You know whats also never at all talked about? When after the resurrection, apparently old saints and prophets rose from the grave and walked around. Literally no one has ever addressed this and everytime I would ask apologists about it. Never gotten an answer, just "Ill make a video about it some day."
Actually, it was right after - or at the end of the crucifixion when the world turned dark, the sun stopped shining, the earth opened, and the dead rose from their graves. This is in the absence of any evidence of either an earth quake nor a solar eclipse around that time in that part of the world.
Apologists can get away with this in part because it’s in only one Gospel - Matthew, I think. But besides the ridiculousness of the concept, all these “resurrections” have an odd theological implication. If Jesus resurrected himself to prove his divinity, aren’t these other “prophets” demigods by default? I’ve always been amused by the horror-movie aspect of this. Imagine Christ showing up in “the upper room” like Jack Nicholson in “The Shining.” “Heeeeeere’s Jesus!”
The reason it's never depicted in films as it's written in the New Testament is that the visual of Jesus taking off into the clouds like Superman would be unavoidably comical.
@@smacvie if it was not the first time then why did it never happen again? especially in this modern era when everything can be recorded & verified using scientific method? surely god does not ran out of mana after all of those "supernatural miracles", does he? all of your "historical" claim worth nothing compared to a single evidence of resurrection (and ascension, in accordance with this video)
@@smacvie i hope you understand that if you really believe god is an all-powerful being it doesn`t need anyone to speak on his behalf like a disabled kid. so whenever you tell anyone "god does / doesn`t do / think like this or that", you're just projecting your own thoughts into an imaginary all-powerful puppet. indeed it's quite effective method of controlling others, as you can see for yourself how some religious leaders led thousands to do his bidding, even ignoring their own self-preservation instinct till death
If the resurrection is as true as the first century eyewitnesses claimed, then the ascension is no big deal. Either miracles happen or they don't. If miracles happen, then all of our common notions might be wrong. Theologically, the ascension is important primarily as the model by which Christ would return, when 'every eye will see him'. Reason is a tool with which we attempt to understand personal experience (either received information or directly perceived phenomena). Belief and unbelief are chosen reactions to the conclusions of that process. The early Christians did not claim belief based on a series of received concepts, rather on personal experience of miraculous phenomena. That is no different than many Christians today who claim personal experience of the miraculous. How each of us reacts to all of those claims is, of course, a personal choice which will be informed by our own personal experiences.
I have to disagree. Yes, miracles can happen. But the Ascension clearly implies a 3-Tiered-Universe, as mentioned in the video. The reason the Ascension poses such a big problem, theologically, is not because it’s miraculous, but because it’s non-sensical. If Jesus is all-knowing, he would know that the universe is not 3-Tiered. There would be absolutely no reason for him to literally rise. The “every eye” argument falls flat because it is clearly untrue. Not every eye will see something just because it is elevated several hundred feet into the air. Also, I take issue with your claim that early Christians based their faith on personal experience and miraculous phenomena. That is markedly untrue. “Blessed are those who have NOT SEEN, and yet still believe”. The vast majority of early Christians never encountered Jesus or his miracles in person. Furthermore, and understanding of early church history shows us that early Christianity was VERY MUCH based on “received concepts”, if by received concepts you mean theological and philosophical reasoning and conceptualizing. So was much of Judaism.
Paul thought that he saw Jesus resurrected, but none of the people he converted did. Your assertion that most early Christians witnessed miracles isn't even supported by your own holy book.
@@satariel777 Acts chapter 1: "And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.” He ascended and disappeared into the clouds. He returns on the clouds and every eye will see him (Revelation 1:7). Sounds pretty straightforward, without much theorizing. As for how a person became a follower back there and how a person becomes a follower today, it is entirely the same. Jesus is not a concept. He is a person, the Lord of all. And he comes into believers lives with love and power, if they will but open the door of their heart to him. What is described in the New Testament is continuing today. As a sixty year old person who spent most of his adult life as an atheist and hedonist, I can tell you from my personal experience that miracles are real. Jesus changed me. and continues to change me. And he is doing the same for every follower of Jesus that I know. (And yes, the showy miracles of healing, tongues, dreams and visions, knowledge, etc., are still happening today in every corner of this planet.)
@@stephenbailey9969 Yet nobody can show a miracle to any science? Miracles are real only to people who WANT them to be real. Mental gymnastics are a hell of a drug.
@@masstv9052 What you are describing is a tautology. The scientific method disallows taking into consideration miraculous or supernatural explanations for phenomena. Scientists are only permitted to consider naturalistic causes. Therefore science cannot 'prove miracles'. When scientists (or doctors) find something that is inexplicable, they are simply silent or give the closest naturalistic possibility. But many scientists and doctors at the end of the work day when they have taken off their 'science hats' will admit that they have witnessed things that could be described as miracles. You can do the research and find their testimonies. My own testimony is this: I was an atheist and a skeptic most of my life. I'm not anymore. As Shakespeare wrote, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Good insight. When I was an Anglican priest we noticed this fact also that non-liturgical Christians don't ever talk about the ascension. It's interesting that evangelicals threw out the ascension when they abandoned the liturgical calendar which may explain why it's a part of NT Wrights apologetic since Anglicans celebrate the ascension every year.
I really wish Ascendion Day was thrown out or exchanged for another official holiday, because at the midst of the week everything is closed and the next day nobody is available either. For a non-religious person Ascension Day is the most useless and senseless holyday possible. Even as a religious kid I thought it and cold and empty day, a bit like St Nick going back to Spain after Dec 5. What's there to celebrate? He left his buddies there standing in the rain? ( there were clouds weren't they, so it probably did rain too.)
The Ascension is at least implied in every church using the Sursum Corda, as most early Protestants did. The Ascension is especially important to the Reformed understanding of the sacrament, and this would have included the early Church of England also. The Black Rubric actually drives the point home when refuting localized presence. As Paul wrote, “[God] hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.”
@@MrJMB122 I do understand the theology behind it coming from a Reformed background and even then I thought it not much worth celebrating. Mainly because Ascension Day and Pentacost have no link with tradional rituals or costums like Christmas and Eastern. The only "tradition" I know of were the motorcycling contests held in the neighbourhood I grew up at Ascesion Day. Not particular a Christian inspiring habit. There are a few other religious days over the year like an equivalent of Thanksgivings Day but those are strickly connected with the church and not a national holiday. Although the country is more and more secular then 50 years ago it still clings to a meaningless holiday which could be exchanged for a national holiday that has far more meaning to a growing group of people like the End of Ramadan. But then the Calvinists would go up in flames and the Catholics would probably demand the Assumption of Maria ( August 15) should be decleared a national holiday.
Matt: describing the ascension story as "seeming suspiciously convenient" Me, a former Mormon: "like Angel Moroni taking the gold plates back to Heaven, lol" Matt: "a lot like the Mormon story of Joseph Smith returning the Golden Plates to Moroni after translating the Book of Mormon." 😆
No one knows what an Ascension or resurrection would actually look like. How would you or I describe such things? Are we arguing against the Fact itself, or simply the language used to express it? An example would be the near death experiencers. Those people find it impossible to describe what they've experienced. It is too "Other".
@@bradleymosman8325 but some of the fantastical happenings in the bible are pretty clearly stated . Which is why non Theists call them out . And John Smith and his " golden plates " , was he just nicking the congregational collection?
@@bradleymosman8325 but, Bradley, we do know what an ascension would look like. Luke describes it in acts chapter 1. That seems to me as astonishing as the resurrection itself. Matt has a good point, it is very odd that this is not described elsewhere in the official holy documents. I don’t see any honest way to argue that this is a historic incident.
Thank you so much! I've just come across your channel. I love how you present your ideas, which are so full of knowledge and technical insight; but you do this clearly, and also humbly and with the intent really to inform (in my opinion). I'll be looking forward to hearing from you in 2023! All best wishes for the Mid-winter season! CHEERS from the UK, Patrick.
A modern day Galileo using a telescope to debunk geocentrism with heliocentrism. Telescope = Internet Geocentrism = Trinitarianism Heliocentrism = Monotheism
4:32 - Exactly, I'm glad someone else is talking about this: when you hear that someone "came back to life", you would expect them to be alive again for the rest of their natural life. But if, instead, the story is that they came back to life only to disappear shortly thereafter, that would sound like an excuse for them still being dead.
It always struck me that Jesus acted and behaved exactly like a ghost post-resurrection. He didn't use doors, he didn't eat, sleep, etc. He just showed up for a brief bit of time, then disappeared again. Even in the Doubting Thomas story (only recorded in the last canonical gospel to be written), Jesus just appears suddenly in the middle of the room. And the concept of ghosts being able to make themselves solid and interact with items and people is hardly a new one - there's all kinds of weird ghost stories where ghosts are able to move things around, touch ppl (and be touched by ppl when they want to be), etc One of the things that always struck me as odd was the women at the tomb supposedly witnessed the moment of resurrection in at least one of the gospels (earthquake, angels rolling away the stone), yet Jesus is nowhere to be found. He doesn't walk out of his tomb. Apparently the only reason for the angels rolling the stone away is so that ppl can see that Jesus isn't inside it anymore. When Jesus brought Lazarus back to life in the Gospel of John, Lazarus literally had to walk out of his tomb and the implication is that Lazarus then lived out the rest of his life as a normal person - that always implied to me that Jesus' body didn't rise from the dead like Lazarus' did.
I always took the ascension to be a convenient way of explaining why there is zero evidence of Jesus' existence post-crucifiction. It's almost as if he died and then, I don't know, remained that way.
yeah , well it depends on what you would consider " evidence" because Jesus appeared to Paul quite some time after His ascension , He also appeared to John of Patmos that was also post ascension and there have been many other claimed appearances but I would say that John's is the best because of the Revelation , this document hes been so accurate when it comes to prophesy that either John was the greatest clairvoyant of all time or he got the information from someone else why would he have lied and said he got it from Jesus if he could just as easily claimed the fame for himself ?
@@travelsouthafrica5048 That's kind of parallel to the point I'm making. The ascension story was tacked on quite late, as the video states, potentially to record a myth about Jesus the early Christians believed. There is no corroborating evidence for the ascension, and only Luke mentions it. What I'm saying is, this strikes me that Christians felt like there was a bit of a plot hole in their story that Jesus was resurrected, because, well, where is he? Where was he living and teaching? He was conveniently only alive for a month after his resurrection, and then mysteriously disappeared. This stinks of a post hoc explanation for the fact that Jesus wasn't actually around to verify his resurrection to anybody of importance for any extended period of time. If the ascension story wasn't tacked on it would be problematic for the spread of the gospel during the early stages.
@@ryangibson7530 if you and I conspired about something for whatever reason , and you and i both know we were lying about something that never happened would you suffer terrible interrogation and death ? to keep the lie alive ? the apostles all died except one , for what they claimed they witnessed , people don't sacrifice themselves for a lie
@@travelsouthafrica5048 I wouldn't, but lots of people die for a lie. The Jonestown Massacre is a prime example. Again though, this doesn't really address my point.
@@ryangibson7530 this might help you understand , if you want to that is , I often find atheists do not want to understand , but that is up to you th-cam.com/video/Xyz-g5yuF20/w-d-xo.html
Hi Matt, it is helpful to read scripture when in meditation with an open mind beyond acadaemia and bias. I understand it is scary to not be able to explain a mystery, that is why I became a biomedical scientist. May the peace be with you ✌
Apologists also ignore the fact that many people (allegedly) rose from the dead before Jesus; it was almost common place in various cultures, from the Bronze Age through the 1st century. They don't talk about all those dead people who "... came up out the tombs..." on the day of the crucifixion and no one follows up on Lazarus! If it's so common, why is Jesus' resurrection so special?
It's important to keep in mind what these apologists really are. They aren't historians or philosophers, however much they try to come across that way. They are advocates, lawyers, press secretaries. Their object is to justify an already-given belief (e.g. the Nicene creed). Whatever it takes to do that, they will do. The whole point is to reaffirm the beliefs that their (Christian) readers already hold. However much ground they give up, to that extent they have failed. So of course they don't talk about the ascension. Did Jesus fly into space like a rocket? Did he fly past alpha Centauri? What happened to the matter of his emphatically physical body? Who cares: as long as the questions aren't raised, they can't challenge belief.
@@69eddieD They don't think of themselves that way. They don't think of it as lying. They think the truth is whatever corroborates or justifies what they "know" (i.e. their dogma).
Intellectually dishonest is a better term. Once pointed out how inherently flawed their arguments is, any continued use of the flawed argument shows they do not care about truth.
@@jeffparent2159 Again, they think they are being honest, that is, saying what is true. But, as they see it, truth has to be compatible with the dogma or it can't be true. The dogma is undeniable, incontrovertible, rock solid, as they see it, and it can't be moved. So everything has to be built around that. They have ways of rebutting or rationalizing any criticism made against their favorite arguments. That the argument supports dogma is a big mark in it's favor, as they see it. William Lane Craig is a textbook example of this. He has answers to any rebuttal. He thinks they are good rebuttals, even if they aren't. He thinks he knows the truth (namely, the dogmas), and he thinks he cares about truth. Specifically, he thinks that he has access to this truth by direct contact from God/the Holy Spirit. Don't try to frame theists as stupid. Many aren't. They're wrong, I think, but they aren't drooling fools. Give them some credit, they're as human as you are. Don't write them off or underestimate them or treat them like inferiors. They're just very confused and stuck believing a falsehood that means a lot to them. They're not liars or idiots or evil or anything like that (most of them, anyway). They're regular people like you and me. Your goal shouldn't be to berate them but to convert them (or stop them from converting more people, or etc) and to do that you need to understand them. Read the Bible, Augustine, Aquinas, Pascal, Tolstoy, Chesterton, CS Lewis, WLC. Or talk to them. It takes work but it'll help you understand them and thus be better at convincing them there's better things to believe.
I don’t think apologists would have the slightest trouble with the accession. Jesus choose to leave visually in a way his followers could comprehend. Duh. Now the Zombies of Matthew 27, that’s something apologists never talk about.
I think it's more of a problem than that. For Christians, it's a really big deal that Jesus's body rose physically from the dead. He's not just supposed to be just a spirit or ghost thing. The tomb is supposed to be empty. Thomas even puts his hand in one of the wounds of Jesus' living body (so much for having your wounds healed after the resurrection lol). So the problem is: how can a physical body survive in space? There is no oxygen in space. Your bodily fluids boil. There is no way a physical body could survive the temperatures and radiation. The lazy apologist can always say it's all just magic, but even if Jesus could magically survive all these things, where is he? Is his physical body floating out in space somewhere? Is his physical body outside the universe somewhere? It's all pretty embarrassing. Or it should be. I know there's no embarrassing someone who believes in magic.
Wonderful take. I have always pointed to the ascension as another proof of the 3-layer cosmology in the Bible. But Christians normally respond that he just disappeared into another dimention AFTER reaching the clouds lol
This is a great point! Jesus said he ascended to the right hand of the father. Yahweh’s throne was supposed to be on top of the firmament. We have gone past the firmament in space, and Jesus is not there.
@@kaptaink1959 quote is directly from my dad. He is a physics teacher and tries to square his knowledge of the universe with his faith with strange results at times. You are right I shouldn't say it's a "normal" response, but he isn't the only one to say it to me.
you are still there?? - poor soul...are you too smart, or can you not accept that that truth may come through antiaquated representations? - you should know that your kind of 'cosmological' objections only work with biblical fundamentalists
So basically apologists can choose: - Declare heaven and hell spiritual "locations" and deny their original ancient physical meanings - Defend the biblical flat earth - Defend: "The more you get away from the center of gravity of the earth the closer you get to heaven." - not talk about it
@@kaptaink1959 Isaiah 40 _"22 It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in"_ The word for circle used here is חוּג (chug). It does not, like some apogists claim, mean sphere. If the biblical earth is not flat where does Jesus ascent to / descent from? Hint: clouds! Also consider the tower of Babel and the mountain stories in the bible. Go up and you come closer to heaven.
