarrassing. After all, shouldn't Jesus be around to meet w/ Paul? If you're most important writer's most important experience is meeting Jesus, why would you create a story that made it impossible for your writer to meet Jesus? It'd be like inventing a story in which Muhammad can read - his alleged inability to read is a core part of the argument for the divine nature of his revelation. Here, Paul's meeting w/ Christ is a core part of the argument for the divine nature of his revelation, so why make that meeting difficult and/or less significant somehow? The problem w/ arguing the writers made it up is that writers would make up the best/strongest story possible - they wouldn't make unnecessary problems for themselves.
In the ancient world, being one who rides on the clouds, is an obvious allusion to their deity…for instance Zeus or Baal…both sky gods..especially Baal who was a cloud rider Interesting that Jesus would choose to rise into the heavens and be a cloud rider…Daniel 7 also comes to mind(another instance of God/Jesus being a cloud rider) Also, he rose to a high place, which is a place of authority and worship…I am at a total loss why anyone would think the ascension is embarrassing…the opposite is true
You missed the biggest implication of his argument: If the resurrection, ascension and the second coming are a package deal, so that if one isn't historical, neither are the others ... then the obverse is true as well. If ONE of them can be shown from the evidence to be true, the others are as well. And that unravels his entire premise and answers the question of why apologists don't bother arguing the case for the ascension specifically, but focus instead on the resurrection -- it's superfluous. Proving the resurrection means proving the ascension and the second coming. "Jesus is Lord" essentially *means* "the ascension" -- the fulfillment of Daniel 7:13-14, which is predicated on the resurrection. The theological truth of the ascension is entailed by the historical fact of the resurrection.
Here's an obvious reason. Only Luke mentions it and he doesn't even claim to be an eye witness. (Luke 1:1-3) According to the Bible's own standard for establishing a matter, the thing is not established except on the word of two or three witnesses. Christians don't read their own bible seriously enough. Btw, I believe in Jesus and follow him and as such try to take what he says seriously.
@@AnHebrewChild Luke claims to have interviewed eyewitnesses. And, at the time, all of this material existed as oral testimony, so it's not even like his original audience was relying on him exclusively for the information. And, while he is the only one who describes it explicitly, it is implicit in the rest. As I explained in my initial comment, it is part-and-parcel of the overall theology connected to "Jesus as Lord" at the right hand of the Father, having been resurrected. The actual momentary event of him traversing from earth to heaven isn't dwelled upon because it doesn't need to be -- the reality of him ruling from the right hand of God is the assumed background to everything else. Take that away, and nothing else written in the New Testament makes any sense. You are right that Christians don't read the Bible, and should. But if they did, that would hardly undermine our confidence in the ascension.
@@brianervin7643 thanks for your response. I follow Jesus and his Deuteronomic principle of the mouth of two or three witnesses. Sorry, Luke is very valuable, but not in the same way as the other gospel writers. Which, of course, is part of the unique value he affords. Matthew comes from Apostles Matthew and Thomas. And "Mark" comes from Apostles Peter and Andrew. And I do mean DIRECTLY, notwithstanding the traditions of churchmen. Secular and conservative scholars alike "do err, not knowing the scriptures neither the power of God." speaking of Luke, go look at chapter 20 verse 20. The same thing still goes on today. And so, "take heed what ye hear."
Hartke is making a logical error. The minimalist approach is not meant to prove every detail of the Bible (it couldn't - if every detail of the Bible were provable through non Biblical facts the Bible would be superfluous). When you are testing the validity of a claim, you test what you can test & if something passes all those tests, you deem it credible - you don't have to prove every detail. If, for example, I can prove you went to Yale when you claim to have gone to Yale, that you got the degree you claimed, that you wrote the thesis you claimed, that you got the award you claimed etc., then I can take your word for it when you say you met Bill Clinton when you were at Yale. Minimalism simply argues that we can independently verify so much about the Bible that we can trust the rest. Given that argument, you can't say, "But you can't verify you met Bill Clinton; therefore, you didn't go to Yale." The verifiable parts of the Bible are not falsified by the parts you can't verify anymore than you can falsify my Yale degree by claiming I can't prove I met Bill Clinton. You'd need to actually DISPROVE the Ascension to disprove the verifiable parts of the Bible.
If Jesus Christ claimed to be God, and rose ppl from the dead, and rose from death himself, I’ll take him at the word of his disciples that he did rise. Analyze his behavior in the gospels, these are accounts of a man during 3 years, recalled and written by men who lived with him all those 3 years, and you can clearly see he had no drop of sin, immorality, sleaziness, or deceptiveness. His motives were pure so why would he encourage deceptiveness among his disciples? If anything, he re-sensitized their consciences and hence you can be sure that the things you read in the bible are true and did happen. And we don’t even need to accept every single fact in the Bible, all we need to do is to believe(trust) on the Lord Jesus Christ. Acts 16:31 “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved” This is literally all it takes to be saved. The proof there is that this statement is true is that Jesus promised eternal life to the penitent thief, all for believing on him. Jesus could’ve taken this man off the cross and made him an apostle(considering he literally performed miracles) to make a point that repentance is necessary for salvation, but HE DIDNT! So you can believe on Christ and then rest and rejoice in the everlasting life you received. say this prayer of salvation: “Lord Jesus Christ, I am sinner. And I believe and trust on you alone for my salvation. You died for all my sins, past, present, and future, and rose again on the 3rd day. Amen” If you’ve trusted on Christ alone, you no longer have to be concerned about going to hell anymore. The burden isn’t yours, Christ bore it so you don’t have to
I watched that vid, it was good when he was asking questions (ask and you will receive) but it became cringe when he started to answer questions showing he knows very little about the subject.
Your point is well taken about how God would act in a way that is spatially relevant. By the way, besides prayer, the position of our eyes and our posture matters in life: When someone is depressed, they are constantly looking down. Is that from a mythological understanding of life? One way to help a suicidal person is to have them look up at you when talking. And the advice we receive for empowering ourselves in life is by holding our heads up high with shoulders back. Our brains are wired this way in relation to our bodies. That is not a coincidence. Hierarchies are almost always shown in this way - top-down. Pyramids symbolize this. Why wouldn't God take advantage of this inbuilt understanding of humans of what is superior to what inferior.? My biggest beef with vocal atheists is that they always assume bad faith when reading the Bible and they almost never use their imagination to try to understand why certain events or experiences could occur in such a way.
"they assume bad faith" Well said. Also, ironically, they run into the same problem they accuse the dogmatic fundamentalist of. They read the Bible with rigid pre-conceived notions. An example: I just read a comment from a person who, in speaking of the Babel narrative, said, "why would God be threatened by a tall building?" (God's statement "Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do" is an expression of his mercy. Similar to that in Genesis 3 "and now, lest they stretch stretch forth their hand and take and eat and live forever" (in misery, in decay, separated from God) is likewise an expression of mercy.
Luke is not the only Gospel that attests Christ's ascension. Mark does as well. We need to stop dismissing the last twelve verses of Mark. They are legitimate.
I hold to the last twelve verses of Mark. Weird fact: Mark has 678 verses. Without the last twelve, it's 666. That's not why I hold to the last twelve. It's just interesting. Using Matthew, it's provable that the last twelve of Mark are Scripture.
@@soarel325 The last twelve verses of Mark were not "appended much later". That is literally the opposite of the evidence we have. What do you base that conjecture on? Is it because that is what you have been told?
Jesus popped in and faded out (Higher dimensional use) before the ascension. The ascension is set apart, it also sets up a future event of Christ's return, it allows Christians to know how Jesus goes so will be his return he will come in the sky not born, in Body not spirit, fully capable of eating and interacting with the world as demonstrated with the apostles.
This is interesting for many reasons. He says " He didn't just disappear into another dimension " if he were to disappear into another dimension in front of your eyes it would most likely appear that he is moving upward. If you were to take into account these people that witnessed this probably didn't know that there are more dimensions than the 4 we can experience, and they probably didn't know the physics associated with higher dimensions. Their testimony of him ascending to the sky could be looked at as more evidence of their truthfulness.
@@MadebyKourmoulis I think, if I was those ancient fellas, if the accession didn't happened, and Jesus just faded to Heaven, I feel that I probably had a weird hallucination, where I can touch and feel him. I think God was smart to have Jesus accended, to let the people know they weren't going crazy. However this is all speculative thinking so I could still be wrong.
@@MadebyKourmoulis Jesus appeared to them in the closed room and seems to slip away in like manner. Luke 24:31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized Jesus-and He disappeared from their sight. Luke 24:36-37 36While they were describing these events, Jesus Himself stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” 37But they were startled and frightened, thinking they had seen a spirit. John 20:19 It was the first day of the week, and that very evening, while the disciples were together with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them.
@@probaskinnyman4960 you make a good point. String theory postulates there are around 11 dimensions up to 26. God clearly has access to all of these so it would seem he chose to enter a dimension that would appear that he is moving up to the sky.
Hartke makes two mistakes imo. First, he commits the logical fallacy of arguing from silence. He then conjectures as to the reason behind the silence which is disingenuous. Secondly, he states that Luke wrote some 50 years after the ascension. Many scholars contend that the book of Luke was written to Theophilus while he served as the high priest between 37 and 41 AD and that the book of Acts after those events took place which was after Theophilus served. This explains the difference in the two greetings. That would put the writing of the ascension account only 7 to 11 years after the event occurred if 30 AD is assumed.
Uh Luke was definitely not written that early. Where the heck did you get the idea that Theophilus was high priest??😂 The fact that 3 people already like your post is cause for concern.
@@Pseudo-Jonathan your assertion has 1) no historical record, 2) no explanation for the difference in greetings. I prefer plausibility and explanatory evidence when it's available over pure conjecture. If you look past your own confirmation bias and be Berean I think you'll find that the bias favoring your speculation has been driven by a desire to separate Luke's writings to a later period.
Does anyone else really like to think that perhaps heaven requires a literal trip through the cosmos? God did make the universe incomprehensibly large, and while I'm not saying I think this is true, I love the idea that Christ's ascension into heaven was a literal ascension into a sort of cosmological plane of God's existence. It's almost certainly fourth dimensional in nature, but hot-dog, it sure would be fantastic to take a trip through space on our way into glory.