@@kaptaink1959 Suspiciously convenient, isn't it? Jesus's ascension is also poetic, right? - A can of worms that you just opened. What's the criteria that you know it's ment figuratively vs literally?
@@kaptaink1959 As you and I both know there is no "Bible" rather there a collection of at least 66 documents written by all sorts of man with all sorts of ideas and you have to sort of parse your way through each one to determine what each man believed at that time the real issue is what was the dominant ANE cosmology and basically it said there's a flat Earth and a solid dome.... That appears to be what we primarily see in most of these gentlemen's documentation and thit's the documentation and that is not surprising we just shouldn't be using it as fact
As a kid in fundamentalist and "new thought" churches, i was far more interested in "the ascension" than "the resurrection". This is because i'd occasionally see magazine articles about how modern doctors could perform what seemed like miracles by resuscitating people declared "clinically dead", so to me "the resurrection" story didn't seem extraordinary. And while there were aircrafts and parachutes, no one outside of the Bible story and other fairytales was reported to fly or be pulled up bodily into the sky by supernatural means. But in church no one ever mentioned "the ascension". I recall pondering it and comparing flying Jesus to the flights of Superman, Wonder Woman, and Mary Poppins with her magical flying umbrella.
I liked "the industry of Christian apologetics". A tragedy that apologists aren't seen as the laughable fools they are but have created and sustained an industry as dangerous to the world as the military industrial complex.
"As dangerous as the military industrial complex"? Stay away to from the brown acid, man! Seriously. Such language will never help you convincing others.
@@raminagrobis6112 Christianity has been used by the Military Industrial Complex time and time again to justify invasion and destruction of other sovereign nations that do not bow down to Western Hegemony.
@Alex Funk that is incorrect. Christianity is built off Jesus christ with Jewish foundations. Show me a single verse Jesus teaches violence. Jesus teaches to love your neighbor. He describes the highest form of love as laying your life down for them. Not destroying them. I agree Christians have done wrong and will do wrong but it goes against scripture. And let's not forget athiest governments of stalin, mao and the like have killed way more people than Christians have ever even dreamed of. And before you mention it the US government is NOT Christian and hasn't been.
I completely agree with you. I'm a Christian and it has always bothered me that modern Christians (mostly protestants) refuse to talk about the ascension. And I think you are right that they are somewhat embarrassed by it. There is a huge problem with modern apologetics in that it is prominently a materialist christianity and therefore doomed. They have lost the ancient symbolic language and are stuck with our post enlightenment materialism. Jonathan Pageau has done some great work on his TH-cam channel about this stuff if anyone is interested but I guess for a comments section I am limited in saying you must start to understand that 'ascending to heaven' does not mean flying into space and a myth doesn't mean a made up story
Hmmmmmmmaayyyyybeee... But then you get into the whole mushy "what is a description of a true event with witnesses, and what is a myth or metaphoric or fable-based story?" And that leads to the unfortunate "your belief is wrong because 'x' is a metaphor vs. no you got it wrong: my story is literally true but YOURS is a fable!" fight. The how do you decide who's right...or if they're both wrong and it's all fairy stories? Or just partially wrong. I'm a former Christian - now in the "Jesus probably existed and preached, but wasn't divine - plus the stuff he actually did and said is utterly swamped in Paulist bullcrap" camp. And it is patently and obviously visible which bits have a basis in things Jesus actually did and said, and which bits were cut from whole cloth later.
@@bobsurface908 yeah, I hear ya. And listening to Christian preachers dancing around with wildly different “interpretations” of bible passages was and is infuriating. And they could always twist the scriptures to say what they wanted them to say. And yeah, you can use Paul to do this more than anything else in the NT books. But, to speak to your first paragraph, I think the problem we have is the understanding of the symbolic religious language and worldview. It is neither a scientific view (literal) or a metaphor. A symbol is a richer third way of understanding. One that brings it all together (including Paul). Jordan Peterson scratched at it with his biblical lecture series. But there are others like Jonathan Pageau that completely transformed my frame of reference
@@signposts6189 - Revelations seems VERY influenced by psylocibin. Take 3 to 4 grams of freeze dried, you may see some cool imagery from your subconscious.
I just want to point out the Biblical accounts about the ascension by Luke. In the Gospel, Luke says Yeshua (Jesus) “was carried up into heaven.” It’s a vague description, but then Luke describes it in Acts a bit more vividly. “As they were looking on, He [Yeshua] was lifted up, and a cloud took Him out of their sight” (Acts 1:9). The Biblical narrative does not imply that He continued to ascend into the sky and is ascending throughout the universe. The picture painted in the Bible is that He was lifted into a cloud. There’s no detail about how high He went before they could no longer see Him. There’s no detail about whether the cloud was already in the sky or did it appear in that moment. Very few details are given, nor are they necessary. Like does it need to be more complicated than that He was lifted in the air and disappeared behind a cloud to transition into the spiritual dimension?
This view ignores the simple 3 tiered cosmology the ancients, including the first century Christians may well have believed in. No transition into a spiritual dimension required, because heaven was just above the clouds. And in another place Paul says that His coming or presence is hidden by the clouds, or something on those lines (can't remember the verse).
The evidence could be explained by the writers of the gospel making up a mythical account, or God accomodating their view of reality in how Jesus ascended so they understood what happened, or the apostles understanding what they saw in the terms of their view of the world even though had we been standing there with our different understanding we would have interpreted what we saw differently.
@@gerardjayetileke4373 There's historical evidence that the early Christians would not have widely believed in a 3 tiered cosmology. Firstly, the Ancient Israelites began to believe in elements of Hellenistic cosmology (which includes a round earth) since around the 300's BCE. Second, Luke's audience would have primarily been Hellenistic gentiles who believed in a round earth. It doesn't make sense that the author of Luke, who may or may not have believed in a 3 tiered cosmology, would tell a bunch of people who almost certainly didn't believe in a 3 tiered cosmology, that it existed - and done so in such a roundbout way in just a few lines of a narrative. It seems more likely to me that the author of Luke was simply focused more on imagery and furthering a message that it is possible for humans to enter heaven (this belief is what attracted most people to Christianity in those days), and was not attempting to assert that heaven is above a dome over the earth and Jesus went physically through that dome. Especially since he never actually says that; seems a very inefficient way of convincing people who didn't believe in a 3-tiered cosmology, if that's what he was trying to do.
@@birdcar7808 I don't see why we have to go round the issue so much. The belief that someone ascended upwards is predicated on the belief that the destination was above earth. Luke does not have to be explicit about this because it was already a strongly held belief, that heaven was above. At least from a human pov. It doesn't matter what model of a 3-tiered cosmology they believed in, because embedded in this is a multi tiered heaven as well. So it doesn't matter. I think Luke's narrative at least partially is a polemic against Caesar, and the ascension is a case in point. There are many places where Luke does just this. It does not need such elaborate explanations.
@@gerardjayetileke4373 But this was not a strongly held belief. That was my whole point. Luke's audience, Hellenistic gentiles, did not believe in a three tiered cosmology. The author of Luke himself may not have believed in it because it was not as common among Ancient Israelites by then due to Hellenistic influence. Thus, it seems likely that he would need to include some explanation of a three-tiered cosmology considering his audience didn't believe in it, if he really was trying to further belief in it.
A truly lucid and intelligently presented view of the issue at hand without all the emotional baggage. Very well done! I would also like to see more like this... Thank you!
@Islayman Ritual sacrifice for forgiveness of sin was already big with the temple at the time (Korban), they just wanted to on-up everything by tossing in human sacrifice on top. Making yourself human in order to sacrifice yourself unto yourself to appease yourself is some peak "Mysterious Ways™" nonsense.
@Islayman so you spent how many years researching, talking with scholars, etc etc. What did you find out? As a child I had a hard time believing that jumbo jets could fly. So I just decided it was an illusion. Pssh to talking to an engineer or even a pilot
@@Chance57 The sacrifice happened long before the Temple. And what was sacrificed to atone for sin? A young lamb with out blemish. Jesus's death on the cross had nothing to do with appeasing God. But God providing the lamb (Jesus) to atone for everyone's sin and no future sacrifice is needed.
@Islayman God doesn't just forgive because blanket forgiveness is unjust and selective forgiveness is arbitrary without an object of faith to accept or reject to divide those who do trust God from those who do not. The choosing of sacrifice is not an arbitrary object of faith either, but rather acts as a universally understood concept of the gravity of what's at stake in dealing with God: life or death. Sacrifice pre-existed Judeo-Christianity and it was the franca lingo of polytheistic religion. Sacrifice was considered desirable by the gods...it demonstrated total piety of the believer by costing the believer something valuable. But Judaism changed the meaning of sacrifice from mere appeasement of the god's through honor to a means of atonement. Other religions of the ancient world simply do not include a concept of atonement. Gods were to be appeased when offended and bartered with for favor but the God of Israel was always pictured as a perfect moral judge who demanded perfect moral character of his people and this required a system of atonement lest the holiness of God destroy corrupted humanity through mere presence alone. Therefore sacrifice became a way of understanding how holiness could be conferred upon people who are clearly are morally incapable of perfect behavior (the life of an animal is in its blood and without the shedding if blood there is no forgiveness if sin). Christianity borrows the theology of atonement through a sacrifice and applies it to Jesus rather than animals. It becomes a once and for all system of atonement that replaces a system of animal sacrifices. It therefore objectively separates people who believe they need perfecting (the humble) from those who do not believe they need perfercting (the proud) or who believe they can perfect themselves or who believe there is no judging god to be reconciled to.
CS Lewis in his book Miracles sees the ascension as integral for tackling the subject of worldview. For me it was something very important to wrestling with all the issues I do in my channel. It's also important that the Ascension makes the cut in the Apostles Creed.
@@Ken_Scaletta "This shows why CS Lewis was a hack." Is that a good thing or a bad thing? It is impossible with modern English when "sick" is now apparently a good thing. "Dope" is a good thing. Many things are both good and bad, or good or bad.
As an outspoken Atheist, I’m continually astounded how anyone could be duped into believing in any sort of random, “magical sky daddy” existing w/o shred of verifiable data or empirical, science based evidence!
My earliest Sunday School memory at age 4-5 was something like that. Among ourselves we thought it meant that he'd learned to fly like superman. We thought that's what "risen" meant. They sure as hell didn't tell us what a virgin was, either!
Why don't critics of Christianity analyze as to why eleven out of the twelve apostles were tortured and executed for their faith in an obvious lie that they all knew to be false? Anti-Christians are mostly silent about this glaring fact. Only it it were true, would they knowingly face horrible deaths. Next....
They died because their lies pissed people of power off, because their actions were seen as a power grab. It’s the same reason Jesus was killed. Thousands of Germans died believing they were the super race. Just because you die believing something doesn’t make it true. The only apostle that could write and was literate never even met Jesus. Ever play telephone? It’s all a fairy tale
@@johnsannicolas2015 How are people with a death wish (suicide bombers) the same as people who are persecuted with beatings, imprisonment and death threats they'd rather not go through on the same level?
Matt, As a Christian theist (albeit not an evangelical), welcome to the ex-evangelical now non believer Podcast circuit. I have actually been thoroughly blessed by the half dozen or so quite competent fellow ex-evangelical atheist podcasters. I can tell just from my limited exposure that you are a very clear thinker and you have the evangelical scene pretty well nailed. I also really appreciate you bringing up this matter of the Ascension. It is something that it seems we all rather lightly skip over.. One of the questions it raised in my mind is how to correlate 1Cor 15 appearances with this Jesus popping up like popcorn in Acts chapter 1.
Thanks for exposing this embarrassing plothole. Shouldn't Jesus leave a ton of instructions before leaving or at least his own written flawless gospel?
Jesus spent 3 years with his disciples, teaching them what they needed to know. And surely repeated the lessons over and over again. His gospel was written in their hearts and minds. the non literate had excellent memories. stories told out loud in front of the clan so the speaker could be told of errors. In Medieval Europe troubadours could learn a song after hearing once. they probably used basic music that could be adapted to stories rather than making new song for each
@@historicalbiblicalresearch8440 is my theory unfounded? Do ancient teachers only give a lesson once? We're 1st Century cultures better at remembering information. And the Gospels are about Jesus not the apostles. They say alit in their letters
It wasnt supposed to be like that from what I gather. It's more of a "I knew you and treated you this way. Then you go to the next person and do the same for them. Then so on and so on" It didnt really need the stories and letters to accomplish that. They just really helped and may have actually hurt
Thank you sir! Some really good points and something I hadn't thought about. It might also be a question of where they put their energies. From a theological perspective if the resurrection never happened even Paul says "your faith is in vain". Also from a sceptical position if the resurrection cam be shown to be true all the other objections are irrelevant. So this might influence it also, the fact that it is a cornerstone. But what you said I think is definitely part of it too
@@666mrdoctor Do you have evidence that Lazarus was actually dead? In fact, do you have evidence Lazarus was actually alive? Note that many people can be seen on modern, sensitive equipment to be alive who even a few decades ago, would have been declared dead. To an untrained eye without all of the electronics, the person would seem "dead".
The reason apologists dont talk about the ascension is because people dont question it. Though i have heard plenty of apologists talk about it. Apologists focus on the issues being brought forth though first not random issues. Keep asking questions and the apologists will start producing content.
Really enjoyed this video - very interesting... I hadn't really thought about the lack of discusion on the ascension. Further, you mentioned Joseph Smith returning the golden plates... I didn't realise that (I knew about the golden plates - just didn't realise he gave them back). Well, that's rather convenient, isn't it!!!!
It's boring and basic. It's like watching children playing with magnets and listening to their reasoning behind it. This is an amateur attempt at disproving what is unqualifiable in our current understanding of things.
@@dragonmartijn "Heaven is not discussed in the Torah, in order to emphasize the necessity to do what's right because it's right, and not for the reward, or to avoid punishment." Rabbi Menachem Weiman
As Catholics the ascension of our Lord is literally one of the most important dogma and we have it in the Rosary prayer or in Ignatius mediation where we picture ourselves seeing Jesus ascension and examining the moment and what it means.
Yes, this is one of things that stuck in my throat as a kid. In the sect I grew up in (Jehovah's Witnesses) the ascension is not ignored; it's probably given just as much emphasis as the resurrection. Every time the ascension was mentioned I'd remember that quotation of Paul's that "flesh & blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God." Well then at what point did Jesus cast off his fleshly body? Surely before he reached the stratosphere! It would have been much better if God just beamed his son up Scotty style.
JW's don't believe in physical resurrection. They believe he was raised in spirit and took on physical form when desired like angles in past appeared in physical bodies to Abraham etc. They don't elaborate on what was done with Jesus body but they definitely deny resurrection of his physical body. I was a JW also.
@@nikloff1815 Thanks. I just learned this while commenting on another video. I guess I must have fallen asleep during that lesson. It always seemed evident to me from the gospel accounts that Jesus' resurrection was physical -- that he wasn't just a ghost. I regret I didn't know this during my inquisition with the elders. I would have loved to hear them explain to me how a ghost could eat fish & suffer from wounds.
@@davidpelto8824 The very term 'resurrected body' implies that it IS flesh & blood. If Jesus' new body wasn't made of flesh & blood, then what happened to the one that was? In the gospel of John you have Jesus allowing Thomas to press his fingers into the spear wound on Jesus' resurrected body (John 20:24-29). If it was an entirely new body, why did it still have the wounds inflicted by the crucifixion?
So modern Christians are more likely to accept the ascension as mythology, while more traditional Christians need the ascension to be as read because that aspect is interwoven into the overall narrative and is required in order to keep the Jenga tower from toppling over. Remove one piece and the gap you notice it leaves makes you take a closer look at the other pieces.
Amazing, haven't ever thought about this before. I for one would be extremely interested in a critical view of some of NT Wright in general as I can't quite put a finger on why I don't like his works but they are extremely popular amongst more academic Christians.
@@invisiblegorilla8631, don’t put this guy on a pedestal, just another weak minded supposed faither who decided the world of hopeless atheism was the way to go. It’s not. Smh
@@michaelbrickley2443 OK, I'll take a bite on this one. How do you possibly get off saying that he is a "supposed faither" ?? Just astounding the level of disconnect here . U sir have no idea about what his motivations were before. Foithermore, you'd have to be a mind-reader! OR, do you just guess that it's not possible for someone to truly believe and then years later reverse course? How long have you been a 'believer'??
An apologist job is to tell believers what they want to hear, at least if they want to keep their job. Facts, logic, reason, science and history have little or nothing to do with apologetic arguments.
At this late date, it's quite impossible to determine what actually happened if, indeed, anything happened. All that remains is an agenda and the agenda is all: Churches, Inc.; Tax-free businesses. Shepherds and sheep.
*Although the biblical narratives depict Yahweh as the sole creator god, lord of the universe, and god of the Israelites especially, initially he seems to have been Canaanite in origin and subordinate to the supreme god El.* Canaanite inscriptions mention a lesser god Yahweh and even the biblical Book of Deuteronomy stipulates that *“the Most High, El,* gave to the nations their inheritance” and that “Yahweh's portion is his people, Jacob and his allotted heritage” (32:8-9). A passage like this reflects the early beliefs of the Canaanites and Israelites in polytheism or, more accurately, henotheism (the belief in many gods with a focus on a single supreme deity). *The claim that Israel always only acknowledged one god is a later belief cast back on the early days of Israel's development in Canaan.* *It is generally accepted in the modern day, however, that Yahweh originated in southern Canaan as a lesser god in the Canaanite pantheon* and the Shasu, as nomads, most likely acquired their worship of him during their time in the Levant. *Yahweh in the Canaanite Pantheon* The biblical narrative, however, is not as straightforward as it may seem as it also includes reference to the Canaanite god El whose name is directly referenced in `Israel' (He Who Struggles with God or He Who Perseveres with God). *El was the chief deity of the Canaanite pantheon and the god who, according to the Bible, gave Yahweh authority over the Israelites:* When the *Most High [El]* gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the Sons of God. For Yahweh's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage. (Deuteronomy 32:8-9, Masoretic Text). The Canaanites, like all ancient civilizations, worshipped many gods but chief among them was the sky-god El. *In this passage from Deuteronomy, El gives each of the gods authority over a segment of the people of earth and Yahweh is assigned to the Israelites who, in time, will make him their supreme and only deity; but it is clear he existed beforehand as a lesser Canaanite god.* Yahweh, according to Amzallag, was transformed from one god among many to the supreme deity by the Israelites in the Iron Age (c.1200-930 BCE) when iron replaced bronze and the copper smelters, whose craft was seen as a kind of transformative magic, lost their unique status. *In this new age, the Israelites in Canaan sought to distance themselves from their neighbors in order to consolidate political and military strength and so elevated Yahweh above El as the supreme being and claimed him as their own.* His association with the forge, and with imagery of fire, smoke, and smiting, worked as well in describing a god of storms and war and so Yahweh's character changed from a deity of transformation to one of conquest. *As the Israelites developed their community in Canaan, they sought to distance themselves from their neighbors and, as noted, elevated Yahweh above the traditional Canaanite supreme deity El.* They did not, however, embrace monotheism at this time. The Israelites remained a henotheistic people through the time of the Judges, which predates the rise of the monarchy, and throughout the time of the Kingdom of Israel (c.1080-c. 722). Google *"Yahweh - **WorldHistory.Org.**"* Watch Dr Christine Hayes at Yale University. Watch lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards and lecture 8 from 12:00 to 19:00 minutes. Google *"Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites - Biblical Archaeology Society."* Google *"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopaedia."* Google *"Canaanite Religion - **Realhistoryww.com**"* Google *"Canaanite Phoenician Origin of the God of the Israelites."* Google *"The Phoenician God Resheph in the Bible - Is That in the Bible?"* Google *"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."* Google *"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."* Google *"Married Deities: Asherah and Yahweh in Early Israelite Religion - Yahweh Elohim."* Google *"How the Jews Invented God and Made Him Great- Archaeology - Haaretz."* Google *"The Invention of God - Maclean's"* Google *"The Boundaries of the Nations - Yahweh Elohim."* Google *"Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day - Lehi's Library."* Google *"How Did the Bible’s Editors Conceal Evidence of Israelite Polytheism - Evolution of God by Robert Wright."* Google *"A Theologically Revised Text: Deuteronomy 32:8-9 - Ancient Hebrew Poetry."* Google *"Biblical Contradiction #3: Which God is the Creator of the Heavens and Earth: Yahweh or El?"* Google *"Biblical Contradiction #27. Are Yahweh and El the Same God or Not?"* Google *"Mark Smith: "Yahweh as El’s Son & Yahweh's Ascendancy - Lehi's Library."* Google *"Quartz Hill School of Theology - B425 Ugarit and the Bible."* Google *"The Origins of Yahweh and the Revived Kenite Hypothesis - Is That in the Bible?"* Google *"Yahweh, god of metallurgy - Fewer Lacunae."* Google *"Polytheistic Roots of Israelite Religion - Fewer Lacunae."* Google *"Biblical Polytheism - Bob Seidensticker."* Google *"Combat Myth: The Curious Story of Yahweh and the Gods Who Preceded Him - Bob Seidensticker."* Google *"Religious Studies: El, Yahweh and the Development of Monotheism in Ancient Israel."* Google *"Decoupling YHWH and El - Daniel O. McClellan."* Google *"Yhwh, God of Edom - Daniel O. McClellan."* Google *"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.*
You cant take one verse that contains El Elyon and claim that Hebrews worshiped more than one god. The old Testament uses the phrase multiple times to mean YHWH. As are the words Elohim or El Elyown.
@@kaptaink1959 The bible is actually a book with stories set in real geographical places featuring real homosapien groups/cultures - but the stories are purely mythological. Talking Snakes, (genesis 3), talking donkeys (numbers 22) etc. Not to mention a worldwide flood that systematically wiped out every known homosapien group on the planet - EXCEPT eight people who managed to trap millions of animals and insects and physically herd them onto a small boat complete with enough food for ALL the animals and humans for a year. Geologists and scientists have all destroyed the global flood theory many times already.
I was surprised when you said N.T. Wright instead of C.S. Lewis. Lewis has a pretty widely known chapter on the ascension in one of his books--'Miracles' if I recall correctly.
When I was a believer, the ascension was something that always stuck out as odd to me… Most Christians that I knew acknowledged that heaven was not physically above the earth like ancient people believed, but it was like another dimension. So why did Jesus need to get beamed up by Scotty when he could have just warped to the “heaven dimension”? It was one of many things that I just preferred to ignore because it sounded too mythological
Mr Hartke's fundamentalist literalist background is showing. If a ruler ascends to a throne it doesn't mean he went up to a throne on a higher elevation or in the sky. Similarly when people say some one ascended to a higher moral plane or level of consciousness that also in no way denotes a physical, vertical elevation. Ditto for ascending the corporate ladder. In fact, ascension in usual usage infrequently denotes physical vertical movement.
Except the majority of christians over the last 2000yrs believe the necromancer demigod literally floated up into the clouds...as stated in the bible itself. Christian mythology has always specifically differentiated the ressurection, ascension and exaltation (being seated on the throne as per a monarchy model) as distinct and literal. If the ascension into the physical clouds as described in the bible is nothing more than metaphorical...then why not the reanimation of the demigod from the dead. At least it would make more sense and be consistent with the metaphor device. But then how does one determine what is literal and what is metaphorical in the bible screeds?
@@signposts6189 I take it you've never read the bible? The human sacrifice god of christian mythology in the bible is jewish, indulges in the magic of necromancy...and is a product of a human woman and a supernatural god...hence by definition a demigod. This particular demigod of christian mythology also practices blood magic along with human sacrifice. it's pretty barbaric and gross when you think about it.
Not sure that I get your point. The Scripture don't give us much information about the ascension. Jesus went up and dissapeared into the clouds. We are told that when He comes back again the He will appear in the clouds. He will catch His Saints up in the clouds. What's more to say? Are you implying that the resurrection didn't happen? There's overwhelming evidence for the resurrection.
I'm not sure why it matters that apologists do or don't talk about the ascension, for a couple of reasons. If the evidence for the resurrection is convincing, then the ascension just makes sense. Also, the ascension doesn't seem like the kind of event that is going to leave around physical evidence like an empty tomb or a shroud. More, while apologists may not address the ascension, you can be sure plenty of Christian theologians have written about it. I found this video rather meh.
Yeah theologically speaking Jesus the teacher and leader sends the Holy Spirit to help his friends. He didn't start a traditional religious empire. It was a spiritual one. This seems more the point and moving into heaven to be the mediator. I don't know any Christians that would think this is more silly than talking donkeys, pigs being sent off of mountains, or the fact the dead walked the Earth again
"If the evidence for the resurrection is convincing, then the ascension just makes sense." It makes sense that Jesus would fly into the sky? Isn't it a bit odd? Where was he going? Into space? And why would there even be an ascension? Why wouldn't Jesus just continue his ministry? It's a weirdly suspicious coincidence that Jesus would disappear shortly after returning to life. The ascension seems to make far more sense if we _don't_ find the evidence for the resurrection convincing.
No, what would've made sense would have been for Jesus to have walked into Pilate's office and said, "Remember me?" That would have gotten everybody talking, and maybe someone would have written down a truly contemporary account from the Roman perspective, which would have been much better evidence.
Fascinating question. The resurrection, ascension and return of Christ are a package deal... all three are theologically inter-dependent. As a Christian I want to believe these are true (or will be true) ...nay, I MUST believe them to maintain my orthodoxy. However, verifying and objectively defending the "truth" of these doctrines escapes us all. All I can say is, the humanity, morality, compassion and words of Jesus remain the core of my faith. No man ever spoke like this man.. The rest of Christian milieu is mystery, or, perhaps as you suggest, merely historical context.
I'll have to see jesus's ascension telemetry first, before I may even think of reconsidering. Otherwise he might just as well have been beamed back to mothership, which sounds way more plausible.
I think Harnack's arguments for dating Luke early and the number of difficult and minute things that Luke casually shows himself to be reliable on is enough evidence for me to have a level of trust on the story. (Referring to Colin Hemer's book on Acts) Also, Christians believe they too will ascend with Jesus and meet him in the air when he returns per 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18. So I'm not entirely sure it is something they are entirely embarrassed of, but you do raise a good point about the overall oddity of it and you could be right to say that is why some shy away from it. I know it was something Ludemann pressed Craig on in his debate with him, iirc. I'd have to go back and check. The fact that the resurrection appearances suddenly stopped is something I've seen more than one apologist say is actually evidence against hallucinations. Here is a quote from George Park Fisher: "Had the followers of Jesus been in that state of mind out of which the illusions of hallucination might arise, and if this had been the source of what they thought to be actual reappearances of Jesus, these manifestations would have been much more numerous." But the convenience thing is a fair point and using the analogy of the Golden Plates is interesting. Anyway, good first video! Your thoughts on this topic raise the level of the discussion by a lot. Looking forward to more! Hope you don't mind the 2 cents, figure a comment helps the algorithm.
Luke-Acts was written in the late 90-s to early 110's CE and is extremely unreliable. The claim that "resurrection appearances stopped" implies that they ever began in the first place. The post-resurrection appearances in the Gospels are all late additions to the narrative. It looks like the original belief was only that Jesus had gone to heaven and that stories about appearances on earth did not begin to be written until Matthew's Gospel, no earlier than the 80's CE. There is not a single shred of actual evidence that any of the disciples ever claimed to have seen Jesus on earth. The empty tomb story didn't even exist before Mark. What's most likely,, as per Crossan and Ehrman among others - is that Jesus' followers fled when he was arrested and that none of them ever really knew what happened to the body. The first "appearance" claims probably happened in Galilee, probably by Peter, but we don't know what he claimed to have seen. I think the first visions of Jesus were of Jesus in Heaven, ala the vision of Stephen, but it was also not unheard of for people to think that certain individuals came back in other bodies. We can see that right in the Gospels with John the Baptist being called an incarnation of Elijah and witha all the shape-shifting stories about Jesus.
This doesn't worry me as a believer as.a story as I think there are 3 plausible reasons why Luke describes something that fits their cosmology view that we know to be wrong. 1) luke used some poetic licence to convey spiritual truths, 2) God accommodated their cosmological view in how he displayed the Ascension to the disciples, they needed to understand what was happening spiritually and the easiest way to communicate this was with something in keeping with their cosmology or 3) they fitted what they saw into the cosmological understanding they had, they saw something happen that they interpreted one way if we had been there we would have seen something physical happen to but would have interpreted what we were seeing differently because of our understanding.
Just as Jesus used agricultural or shepherding metaphors to communicate with his audience... why wouldn't he "ascend" in a way that would help the witnesses understand where he was going and for what purpose?
Well, there’s the fact that the supposed ascension removed from the realm of empirical verifiability the centerpiece of the entire Christian narrative.
@@kaptaink1959 May illuminate a point better than an essay. Years ago, 2 SA farmers talking. One says Dis you know Bishop Tutu is dead. Dead, dead, I didn't know he had been arrested.
Another explanation for the ascension could be a response to skeptics saying "if Jesus rose from the dead, then where is He?" Keep in mind, the FIRST public announcement of the resurrection was at Pentecost, not Easter. And it was the disciples that made that announcement, not Jesus himself. I can very well imagine someone in that crowd asking that question even if Luke does not record it in Acts. It's the kind of question I would have asked. Apologists are very fond of saying that the Romans could have easily produced Jesus' body in response to the disciples' claim that he was still alive. Except that by that time there would have been no recognizable body. But they utterly ignore the fact that neither could the disciples produce a LIVING Jesus. It also explains why the Romans seemed to be unconcerned with what was being said at Pentecost in contrast to their involvement a few weeks earlier at Passover. I'm sure that Pilate's spies reported back to him that a large crowd was gathering outside a house in Jerusalem and that it was being claimed that one of the men he'd crucified was in fact still alive--but don't worry, he's nowhere to be seen; gone back to heaven as a matter of fact. So no threat to Rome here. The Romans really don't get involved until later in Acts when tensions between the Jewish leaders and the emerging Christian movement started causing civil unrest. That is all they cared about, not theology.
I agree it’s all BS but I guess I don’t understand why the focus on the ascension. As the story goes there’s not much evidence you could present that would back up the story even if we lived in a parallel universe where all the Bible myths are true
@@Goodkidjr43 also... tell us about some of this "overwhelming evidence." what is it? if the evidence were so "overwhelming," then why doesn't every region on the planet believe it? oh, right... it isn't at all.
@@Goodkidjr43 What’s sad is that you would make such an ignorant assertion that there is overwhelming evidence of the Jesus as depicted in the New Testament. The New Testament Jesus is a highly mythologized figure, one that modern historiography cannot substantiate because there are almost no contemporary sources of this Jesus figure in the first century that are independent or outside of the New Testament. Further, historians have no disinterested sources, only evangelical sources from believers. There may have been some type of itinerant Jewish rabbi who was killed by the Romans for accusations of sedition against Rome, but the reliable surviving sources of evidence we have fails to corroborate any of the theological claims made by the New Testament authors. The New Testament is theology masquerading as history. Christianity emanated from Jewish theology, Greek Hellenism, and pagan theology.