Ok, this is just having fun, but if Jesus ate fish just before ascending, wouldn't the lack of pressure as he passes through the upper atmosphere cause it to explode?
@@jdm11060 Ok then. But if you are going that way, why does Jesus even have a body? What is inside of it? What does it do? From what I am hearing you say, at this point, you not only don't apply normal rules, you don't have any.
@@truncated7644 "this is just having fun, but..." I didn't realize you were trying to make a genuine argument. Neither was I. Yes, I believe in physical/natural rules. And, yes, I believe God can change/intervene rules as he sees fit.
The Ascension into the heavens sounds very much like the Tower of Babel story. Ignorance of what is literally above the clouds. You can say the clouds were the best place for him to disappear but that wouldn’t explain why God was so fearful of a tall building. Old Testament I’m guessing that whole book would be a littler harder to defend. As is the New Testament with today’s moral code and better understanding of the real world
Where did you read God was fearful of a tall building? Read Genesis 11 more closely. Secular and conservative scholars alike understand that's not what the narrative is saying?
@@AnHebrewChild A plain reading of the Babel story would illustrate a God's growing concern over how powerful its' own creation is becoming. If you want to get pedantic I don't know how much deep meaning we can derive from 9 verses
The problem is he doesn't believe heaven is above tho the heavens are above bcuz he believes the earth is a ball in the dark space moving around the sun. His NASA shirt states his faith. From Genesis to Revelation the Bible states the earth as stationary which rose from the waters. In basic form all the earth is flat with hills and mountains. The Bible doesn't present the earth as a ball going around the sun rather the plane which the sun runs its course over as it was demonstrated during Joshua's prayer in which the sun stood over a mountain during battle. When the Bible states when the Lord Jesus comes all eyes will see I can't think of a better way than all nations being able to just look up as it states all eyes will see and lament.
Still no explanation why apologists tend to be embarrassed about the ascension. They explain at length the crucification and the resurrection but not the even more supernatural and godlike ascension. I really don't understand why. Maybe it is somehow embarrassing that Jesus just disappears?
“If God became man, then we should expect Him to have both an unusual entrance into this world (the Virgin Birth), and an unusual departure from this world (the Ascension).” Josh McDowell
If I, a former atheist tell people that ive seen 4 miracles in my life and experienced the baptism of the holy spirit ill be brushed off as crazy. Yet, I truly experienced the mentioned above. 1) I saw a blind man from birth who we knew from church receive sight after we prayed for him, after comming out of 3 day fasting and praying. 2) I was fasting in my house, it was 11 am. There were piercing thoughts that suddenly came into my mind that said, "Go to church now the youth needs your help" I said to my self "this is crazy, the youth are still in school its only 11 am". The thoughts got piercingly stronger, so I obeyed. Lo and behold, the youth were trying to cast out a demon of one one girl and thats why they left school early because the episodes began in the bathroom. When i got to church the pastor son Jefte was there trying to help who had keys to the temple. I cast out the demon and this girl was shaking violently as soon as she laid eyes on me and was foaming out her mouth and the demon was speaking thru her in Arabic. Mind you this girl only speaks spanish. 3) During a long drought in where I am from I prayed and rain came down with no clouds. 4) I saw a person pray over a building and asking God to bring the fire of the holy spirit to those inside. We had a sharp argument about the bible, and when we went outside Alex prayed at one of the corners of the building saying, 'God bring the fire of your spirit to thus place". Quite literally at that moment the building cought fire starting from the roof and no one knew how. 5) Ehen i was praying and fasting for 5 day asking God to baptise me with the spirit, that night on the 5th day while music was playing I felt a heat and electricity mix together that ran all pvery body. My hearing got blocked to all external sounds and music, and all I heard was a sound of rushing winds, and at the sometime it felt i was underneath a waterfall. Incredible to accept by you the reader, but this is why no amount of atheistic argumentation can move my faith. Quote; "I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God." Un-Quote 1 Corinthians 2:3-5 NASB1995 I am grateful to God for these experiences!
Ask Him why he won't save everyone. He's strong enough to do those things for you, but He can't bother to save everyone after He created us to deal with this world in the first place. I don't care how much good God does in our lives, anyone suffering eternally in hell will never make up for it. Also if all those things truly happened then go report them somewhere and try to scrap up as much evidence for it as you can, testimonies or whatever else you can. Just cause you say something on the internet doesn't mean I should believe it. Miracles like that would be phenomenal evidence, so you should at least have something besides your testimony to back it up right?
"How else would you prefer he disappear?" Thats not my problem. I dont have to come up to the solution of a predicament where people _do_ get bodily resurrected in physical bodies but heaven is _not_ a physical place that you go to. Thats on the people that came up with this. I can just say "oh people thought heaven was 'up' because thats the kind of thing you would piece together as a human understanding the world, and naturally the myths people make about interactions with heaven would be peoples bodies literally going up there"
In highly descriptive NDEs, people on their way back to their bodies go through space, the atmosphere, then back into their bed. So this isn't outlandish whatsoever.
@@Greyz174 They aren't. You need to do some serious research on them because neuroscientists and other researchers who study them agree they are NOT products of the brain. Some of these experiences are seriously wild and they discover things they never could've known. But yes, check out all the work Dr. Bruce Greyson has done, Sam Harris, etc. Incredible stuff.
If Jesus ascended physically to Heaven then Heaven must be a physical place. Where is it? How long did it take him? Is he still travelling through space? Maybe his return is like Halley’s Comet. However if His ascension was by way of the spirit as a pneus then that is a different story. Then when Paul says “I did not know whether I was in the body “ and he talks about the 7 th heaven. He obviously believes ascension was by way of the spirit.
Strictly and nearly ONLY because these men (whom you selectively use to suit your bias) all hold a relatively low view of scripture. Of course you'll make use of their wavering. Note: You neither address the ascension but only the select apologists. You isolate the account as a tactic. Go review a book on asparagus.
Where did physical Jesus fly to? Close earth orbit? Beyond our solar system? Outside the known universe? Is he still flying? It’s obvious the ascension is a story that fits the 1st century view of heaven existing just beyond the tallest mountains (see story of Babel).
OMG! No Jesus didn't symbolically ascend into heaven in the Bible. It literally says that Jesus flew up and disappeared into a cloud. This is clearly silly!
So, to summarize: "Apologists choose not to address components of the gospel narrative because secular scholars don't already concede the possibility/factuality of such a thing, and they are harder to defend logically and historically from a literalist, fundamentalist position in any case." Wow, I was expecting a really weak argument here, but this is surprisingly poorly done (unless you intended to agree with Hartke, which you didn't seem to intend to do even though you did so spectacularly). Of course, if any additional cognitive dissonance would be imparted by an honest appraisal and defense of some position I held, I suppose I would probably choose to simply ignore it also; we're only human beings listening to and reading other human beings, after all. All you gotta do to satisfy this agnostic is answer: 1) Is "heaven" located "up"? 1a) If so, could someone reach it by travelling outward in some particular direction from the center of the earth at any particular point in time? 1b) If not, why Jesus "rise" into the sky on "ascending"? Every other gospel appearance and Paul's own do not indicate Jesus floating down, but rather, suddenly appearing or being come across in a particular location by people. If Jesus can suddenly appear anywhere, why "ascend" at all? 1ba) Why was Elijah also whisked into the sky, and why is it noted that those who believe will be gathered together in the sky to meet Jesus on his presumptive return in Revelations? (if you, like most, take a less literalist stance on Revelation and eschatology in general, feel free to skip this one of course) I think the honest (or at the very least, objective) person would have to conclude these references are there precisely because pre-modern people had conceptions that the afterlife was located adjacent to the physical realm we live in (or was a physical realm itself), and could be reached by going up or down. I suspect the ideologically and theologically pre-committed recognize this position to be directly contrary to modern "orthodox" theology (especially the literalist fundamentalist variety) and cosmology, not to mention the more modern materialist position. It is an embarrassing anachronism for people that choose to believe against the evidence that these texts are 1) reality in the historical rather than mythological sense 2) inspired and protected in that factual accuracy by "revelation" or "inspiration", so they choose to focus on more easily defended ground (where they usually also lose the argument) Be my guest, I have an open mind here, it is yours to blow if you can. But I've never gotten or found a good answer from the fundamentalist/literalist to the questions above, not after 20+ years of looking.
Here is the problem. Paul predates Mark and the invention of a human Jesus. Paul is a messianic Jew not a Christian. He predates Christianity and the invention of Jesus. Paul's cult of Jews followed writings found in the Ascension of Isiah that predates Mark by over 100 years. A. Of Isiah just like Paul' s Christos is a spirit only being only ever seen in visions. For 100 years before the alleged birth of Christ. Paul died in 55ce. The Gospel of Mark is written in 72 ce. In both Mark and A. Isiah Jesus just appears. No virgin birth no family no Xmas story. He appears at age 33 preaches a few weeks is executed and Mark ends with an empty tomb. This matches a. Of Isiah where Christ is descends from heaven a full grown man, preaches and is then killed by Satan and returns to Heaven. Matt. Is far too late 110ce and adds many new details that are clearly fiction. Luke/acts is absurdly too late 150ce gets geography details of Paul's journeys wrong. Huh? Piecing together Paul's trip from his letters Paul writes I am on my way to see you in Antitoch. But Luke has him traveling from Rome to Greece at that time. Many many more errors Luke acts is clearly fiction and a way to tie Paul's Christos to Marks Jesus. John 325 ce is the Roman Empire establishing Jesus as the reborn roman pagan sun God Sol Invictus. The word became flesh could mean a fictional spirit being humanized in fictional stories. The word become flesh. Same as all of the other Roman Pantheon of god's and goddesses. Jesus never existed. 1 COR 15 is word for word from Isiah. Paul refers to the A. Of Isiah throughout his letters. Word for word. While never mentioning Jesus by name only the title Christos. Paul never mentions a family a virgin birth nor does Paul know anyone who ever met a human Jesus. It is all visions. acts written 100 years after Paul is pure fiction.