Well there are 3 or 4 guys that have monopoly of the Atheist Industrial Complex in TH-cam: the guy from RationalityRulwes, CosmicSkeptic, an indian guy that reads the Bible every week, and an ex-JW. Maybe they should go out and see if they can get a real audience, in the real world
Paul's description of "we will be translated" between physical and spiritual form answers all this. As does cursory analysis of, say, the visitation of angels to Lot, who were in physical form at the time, as spiritual beings. The proper conclusion, and one that answers the Ascension, is that such "translation" is a capability that spiritual beings fundamentally have. From spiritual to physical, or physical to spiritual. You can reject this notion, but special casing of the Ascension is not warranted relative to the rest of scripture.
I think that the answer is far simpler. The Resurrection *barely* factors into Evangelical theology at all. For nearly all Evangelicals, the Resurrection isn't soteriologically necessary, and servas only as a means to prove that everything else He did was legitimate. The Ascension doesn't factor into their theology at all except as a point of technical fact. Evangelical apologists - and frankly nearly all non-Catholic and non-Orthodox apologists - refrain from discussing it because it is not part of their paradigm and is largely irrelevant to them.
Isn't the resurrection a core tenant of Christianity? I Corinthians 15, possibly the oldest legit Christian creed on record, includes the resurrection as one of the basic components of the faith. How is it that evangelicals only believe the resurrection incidentally? Are you saying that because of evangelicals focus on charismatic preachers, miracles, and apocalypticism?
If you want to deal with Jesus after the resurrection, then you have to go to the story of Elijah, when he spoke to Obadiah. God had told Elijah to present himself to Ahab, that He was going to send rain. Obadiah is Jesus, saying to the Holy Spirit, "I have saved two groups of prophets in a cave." That is extremely pertinent, as we see how the narrative in the book of Acts revolves around that of the evolving double portion outpouring of the Holy Spirit, identified by the narrative of both Elijah and Elisha being fulfilled before our eyes. You see this impossible one for one fulfillment happen. It can't be anything but God.I once thought it could have been faked, but Occam's razor says otherwise.
I was wondering if anyone else noticed this. Apologists are all over the Resurrection, so skeptics train their fire on it as well, but the Ascension is a very, very fat target. It is hard to spiritualize away, since it is very graphically described, and is essential to Christian doctrine since Luke has an angel tell the amazed disciples that Jesus will come back precisely as he left.
i think apologist don't focus on the Ascension because the Christian movement would have continues even if Jesus stayed on earth. it is not a necessary for the resurrection story to be true.
@@kaptaink1959 , which would be true except for John 16:7, in which Jesus tells his apostles: "But I tell you the truth, it is for your benefit that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you." If the Christian movement is to continue, it must have the Holy Spirit, and so Jesus must ascend to his Father. Therefore, the Ascension is absolutely essential doctrine in Christianity.
Perhaps the main reason that apologists don't bring the ascension into their discussions is simply because it isn't necessary. When it comes to atheism/agnosticism Christians are being attacked on the resurrection front and center and therefore they must defend it. Likewise with Judaism. They attack the resurrection, not the ascension. Islam levels a similar attack on the resurrection of Jesus simply because they don't believe that Jesus was crucified to begin with. But oddly enough, Islam DOES believe in the ascension. Neither the ascension nor the resurrection are attacked by the practitioners of most other religions. So when it comes to apologetics, once a Christian has persuaded an unbeliever on the merits of the resurrection, the ascension is accepted as a matter of course. Therefore, why would you expect Christians to bring up an argument no one is arguing about? That would make no sense. Secondly, the New Testament doesn't teach that the ascension was the first time that Jesus had gone to the Father. You remember that when Jesus was raised from the dead Mary Magdalene wasn't supposed to touch him because he hadn't returned to the Father yet. But by the end of the day it seems as if he had, because when he appeared to the disciples they were all touching him. Luke also tells us that Jesus appeared to the disicples in various settings accross the span of 40 days. Paul tells us in First Corinthians that Jesus appeared to over 500 people at once. Therfore, "the ascension" as Luke relates it is simply his way of telling us that Jesus was physically leaving for the last time (at least till his second coming, which then the angels also explained in Acts 1). Thirdly, your concepts of the three tiers of creation is not "unscientific" as you seem to insinuate. The "three tiers" were always to be understood SPIRITUALLY. That is to say that Heaven (not on this planet) and Hell (within this planet) are SPIRITUAL places; not physical ones. The Bible explains how Satan and his demons had fallen from Heaven to this earth long before the six days of creation (Ezekiel 28:12-19 & Is 14:12ff among others). Therfore Hell was part of the earth long before God brought the planet into orbit around the sun and recreated the surface in Genesis 1. And since that creation was upon the surface of the earth, Hell (Sheol, Hades, however you would like to refer to the underworld) remained below it. When angels "descend from Heaven" onto the earth it is simply because they are coming from a spiritual place outside our atmosphere (perhpas even outside our galaxy) - from a spiritual dimension that we cannot sense with our physical senses - ie. "Heaven.". So then yes, Heaven is "above" and Hell is "beneath." This isn't mythology. Fourthly, your dating of Luke to "over 50 years after Jesus" (to account for your supposed "myth" of the ascension), is absolutly false. It makes no sense whatsoever that so many secular scholars want to date the writtings of the Gospels to such late dates. There is way more evidence within the Gospels themselves that they were written much earlier (like within 30 years at the latest). First, it's quite obvious that Jerusalem hadn't been destroyed by the Romans when the Gospel accounts were written or else comments would have been made pointing to the fullfimment of Jesus prophecies about Jerusalem. From a simply cursory reading of the Gospels it is evident that Jerusalem was still intact at the time of the writtings. Secondly, Luke was the last of the synoptic Gospels. We know from the book of Acts that Paul had not been martyred by the time Luke was wrapping up his account to Theophilus. And we know that Paul was Martyred under Nero in 64 AD. Therefore, Luke had to have FINISHED the book of Acts within 30 years after Jesus' crucifixion. And according to Luke's opening in acts chapter 1, the Gospel account was "the former account." SO, if we have Acts written within 30 years, Luke written before Acts, Matthew written before Luke, and Mark being the first Gospel written before either Matthew or Luke..... that makes the early WRITTEN accounts of these eye witnesses most probably within the first 20 years of the occurences. That is NOT enough time for myths to evolve. The hundreds of eye witnesses would have debunked any myth trying to rear it's head. We also know that Mark's greatest source of reference (if not the only one) was Jesus' disciple Peter. It is likely that Peter dictated in Aramaic while Marik translated into written Greek. We also know that Matthew and Luke already had written copies of Mark in their possession because of the various quotes lifted straight out of Mark. And that is something which would make a lot of sense since most people, when trying to recall events "for the record" which had transpired some 10-20 years ago, even though they were eye witnesses, they will most probably collaborate in writting their accounts in order to remind each other, etc. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that if Mark had already been written, Matthew and Luke would have wanted to make use of it so as to get Peter's take on the events being written. ALhtough MAtthew was also an eye witness he would have most probably asked the other disciples for their input, INCLUDING the previously written account of Peter/Mark. (So if there ever was a Q source, that Q would have been Peter/Mark's account.) The fact that certain "scholars" try and pin the Gospel accounts to later dates of authorship is a testimony to thier biases which are not founded neither in history or science. They "assume" that the stories of resurerctions and healings have to be myths and THERFORE try and pin the dates of writting to be as late as possible. But there is no evidence for such dates; certainly none that can ask us to question the evidence that I've stated above. Fifthly, the issue of Jesus being "received by a cloud" (Acts 1:9) falls in line with a lot of "cloud sightings" whenever spiritual forces are being transported all throughout scripture. When Jesus returns it will be "on the clouds." God went before the Israelites in the dessert "in a pillar of cloud." Elijah was taken up in a fiery chariot by a "whirlwind cloud." Daniel saw the "son of Man coming on the clouds." God's presence on Mt Sinai, in the Temple, both going and coming, etc., etc., is always hidden by a cloud. We could go on and on. Why so much about clouds? Because the clouds are a physical manifestation of the spiritual transportation device. When JEsus was "recieved by a cloud" he was simply getting on the "spiritual UFO" so to say. It's as simple as that. You don't have to go and try to make every story that Jesus' disciples gave into some kind of "myth" simply because you don't WANT to believe. Please, next itme do a little more research before making such outlandish assertions.
"please next time do a little more research before making such outlandish assertions" You a believer in non-,existent beings are asking that of others? Hilarious!
'Religions are only understood from the inside' - Simone Weil. The understanding of the ascension by theists or atheists is probably irrelevant. We don't know what ascension would look like. And the people who witnessed it would have no means of describing it. And those are the people we'd like to hear from. Mental gyrations in our time about the ascension are mostly ineffective.
It's slick of Craig to try and separate the ascension from his supposed "case" for the resurrection. The fact that Jesus conveniently disappears-- AND isn't seen for thousands of years-- are pieces of data that count against the resurrection. Craig is cherry-picking
Actually Jesus is seen by Paul years after death, resurrection and ascension. Which is a hole in the plot as Jesus is not supposed to be on earth after ascension.
No one is discarding the ascension, it is the fulfillment of Daniel's profecy (7:13-14) about the King's Coronation, perfect in line with Luke's account. But I grant that the ascension is rarely discussed because of other issues, mainly escathological ones. And even about what constitutes the Gospel, that today is highly influenced, not by Scripture, but by things like the clear cut seen in Dante's Divine Comedy with it's view of heaven or hell as the ultimate destiny of humanity.
The limited discussion of the Ascension is an interesting observation. As a Christian myself, I do believe the Ascension happened- Obviously. However the Ascension doesn't matter so much as the resurrection of Jesus. The question we shoild actually focus on, in my opinion, is is the resurrection true or not. If the evidence shifts more towards the resurrection happening why is the limited discussion of the Ascension so puzzling? Plus the limited discussion of the Ascension hardly, if at all, affects Christian theology or beliefs given that the core of Christian belief is the death and resurrection of Christ
As a Roman Catholic, I think I can give a few reasons why. If Christ did heal people instantaneously and rose from the dead, is the Ascension really much of a leap? If we, with the scriptures, believe that Christ is the existence that is provided to all things, as he upholds all things (Hebrews 1:3), and he shows this by recreating people both spiritual (Mark 2) and also physically (John 9), not to mention instantaneously, does this not make manifest the fact that he is this existence? This is before we get into interesting things like Daniel predicting the Crucifixion (or maybe his baptism) to the year in Daniel 9:24-27 and all of the other prophecies of the Old Testament sometimes up to 1400 odd years before his incarnation. You have Christ showing himself to have all of the attributes of God already. The Ascension is, comparatively, small fare in terms of it happening. So, I would reject it's an awkward question philosophically. In fact, I think it's really easy to take account of. Him moving in a way which we aren't accustomed to seeing men do is accounted for by the fact that he is God. We also see it with various saints as well, so mere participation in God's being is more than sufficient. As for attestation, it's in the longer ending of Mark as well, so there is multiple attestation. I would also dispute that the acts account is any more than 30 years post Ascension, because if it were then why doesn't he mention the Martyrdom of St Paul and St Peter? In terms of it being suspiciously convenient, this would make some degree of sense if it wasn't cooked into Jesus' entire view of the Old Testament. He explicitly states in Matthew 24 that there will be a final day of judgement. How can one come upon the clouds of heaven if not up there? It seems to me that Jesus' entire Eschatology is based on what is described here as the Apostles basically coping. This view is even cooked into the specific psalm he references, as YHWH is sat at the right hand of YHWH, while YHWH places his enemies underneath his feet (Sometimes Jews will point out that the word "Adoni" is used to describe Lord in the first line, but the later context makes it clear that the Adoni is YHWH, and hence we have the Hypostatic Union). In terms of "Mythology", I don't understand why people in the west are so insistent on this view. These sorts of things happen all of the time. They tend to happen more in places like India and in Africa, but they also happen in the West. We have 1000+ year old Eucharistic Miracles which have had scientific tests on them. There is an entire historiography on the Miraculous Tilma of Guadalupe. There are the thousands of people who saw Fatima, including people who were not aware of the story leading up to it. Likewise, there is at least one medical study into Lourdes. "But" you may ask "Why can't we find him up there in the clouds". First off, I think that this understanding of heaven makes very very little sense. As Moshe Greenberg points out in his book on the Religion in (Old Testament) Israel, by at the very least later Judaism, there is an understanding of Creatio Ex Nihilo, and hence a sort of Classical Theism (In other words, God isn't superman). In other words, there is reason to doubt Bultmann, and I vigorously reject it as does the entire Christian Tradition. Even St Paul does in Hebrews, for how can God uphold all things and grant their existence if he is bound by position? So, God is in heaven, but heaven is outside of the universe. But when we speak of "Where is Christ's Body?", we must remember God is omnipotent under the view of Later Judaism, and so God could retain Christ's body in any way he wishes. To say that this is "mythological", in my view, is a denial of the present reality in which we live. To hold reality to this view that all is matter is to break reality, because to hold this is to say that somehow properties, which all have one origin in matter, can somehow cancel each other out and stratify those properties universally. However, if all is matter, then how can this be? We would need something to be less than matter, which is dependent on matter, and hence there is a contradiction. To close, you can think it's cope from apologists, but I don't really think it is.
Lots of 'ifs' there. Typical lack of evidence response from a Christian who believes the Pope is God's representative on earth, that Mary was and remained a virgin (like that would matter AT ALL), and thinks a man who could be a pedophile can forgive your sins.
Sure seems logical that God could work out all those "contradictions" and all that other theology U spoke of to simply make creatures like himself who wouldn't have to suffer and then eventually some (the few) go toddling off to heaven, BUT, then throwing away most of his creation into the firey pit! You'd think 🤔!? Seems like God wouldn't be able to do anything less. IF he's all so perfect! NO amount of scriptural mumbojumbo has yet to come up with anything credible on how a perfect God who CANNOT sin somehow found himself some sin in a closet? somewhere in the cosmos by way of making humans and then allowing them to sin via...., well, U know, that whole nonsense in the garden. What's so terrible and why do some people find it so difficult to accept the idea of nothingness after death? OF COURSE, I want to live on in some great afterlife! But all you have to do is accept the idea of nothingness after death and all that other stuff (Bible) goes away. Including God. You simply won't be missing out on anything! I get it. We find strength in stories of a loving God and heaven, etc. But we should be telling fantasy from reality as adults everybody. And, I think it's ok to find strength in these ideas if God is going to take EVERYONE to heaven. Otherwise, how could we possibly find strength / comfort in these things of God if at the same time we accept /believe in a hell for unbelievers!? For example... family U love, friends, strangers, anyone! We don't even need to know all those other people in the world to have a healthy respect for them by way of not wanting to see them as going to a hideous, unnecessary, convoluted, and any other appropriate word to stick in here, place called hell 🔥🚒!!! And should U think that everyone going to heaven is unjust because it doesn't punish the murderer, etc. consider what punishment is really about. Separation from killing anymore. That's what we try to do here on earth with the murderer. That's what happens at death (can't murder anymore). AND, how about God using the same idea? Simple construct of the murderer being repurposed into a non-murdering person. Perfect! What's not to like? Yes, I know, you will try to hold on to the idea God must torture people in hell because, of course,.....got it from the Bible. We can do better!
@@ComputingTheSoul Well you throw down so much convoluted theology/philosophy I can't make heads or tails. I won't go long like I did before and I wanted to come back to the central issue here. Obviously, peoples concerns over the idea of hell is very important! It's the key to all this religion stuff. Religion is very interesting! But when people merge into literal ways of thinking we harm ourselves and possibly others. You're free of course to believe in a literal way. Can be damaging though. When kids are fear mongered into heaven because who wants to go to hell? But heaven/hell are INVISIBLE and we haven't got all of this theological stuff worked out yet. And will we ever as long as it's INVISIBLE? Why can't all of us just talk about religion as storys of myth, legend and the like. It's interesting and full of drama! But, we completely go off the rails when we teach kids that they must genuinely fear things within religion that we are taking literally. Parents tell their kids about Santa and then later it falls away. But when the kid realizes that it's myth does the parent say, guess what? Santa really does exist and you can believe it's really true. Of course not! So why do we treat invisible things within religion as tho it's literally true? I'm trying to uphold the idea of reality and non-reality, fact from fiction, etc. If you go into a bookstore/library and cannot tell the difference between fact/fiction, don't worry, things are clearly marked....lol. I realize separating the two can be hard sometimes but seriously a god that walks on water, parts the Red Sea, and has power to LITERALLY toss a person into hell or lovingly float a person into heaven? See our dilemmas here? People have it really rough trying to figure out which religion to follow but if we don't take it literally we'll neither make the mistake of fear mongering about hell OR overpromising this invisible thing called heaven! So, what does the Catholic church teach about hell? I'm STILL confused 🤔
Apologists also never talk about victims. They'll have long winded and convoluted arguments about perpetrators, free will and the problem of evil, but seldom if ever show any regard for the victims of violence as if that too is an inconvenience.
What's wild is being raised in a non-evangenical Christian setting, I notice the stark differences in the worldview that I was taught. Integral to that was an emphasis on the trinity mythology, specifically a mythology that would have explained the ascension immediately with Pentacost, and that what descended after Pentacost was both father and son, and was given onto the disciples, and that christ lives on through the actions that we pass on to each other. This interpretation has a big issue though to evangelicals, it posits Revelation as the ramblings of a crazy old man facing persecution. Without Revelation, what could you lord over people's heads in a predatory fire and brimstone manner? I'm a fan of this mythology, because when I came to the age where it was obvious that this was a mythology, I didn't feel like I had been duped or taken advantage of in any way, just told stories to encourage me to be good. I'm not coming in with this to defend Christianity, but having a biblically consistent narrative to counter the rapture-obsessed dogma that permeates modern Christianity is really helpful to engage with people married to the mythology. Instead of putting them on the defensive by attacking their beliefs, engaging with them in a way that breaks down the abusive narrative they've been taught is a really effective way to get those "questioning balls" rolling. My goal isn't to convince people that God/Jesus aren't real, but instead that I read the same book, and the things they're saying sound different from what I read.
What I'd like to see, someday, is a video of how Christianity triumphed. What was the appeal, that even through persecution it prevailed? There must be _some_ lessons there regarding politics, revolutionary movements, psychology, religion, and socioligy.
Ok, a few things: 1) On the justification for the ascension happening, I think you are right that the historical evidence for the ascension is not as strong as the historical evidence for the resurrection. 2) However, once the resurrection is proven, the ascension is a pretty obvious answer to why Jesus cannot be found walking around on earth. Also, if you accept that Jesus was God due to the resurrection, and that He founded a Church, which cannot error regarding the fact that the ascension happened, etc. that's a strong reason to believe that the ascension happened. So, I don't think that the weakness of the historical evidence for the ascension is embarrassing to apologists since, from their perspective, there are very strong reasons to believe the ascension happened. 3) You speak of interpreting the scriptures as if being taken up to heaven isn't literal as if it is only due to some sort of "agenda." I have noticed this sort idea from atheists that, unless you're interpreting the Bible in a Kent Hovind 'read the Bible like a five year old' way, you're just distorting the real meaning to make it fit your beliefs. I'd invite you to consider that this might come from your background in fundamentalism. I don't know enough about you to know that you had a fundamentalist background for sure, but this is sort of the tact that fundamentalists take with respect to the Bible. In reality, we all come to texts with certain philosophical presuppositions that color how we interpret the text. Now, we should obviously try to consider what the author's presuppositions were, as you do in the video, but there is a limitation to that when we are talking about scripture because, if God really inspired scripture, then we aren't necessarily talking about human background beliefs. Approaching the scriptures as if human authors are the sole source of its content is simply begging the question. 4) Besides, it would make sense for the Biblical authors to not intend the ascension to be literal given the fact that the Biblical authors obviously would not think "the right hand of the Father" is literally as they thought God was immaterial. Yet, there are many verses about Jesus ascending to His Father in heaven to sit at His right hand. For this reason, even long before telescopes were invented, many Church Fathers interpreted this to mean some sort of metaphysical "above" heaven rather than a literal "above" heaven: "God's seat is said to be in heaven, not as though heaven contained Him, but rather because it is contained by Him. Hence it is not necessary for any part of heaven to be higher, but for Him to be above all the heavens [...] glorified bodies, Christ's especially, do not stand in need of being so contained, because they draw nothing from the heavenly bodies, but from God through the soul. So there is nothing to prevent Christ's body from being beyond the containing radius of the heavenly bodies, and not in a containing place. Nor is there need for a vacuum to exist outside heaven, since there is no place there, nor is there any potentiality susceptive of a body, but the potentiality of reaching thither lies in Christ." -St. Thomas Aquinas www.newadvent.org/summa/4057.htm#article4 So, it isn't simply straight-forwardly true that someone before modern science, say, would interpret the scriptures as teaching heaven is literally beyond the clouds in the way you describe. In fact, it isn't even clear that modern cosmology proves there is nothing beyond our visible universe; we technically don't know. The reason we don't believe in this sort of literal heaven beyond the clouds is because of these metaphysical arguments regarding God being immaterial, which early Christians would have access to.
Are you really arguing that the most likely source of the bible is God? It seems the best you can do is that it's not guaranteed to be wrong. The bible is hardly a masterpiece of consistency and clarity. If it is the deliberate work of God, He's intentionally misleading the majority of believers on any given issue and He's done an absolutely awful job at depicting Himself in a positive light.
@@goldenalt3166 I’d say that’s more of a testament to individuals’ ability to rationalize what they want to believe into a text than the lack of clarity in scriptures. That said, my position isn’t that God is the most likely source of the scriptures. My position is that God would likely communicate with man, if He existed, and the scriptures are the most likely candidate out of all of the available scriptures for a record of that communication.
@@Tdisputations Why would you think that? If God is consistent and omnipresent, I'd expect His communication to be so as well. The "holy spirit" is much more likely candidate.
@@scambammer6102 I don't think it's a dodge. Mainstream Christians must believe in the ascension. (It's in all the creeds.) Theologically, what's important is that both his body and soul left this plane of existence for the one known as "heaven". It's less important exactly how that happened. A non-literalist has no problem accepting that the story in the gospels was written to reflect a cosmology that made sense to people at the time. That in fact Jesus most likely did not simply float up to a physical heaven above the sky. What exactly happened can be left as a "mystery". Non-literalists would include the Catholic Church and most major Protestant denominations.
I haven't polled the other apologists, but I don't think we talk about it because it is largely irrelevant from an apologetics standpoint. It has no bearing on whether Jesus rose from the dead and no major doctrines rely on it. Imagine for a moment that the ascension was not discussed. Suppose the Bible just didn't mention it. What would be lost? You say it is central to the gospel. I have literally never heard a gospel presentation that makes mention of the ascension. How would this come up in that discussion?
If Jesus didn't ascend, he could have done, and still be doing to this very day, the exact work that he instead left to the disciples. _Does Jesus supposedly want every person to believe that he was resurrected?_ According to Christian mythology: _Yes he does!_ So why ascend? That looks like sheer laziness! Why allow, for example, Thomas to poke his holes, _but nobody else,_ then ascend? Aren't we all owed the same post- resurrection visit from Jesus that Thomas got, just after he betrayed Jesus?
So where exactly is Jesus headed to when he is physically going "up" from the surface of the Earth during daylight hours from the vicinity of Israel? Is heaven a physical place in this universe? The references to ascension are clearly pointing to an ascension to a physical place in the sky. Apologists are masters of the post-hoc rationalization so I guess we can queue up the sci-fi explanation of extra-dimensional portals to hand-wave away the ridiculous implications of a physical heaven. Don't pretend that this isn't a problem, the silly narrative of the gospels are highlighted with this comic book Superman ascension and it highlights that that is exactly what the writers of the bible are doing in writing these gospel stories- they're just making stuff up and telling stories.
it may not be relevant from an apologetics standpoint, but it is very relevant from a theological and historical standpoint. If Jesus didn't ascend into heaven as described in the bible, then is he still here and never left? If he didn't leave then how is he going to return to slaughter and just those who don't love him back as he commands? If he did leave but not ascended in the bible, then how did he leave? and if it wasn't as described in the bible then what else is just mythology in the bible such as the resurrection?
Bravo! The apologists, especially WLC and John Lennox, should be hammered about this without mercy. The reason they avoid it is that the apologists are a gang of phonies. Would like to read about Wright's words on the Ascension.
I like this video because it points out the problem with evidentialist apologetics. Evidentialist apologetics assumes faith results from intellectual activity. But intellectual activity alone can't result in saving faith, because saving faith is a miraculous gift from God. “Most certainly I tell you, unless one is born anew, he can’t see God’s Kingdom.” (John 3:3) "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God..." (Ephesians 2:8) Also, faith is fundamentally epistemological. It is how the true Christian knows truth. "Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, 'If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.'" (John 8:31-32) "I have given them your word... Sanctify them in your truth. Your word is truth." (John 17:14,17) The Bible is God's Word: "Every Scripture is God-breathed..." (2 Timothy 3:16) "For no prophecy ever came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke, being moved by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter 1:21) And, God cannot lie (Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18). The true Christian knows that what they believe is true not because of some empirical, historical, or rationalistic evidence, but because God said it. "In the hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began." (Titus 1:2) The true Christian, who has been given the supernatural gift of faith, knows that the ascension is metaphysically true, not because it makes naturalistic or rationalistic sense, but because God revealed it in His Word. In the Bible there are only two possible epistemologies. One that is false, and one that is true. The false one is "leaning on your own understanding"(Proverbs 3:5), and the true one is believing God who cannot lie. Adam and Eve foolishly chose not to believe God, to lean on their own understanding, and believe the serpent's lie. As a result, they died, just as God said they would. But God, who is rich in mercy, promised in the gospel, eternal life to everyone who believes. But first, before the person can believe, they must be resurrected from spiritual death to spiritual life. "You were made alive when you were dead in transgressions and sins." (Ephesians 2:1) "But when the kindness of God our Savior and his love toward mankind appeared, not by works of righteousness which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy, he saved us through the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:4-5) When you look at most evidentialist apologists, they don't believe that regeneration is necessary for faith. They may believe that regeneration is something that happens after faith, but they don't believe that it is necessary for faith. And, as such, there is part of God's Word that they don't actually believe.
whether something is talked about to YOUR satisfaction, or if YOU think something is embarrassing, or if something looks mythological to YOU, doesn't mean it's not true. i think that darwinian evolution is embarrassing to the scientific community, but that is not an argument against it. your perception of something being embarrassing or not is NOT a standard for truth.
I think the silence stems from so many Christian apologists being fundamentaly materialist. The resurrection is mysterious which is problematic for people who need to mechanize everything.
I am not an apologist, but I am a Christian. I am not sure I understand the point of your video. Are you asking why apologists don't defend the historicity of the ascension? If so, I don't think you will ever see that kind of defense. The resurrection has evidence that can be discussed, but the ascension, as you have pointed out, had limited attendance and attestation. What I can offer is the reason why Jesus rose into the air, from a theological perspective, not that it proves anything. On Palm Sunday, when Jesus rode into Jerusalem, people came out of the city to meet him outside and then go with him in a procession to declare his kingship. This was common for Roman emperors as well. In 1 Thessalonians 4:17, we are told that believers will rise into the air to meet the returning Jesus -- the dead first, then the living -- presumably to return with him to earth in a heavenly procession. Thus, at the ascension, the disciples are told, "This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven." The rising up of Jesus' body into the air was indicative of how he would return. However, where did his body end up? How can a physical body be in the spiritual heaven? That's something that Bible doesn't tell us, and thus we don't know. It is not necessary to assume that just because Jesus rose up into the air that this was some sort of physical passageway into the spiritual heaven. Some things in the Bible are defensible, and some simply need to be taken on faith. Christianity is a faith, after all.
You are obviously intelligent and well read. Also, it seems you made an earnest attempt to study apologetics. This is not the only supernatural event that occurs. Luke 16:29-31 KJV Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. [30] And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. [31] And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. I started in philosophy, from atheism, agnosticism, Hinduism, buddhism, Kant, Marx , Jung (I know, psychologist), Benham, Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Taoism, Satanism, Islam, witchcraft, native American spiritualism. Literally every world view under the sun. They all fail at some point. The gospel of Jesus Christ does not fail. Yes, the ascension is supernatural. So is being resurrected after death. I understand, you do not want to pretend to believe. But show me a theology, philosophy or existence theory that does not contradict at some point. You have been presented with reasons to believe in the testimony of Jesus, it still requires you to believe. How many miracles were left out? Would it be more convincing if there were no claims of supernatural events? But going back, if you grant the resurrection, it follows that God has at will control over the physical universe. He can appear and dissappear, walk on water, walk through fire, fly, become large , whatever. Bit you are arguing here that the ascension was not recorded in an acceptable manner and that is the lynch pin for unraveling Christianity? But if you do not want to believe, that's is your prerogative. I have only met a few people that had a very deep history of studying the word of God who still rejected it. I will pray for you. I hope you find the truth on your journey.
Without the resurrection, the ascension is impossible. Until we're all on the same page about the resurrection, then why would it be surprising that the "Christianity 101" teachers are not diving into the more complex concepts while their audience still can't acknowledge the basics?
Well, a lot of "christians" seem to believe in the resurrection...how many millions over the decades repeat the "Apostle's Creed" which mentions resurrection: "the resurrection of the body..." which I take to mean they believe not only in his resurrection, but theirs as well and the end of days.
Several readers wonder at the veracity of ascending, never mind that it isn't all that specified exactly how this is done or how rapidly it proceeds. But many stories report a similar phenomenon. What would happen to a thing that was NOT attracted to Earth's gravity? Presumably it would proceed in a straight line with whatever velocity it happened to possess at the time. So, set up some calculations. Assume earth radius of 6371000 meters and an XY chart with the center of the Earth at 0,0. Next, we assume that at the moment of disconnect from Earth gravity, the object of interest is at the top of a circle, X=0, Y=6371000. This is the tangent of the straight line to be taken by the object and the Earth. The Earth is rotating 0.004363 radians per minute. The linear velocity is 27798.73 meters per minute. Naturally, the circumferential velocity of the Earth is exactly the same. BUT as the Earth rotates away; at first a point on the line and a point on the Earth nearly keeping pace but the Earth by rotating starts to reduce the X increment and increases (in a negative direction) the Y increment. After 360 minutes, the Earth has rotated 90 degrees, the linear particle is now ahead of it BUT from someone on Earth point of view, the linear particle is no longer directly above but is trailing about 60 degrees to the west. It is also rather far away (7335.80867 kilometers). Excel or Open Office spreadsheet Column A: Minutes (0 through 360) Column B: Radians of Earth Rotation (0 through 1.570796) Column C: X coordinate of the Ascension (in meters) Column D: Y coordinate of the Ascention (in meters). Fixed at 6371000 all cells in column (straight line). Column E: X coordinate of the viewer standing on Earth (in meters) Column F: Y coordinate of the viewer standing on Earth. Column G: Vector distance of viewer to Ascender. =SQRT( ((C3-E3)*(C3-E3))+((D3-F3)*(D3-F3)) ) You should recognize this as Pythagorean's Theorem. Column H: Apparent angle from viewer to Ascender expressed as degrees above horizon: =90-(57.3* ATAN((C3-E3)/(D3-F3))) Minute 1: 60.65 Meters AGL, 89.92 degrees Minute 2: 242.59 Meters AGL, 89.83 degrees Minute 3: 545.82 Meters AGL, 89.75 degrees. The acceleration is going to be rapid, by 2 minutes and 240 meters high apparently (almost) straight up and out of sight.