I feel like the details of the Ascension just aren't as important as the Resurrection. The Resurrection is what shows us that Jesus is supernatural and immortal. How exactly he returned to his supernatural realm doesn't seem as important. The biblical writers could have been wrong about the time, place, and manner that he left Earth, and Christianity would still make sense (I don't think they were, just that being wrong wouldn't destroy Christianity). But if they were wrong about the Resurrection, there would be no reason to worship Jesus. I'm guessing that's why apologists tend to focus on the Ascension less.
Since the Bible is the inspired word of God, why are there such ambiguous and even contradictory stories of Jesus’s life and death. Why do the most important aspects of Christianity need apologists to defend them?
Extra thought:If the apostles were having a mix of grief hallucinations, religious experiences, or some other pyschological phenomena, why were they suddenly so certain that Jesus wouldn’t suddenly show up again and seem to have a meal with them? The apostles simply are not still trying to figure out 40 days later what has happened and whether they’re going to see Jesus again in the same way. The ascension explains why. To say that they were having a mix of grief hallucinations, group religious experiences, pareidolia, cognitive dissonance and so forth does not. Furthermore, the switch from a physical kind of experience to a visionary experience isn’t explained by Hartke at all. Why shouldn’t they have reported the same type of experience all along if this was just some kind of natural phenomenon?
If pressed, my guess is Hartke would punt to an alternative version of church history not found in Acts. In this version, perhaps he’d say that the apostles’ experiences were more uncertain, the experiences did taper off more slowly, and then Luke entirely fabricates the confidence of what they were experiencing, even though it is part of a subtle point that Luke is making. But this would attribute to Luke an anachronistic anticipation of a very specific kind of later skeptical objection.
You really proved the Cognitive dissonance point. Either ascending to heaven demonstrates it is above us or not. This symbolic gesture you proposed flies in the face of you other point about Jesus looking up to pray to the father. It obviously means heaven is supposed to above us, which you know is not the case, so instead of conceding, you divert to metaphorical explanation. Heaven is not up and hell is not down. The obvious answer is this proves ancient ignorance and the reliability of the bible.
If I, a former atheist, tell people that I've seen 4 miracles in my life and experienced the baptism of the holy spirit I'll be brushed off as crazy. Yet,
I truly experienced the mentioned above.
1) I saw a blind man from birth who we knew from church receive sight after we prayed for him, after coming out of 3 days of fasting and praying.
2) I was fasting in my house, it was 11 am. There were piercing thoughts that suddenly came into my mind that said, "Go to church now the youth needs your help" I said to myself "this is crazy, the youth are still in school it's only 11 am". The thoughts got piercingly stronger, so I obeyed. Lo and behold, the youth were trying to cast out a demon of one girl and that's why they left school early because the episodes began in the bathroom. When i got to church the pastor son Jefte was there trying to help who had keys to the temple. I cast out the demon that possessed a girl from our church who I personally have always known. When she was with the youth she kept speaking in a foreign language to the youths that were trying to assist her. She began shaking violently as soon as she laid eyes on me as I entered the church and was foaming out her mouth and the demon was speaking thru her in Arabic. Mind you this girl only speaks spanish. This happened on a Wednesday before noon, on a day we don't conduct service.
3) During a long drought in where I am from I prayed and rain came down with no clouds visible. My mom and I filled plenty of jugs of water that help us through these bad times. The drought was a twofold stage caused by Hurricane Hugo.
4) I saw a person praying over a building and asking God to bring the fire of the holy spirit to those inside. We had a sharp argument about the bible, and when we went outside Alex prayed at one of the corners of the building saying, "God bring the fire of your spirit to this place". This event taught me that if you have the spirit of God inside you anything you pray for can happen, but being careful of the choice of words for God can make it very literal. Quite literally at that moment the building caught fire starting from the roof and no one knew how.
5) When i was praying and fasting for 5 days asking God to baptize me with the spirit, that night on the 5th day while music was playing I felt a heat and electricity mix together that ran all over body. My hearing got blocked to all external sounds and music, and all I heard was a sound of rushing winds, and at the sometime it felt i was underneath a waterfall.
Incredible to accept by you the reader, but this is why no amount of atheistic argumentation can move my faith.
Quote;
"I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God."
Un-Quote
1 Corinthians 2:3-5 NASB1995
I am grateful to God for these experiences!
The problem is the church is in a slumber just as Jesus foretold it would happen. We need to keep our lamps (body) full of oil (holy spirit). I will show proofs and testimonial videos on my channel soon. As soon as this year is over I'll start working on my channel. If these things happened to me, then I already have an advantage over the atheist who says there is no God, and an advantage over the Christian whose faith is dwindling. Nothing anyone can say will shake me off my personal experiences which validate to me the Gospels are faithfully reporting truths.
@@eternalgospels yeah that's hard to believe and if true would require some significant proof. If it was me I would question myself understanding that what's least likely shouldn't be taken as certain truths.
@@randyblackman6271 Lets be fair, the miracle of the rain could have been coincidence, and the building burning down can be coincidence as well. If fact, the investigators looked for any signs of foul play. They said it could have been a beer bottle on the roof that caused the fire. All I know it burned down right after Alex prayed at the corner. Not even 10 minutes after we caught the trolley it was set a blaze starting from the roof. Some investigators speculated it was either a beer bottle that condensed the suns rays or a gas line that erupted. They don't know they simply speculated. To us the event was extremely crazy and super coincidental. However, the experience of the demoniac girl, the healing of the blind man, and my personal experience of the baptism of the spirit are by far MY PERSONAL experiences that made my faith unbreakable. Soon, I will work in my channel, I am just still cough up by the new years eve drama. Once its over with, i will be uploading video testimonials from the people I mentioned above. I can not stress enough to Christians to stop the back and forth argumentations, and seek to be submerged in the spirit, for only then can real power be seen of the reality of God. The formula is quite simple, yet its hard to implement due to our sinful nature. The formula laid by Jesus is this;
1) Cleanse the heart thoroughly. If we have a bad thought about people, hatred, coveting women in our hearts, etc, etc, then we will be walking defiled hindering the work of the spirit.
2) Constant prayer and fasting is a must.
3) Avoid hypocrisy at all cost.
4) Love everyone as ones self.
5) Last but not least, believe in Jesus sacrifice as the means to become pure in front of God and partake constantly in the Holy supper. Faith in this is important above all else.
I GUARANTEE YOU, if you follow the simple methods laid by Jesus, anyone can pull down the very essence of God on their bodies and extraordinary thing will happen.
1 Corinthians 2:5, ESV: so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. 1 Corinthians 2:5, KJV: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
@@randyblackman6271 All I ask, is give me a little bit of time while I put all these things together. I owe it to anyone who reads my statements.
Long Live The MAXIMAL Approach!
Maximal amounts of baby killing ?
@@azophiabortionists
@@azophiI’m not sure what u we’re trying to do with this but if you are saying God killed babies, you are a HYPOCRITE. You don’t even believe in a heaven and so you just arbitrarily kill babies by abortion, and yet you condemn God for ordering the killing of entire nations including babies. These babies would go to heaven after death, and do you not find it merciful to let them not feel pain at all when they died? And to let them not be burned and sacrificed by the wicked men and women of their nation that were doing so?
L
Gotta say, I really liked Matthew's more polite way of talking. He is easier to listen to than someone like paulogia or zod.
Matthew and I get along. He's a good guy. He's also extremely sharp and very well read.
It's also really nice that his criticisms of the Resurrection are arguing that the Gospels cast doubt on the Resurrection, rather than someone like Paulogia, who just asserts an Ad Hoc explanation of what happened and expects everybody to completely logically rebut (logical as opposed to evidental) everything he says rather than supporting his own side with evidence.
@@TestifyApologetics Are you personal friends with Matthew?
Once you see the man behind the cartoon Paulogia seems to be the one attempting to mislead the audience.
The Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts were definitely written less than fifty years after the resurrection and ascension of Jesus. It was more like around twenty years after the fact. Paul quotes from Luke's gospel in 1st Timothy 5:18, and Luke was writing the Book of Acts while traveling with Paul.
Another reason why most apologists don’t talk about the ascension is the facts required before the event. Most apologists will not argue for the resurrection of Jesus if the person they’re talking to does not believe in any God at all. A skeptic won’t believe in the resurrection if they don’t believe in God first.
I think similarly, if a person does not believe in the resurrection they would not believe in the ascension which takes place after the death and resurrection of Jesus since they don’t grant the prerequisite facts. How could Jesus ascend into heaven if he was still in the grave. Anyway these last few videos really opened my eyes up minimal facts, maximal facts is definitely the way to go
I'm glad I've been able to help, but I will say that if the skeptic is at least willing to say atheism could be false, evidence for the resurrection is itself an argument for the existence of God.
To put it loosely, the probability that God exists is higher if there is significant independent evidence that Jesus rose from the dead than if there is no evidence. This is true because the probability that the resurrection took place is zilch if there is no God and higher if there is. A robust case should in theory be able to flip and open minded skeptic. I'd argue a more minimal one probably won't. It is more than fine to back up and give arguments for God's existence if needed but I don't think it is always necessary.
So you only argue with people who already believe in your point of view?
@@LarsPallesen It's just much more of a slog because people will always want scientific evidence for spiritual things
What would they prefer?
That he have a physical body and a physical grave so they could point to that as evidence he was not divine?
Yeah but the Bible literally says that Jesus flew up and disappeared into the clouds. If that's the case then Jesus is still flying through space.
@@hamobu no,if that’s the case he is in heaven
Rest assured, no matter how Jesus went into heaven, the atheist would be there to call foul. They're committed to coming up with excuses, no matter how bad.
Even if that were true, that's no excuse for the Bible having wrong cosmology.
No matter how many inconsistencies the atheist brings up the theist will come up with an ad hoc explanation . They're committed to their irrational beliefs.
Well somebody's coming up with excuses, or is it apologies.
Atheists are having less and less to argue about the Bible, so I see that they are trying to make something out of nothing “no pun intended” such as the ascension of Christ “where it says in the same manner as He ascended so He will descend from Heaven in the last days to judge the world. It’s really not that complicating to understand or believe. If it were done any other way “such as those other ways in the video” the atheist would say, “why did He choose to do it that way when generally Heaven was known to be believed to be up therefore why wouldn’t Jesus ascend into Heaven so that we would know that’s where He was going instead of just disappearing or going down or something which would’ve made it way more complicating”. Ya see.
Very good point.
So throughout the entire Old and New Testaments, God was just playing along with how people imagined heaven and earth was set up? It _was_ all a human allegory that God didnt want to disrupt or confuse, so he would talk from the sky, and have people other than Jesus also ascendy into the sky, and send manna to the Israelites from the sky, but it was all just to accomodate preconcieved human notions so they wouldnt get confused?
I would take issue with the ways proposed in the video as well (especially the ant man one, which was purely constructed for absurdity's sake). Thats not because im being difficult and refuse to accept anything, its because its not my idea that the core belief of this religion is a physical bodily resurrection, so im not responsible for the ramifications. If youre going to say that heaven is somehow in some other dimension, then anywhere that the body retreats to for 2000+ years until it comes back is going to be a stretch. It's not my fault that this situation is set up like this.
@@Greyz174 Unironically? Yes, God uses signs, symbols, and methods that the people of that time, place, and culture were aware of and understood. If God spoke to a person, did he do so using a language they didn't know? Naturally, God knows how to communicate his intent, just as we humans understand that the core of good communication is to meet the person where they are at, so to speak.
As for the ressurection, the conquering of death and the recreation of the universe to be remade into a perfect and imperishable state is a hallmark of the religion. Jesus is the first of this new world, so his new and imperishable body is of utmost importance. He is the living proof, so to speak.
12 years in a Pentecostal school and 3 years in a Jesuit law school = It is all just silly nonsense.
Also, even if it isn't mentioned, ascension is implied all over the Gospels. Jesus talks about how he will come back in the glory of the Father and with the angles. Return implies going away. If you read the Gospels diligently, you'll pick up the fact that Jesus did ascend
Completely agree. The gospel of Matthew certainly seems to imply an ascension after The Great Commission.
Saw this video the other day too and you said everything I was thinking. Great response mate!
I struggled to rationalize the ascension until I realized that it was just the inverse of the incarnation. Jesus didn't ascend into space, flying toward the Andromeda galaxy like Superman, no. His ascension was a return to spirit, a return to the Holy Spirit that gave him birth in the first place. Not a materialistic flight to a materialistic heaven, rather it was the same process that we see described when Jesus suddenly appears and disappears after his resurrection, except in this case it was a persisting state.
As a Christian, the part I struggle with the most is the "he was lifted up and a cloud hid him from their sight." part. Definitely suggests physical movement in the sky.
I assume that's exactly what happened. Once He entered the cloud He could have just disappeared while maintaining the metaphor.
The world manifests by God the Father through the Word of God, in whom human consciousness rests, aware of it or not. What we see is a mediation of God's meaning and where we are and what out beliefs are.
People, everyone, Jews, pagan, believed The skies were the visible part of the gradient heaven/earth. That was the reality they manifested based on the meanings channeled from God.
The incarnation of Christ, is the individualisation of humanity, which starts by the conscious withdrawal from God, but is finished by the conscious reunification with Him, but now as individuals.
The manifestation of this IS to go to heaven. I our modern world views, heaven is inside us, but to them it was up. It's still a gradient, but the direction has changed, BECAUSE of the Ascension, which constitutes the Word of God going to heaven, which had to manifest as going up to everyone at the time. That is the prerequisite of His subsequent emanation from within, which causes our ability to participate as individuals, instead of as the more group soul with "the gods" we used to have.
No matter the actual thing seen by the disciples, the only way it could possibly be described to regular people of the day, would be a goin up.
People were not physically minded. Saying going up meant to them completely the same as going to heaven.
I.E. going to the invisible to the eye, but more real, deeper, significant part of reality, from where all shape and meaning comes, from where love is, from where our souls emanate, AS our bodies.
All written language, no matter when written, must use the ideas of the people to whom it is addressed.
I do thing the disciples saw exactly that, and that that is how they could start the shift toward feeling heaven inside, by the identification with te Word of God, and that reality (earth) is what is projected onto the chaos through human consciousness, held together by God.
It couldn't have happened today (and meant the same), because the event IS what made us start to see the world differently, and therefore change the order of how new creation manifests, compared to old creation.
Why does he think Luke thought the earth was flat? Luke was a Greek. The Greeks had known the earth was round for twelve centuries before was born Luke.
I was quite literally thinking about this yesterday. Why would Jesus “ascend”? Heaven is not a physical place in our universe where one could actually “go”. It’s crazy that you dropped this video at this time.
"Heaven is not a physical place in our universe where one could actually “go”."
Says you ;-) I love these arguments.
@@thomasmaughan4798 says me?
@@TheGoogleScholar "says me?"
Yes. It has your handle on it. You make a claim that Heaven is not a physical place in our Universe. Why do you make that claim?
@@thomasmaughan4798 Because it is unnecessary for a non-physical being to “live” in a physical place, especially considering that all time, space, and matter came into existence through said being.
@@TheGoogleScholar "Because it is unnecessary for a non-physical being to live in a physical place, especially considering that all time, space, and matter came into existence through said being."
Well, assuming all of that is true, which i don't, then it is indeed a problem for Jesus to still have a body. But there's no indication that he discarded it. Consequently, a more reasonable conclusion is that Jesus still has it, and is physical, and lives in only one place at a time as a consequence of that physicality.
It is not at all clear, or established, that all time, space and matter came into existence by this being or any other being. To be sure, it exists, and long ago it did not; and a "big bang" happened, and maybe it was caused and maybe it just magically happened and that's what universes DO.
“This is why it says: “When he ascended on high, he took many captives and gave gifts to his people.” He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.)”
Ephesians 4:8, 10
Great work!
Maximal Approach for the win! Great content as usual.
I'm late but ANOTHER point: people in highly descriptive NDEs travel through the atmosphere and space on the way to and from (especially from) the afterworld/heaven. Then they smash back into their body. So Jesus ascending makes perfect sense.
Why is it that the Non-Alchemist and Matthew talk in the same way? 😂
What do you mean by that? They bring up the same points, or the way they present it?
Congrats on 5K subs!
Praise tha Lord 🎉🎉
A point I think you should emphasize in regards to the accusation about the Accession being an Ad Hoc explanation to explain why Jesus stopped appearing. He seemingly didn't stop appearing. He showed himself to Steven during his death (which probably wasn't just Steven seeing things since Luke was able to record it), of course Paul, and he also showed up to Peter to explain to him that the old covenant had passed and thus they were allowed to eat meat. Thus, if you are trying to frame the Accession as an internal critique, it falls apart given that there were other appearances, albeit Jesus appearing in visions, that happened after the accession.
I made that point, I just emphasized that those appearances were visionary and not physical.
To elaborate further, if the apostles were having a mix of grief hallucinations, religious experiences, or some other pyschological phenomena, why were they suddenly so certain that Jesus wouldn’t suddenly show up again and seem to have a meal with them? The apostles simply are not still trying to figure out 40 days later what has happened and whether they’re going to see Jesus again in the same way. The ascension explains why. To say that they were having a mix of grief hallucinations, group religious experiences, pareidolia, cognitive dissonance and so forth does not. Furthermore, the switch from a physical kind of experience to a visionary experience isn’t explained by Hartke at all. Why shouldn’t they have reported the same type of experience all along if this was just some kind of natural phenomenon?
If pressed, my guess is Hartke would punt to an alternative version of church history not found in Acts. In this version, perhaps he’d say that the apostles’ experiences were more uncertain, the experiences did taper off more slowly, and then Luke fabricates the entirety of their confidence that they were experiencing, even though it is part of a subtle point that Luke is making. But this would attribute to Luke an anachronistic anticipation of a very specific kind of later skeptical objection
@@TestifyApologetics While Jesus is God, he is also a resurrected human. Have you ever thought about where Jesus actually is and what he is doing when he sends people a vision of himself, but not his physical presence?
@@truncated7644 am pretty sure Jesus is interceding for our sins which is why he only appears in visions after the ascension. (But I could be wrong but I think evidence supports that view)
@@universe8649 I guess I wonder what that means, if his sacrifice was sufficient, why is he interceding? But if he is doing that, how does he also appear in visions?
Amazing!
The Upper Room Discourse in John certainly implies Jesus is going to heaven, and says it has to happen before the imparting of The Holy Spirit, which occurred on Pentecost.
Also, this guy suggested Acts was written fifty years after the ascension. Even secular scholars almost never date Luke or Acts in the 80s, and Christian scholars almost never date it past the early 60s, because of the cliffhanger ending.
I live in northern protestant Europe where the teachings of Rudolf Bultmann are still predominant in academia; a NT professor in my country recently suggested that the Ascension of Christ should be regarded as pure myth and removed from the calendar as such (it's a holiday in Europe, so - the guy basically suggested, we skipped a day of rest and just worked instead... Even the local atheists had to acknowledge that this proposal probably wasn't a good idea...
I don't get the embarrassment either, though. The appearances of Jesus after the resurrection are, admittedly, somewhat sparse in the New testament, say - compared to his ministry, and the Ascension only briefly attested by Luke, but - this strikes me as oddly more plausible than multiple and detailed descriptions of the 40 days would - with a grand finale Ascension in the end to round it up. Jesus just leaves them, and then the 2 angels going: don't just stand there! Close your mouths and head on home - time to get the church started!
Wow, I did know theology it was that bad in Europe.
This is great!
If Mathew wants to hear an argument for the Assention he could just google it or watch you lol. In any case there’s material on the subject out there.
John Shelby Spong mentioned this in his debate with William Lane Craig
These videos are good!
I'd love for u and him to do a show together and dialogue about these issues 👍
I am not, nor will I ever be embarrassed by anything I read in the Bible, especially the gospels
At 5:18, is Paul wearing a hi-vis jacket?