A physical resurrection doesn't necessitate a physical ascension. Douglas Farrow's Ascension Theology points out that even Origin read the Ascension as a mental state rather than a physical location.
The ascension has, literally, nothing to do with The Gospel. Not sure why you think it does. No one is "discarding" the ascension--it's just not integral. The bible could have described his ascension however it wanted and it wouldn't make any difference to the philosophical teachings of the Gospel message. Jesus' purpose had already been fulfilled before he ascended---so it's just a miraculous event that symbolizes the end of Jesus' time on Earth.
Great intro to the topic. Can you do the analysis of NT Wright's explanation? Otherwise it feels a little bit unfair to call out William Lane Craig referring to the ascension requiring a discussion of it's own and then never getting back to it.
The reason why the ascension doesn't get as much apology is because once a person accepts the resurrection, the ascension becomes plausible. Jesus' ascension is different from Joseph smith's fable; Smith says that he alone saw the angel, while all the disciples witnessed the ascension. If the ascension was a later doctrinal addition it would have become something controversial, & there is no controversy about the ascension.
You know whats also never at all talked about? When after the resurrection, apparently old saints and prophets rose from the grave and walked around. Literally no one has ever addressed this and everytime I would ask apologists about it. Never gotten an answer, just "Ill make a video about it some day."
Actually, it was right after - or at the end of the crucifixion when the world turned dark, the sun stopped shining, the earth opened, and the dead rose from their graves. This is in the absence of any evidence of either an earth quake nor a solar eclipse around that time in that part of the world.
The Biblical Zombies are my favourite part of the Bible! Do they die again? Make the video please!
@@olderthandadirt How is that not a movie? Passion narrative morphs into a zombie apocalypse.
@@scambammer6102 Hopefully another tv series from Mike Flanagan.
Apologists can get away with this in part because it’s in only one Gospel - Matthew, I think. But besides the ridiculousness of the concept, all these “resurrections” have an odd theological implication. If Jesus resurrected himself to prove his divinity, aren’t these other “prophets” demigods by default? I’ve always been amused by the horror-movie aspect of this. Imagine Christ showing up in “the upper room” like Jack Nicholson in “The Shining.” “Heeeeeere’s Jesus!”
The reason it's never depicted in films as it's written in the New Testament is that the visual of Jesus taking off into the clouds like Superman would be unavoidably comical.
This is a very interesting video my friend! I would love to talk with you on MythVision Podcast if you're down?
Another thing apologists won’t talk about is the ZOMBIE apocalypse of saints parading around the city of Jerusalem!
Shut up, there will be a movie coming 🤣
Hahahahaaaaa✅
@@smacvie it's in matthew 27:52-53.. and congrats you just found yet another biblical contradiction between matthew's vs paul's idea of resurrection
@@smacvie if it was not the first time then why did it never happen again? especially in this modern era when everything can be recorded & verified using scientific method? surely god does not ran out of mana after all of those "supernatural miracles", does he? all of your "historical" claim worth nothing compared to a single evidence of resurrection (and ascension, in accordance with this video)
@@smacvie i hope you understand that if you really believe god is an all-powerful being it doesn`t need anyone to speak on his behalf like a disabled kid. so whenever you tell anyone "god does / doesn`t do / think like this or that", you're just projecting your own thoughts into an imaginary all-powerful puppet. indeed it's quite effective method of controlling others, as you can see for yourself how some religious leaders led thousands to do his bidding, even ignoring their own self-preservation instinct till death
If the resurrection is as true as the first century eyewitnesses claimed, then the ascension is no big deal. Either miracles happen or they don't. If miracles happen, then all of our common notions might be wrong.
Theologically, the ascension is important primarily as the model by which Christ would return, when 'every eye will see him'.
Reason is a tool with which we attempt to understand personal experience (either received information or directly perceived phenomena). Belief and unbelief are chosen reactions to the conclusions of that process.
The early Christians did not claim belief based on a series of received concepts, rather on personal experience of miraculous phenomena. That is no different than many Christians today who claim personal experience of the miraculous.
How each of us reacts to all of those claims is, of course, a personal choice which will be informed by our own personal experiences.
I have to disagree. Yes, miracles can happen. But the Ascension clearly implies a 3-Tiered-Universe, as mentioned in the video. The reason the Ascension poses such a big problem, theologically, is not because it’s miraculous, but because it’s non-sensical.
If Jesus is all-knowing, he would know that the universe is not 3-Tiered. There would be absolutely no reason for him to literally rise. The “every eye” argument falls flat because it is clearly untrue. Not every eye will see something just because it is elevated several hundred feet into the air.
Also, I take issue with your claim that early Christians based their faith on personal experience and miraculous phenomena. That is markedly untrue. “Blessed are those who have NOT SEEN, and yet still believe”. The vast majority of early Christians never encountered Jesus or his miracles in person. Furthermore, and understanding of early church history shows us that early Christianity was VERY MUCH based on “received concepts”, if by received concepts you mean theological and philosophical reasoning and conceptualizing. So was much of Judaism.
Paul thought that he saw Jesus resurrected, but none of the people he converted did. Your assertion that most early Christians witnessed miracles isn't even supported by your own holy book.
@@satariel777 Acts chapter 1:
"And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.”
He ascended and disappeared into the clouds. He returns on the clouds and every eye will see him (Revelation 1:7).
Sounds pretty straightforward, without much theorizing.
As for how a person became a follower back there and how a person becomes a follower today, it is entirely the same.
Jesus is not a concept. He is a person, the Lord of all. And he comes into believers lives with love and power, if they will but open the door of their heart to him. What is described in the New Testament is continuing today.
As a sixty year old person who spent most of his adult life as an atheist and hedonist, I can tell you from my personal experience that miracles are real. Jesus changed me. and continues to change me. And he is doing the same for every follower of Jesus that I know. (And yes, the showy miracles of healing, tongues, dreams and visions, knowledge, etc., are still happening today in every corner of this planet.)
@@stephenbailey9969 Yet nobody can show a miracle to any science? Miracles are real only to people who WANT them to be real. Mental gymnastics are a hell of a drug.
@@masstv9052 What you are describing is a tautology.
The scientific method disallows taking into consideration miraculous or supernatural explanations for phenomena. Scientists are only permitted to consider naturalistic causes. Therefore science cannot 'prove miracles'.
When scientists (or doctors) find something that is inexplicable, they are simply silent or give the closest naturalistic possibility.
But many scientists and doctors at the end of the work day when they have taken off their 'science hats' will admit that they have witnessed things that could be described as miracles.
You can do the research and find their testimonies.
My own testimony is this: I was an atheist and a skeptic most of my life. I'm not anymore. As Shakespeare wrote, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Good insight. When I was an Anglican priest we noticed this fact also that non-liturgical Christians don't ever talk about the ascension. It's interesting that evangelicals threw out the ascension when they abandoned the liturgical calendar which may explain why it's a part of NT Wrights apologetic since Anglicans celebrate the ascension every year.
I really wish Ascendion Day was thrown out or exchanged for another official holiday, because at the midst of the week everything is closed and the next day nobody is available either. For a non-religious person Ascension Day is the most useless and senseless holyday possible.
Even as a religious kid I thought it and cold and empty day, a bit like St Nick going back to Spain after Dec 5. What's there to celebrate? He left his buddies there standing in the rain?
( there were clouds weren't they, so it probably did rain too.)
The Ascension is at least implied in every church using the Sursum Corda, as most early Protestants did. The Ascension is especially important to the Reformed understanding of the sacrament, and this would have included the early Church of England also. The Black Rubric actually drives the point home when refuting localized presence. As Paul wrote, “[God] hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.”
@@kamion53 It's only useless if you don't understand the theology or why we celebrate.
@@harpsichordkid I'm Eastern orthodox so the ascension is a big deal.
@@MrJMB122 I do understand the theology behind it coming from a Reformed background and even then I thought it not much worth celebrating.
Mainly because Ascension Day and Pentacost have no link with tradional rituals or costums like Christmas and Eastern. The only "tradition" I know of were the motorcycling contests held in the neighbourhood I grew up at Ascesion Day. Not particular a Christian inspiring habit. There are a few other religious days over the year like an equivalent of Thanksgivings Day but those are strickly connected with the church and not a national holiday.
Although the country is more and more secular then 50 years ago it still clings to a meaningless holiday which could be exchanged for a national holiday that has far more meaning to a growing group of people like the End of Ramadan. But then the Calvinists would go up in flames and the Catholics would probably demand the Assumption of Maria ( August 15) should be decleared a national holiday.
Matt: describing the ascension story as "seeming suspiciously convenient"
Me, a former Mormon: "like Angel Moroni taking the gold plates back to Heaven, lol"
Matt: "a lot like the Mormon story of Joseph Smith returning the Golden Plates to Moroni after translating the Book of Mormon."
😆
No one knows what an Ascension or resurrection would actually look like. How would you or I describe such things? Are we arguing against the Fact itself, or simply the language used to express it? An example would be the near death experiencers. Those people find it impossible to describe what they've experienced. It is too "Other".
@@bradleymosman8325 but some of the fantastical happenings in the bible are pretty clearly stated . Which is why non Theists call them out . And John Smith and his " golden plates " , was he just nicking the congregational collection?
I think we all saw that episode of South Park.
@@bradleymosman8325 but, Bradley, we do know what an ascension would look like. Luke describes it in acts chapter 1.
That seems to me as astonishing as the resurrection itself. Matt has a good point, it is very odd that this is not described elsewhere in the official holy documents.
I don’t see any honest way to argue that this is a historic incident.
@@thatoneguy7603 dum dum dum dum dumb~
Thank you so much! I've just come across your channel. I love how you present your ideas, which are so full of knowledge and technical insight; but you do this clearly, and also humbly and with the intent really to inform (in my opinion). I'll be looking forward to hearing from you in 2023! All best wishes for the Mid-winter season! CHEERS from the UK, Patrick.
A modern day Galileo using a telescope to debunk geocentrism with heliocentrism.
Telescope = Internet
Geocentrism = Trinitarianism
Heliocentrism = Monotheism
4:32 - Exactly, I'm glad someone else is talking about this: when you hear that someone "came back to life", you would expect them to be alive again for the rest of their natural life. But if, instead, the story is that they came back to life only to disappear shortly thereafter, that would sound like an excuse for them still being dead.
Exactly.
It always struck me that Jesus acted and behaved exactly like a ghost post-resurrection. He didn't use doors, he didn't eat, sleep, etc. He just showed up for a brief bit of time, then disappeared again. Even in the Doubting Thomas story (only recorded in the last canonical gospel to be written), Jesus just appears suddenly in the middle of the room. And the concept of ghosts being able to make themselves solid and interact with items and people is hardly a new one - there's all kinds of weird ghost stories where ghosts are able to move things around, touch ppl (and be touched by ppl when they want to be), etc
One of the things that always struck me as odd was the women at the tomb supposedly witnessed the moment of resurrection in at least one of the gospels (earthquake, angels rolling away the stone), yet Jesus is nowhere to be found. He doesn't walk out of his tomb. Apparently the only reason for the angels rolling the stone away is so that ppl can see that Jesus isn't inside it anymore. When Jesus brought Lazarus back to life in the Gospel of John, Lazarus literally had to walk out of his tomb and the implication is that Lazarus then lived out the rest of his life as a normal person - that always implied to me that Jesus' body didn't rise from the dead like Lazarus' did.
Yeah I've always wondered this too. It would be much more impressive to have a 2,000 year old man living today.
Or an "excuse" for there being no body or (non-empty) tomb.
@@SadisticSenpai61 Having survived the terrible experience of crucifixion, Jesus was not going to reveal himself so as to be arrested again !
I always took the ascension to be a convenient way of explaining why there is zero evidence of Jesus' existence post-crucifiction. It's almost as if he died and then, I don't know, remained that way.
yeah , well it depends on what you would consider " evidence" because Jesus appeared to Paul quite some time after His ascension , He also appeared to John of Patmos that was also post ascension and there have been many other claimed appearances
but I would say that John's is the best because of the Revelation , this document hes been so accurate when it comes to prophesy that either John was the greatest clairvoyant of all time or he got the information from someone else
why would he have lied and said he got it from Jesus if he could just as easily claimed the fame for himself ?
@@travelsouthafrica5048 That's kind of parallel to the point I'm making. The ascension story was tacked on quite late, as the video states, potentially to record a myth about Jesus the early Christians believed. There is no corroborating evidence for the ascension, and only Luke mentions it. What I'm saying is, this strikes me that Christians felt like there was a bit of a plot hole in their story that Jesus was resurrected, because, well, where is he? Where was he living and teaching? He was conveniently only alive for a month after his resurrection, and then mysteriously disappeared. This stinks of a post hoc explanation for the fact that Jesus wasn't actually around to verify his resurrection to anybody of importance for any extended period of time. If the ascension story wasn't tacked on it would be problematic for the spread of the gospel during the early stages.
@@ryangibson7530 if you and I conspired about something for whatever reason , and you and i both know we were lying about something that never happened
would you suffer terrible interrogation and
death ? to keep the lie alive ?
the apostles all died except one , for what they claimed they witnessed , people don't sacrifice themselves for a lie
@@travelsouthafrica5048 I wouldn't, but lots of people die for a lie. The Jonestown Massacre is a prime example. Again though, this doesn't really address my point.
@@ryangibson7530 this might help you understand , if you want to that is , I often find atheists do not want to understand , but that is up to you th-cam.com/video/Xyz-g5yuF20/w-d-xo.html
Like many other commentators I also had never thought about this. Excellent, clear, non-sensational talk. I hope you get more subscribers.
Hi Matt, it is helpful to read scripture when in meditation with an open mind beyond acadaemia and bias. I understand it is scary to not be able to explain a mystery, that is why I became a biomedical scientist. May the peace be with you ✌
Apologists also ignore the fact that many people (allegedly) rose from the dead before Jesus; it was almost common place in various cultures, from the Bronze Age through the 1st century. They don't talk about all those dead people who "... came up out the tombs..." on the day of the crucifixion and no one follows up on Lazarus! If it's so common, why is Jesus' resurrection so special?
It's important to keep in mind what these apologists really are. They aren't historians or philosophers, however much they try to come across that way. They are advocates, lawyers, press secretaries. Their object is to justify an already-given belief (e.g. the Nicene creed). Whatever it takes to do that, they will do. The whole point is to reaffirm the beliefs that their (Christian) readers already hold. However much ground they give up, to that extent they have failed.
So of course they don't talk about the ascension. Did Jesus fly into space like a rocket? Did he fly past alpha Centauri? What happened to the matter of his emphatically physical body? Who cares: as long as the questions aren't raised, they can't challenge belief.
"It's important to keep in mind what these apologists really are."
They're Liars for Jesus.
@@69eddieD They don't think of themselves that way. They don't think of it as lying. They think the truth is whatever corroborates or justifies what they "know" (i.e. their dogma).
Hey speaking of dogma, have you seen the documentary called expelled? It's on youtube.
Intellectually dishonest is a better term. Once pointed out how inherently flawed their arguments is, any continued use of the flawed argument shows they do not care about truth.
@@jeffparent2159 Again, they think they are being honest, that is, saying what is true. But, as they see it, truth has to be compatible with the dogma or it can't be true. The dogma is undeniable, incontrovertible, rock solid, as they see it, and it can't be moved. So everything has to be built around that.
They have ways of rebutting or rationalizing any criticism made against their favorite arguments. That the argument supports dogma is a big mark in it's favor, as they see it. William Lane Craig is a textbook example of this. He has answers to any rebuttal. He thinks they are good rebuttals, even if they aren't. He thinks he knows the truth (namely, the dogmas), and he thinks he cares about truth. Specifically, he thinks that he has access to this truth by direct contact from God/the Holy Spirit.