You're doing excellent work! $15/month coming your way!
Thanks, greatly appreciated!
A few years ago, prof. Niko Huttunen aptly wrote about the ascension. He ask, "How to explain the ascension to the audience so that the audience understands it?" And he answer, "Of course, using language, idioms and concepts that the audience uses too! And so did the one who wrote the Luke-Acts." The language that is used by the author of Luke-Acts to describe Jesus' ascension into heaven is quoted directly from the language that is used in ancient times to describe the Roman emperor’s fire-burial and exaltation as god. The most connetctifying factor is the cloud that carries the soul of the emperor and the soul of the Christ into the heavenly gods.
The reason why the author of Luke-Acts did so was that one wanted to make an assimilation or parallel between the Roman emperor and Jesus to show that the new religion is not a threat to the empire and that Christians consider Jesus equal to the emperors.
I've never felt embarrassed about the Ascension. I just don't normally have reason to bring it up. If you're talking about Columbus discovering the New World, the focus is going to be on him sailing west and finding the Americas. How many people talk about him sailing back east and returning to Spain and then making three more round trips? Are they embarrassed that he kept leaving on his magical sail ship, finally never to be seen by the Americans again after 1504? No, that's just not the most relevant thing to be talking about.
great response, and good points from both sides. I do think Hartke brings up an area of interest, but he bases a lot of his argument on silence, so his argument seems weak. That being said, I also think the apologetic responses have been weak as well, but it’s only ineffective because those arguing with the ascension probably don’t believe in a resurrection in the first place xD
So I think the issue is that unless we believe that either a) heaven is physically above us right now, or b) that Jesus is still ascending, Jesus in fact apparated away. So the question is why did he seemingly go out of his way to make it appear as though he was literally ascending to a physical heaven above us, when in fact he was going to disappear once out of sight? By my lights even the language of ascending TO heaven or ultimately descending FROM heaven borders on inaccurate. In reality he ascended to some point in space and then "teleported"
(or however we'd like to describe it).
It's not intended to be a knock down argument, but it does plausibly lower our credence with respect to the historicity of the sole canonical explanation as to why Jesus's ministry ended following his death. Alternatively, this account fits quite nicely with the hypothesis that this description was constructed by a later author based on their limited understanding of cosmology. Perhaps we have some independent reason(s) for thinking that Christianity is true, but I do genuinely think considerations regarding the ascension weigh in favor of a natural explanation evaluated in isolation.
Maybe he ascended to show the disciples a prophetic and symbolic image. Ascending=coming to power/rising to one’s previous higher holy station.
@@Kingrich_777 I think that's probably the route one would need to take, however this explanation also raises the probability that an author would include such an account as a literary device vs something that actually happened in history. What's more, the symbolism only works through the lens of ancient cosmology; divorced from this context, Jesus going "up" would be as significant as Jesus walking into the distance or sinking into the earth, etc.
I also wonder if we're to understand that after the time spent between Jesus and the disciples they still believed heaven was above them? If not it seems likely Jesus' ascension would have been confusing if anything. All things considered it strikes me as a detail an ancient author who believed heaven was above would have included, but not something Jesus would have been likely to do.
@@chipperhippo oh I’m not saying that Jesus never actually ascended. It was a real historical event. I’m just saying that Jesus(Hallowed be His name) came up into the clouds to give the disciples a literal picture highlighting a symbolic message of God being “above” is. He also likely went up to Heaven and vanished just like that out of view into another dimension. It’s not like there’s a house on the literal clouds called Heaven. He went up and disappeared most likely.
In his last remark about the ascension being reliant on the resurrection to be true and therefore lack of evidence for it calls the resurrection itself into question only shows how credible it is. It goes both ways. If there is sufficient evidence for the resurrection; it makes the ascension far more plausible.
As far as it being a logical step? "If I can believe in the resurrection why not ascension? " type arguement?
"Not a very big *literal* fan." Loved it.
If you were to imagine a sheet of paper as representing a 2d universe the people in this 2d universe would be totally unaware of the table its sitting on or your hand directly above it. Only if you were to stick your finger into the sheet of paper would they be able to observe a cross section of your finger.
You've now taken your 3d finger and entered a 2d universe. You withdraw your finger and all the wile these 2d people were watching. You could do this from either side of the paper. And it would appear to them that you are either above or below.
This holds true for us witnessing higher dimensional beings entering and exiting our dimension. So Him ascending into the sky makes total sense and if anything adds credibility to their story.
I like the illustration, but theoretically, if you truly lived in a 2D world, you couldn't observe 3D motion outside of 2D. There is no reference for up or down on a flat plane; there's only back and fourth, side to side, etc. So a 3 dimensional invasion of the space would seemingly appear out of nowhere, at least as far as I understand it.
@@jdm11060 true. But you could go a step further and say life can't exist in 2d. because molecules,cells and the like couldn't exist in 2d.
If I could reIllustrate. When you place the tip of your finger into the 2d plane it would start as a small dot and expand into the size of your finger. And the reverse on the way out. It would really depend on how intelligent the 2d people are. They know lat and long but vertical is unobservable (but still there) so if they were at least somewhat aware of a vertical dimension, let's say they call it hevens and hell. I think you could conclude it came from above. Or it just expanded out of nothing.
Maybe that makes sense. I'm no expert
@@MadebyKourmoulisI think you're right on that. An ascension for a 3D person would look like a shrinking/disappearing act to the 2D observer, but is nonetheless an actual ascension. For us in 3D land, I suspect the ascension of a 4D being would be similarly weird to witness, yet no less a literal ascension. It may truly be for our limited mind's sake that God, in his goodness, performed what looked like an actual 3D ascension to illustrate the reoccurring point in scripture of a 4D reality of God in heaven "above," as it were. I'm totally speculating, because it's fascinating to think about, and I'm glad I'm not the only one! Cheers, brother!
Anne Catherine Emmerich has a richly detailed account of the Ascension.
It's very reminiscent of Fatima (or visa versa) :)
I never knew protestants were bothered by the ascension of our Lord. How fascinating yet puzzling.
Do you think phenomenologically the Ascension appeared to be Jesus ascending into the sky until he was no longer visible due to atmospheric clouds, or him ascending and being enveloped by a cloud (perhaps the Shekinah) and thus disappearing? Seems like Luke's account slightly underdetermines this?
"Jesus ascending into the sky until he was no longer visible"
Assuming straight up, by around 2000 feet he would be too small to be visible.
It was necessary for Jesus to "go away"-Jn. 16:7, in order for Him to send the Holy Spirit to the Church. If He had not ascended back to heaven, the Holy Spirit would not descend on the Church. His "going away" was the ascension.
I am here from the future. Happy ascension day.
I believe CS Lewis made brief discussion on the Ascension in the essay "Transposition" contained the essay collection "The Weight of Glory". There's also a reference to the book "Flatland".
Basically, how is it supposed to look when Jesus enters the Heavenly realm? Why not also include ascension into the clouds? Why would this be an embarrassing issue?
ISTM the critic raising the objection here is several decades late to the party. CS Lewis answered him 70 years ago.
@Nathan Danielson For me it was Transposition, Learning in Wartime, and then The Weight of Glory.
@Nathan Danielson One of the many memorable quotes from that collection that I absolutely love is "Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered."
Just because you don't believe something, doesn't mean it isn't true.
Are you willing to bet your soul?
“For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and lose his soul?”
Jesus of Nazareth (Mk. 8:36)
Um, what do you mean by that?
The same statement could be use the other way around.
Just because you believe something, dosen't mean it's true
You're betting your soul as well.
Christianity isn't the only religion out there, so if it results being false and another god is actually the real one you end up in hell.
Things aren't so simple
💖🙏💖🙏💖
Okay, this is the third or fourth video you've uploaded while I'm at Walmart. How?
Habitual beings both of you
@@sathviksidd took my words!
Always watching, Wazowski. Always watching.
One problem I found is that if I have any chance to defend the resurrection at all, I get 3 seconds to say something before I get interrupted and before I have a chance to come back, the conversation has moved on. With a minimal facts approach, I could just throw in one of these facts quickly. Just to stop them in their tracks. But the maximal facts argument, can only e used when the sceptic really wants to hear all the evidence. In all my discussions with sceptics over the last 20 years, I have yet to meet one. It just seems impractical. But I live in Britain, so it’s probably different over here.
I'm addressing this objection specifically in a video that will be published today. Time isn't the issue, imo.
@@TestifyApologetics yep, I saw it and commented on it. It was helpful. Thanks
While I do agree with Hartke that aspects of the ascension are inconvenient for us Christians, I definitely think the accusation that apologists "shy away from it" to be misplaced.
As you said, it simply isn't something that meets the criteria for a minimal fact, so why would they go out of their way to discuss it? How would it add to their argument?
I’m not understanding the weight of this argument. Even today, if for the sake of arguments an incarnate God in the flesh was here in 2023…a cool way for him to make an exit would be to fly away. Let alone an incarnation of God catering to a pre-scientific worldview that believed in a 3 tiered universe. I also don’t understand why the ascension would be a major talking point, I’ve kind of been under the impression that coming back from death was the grand finale that people would have been fixated on. You know, the whole “Is death the end” thing lol
The Apostle John recorded the ascension of Christ Jesus is great detail. Have any of these apologist read the Revelation of Jesus Christ?
John was given a throne room perspective of the ascension and coronation of Christ Jesus.
Great
In another note Luke wasn't the only one who wrote about the ascension, in short Mark says Jesus was received in heaven so Mark and Luke attest to it, the testimony of two or more is valid.
studying the ascension and yes seems to be avoided although a book written by Gerritt Scott Dawson has great insight on Christ Ascension. would like your view on his book
Why is it risky to argue from silence now but your entire early dating argument is an argument from silence
First of all, it doesn't matter if a document is dated to 85 AD and is found to be trustworthy or a document is dated to 62 AD and is riddled with issues. I wouldn't press the early dating argument super hard anymore.
That said, I think you're not getting the nuances. The argument arises from our other information about Luke's usual practice in the book of Acts. For example, there is his blow-by-blow account of the ship voyage and the arrival in Rome, and his interest in Paul's other court appearances. Far more striking than his not mentioning the fire or the destruction of Jerusalem is Luke's not mentioning the outcome of Paul's upcoming hearing before the Emperor. This also fits together with the "summary" style of the end of Acts. Luke likes action, and it seems there was very little going on during the two years of Paul's house arrest. (From Luke's perspective.) Luke has been keenly interested in what is going to happen to Paul. It is therefore somewhat unlikely that he would cut his book's narrative off without telling what happened in Paul's hearing if he were writing significantly later. The only reasonable alternative hypothesis (to his sending the book off while Paul is still in prison) that I have seen is that of Colin Hemer which would scarcely move the writing date later by more than a year or two--to perhaps 63. Hemer suggests that Luke was exercising discretion after Paul had been released and was re-establishing his ministry in Asia Minor. Paul indicates in Philippians and Philemon that he intends to do this, and 2 Timothy seems to indicate that he was re-arrested in the midst of a ministry in which he re-visited the churches he had previously founded. Another point in favor of an early date is that Luke is writing for Theophilus, the same convert/recipient for whom he wrote his Gospel. He has no reason to delay getting his work to Theophilus by any long period of time, once the events he recounts in it have taken place. Why would he "sit on" his work for all that time rather than sending it to Theophilus for his edification? In fact, it may be his desire to send his work to Theophilus while kicking his heels in Rome waiting for Paul's trial that prompts the abrupt ending of the book if there was no sign of scheduling the hearing.
@@TestifyApologetics it absolutely matters when it was dated and which was written first. If Mark used Peter as his source, his gospel was written first since other gospels repeat him verbatim. The earliest dating for Mark is 64 AD, after Peter’s death, according to your own church fathers. If you’re proposing that Luke was written within 6 years of Mark’s first draft (before Matthew?!), you’re not being intellectually honest or consistent. You can’t claim church authority for traditional authorship and then conveniently ignore when those same authors say the gospels were composed.
I can when they're in basic agreement about who composed them even if there are minor disagreements about when they were composed. FWIW Origen says Luke Acts was written when Pail was still alive. But you ignored my point about reliability. It doesn't matter if say Acts was written in 64 or 84 so much as its written by a witness and we can find historical confirmations and various other reasons to trust their information. That stands wholly apart from what the fathers said about dating or even authorship
So when Jesus was baptized a dove descended from heaven, so his baptism was made up Matt 3:16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”
Man what are you trying to say
Yeah all of that stuff was made up, next point...
Craig: The ascension is a deep study and I don't use it because it's not necessary to the case I've made.
Testify: He doesn't use it because it doesn't fit his criteria.
Can you provide a quote where he says what you claim he did? Otherwise it sounds like you are just strawmanning.
@@gustavmahler1466 That has absolutely no relation to what I was saying. Please avoid spamming.
He says it's an appearance. It seems like a very important one. It doesn't really fit the criteria in the kind of passage-by-passage approach he utilizes, and so it's not something that he can really "mine out" as something that is strongly historically attested, from what I understand of his view. Craig doesn't think it's necessary to his case because he feels like he can make the case the other way using his set of core facts even if we can't say with much confidence that other parts could contain contradictions and embellishments. But a kind of a historical agnosticism regarding parts of the gospels and a confidence about other parts is odd and kind of downgrades historical reliability. It would be better to say If the author has given us reasons to trust him in many various parts, then the whole of his entire narrative is probably good. If I sampled a slice of bread in at the ends and in the middle, I assume the whole loaf is probably good. I don't take a slice by slice approach.
I'm open to being wrong, and perhaps I could email him and ask him to clarify.
@@TestifyApologetics Please forgive the long post below. I appreciate you responding to me.
If you are going to claim the motives of a person for using or not using something as a part of an argument, it seems necessary to at least provide a quote otherwise just say "The ascension wouldn't be able to be established using Craig's methodology."
"But a kind of a historical agnosticism regarding parts of the gospels and a confidence about other parts is odd and kind of downgrades historical reliability."
This just doesn't logically follow. I can argue that my teaching of an 8th grade class was a well-attested event without downgrading the historical reliability of my eating a snack in private. My eating a snack in private is as historically reliable as it is apart from how I argue for my teaching of the 8th grade class.
If you want to argue that it is a downgrade in historical reliability by virtue of it being comparatively less attested, that should be without contestation. The fact that 20 people attested to the first event and no people other than myself attested to the second means that the first is better attested (practically tautological).
Consider further a court case, if a lawyer uses evidence to show that the defendant is guilty, they are under no obligation to use a different, less well-established piece of evidence. This is not to say they are implying that the other evidence is less reliable. In fact, it may be that the veridicality of the prior evidence only goes to SUPPORT the latter evidence. If the case can be made sufficiently without an appeal to another piece of evidence which can be more easily countered then why not do it that way?
In practice, arguments for the resurrection get bogged down not only in the same issues you believe will be avoided ("how do you know they actually saw what they claimed and aren't just making it up") but also in new counter-arguments like contradictions. I've seen Bart Ehrman debate on this and he just digs up a bunch of contradictions and the Christian has to spend so much time defending against contradictions that his own case isn't as well developed.
I’m going to start with a question. Which is easier? To stone a man or for that same man to catch every stone tell you why you’re wrong for throwing it and then throw it away? Which man is more impressive?? Anyways I think the ascension is not mentioned for one other reason and it’s funny we came so close on both sides but I think that the eyewitnesses ESPECIALLY SUPER EARLY MARK who can’t get the words Son of Man away from Jesus for more than a chapter figured that by the end the listener who probably knew about Daniel 7 and who is the Son of Man? What happens to him? And why? Would’ve come to the end of the gospel and answered the question for themselves.
Or idk Imagine this………
“Ssoo Where’s Jesus again?”
-And Peter would’ve said
“😐….Well kid he’s the son of man, like He literally said it for the 20th time only a few chapters ago…”
“Chapters?”
“NVM!! Do you remember what Jesus said would happen at his “totally fair and legitimate trial by night” 😤 now THATS fake news of the century! Am I right J.M.?!
🤨 “I’m almost done & nicknames was a Lord Jesus and you Twelve thing please just call me my pen-name Mark and are you SURE you don’t want me to just add the ascension in? I’ve got a lot of space”
“Nah they’d get the reference, who wouldn’t?
🙄 you remember what Daniel says in HIS account kid? Right?”
🧐“Oh yeah the S.o.M. Ascends into heaven is presented before The Ancient of Days (Yahweh) and sits on a throne at his right hand where all humanity worships him and his kingdom reigns forever.…The End…right?” 🤓
And Mark would’ve said….
“weeellll need you would be but my boy Luke you remember Paul’s doctor friend? Yeah he’s still working on something he’s calling “The Acts of the Apostles” says it’s gonna be HUUGEE bigger than his first account bbuuuttt sure kid let’s say “The End for now” and go for some boiled fish, I heard Johnnie and James went out fishing last night…..”
“Sure!….but why not just call it ACTS?”
“THATS BRILLIANT KID I’ll tell Theophilus to tell Luke next I see him he should be in town for next Pentecost!!!”
……
Fade to black?
Who’s the kid?! 🤷🏿♂️ I wasn’t there YOU GET THE POINT ALREADY!! Daniel 7 now shoo!!
"Who’s the kid?"
Whoever you want it to be. It is your story!
Actually,, the Ascension would be embarrassing. After all, shouldn't Jesus be around to meet w/ Paul? If you're most important writer's most important experience is meeting Jesus, why would you create a story that made it impossible for your writer to meet Jesus? It'd be like inventing a story in which Muhammad can read - his alleged inability to read is a core part of the argument for the divine nature of his revelation. Here, Paul's meeting w/ Christ is a core part of the argument for the divine nature of his revelation, so why make that meeting difficult and/or less significant somehow?
The problem w/ arguing the writers made it up is that writers would make up the best/strongest story possible - they wouldn't make unnecessary problems for themselves.
The bible states that Paul met Jesus "in spirit" so your argument falls
In the ancient world, being one who rides on the clouds, is an obvious allusion to their deity…for instance Zeus or Baal…both sky gods..especially Baal who was a cloud rider
Interesting that Jesus would choose to rise into the heavens and be a cloud rider…Daniel 7 also comes to mind(another instance of God/Jesus being a cloud rider)
Also, he rose to a high place, which is a place of authority and worship…I am at a total loss why anyone would think the ascension is embarrassing…the opposite is true
He could have say
Now I go the Father and then disappear
You missed the biggest implication of his argument: If the resurrection, ascension and the second coming are a package deal, so that if one isn't historical, neither are the others ... then the obverse is true as well. If ONE of them can be shown from the evidence to be true, the others are as well.
And that unravels his entire premise and answers the question of why apologists don't bother arguing the case for the ascension specifically, but focus instead on the resurrection -- it's superfluous. Proving the resurrection means proving the ascension and the second coming. "Jesus is Lord" essentially *means* "the ascension" -- the fulfillment of Daniel 7:13-14, which is predicated on the resurrection. The theological truth of the ascension is entailed by the historical fact of the resurrection.
Here's an obvious reason. Only Luke mentions it and he doesn't even claim to be an eye witness. (Luke 1:1-3)
According to the Bible's own standard for establishing a matter, the thing is not established except on the word of two or three witnesses.
Christians don't read their own bible seriously enough.
Btw, I believe in Jesus and follow him and as such try to take what he says seriously.
@@AnHebrewChild Luke claims to have interviewed eyewitnesses. And, at the time, all of this material existed as oral testimony, so it's not even like his original audience was relying on him exclusively for the information.
And, while he is the only one who describes it explicitly, it is implicit in the rest. As I explained in my initial comment, it is part-and-parcel of the overall theology connected to "Jesus as Lord" at the right hand of the Father, having been resurrected. The actual momentary event of him traversing from earth to heaven isn't dwelled upon because it doesn't need to be -- the reality of him ruling from the right hand of God is the assumed background to everything else. Take that away, and nothing else written in the New Testament makes any sense.