Don't try to frame theists as stupid. Many aren't. They're wrong, I think, but they aren't drooling fools. Give them some credit, they're as human as you are. Don't write them off or underestimate them or treat them like inferiors. They're just very confused and stuck believing a falsehood that means a lot to them. They're not liars or idiots or evil or anything like that (most of them, anyway). They're regular people like you and me. Your goal shouldn't be to berate them but to convert them (or stop them from converting more people, or etc) and to do that you need to understand them. Read the Bible, Augustine, Aquinas, Pascal, Tolstoy, Chesterton, CS Lewis, WLC. Or talk to them. It takes work but it'll help you understand them and thus be better at convincing them there's better things to believe.
I don’t think apologists would have the slightest trouble with the accession. Jesus choose to leave visually in a way his followers could comprehend. Duh. Now the Zombies of Matthew 27, that’s something apologists never talk about.
The Walking Dead should credit Matthew 27 for its inspiration.
William Lane Craig said the zombies are a hyperbole or something
@@carlosa.9533 "A" hyperbole.
@@poppysunsettlingstories weird but thanks
I think it's more of a problem than that. For Christians, it's a really big deal that Jesus's body rose physically from the dead. He's not just supposed to be just a spirit or ghost thing. The tomb is supposed to be empty. Thomas even puts his hand in one of the wounds of Jesus' living body (so much for having your wounds healed after the resurrection lol).
So the problem is: how can a physical body survive in space? There is no oxygen in space. Your bodily fluids boil. There is no way a physical body could survive the temperatures and radiation.
The lazy apologist can always say it's all just magic, but even if Jesus could magically survive all these things, where is he? Is his physical body floating out in space somewhere? Is his physical body outside the universe somewhere? It's all pretty embarrassing. Or it should be. I know there's no embarrassing someone who believes in magic.
Wonderful take. I have always pointed to the ascension as another proof of the 3-layer cosmology in the Bible. But Christians normally respond that he just disappeared into another dimention AFTER reaching the clouds lol
This is a great point! Jesus said he ascended to the right hand of the father. Yahweh’s throne was supposed to be on top of the firmament. We have gone past the firmament in space, and Jesus is not there.
A Christian would never use the phrase ' disappeared into another dimension'. If you have quotes please post them
@@kaptaink1959 quote is directly from my dad. He is a physics teacher and tries to square his knowledge of the universe with his faith with strange results at times.
You are right I shouldn't say it's a "normal" response, but he isn't the only one to say it to me.
@@baxterwilliams2170 Maybe an attempt to bring a physical idea to a theological concept
you are still there?? - poor soul...are you too smart, or can you not accept that that truth may come through antiaquated representations? - you should know that your kind of 'cosmological' objections only work with biblical fundamentalists
So basically apologists can choose:
- Declare heaven and hell spiritual "locations" and deny their original ancient physical meanings
- Defend the biblical flat earth
- Defend: "The more you get away from the center of gravity of the earth the closer you get to heaven."
- not talk about it
The bible doesn't teach a flat earth. And there is no mention of gravity or where specifically heaven resides
@@kaptaink1959 Isaiah 40 _"22 It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in"_
The word for circle used here is חוּג (chug). It does not, like some apogists claim, mean sphere.
If the biblical earth is not flat where does Jesus ascent to / descent from? Hint: clouds!
Also consider the tower of Babel and the mountain stories in the bible. Go up and you come closer to heaven.
@@paulschlachter4313 it's poetic language. Not meant to be literal description of earth
@@kaptaink1959 Suspiciously convenient, isn't it? Jesus's ascension is also poetic, right? - A can of worms that you just opened. What's the criteria that you know it's ment figuratively vs literally?
@@kaptaink1959
As you and I both know there is no "Bible" rather there a collection of at least 66 documents written by all sorts of man with all sorts of ideas and you have to sort of parse your way through each one to determine what each man believed at that time the real issue is what was the dominant ANE cosmology and basically it said there's a flat Earth and a solid dome.... That appears to be what we primarily see in most of these gentlemen's documentation and thit's the documentation and that is not surprising we just shouldn't be using it as fact
As a kid in fundamentalist and "new thought" churches, i was far more interested in "the ascension" than "the resurrection". This is because i'd occasionally see magazine articles about how modern doctors could perform what seemed like miracles by resuscitating people declared "clinically dead", so to me "the resurrection" story didn't seem extraordinary. And while there were aircrafts and parachutes, no one outside of the Bible story and other fairytales was reported to fly or be pulled up bodily into the sky by supernatural means. But in church no one ever mentioned "the ascension". I recall pondering it and comparing flying Jesus to the flights of Superman, Wonder Woman, and Mary Poppins with her magical flying umbrella.
I liked "the industry of Christian apologetics". A tragedy that apologists aren't seen as the laughable fools they are but have created and sustained an industry as dangerous to the world as the military industrial complex.
"As dangerous as the military industrial complex"? Stay away to from the brown acid, man!
Seriously. Such language will never help you convincing others.
@@raminagrobis6112 Christianity has been used by the Military Industrial Complex time and time again to justify invasion and destruction of other sovereign nations that do not bow down to Western Hegemony.
@@jirojhasuo2ndgrandcompany745 never mind the fact those actions are not supported anywhere in scripture.
@Alex Funk that is incorrect. Christianity is built off Jesus christ with Jewish foundations. Show me a single verse Jesus teaches violence. Jesus teaches to love your neighbor. He describes the highest form of love as laying your life down for them. Not destroying them.
I agree Christians have done wrong and will do wrong but it goes against scripture.
And let's not forget athiest governments of stalin, mao and the like have killed way more people than Christians have ever even dreamed of.
And before you mention it the US government is NOT Christian and hasn't been.
It bothers me too that these blatant quacks and bald faced liars are taken seriously. They should be mocked and vilified.
I completely agree with you. I'm a Christian and it has always bothered me that modern Christians (mostly protestants) refuse to talk about the ascension. And I think you are right that they are somewhat embarrassed by it.
There is a huge problem with modern apologetics in that it is prominently a materialist christianity and therefore doomed.
They have lost the ancient symbolic language and are stuck with our post enlightenment materialism.
Jonathan Pageau has done some great work on his TH-cam channel about this stuff if anyone is interested but I guess for a comments section I am limited in saying you must start to understand that 'ascending to heaven' does not mean flying into space and a myth doesn't mean a made up story
Hmmmmmmmaayyyyybeee...
But then you get into the whole mushy "what is a description of a true event with witnesses, and what is a myth or metaphoric or fable-based story?"
And that leads to the unfortunate "your belief is wrong because 'x' is a metaphor vs. no you got it wrong: my story is literally true but YOURS is a fable!" fight.
The how do you decide who's right...or if they're both wrong and it's all fairy stories? Or just partially wrong.
I'm a former Christian - now in the "Jesus probably existed and preached, but wasn't divine - plus the stuff he actually did and said is utterly swamped in Paulist bullcrap" camp. And it is patently and obviously visible which bits have a basis in things Jesus actually did and said, and which bits were cut from whole cloth later.
@@bobsurface908 yeah, I hear ya. And listening to Christian preachers dancing around with wildly different “interpretations” of bible passages was and is infuriating. And they could always twist the scriptures to say what they wanted them to say. And yeah, you can use Paul to do this more than anything else in the NT books.
But, to speak to your first paragraph, I think the problem we have is the understanding of the symbolic religious language and worldview. It is neither a scientific view (literal) or a metaphor. A symbol is a richer third way of understanding. One that brings it all together (including Paul).
Jordan Peterson scratched at it with his biblical lecture series. But there are others like Jonathan Pageau that completely transformed my frame of reference
@@petemaguire8677 Just a dodge to avoid defending your ridiculous book. "Oh it doesn't mean what it says. It means what I want it to say."
@@scambammer6102 What's ridiculous about the book?
@@signposts6189 - Revelations seems VERY influenced by psylocibin. Take 3 to 4 grams of freeze dried, you may see some cool imagery from your subconscious.
I just want to point out the Biblical accounts about the ascension by Luke. In the Gospel, Luke says Yeshua (Jesus) “was carried up into heaven.” It’s a vague description, but then Luke describes it in Acts a bit more vividly. “As they were looking on, He [Yeshua] was lifted up, and a cloud took Him out of their sight” (Acts 1:9).
The Biblical narrative does not imply that He continued to ascend into the sky and is ascending throughout the universe. The picture painted in the Bible is that He was lifted into a cloud. There’s no detail about how high He went before they could no longer see Him. There’s no detail about whether the cloud was already in the sky or did it appear in that moment. Very few details are given, nor are they necessary.
Like does it need to be more complicated than that He was lifted in the air and disappeared behind a cloud to transition into the spiritual dimension?
This view ignores the simple 3 tiered cosmology the ancients, including the first century Christians may well have believed in. No transition into a spiritual dimension required, because heaven was just above the clouds. And in another place Paul says that His coming or presence is hidden by the clouds, or something on those lines (can't remember the verse).
The evidence could be explained by the writers of the gospel making up a mythical account, or God accomodating their view of reality in how Jesus ascended so they understood what happened, or the apostles understanding what they saw in the terms of their view of the world even though had we been standing there with our different understanding we would have interpreted what we saw differently.
@@gerardjayetileke4373 There's historical evidence that the early Christians would not have widely believed in a 3 tiered cosmology. Firstly, the Ancient Israelites began to believe in elements of Hellenistic cosmology (which includes a round earth) since around the 300's BCE. Second, Luke's audience would have primarily been Hellenistic gentiles who believed in a round earth. It doesn't make sense that the author of Luke, who may or may not have believed in a 3 tiered cosmology, would tell a bunch of people who almost certainly didn't believe in a 3 tiered cosmology, that it existed - and done so in such a roundbout way in just a few lines of a narrative.
It seems more likely to me that the author of Luke was simply focused more on imagery and furthering a message that it is possible for humans to enter heaven (this belief is what attracted most people to Christianity in those days), and was not attempting to assert that heaven is above a dome over the earth and Jesus went physically through that dome. Especially since he never actually says that; seems a very inefficient way of convincing people who didn't believe in a 3-tiered cosmology, if that's what he was trying to do.
@@birdcar7808 I don't see why we have to go round the issue so much. The belief that someone ascended upwards is predicated on the belief that the destination was above earth. Luke does not have to be explicit about this because it was already a strongly held belief, that heaven was above. At least from a human pov. It doesn't matter what model of a 3-tiered cosmology they believed in, because embedded in this is a multi tiered heaven as well. So it doesn't matter. I think Luke's narrative at least partially is a polemic against Caesar, and the ascension is a case in point. There are many places where Luke does just this. It does not need such elaborate explanations.
@@gerardjayetileke4373 But this was not a strongly held belief. That was my whole point. Luke's audience, Hellenistic gentiles, did not believe in a three tiered cosmology. The author of Luke himself may not have believed in it because it was not as common among Ancient Israelites by then due to Hellenistic influence. Thus, it seems likely that he would need to include some explanation of a three-tiered cosmology considering his audience didn't believe in it, if he really was trying to further belief in it.
A truly lucid and intelligently presented view of the issue at hand without all the emotional baggage. Very well done! I would also like to see more like this... Thank you!
The NASA shirt was a nice touch ;)
The problem with the ascension was one of the first MAJOR points that brought me into me deconstruction.
@Islayman Ritual sacrifice for forgiveness of sin was already big with the temple at the time (Korban), they just wanted to on-up everything by tossing in human sacrifice on top. Making yourself human in order to sacrifice yourself unto yourself to appease yourself is some peak "Mysterious Ways™" nonsense.
@Islayman so you spent how many years researching, talking with scholars, etc etc. What did you find out?
As a child I had a hard time believing that jumbo jets could fly. So I just decided it was an illusion. Pssh to talking to an engineer or even a pilot
@Jebus Hypocristos show your proof please.
@@Chance57 The sacrifice happened long before the Temple. And what was sacrificed to atone for sin? A young lamb with out blemish. Jesus's death on the cross had nothing to do with appeasing God. But God providing the lamb (Jesus) to atone for everyone's sin and no future sacrifice is needed.
@Islayman God doesn't just forgive because blanket forgiveness is unjust and selective forgiveness is arbitrary without an object of faith to accept or reject to divide those who do trust God from those who do not. The choosing of sacrifice is not an arbitrary object of faith either, but rather acts as a universally understood concept of the gravity of what's at stake in dealing with God: life or death. Sacrifice pre-existed Judeo-Christianity and it was the franca lingo of polytheistic religion. Sacrifice was considered desirable by the gods...it demonstrated total piety of the believer by costing the believer something valuable. But Judaism changed the meaning of sacrifice from mere appeasement of the god's through honor to a means of atonement. Other religions of the ancient world simply do not include a concept of atonement. Gods were to be appeased when offended and bartered with for favor but the God of Israel was always pictured as a perfect moral judge who demanded perfect moral character of his people and this required a system of atonement lest the holiness of God destroy corrupted humanity through mere presence alone. Therefore sacrifice became a way of understanding how holiness could be conferred upon people who are clearly are morally incapable of perfect behavior (the life of an animal is in its blood and without the shedding if blood there is no forgiveness if sin). Christianity borrows the theology of atonement through a sacrifice and applies it to Jesus rather than animals. It becomes a once and for all system of atonement that replaces a system of animal sacrifices.
It therefore objectively separates people who believe they need perfecting (the humble) from those who do not believe they need perfercting (the proud) or who believe they can perfect themselves or who believe there is no judging god to be reconciled to.
CS Lewis in his book Miracles sees the ascension as integral for tackling the subject of worldview. For me it was something very important to wrestling with all the issues I do in my channel. It's also important that the Ascension makes the cut in the Apostles Creed.
L
The Ascension is one more miracle from the human miracle factory.
This shows why CS Lewis was a hack.
@@Ken_Scaletta "This shows why CS Lewis was a hack."
Is that a good thing or a bad thing? It is impossible with modern English when "sick" is now apparently a good thing. "Dope" is a good thing. Many things are both good and bad, or good or bad.
@@thomasmaughan4798 Hack means amateur.
C.S.Lewis talked about the Ascension.
Aquinas did too.
@@MBarberfan4life
Thank God! Now we know it must be true!!
As an outspoken Atheist, I’m continually astounded how anyone could be duped into believing in any sort of random, “magical sky daddy” existing
w/o shred of verifiable data or empirical, science based evidence!
I asked as kid if Jesus had a rocket ship and was told I shouldn't ask questions.
If you shouldn't ask them questions, then they shouldn't tell you answers.
My earliest Sunday School memory at age 4-5 was something like that. Among ourselves we thought it meant that he'd learned to fly like superman. We thought that's what "risen" meant. They sure as hell didn't tell us what a virgin was, either!
@@philipfarnam6013 Risen means the church wants your dough.
@@philipfarnam6013 Maybe they had told you that Jesus had 'risen' but didn't tell you what he did with it! Lol, U know, the sex ed part of things.
Science ask questions that cannot be answered. Religion has answers that are not to be questioned.
Why don't critics of Christianity analyze as to why eleven out of the twelve apostles were tortured and executed for their faith in an obvious lie that they all knew to be false? Anti-Christians are mostly silent about this glaring fact. Only it it were true, would they knowingly face horrible deaths.
Next....
Would you say the same about suicide bombers who die in the name of Allah? Is Islam true as well?
They died because their lies pissed people of power off, because their actions were seen as a power grab. It’s the same reason Jesus was killed. Thousands of Germans died believing they were the super race. Just because you die believing something doesn’t make it true. The only apostle that could write and was literate never even met Jesus. Ever play telephone? It’s all a fairy tale
@@johnsannicolas2015 How are people with a death wish (suicide bombers) the same as people who are persecuted with beatings, imprisonment and death threats they'd rather not go through on the same level?