You are right that Christians don't read the Bible, and should. But if they did, that would hardly undermine our confidence in the ascension.
@@brianervin7643 thanks for your response. I follow Jesus and his Deuteronomic principle of the mouth of two or three witnesses. Sorry, Luke is very valuable, but not in the same way as the other gospel writers. Which, of course, is part of the unique value he affords.
Matthew comes from Apostles Matthew and Thomas. And "Mark" comes from Apostles Peter and Andrew. And I do mean DIRECTLY, notwithstanding the traditions of churchmen.
Secular and conservative scholars alike "do err, not knowing the scriptures neither the power of God."
speaking of Luke, go look at chapter 20 verse 20. The same thing still goes on today.
And so, "take heed what ye hear."
@@AnHebrewChild got any articles or studies that state the gospels were coauthored by different disciples? That's the first I've ever heard of that.
He tried-thanks Testify
Hartke is making a logical error. The minimalist approach is not meant to prove every detail of the Bible (it couldn't - if every detail of the Bible were provable through non Biblical facts the Bible would be superfluous). When you are testing the validity of a claim, you test what you can test & if something passes all those tests, you deem it credible - you don't have to prove every detail. If, for example, I can prove you went to Yale when you claim to have gone to Yale, that you got the degree you claimed, that you wrote the thesis you claimed, that you got the award you claimed etc., then I can take your word for it when you say you met Bill Clinton when you were at Yale. Minimalism simply argues that we can independently verify so much about the Bible that we can trust the rest.
Given that argument, you can't say, "But you can't verify you met Bill Clinton; therefore, you didn't go to Yale." The verifiable parts of the Bible are not falsified by the parts you can't verify anymore than you can falsify my Yale degree by claiming I can't prove I met Bill Clinton.
You'd need to actually DISPROVE the Ascension to disprove the verifiable parts of the Bible.
If Jesus Christ claimed to be God, and rose ppl from the dead, and rose from death himself, I’ll take him at the word of his disciples that he did rise.
Analyze his behavior in the gospels, these are accounts of a man during 3 years, recalled and written by men who lived with him all those 3 years, and you can clearly see he had no drop of sin, immorality, sleaziness, or deceptiveness. His motives were pure so why would he encourage deceptiveness among his disciples? If anything, he re-sensitized their consciences and hence you can be sure that the things you read in the bible are true and did happen.
And we don’t even need to accept every single fact in the Bible, all we need to do is to believe(trust) on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Acts 16:31
“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved”
This is literally all it takes to be saved. The proof there is that this statement is true is that Jesus promised eternal life to the penitent thief, all for believing on him. Jesus could’ve taken this man off the cross and made him an apostle(considering he literally performed miracles) to make a point that repentance is necessary for salvation, but HE DIDNT!
So you can believe on Christ and then rest and rejoice in the everlasting life you received.
say this prayer of salvation:
“Lord Jesus Christ, I am sinner. And I believe and trust on you alone for my salvation. You died for all my sins, past, present, and future, and rose again on the 3rd day. Amen”
If you’ve trusted on Christ alone, you no longer have to be concerned about going to hell anymore. The burden isn’t yours, Christ bore it so you don’t have to
I watched that vid, it was good when he was asking questions (ask and you will receive) but it became cringe when he started to answer questions showing he knows very little about the subject.
Your point is well taken about how God would act in a way that is spatially relevant. By the way, besides prayer, the position of our eyes and our posture matters in life: When someone is depressed, they are constantly looking down. Is that from a mythological understanding of life? One way to help a suicidal person is to have them look up at you when talking. And the advice we receive for empowering ourselves in life is by holding our heads up high with shoulders back. Our brains are wired this way in relation to our bodies. That is not a coincidence.
Hierarchies are almost always shown in this way - top-down. Pyramids symbolize this. Why wouldn't God take advantage of this inbuilt understanding of humans of what is superior to what inferior.? My biggest beef with vocal atheists is that they always assume bad faith when reading the Bible and they almost never use their imagination to try to understand why certain events or experiences could occur in such a way.
"they assume bad faith"
Well said.
Also, ironically, they run into the same problem they accuse the dogmatic fundamentalist of. They read the Bible with rigid pre-conceived notions. An example: I just read a comment from a person who, in speaking of the Babel narrative, said, "why would God be threatened by a tall building?"
(God's statement "Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do" is an expression of his mercy. Similar to that in Genesis 3 "and now, lest they stretch stretch forth their hand and take and eat and live forever" (in misery, in decay, separated from God) is likewise an expression of mercy.
i dont mean to sound rude but why do atheists always immediately jump to conclusions when it comes to arguments
Both believers and non-believers do that.
commenting for algo
1:13, 1:39
8:08, 8:37, 8:55
Luke is not the only Gospel that attests Christ's ascension. Mark does as well. We need to stop dismissing the last twelve verses of Mark. They are legitimate.
I hold to the last twelve verses of Mark.
Weird fact: Mark has 678 verses. Without the last twelve, it's 666.
That's not why I hold to the last twelve. It's just interesting. Using Matthew, it's provable that the last twelve of Mark are Scripture.
You mean the longer ending that was appended much later?
@@soarel325 The last twelve verses of Mark were not "appended much later". That is literally the opposite of the evidence we have. What do you base that conjecture on? Is it because that is what you have been told?
Jesus popped in and faded out (Higher dimensional use) before the ascension. The ascension is set apart, it also sets up a future event of Christ's return, it allows Christians to know how Jesus goes so will be his return he will come in the sky not born, in Body not spirit, fully capable of eating and interacting with the world as demonstrated with the apostles.
This is interesting for many reasons.
He says " He didn't just disappear into another dimension " if he were to disappear into another dimension in front of your eyes it would most likely appear that he is moving upward.
If you were to take into account these people that witnessed this probably didn't know that there are more dimensions than the 4 we can experience, and they probably didn't know the physics associated with higher dimensions. Their testimony of him ascending to the sky could be looked at as more evidence of their truthfulness.
@@MadebyKourmoulis I think, if I was those ancient fellas, if the accession didn't happened, and Jesus just faded to Heaven, I feel that I probably had a weird hallucination, where I can touch and feel him. I think God was smart to have Jesus accended, to let the people know they weren't going crazy. However this is all speculative thinking so I could still be wrong.
@@MadebyKourmoulis Jesus appeared to them in the closed room and seems to slip away in like manner.
Luke 24:31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized Jesus-and He disappeared from their sight.
Luke 24:36-37 36While they were describing these events, Jesus Himself stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” 37But they were startled and frightened, thinking they had seen a spirit.
John 20:19 It was the first day of the week, and that very evening, while the disciples were together with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them.
@@probaskinnyman4960 you make a good point. String theory postulates there are around 11 dimensions up to 26. God clearly has access to all of these so it would seem he chose to enter a dimension that would appear that he is moving up to the sky.
@@hiddenrambo328 Exactly.
I wonder if Jesus is still flying through space. Would he have left the solar system by now?
Hartke makes two mistakes imo. First, he commits the logical fallacy of arguing from silence. He then conjectures as to the reason behind the silence which is disingenuous. Secondly, he states that Luke wrote some 50 years after the ascension. Many scholars contend that the book of Luke was written to Theophilus while he served as the high priest between 37 and 41 AD and that the book of Acts after those events took place which was after Theophilus served. This explains the difference in the two greetings. That would put the writing of the ascension account only 7 to 11 years after the event occurred if 30 AD is assumed.
Uh Luke was definitely not written that early. Where the heck did you get the idea that Theophilus was high priest??😂
The fact that 3 people already like your post is cause for concern.
@@Pseudo-Jonathan this guy named Josephus, maybe you've heard of him. His father was Annas and his brother in law was Caiaphas.
@@DavidStirneman Bro. Luke is writing to another Theophilus. He's greek christian leader in a christian community
@@Pseudo-Jonathan your assertion has 1) no historical record, 2) no explanation for the difference in greetings. I prefer plausibility and explanatory evidence when it's available over pure conjecture. If you look past your own confirmation bias and be Berean I think you'll find that the bias favoring your speculation has been driven by a desire to separate Luke's writings to a later period.
Is Matt assuming late dating of the gospels? He seems to be
Did Jesus fly away like neo in the matrix? 🤷♂️ Probably did.
Does anyone else really like to think that perhaps heaven requires a literal trip through the cosmos? God did make the universe incomprehensibly large, and while I'm not saying I think this is true, I love the idea that Christ's ascension into heaven was a literal ascension into a sort of cosmological plane of God's existence. It's almost certainly fourth dimensional in nature, but hot-dog, it sure would be fantastic to take a trip through space on our way into glory.
Ok, this is just having fun, but if Jesus ate fish just before ascending, wouldn't the lack of pressure as he passes through the upper atmosphere cause it to explode?
@@truncated7644 well, he rose from the dead, so.... Normal rules don't apply. That's what I'm going with.
@@jdm11060 Ok then. But if you are going that way, why does Jesus even have a body? What is inside of it? What does it do? From what I am hearing you say, at this point, you not only don't apply normal rules, you don't have any.
@@truncated7644 "this is just having fun, but..." I didn't realize you were trying to make a genuine argument. Neither was I. Yes, I believe in physical/natural rules. And, yes, I believe God can change/intervene rules as he sees fit.
@@jdm11060Sorry, you are right - that sounded too serious. Sticking to odd speculation, I am curious if we will have internal organs though....
The Ascension into the heavens sounds very much like the Tower of Babel story. Ignorance of what is literally above the clouds. You can say the clouds were the best place for him to disappear but that wouldn’t explain why God was so fearful of a tall building. Old Testament I’m guessing that whole book would be a littler harder to defend. As is the New Testament with today’s moral code and better understanding of the real world
Where did you read God was fearful of a tall building?
Read Genesis 11 more closely. Secular and conservative scholars alike understand that's not what the narrative is saying?
@@AnHebrewChild A plain reading of the Babel story would illustrate a God's growing concern over how powerful its' own creation is becoming. If you want to get pedantic I don't know how much deep meaning we can derive from 9 verses
yaaawn
The problem is he doesn't believe heaven is above tho the heavens are above bcuz he believes the earth is a ball in the dark space moving around the sun.
His NASA shirt states his faith. From Genesis to Revelation the Bible states the earth as stationary which rose from the waters. In basic form all the earth is flat with hills and mountains. The Bible doesn't present the earth as a ball going around the sun rather the plane which the sun runs its course over as it was demonstrated during Joshua's prayer in which the sun stood over a mountain during battle. When the Bible states when the Lord Jesus comes all eyes will see I can't think of a better way than all nations being able to just look up as it states all eyes will see and lament.
talk about an argument from silence lol
Rule #1 don't go into the comments
Too late
Still no explanation why apologists tend to be embarrassed about the ascension. They explain at length the crucification and the resurrection but not the even more supernatural and godlike ascension. I really don't understand why. Maybe it is somehow embarrassing that Jesus just disappears?
“If God became man, then we should expect Him to have both an unusual entrance into this world (the Virgin Birth), and an unusual departure from this world (the Ascension).”
Josh McDowell
If I, a former atheist tell people that ive seen 4 miracles in my life and experienced the baptism of the holy spirit ill be brushed off as crazy. Yet,
I truly experienced the mentioned above.
1) I saw a blind man from birth who we knew from church receive sight after we prayed for him, after comming out of 3 day fasting and praying.
2) I was fasting in my house, it was 11 am. There were piercing thoughts that suddenly came into my mind that said, "Go to church now the youth needs your help" I said to my self "this is crazy, the youth are still in school its only 11 am". The thoughts got piercingly stronger, so I obeyed. Lo and behold, the youth were trying to cast out a demon of one one girl and thats why they left school early because the episodes began in the bathroom. When i got to church the pastor son Jefte was there trying to help who had keys to the temple. I cast out the demon and this girl was shaking violently as soon as she laid eyes on me and was foaming out her mouth and the demon was speaking thru her in Arabic. Mind you this girl only speaks spanish.
3) During a long drought in where I am from I prayed and rain came down with no clouds.
4) I saw a person pray over a building and asking God to bring the fire of the holy spirit to those inside. We had a sharp argument about the bible, and when we went outside Alex prayed at one of the corners of the building saying, 'God bring the fire of your spirit to thus place". Quite literally at that moment the building cought fire starting from the roof and no one knew how.
5) Ehen i was praying and fasting for 5 day asking God to baptise me with the spirit, that night on the 5th day while music was playing I felt a heat and electricity mix together that ran all pvery body. My hearing got blocked to all external sounds and music, and all I heard was a sound of rushing winds, and at the sometime it felt i was underneath a waterfall.
Incredible to accept by you the reader, but this is why no amount of atheistic argumentation can move my faith.
Quote;
"I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God."
Un-Quote
1 Corinthians 2:3-5 NASB1995
I am grateful to God for these experiences!
Ask Him why he won't save everyone. He's strong enough to do those things for you, but He can't bother to save everyone after He created us to deal with this world in the first place. I don't care how much good God does in our lives, anyone suffering eternally in hell will never make up for it.
Also if all those things truly happened then go report them somewhere and try to scrap up as much evidence for it as you can, testimonies or whatever else you can. Just cause you say something on the internet doesn't mean I should believe it. Miracles like that would be phenomenal evidence, so you should at least have something besides your testimony to back it up right?
"How else would you prefer he disappear?"
Thats not my problem. I dont have to come up to the solution of a predicament where people _do_ get bodily resurrected in physical bodies but heaven is _not_ a physical place that you go to. Thats on the people that came up with this.
I can just say "oh people thought heaven was 'up' because thats the kind of thing you would piece together as a human understanding the world, and naturally the myths people make about interactions with heaven would be peoples bodies literally going up there"
In highly descriptive NDEs, people on their way back to their bodies go through space, the atmosphere, then back into their bed. So this isn't outlandish whatsoever.
@@zephyr-117sdropzone8 this is presupposing that NDEs are actual supernatural events and not just products of the mind, right?
@@Greyz174 They aren't. You need to do some serious research on them because neuroscientists and other researchers who study them agree they are NOT products of the brain. Some of these experiences are seriously wild and they discover things they never could've known. But yes, check out all the work Dr. Bruce Greyson has done, Sam Harris, etc. Incredible stuff.
@@zephyr-117sdropzone8 Sam Harris is a materialist...
@@soarel325 I meant to say Sam Parnia
They don't "have room for it?" You make no sense
🤦♂️
If Jesus ascended physically to Heaven then Heaven must be a physical place. Where is it? How long did it take him? Is he still travelling through space? Maybe his return is like Halley’s Comet. However if His ascension was by way of the spirit as a pneus then that is a different story. Then when Paul says “I did not know whether I was in the body “ and he talks about the 7 th heaven. He obviously believes ascension was by way of the spirit.
Strictly and nearly ONLY because these men (whom you selectively use to suit your bias) all hold a relatively low view of scripture.
Of course you'll make use of their wavering.
Note: You neither address the ascension but only the select apologists. You isolate the account as a tactic.
Go review a book on asparagus.
Where did physical Jesus fly to? Close earth orbit? Beyond our solar system? Outside the known universe? Is he still flying?
It’s obvious the ascension is a story that fits the 1st century view of heaven existing just beyond the tallest mountains (see story of Babel).
OMG! No Jesus didn't symbolically ascend into heaven in the Bible. It literally says that Jesus flew up and disappeared into a cloud. This is clearly silly!
Proof jesus exist without bible claims and stories.
Without stories? What do you think history is? It's literally in the word.
So, to summarize: "Apologists choose not to address components of the gospel narrative because secular scholars don't already concede the possibility/factuality of such a thing, and they are harder to defend logically and historically from a literalist, fundamentalist position in any case."
Wow, I was expecting a really weak argument here, but this is surprisingly poorly done (unless you intended to agree with Hartke, which you didn't seem to intend to do even though you did so spectacularly). Of course, if any additional cognitive dissonance would be imparted by an honest appraisal and defense of some position I held, I suppose I would probably choose to simply ignore it also; we're only human beings listening to and reading other human beings, after all.
All you gotta do to satisfy this agnostic is answer:
1) Is "heaven" located "up"?
1a) If so, could someone reach it by travelling outward in some particular direction from the center of the earth at any particular point in time?
1b) If not, why Jesus "rise" into the sky on "ascending"? Every other gospel appearance and Paul's own do not indicate Jesus floating down, but rather, suddenly appearing or being come across in a particular location by people. If Jesus can suddenly appear anywhere, why "ascend" at all?
1ba) Why was Elijah also whisked into the sky, and why is it noted that those who believe will be gathered together in the sky to meet Jesus on his presumptive return in Revelations? (if you, like most, take a less literalist stance on Revelation and eschatology in general, feel free to skip this one of course)
I think the honest (or at the very least, objective) person would have to conclude these references are there precisely because pre-modern people had conceptions that the afterlife was located adjacent to the physical realm we live in (or was a physical realm itself), and could be reached by going up or down. I suspect the ideologically and theologically pre-committed recognize this position to be directly contrary to modern "orthodox" theology (especially the literalist fundamentalist variety) and cosmology, not to mention the more modern materialist position. It is an embarrassing anachronism for people that choose to believe against the evidence that these texts are 1) reality in the historical rather than mythological sense 2) inspired and protected in that factual accuracy by "revelation" or "inspiration", so they choose to focus on more easily defended ground (where they usually also lose the argument)
Be my guest, I have an open mind here, it is yours to blow if you can. But I've never gotten or found a good answer from the fundamentalist/literalist to the questions above, not after 20+ years of looking.
5:12 isn't possible Paul believes his vision of Jesus is exactly like the other apostles' experience ??
Here is the problem. Paul predates Mark and the invention of a human Jesus. Paul is a messianic Jew not a Christian. He predates Christianity and the invention of Jesus. Paul's cult of Jews followed writings found in the Ascension of Isiah that predates Mark by over 100 years. A. Of Isiah just like Paul' s Christos is a spirit only being only ever seen in visions. For 100 years before the alleged birth of Christ.
Paul died in 55ce. The Gospel of Mark is written in 72 ce. In both Mark and A. Isiah Jesus just appears. No virgin birth no family no Xmas story. He appears at age 33 preaches a few weeks is executed and Mark ends with an empty tomb. This matches a. Of Isiah where Christ is descends from heaven a full grown man, preaches and is then killed by Satan and returns to Heaven.
Matt. Is far too late 110ce and adds many new details that are clearly fiction. Luke/acts is absurdly too late 150ce gets geography details of Paul's journeys wrong.
Huh? Piecing together Paul's trip from his letters Paul writes I am on my way to see you in Antitoch. But Luke has him traveling from Rome to Greece at that time. Many many more errors Luke acts is clearly fiction and a way to tie Paul's Christos to Marks Jesus.
John 325 ce is the Roman Empire establishing Jesus as the reborn roman pagan sun God Sol Invictus.
The word became flesh could mean a fictional spirit being humanized in fictional stories. The word become flesh. Same as all of the other Roman Pantheon of god's and goddesses.
Jesus never existed.
1 COR 15 is word for word from Isiah. Paul refers to the A. Of Isiah throughout his letters. Word for word. While never mentioning Jesus by name only the title Christos. Paul never mentions a family a virgin birth nor does Paul know anyone who ever met a human Jesus. It is all visions. acts written 100 years after Paul is pure fiction.
Resurrection is ridiculously nothing to do with Ascension. What is wrong with you?
I feel like the details of the Ascension just aren't as important as the Resurrection. The Resurrection is what shows us that Jesus is supernatural and immortal. How exactly he returned to his supernatural realm doesn't seem as important. The biblical writers could have been wrong about the time, place, and manner that he left Earth, and Christianity would still make sense (I don't think they were, just that being wrong wouldn't destroy Christianity). But if they were wrong about the Resurrection, there would be no reason to worship Jesus. I'm guessing that's why apologists tend to focus on the Ascension less.
Since the Bible is the inspired word of God, why are there such ambiguous and even contradictory stories of Jesus’s life and death. Why do the most important aspects of Christianity need apologists to defend them?