More of this kind of content, please and thank you!
Indeed found this by accident instant like and sub
Matt,
As a Christian theist (albeit not an evangelical), welcome to the ex-evangelical now non believer Podcast circuit. I have actually been thoroughly blessed by the half dozen or so quite competent fellow ex-evangelical atheist podcasters. I can tell just from my limited exposure that you are a very clear thinker and you have the evangelical scene pretty well nailed.
I also really appreciate you bringing up this matter of the Ascension. It is something that it seems we all rather lightly skip over.. One of the questions it raised in my mind is how to correlate 1Cor 15 appearances with this Jesus popping up like popcorn in Acts chapter 1.
Thanks for exposing this embarrassing plothole. Shouldn't Jesus leave a ton of instructions before leaving or at least his own written flawless gospel?
Jesus spent 3 years with his disciples, teaching them what they needed to know. And surely repeated the lessons over and over again. His gospel was written in their hearts and minds. the non literate had excellent memories. stories told out loud in front of the clan so the speaker could be told of errors. In Medieval Europe troubadours could learn a song after hearing once. they probably used basic music that could be adapted to stories rather than making new song for each
@@kaptaink1959 but we don't know any of that for sure. The disciples only speak 35 words in the NT most of them by Peter
@@historicalbiblicalresearch8440 is my theory unfounded? Do ancient teachers only give a lesson once? We're 1st Century cultures better at remembering information. And the Gospels are about Jesus not the apostles. They say alit in their letters
It wasnt supposed to be like that from what I gather. It's more of a "I knew you and treated you this way. Then you go to the next person and do the same for them. Then so on and so on"
It didnt really need the stories and letters to accomplish that. They just really helped and may have actually hurt
@@kaptaink1959 You are totally FOS. There's no reason to think ancient people had better memories. Just make stuff up why don't you.
Thank you sir! Some really good points and something I hadn't thought about.
It might also be a question of where they put their energies. From a theological perspective if the resurrection never happened even Paul says "your faith is in vain". Also from a sceptical position if the resurrection cam be shown to be true all the other objections are irrelevant.
So this might influence it also, the fact that it is a cornerstone.
But what you said I think is definitely part of it too
It reminds me of how "miraculous healings" can fix ANYTHING but amputation xD
Or decapitation. lol
@@greyeyed123 Inconveniently, the dead stay that way, regardless of who prays for them or how.
@@rudra62 what about Lazarus?
@@666mrdoctor Do you have evidence that Lazarus was actually dead? In fact, do you have evidence Lazarus was actually alive?
Note that many people can be seen on modern, sensitive equipment to be alive who even a few decades ago, would have been declared dead. To an untrained eye without all of the electronics, the person would seem "dead".
Big Fact right there‼️
The reason apologists dont talk about the ascension is because people dont question it. Though i have heard plenty of apologists talk about it. Apologists focus on the issues being brought forth though first not random issues. Keep asking questions and the apologists will start producing content.
Really enjoyed this video - very interesting... I hadn't really thought about the lack of discusion on the ascension. Further, you mentioned Joseph Smith returning the golden plates... I didn't realise that (I knew about the golden plates - just didn't realise he gave them back). Well, that's rather convenient, isn't it!!!!
Clearly, Joseph Smith was not in it for the money.
LOL
@@AlDunbar Extremely LOL
It's boring and basic. It's like watching children playing with magnets and listening to their reasoning behind it. This is an amateur attempt at disproving what is unqualifiable in our current understanding of things.
@@williamroberts8470 "Our current understanding of things" - you sound like a Jehovah's Witness.
@@tommysmith5479 no I'm a truck driver haha. I'm referring to science.
Glad to hear this being talked about. This was one of the first issues that started off my deconversion journey.
Post Christianity here we come.
@@waitstill7091 lmao. Believe in your globe eh?
@@jasonodell79er The future is brighter when Christianity is exposed for what it is. Or better yet, what it is not!
@@waitstill7091 Brighter? Hell awaits, you mean?
@@dragonmartijn "Heaven is not discussed in the Torah, in order to emphasize the necessity to do what's right because it's right, and not for the reward, or to avoid punishment."
Rabbi Menachem Weiman
6:30 “The modern christian can’t accept it as it comes…”
Flat earthers: I’m gonna stop you right there. ✋
As Catholics the ascension of our Lord is literally one of the most important dogma and we have it in the Rosary prayer or in Ignatius mediation where we picture ourselves seeing Jesus ascension and examining the moment and what it means.
Yes, this is one of things that stuck in my throat as a kid. In the sect I grew up in (Jehovah's Witnesses) the ascension is not ignored; it's probably given just as much emphasis as the resurrection. Every time the ascension was mentioned I'd remember that quotation of Paul's that "flesh & blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God." Well then at what point did Jesus cast off his fleshly body? Surely before he reached the stratosphere! It would have been much better if God just beamed his son up Scotty style.
And perhaps He did
JW's don't believe in physical resurrection. They believe he was raised in spirit and took on physical form when desired like angles in past appeared in physical bodies to Abraham etc. They don't elaborate on what was done with Jesus body but they definitely deny resurrection of his physical body. I was a JW also.
@@nikloff1815 Thanks. I just learned this while commenting on another video. I guess I must have fallen asleep during that lesson. It always seemed evident to me from the gospel accounts that Jesus' resurrection was physical -- that he wasn't just a ghost. I regret I didn't know this during my inquisition with the elders. I would have loved to hear them explain to me how a ghost could eat fish & suffer from wounds.
Dear ignorant one: Jesus was in a resurrected body, and the very passage you quote says that body is not flesh and blood.
@@davidpelto8824 The very term 'resurrected body' implies that it IS flesh & blood. If Jesus' new body wasn't made of flesh & blood, then what happened to the one that was? In the gospel of John you have Jesus allowing Thomas to press his fingers into the spear wound on Jesus' resurrected body (John 20:24-29). If it was an entirely new body, why did it still have the wounds inflicted by the crucifixion?
So modern Christians are more likely to accept the ascension as mythology, while more traditional Christians need the ascension to be as read because that aspect is interwoven into the overall narrative and is required in order to keep the Jenga tower from toppling over. Remove one piece and the gap you notice it leaves makes you take a closer look at the other pieces.
Amazing, haven't ever thought about this before.
I for one would be extremely interested in a critical view of some of NT Wright in general as I can't quite put a finger on why I don't like his works but they are extremely popular amongst more academic Christians.
I second that! Would love to see Mr. Hartke tackle some of NT Wright's scholarship.
@@invisiblegorilla8631, don’t put this guy on a pedestal, just another weak minded supposed faither who decided the world of hopeless atheism was the way to go. It’s not. Smh
Seconded...well, thirded, really.
@@michaelbrickley2443 OK, I'll take a bite on this one. How do you possibly get off saying that he is a "supposed faither" ?? Just astounding the level of disconnect here . U sir have no idea about what his motivations were before. Foithermore, you'd have to be a mind-reader! OR, do you just guess that it's not possible for someone to truly believe and then years later reverse course? How long have you been a 'believer'??
If you are an athiest you might not like his works because you disagree with him, there.might not be anything more profound than that going on.
Perhaps the ascension story would be more believable if Jesus rode a flying horse to heaven.
ISWYDT
How clever...perhaps you should take up clownology as a full time study.
Well ,yeah ,it would of added an Arabian Nights flavour to the story. How about a carpet?
A rocket ship would be the only logical conclusion.
An apologist job is to tell believers what they want to hear, at least if they want to keep their job. Facts, logic, reason, science and history have little or nothing to do with apologetic arguments.
At this late date, it's quite impossible to determine what actually happened if, indeed, anything happened. All that remains is an agenda and the agenda is all: Churches, Inc.; Tax-free businesses. Shepherds and sheep.
@Kenneth McRae if you can't even type a good comment why would I read your book?
I would love to see an apologist address this in a debate.
*Although the biblical narratives depict Yahweh as the sole creator god, lord of the universe, and god of the Israelites especially, initially he seems to have been Canaanite in origin and subordinate to the supreme god El.* Canaanite inscriptions mention a lesser god Yahweh and even the biblical Book of Deuteronomy stipulates that *“the Most High, El,* gave to the nations their inheritance” and that “Yahweh's portion is his people, Jacob and his allotted heritage” (32:8-9). A passage like this reflects the early beliefs of the Canaanites and Israelites in polytheism or, more accurately, henotheism (the belief in many gods with a focus on a single supreme deity). *The claim that Israel always only acknowledged one god is a later belief cast back on the early days of Israel's development in Canaan.*
*It is generally accepted in the modern day, however, that Yahweh originated in southern Canaan as a lesser god in the Canaanite pantheon* and the Shasu, as nomads, most likely acquired their worship of him during their time in the Levant.
*Yahweh in the Canaanite Pantheon*
The biblical narrative, however, is not as straightforward as it may seem as it also includes reference to the Canaanite god El whose name is directly referenced in `Israel' (He Who Struggles with God or He Who Perseveres with God). *El was the chief deity of the Canaanite pantheon and the god who, according to the Bible, gave Yahweh authority over the Israelites:*
When the *Most High [El]* gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the Sons of God. For Yahweh's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage. (Deuteronomy 32:8-9, Masoretic Text).
The Canaanites, like all ancient civilizations, worshipped many gods but chief among them was the sky-god El. *In this passage from Deuteronomy, El gives each of the gods authority over a segment of the people of earth and Yahweh is assigned to the Israelites who, in time, will make him their supreme and only deity; but it is clear he existed beforehand as a lesser Canaanite god.*
Yahweh, according to Amzallag, was transformed from one god among many to the supreme deity by the Israelites in the Iron Age (c.1200-930 BCE) when iron replaced bronze and the copper smelters, whose craft was seen as a kind of transformative magic, lost their unique status. *In this new age, the Israelites in Canaan sought to distance themselves from their neighbors in order to consolidate political and military strength and so elevated Yahweh above El as the supreme being and claimed him as their own.* His association with the forge, and with imagery of fire, smoke, and smiting, worked as well in describing a god of storms and war and so Yahweh's character changed from a deity of transformation to one of conquest.
*As the Israelites developed their community in Canaan, they sought to distance themselves from their neighbors and, as noted, elevated Yahweh above the traditional Canaanite supreme deity El.* They did not, however, embrace monotheism at this time. The Israelites remained a henotheistic people through the time of the Judges, which predates the rise of the monarchy, and throughout the time of the Kingdom of Israel (c.1080-c. 722).
Google *"Yahweh - **WorldHistory.Org.**"*
Watch Dr Christine Hayes at Yale University. Watch lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards and lecture 8 from 12:00 to 19:00 minutes.
Google *"Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites - Biblical Archaeology Society."*
Google *"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopaedia."*
Google *"Canaanite Religion - **Realhistoryww.com**"*
Google *"Canaanite Phoenician Origin of the God of the Israelites."*
Google *"The Phoenician God Resheph in the Bible - Is That in the Bible?"*
Google *"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."*
Google *"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."*
Google *"Married Deities: Asherah and Yahweh in Early Israelite Religion - Yahweh Elohim."*
Google *"How the Jews Invented God and Made Him Great- Archaeology - Haaretz."*
Google *"The Invention of God - Maclean's"*
Google *"The Boundaries of the Nations - Yahweh Elohim."*
Google *"Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day - Lehi's Library."*
Google *"How Did the Bible’s Editors Conceal Evidence of Israelite Polytheism - Evolution of God by Robert Wright."*
Google *"A Theologically Revised Text: Deuteronomy 32:8-9 - Ancient Hebrew Poetry."*
Google *"Biblical Contradiction #3: Which God is the Creator of the Heavens and Earth: Yahweh or El?"*
Google *"Biblical Contradiction #27. Are Yahweh and El the Same God or Not?"*
Google *"Mark Smith: "Yahweh as El’s Son & Yahweh's Ascendancy - Lehi's Library."*
Google *"Quartz Hill School of Theology - B425 Ugarit and the Bible."*
Google *"The Origins of Yahweh and the Revived Kenite Hypothesis - Is That in the Bible?"*
Google *"Yahweh, god of metallurgy - Fewer Lacunae."*
Google *"Polytheistic Roots of Israelite Religion - Fewer Lacunae."*
Google *"Biblical Polytheism - Bob Seidensticker."*
Google *"Combat Myth: The Curious Story of Yahweh and the Gods Who Preceded Him - Bob Seidensticker."*
Google *"Religious Studies: El, Yahweh and the Development of Monotheism in Ancient Israel."*
Google *"Decoupling YHWH and El - Daniel O. McClellan."*
Google *"Yhwh, God of Edom - Daniel O. McClellan."*
Google *"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.*
You cant take one verse that contains El Elyon and claim that Hebrews worshiped more than one god. The old Testament uses the phrase multiple times to mean YHWH. As are the words Elohim or El Elyown.
@@kaptaink1959
The bible is actually a book with stories set in real geographical places featuring real homosapien groups/cultures - but the stories are purely mythological.
Talking Snakes, (genesis 3), talking donkeys (numbers 22) etc.
Not to mention a worldwide flood that systematically wiped out every known homosapien group on the planet - EXCEPT eight people who managed to trap millions of animals and insects and physically herd them onto a small boat complete with enough food for ALL the animals and humans for a year.
Geologists and scientists have all destroyed the global flood theory many times already.
@@shaunigothictv1003 well the places are real. the groups/cultures are highly idealized and mostly invented long after the fact.
@@scambammer6102 Agreed.
Excellent point.
I was surprised when you said N.T. Wright instead of C.S. Lewis. Lewis has a pretty widely known chapter on the ascension in one of his books--'Miracles' if I recall correctly.
Oh, thanks, I'll look it up.
Recent ex-Christian here as well. I respect your value of truth and will be subscribing for more of these fascinating videos!
When I was a believer, the ascension was something that always stuck out as odd to me… Most Christians that I knew acknowledged that heaven was not physically above the earth like ancient people believed, but it was like another dimension. So why did Jesus need to get beamed up by Scotty when he could have just warped to the “heaven dimension”?
It was one of many things that I just preferred to ignore because it sounded too mythological
Levitation up into the sky is more dramatic then a Star Trek transporter fade out.
Mr Hartke's fundamentalist literalist background is showing. If a ruler ascends to a throne it doesn't mean he went up to a throne on a higher elevation or in the sky. Similarly when people say some one ascended to a higher moral plane or level of consciousness that also in no way denotes a physical, vertical elevation. Ditto for ascending the corporate ladder. In fact, ascension in usual usage infrequently denotes physical vertical movement.
Except the majority of christians over the last 2000yrs believe the necromancer demigod literally floated up into the clouds...as stated in the bible itself.
Christian mythology has always specifically differentiated the ressurection, ascension and exaltation (being seated on the throne as per a monarchy model) as distinct and literal. If the ascension into the physical clouds as described in the bible is nothing more than metaphorical...then why not the reanimation of the demigod from the dead. At least it would make more sense and be consistent with the metaphor device. But then how does one determine what is literal and what is metaphorical in the bible screeds?
@@jaclo3112 Because it's way way more explicit about the Resurrection than the Ascension. Plus there's evidence
@@zayobayo2175 please provide the evidence that a jewish necromancer demigod reanimated from the dead.
@@jaclo3112 What the heck is a Jewish necromancer demigod?
@@signposts6189 I take it you've never read the bible? The human sacrifice god of christian mythology in the bible is jewish, indulges in the magic of necromancy...and is a product of a human woman and a supernatural god...hence by definition a demigod. This particular demigod of christian mythology also practices blood magic along with human sacrifice. it's pretty barbaric and gross when you think about it.
Not sure that I get your point. The Scripture don't give us much information about the ascension. Jesus went up and dissapeared into the clouds. We are told that when He comes back again the He will appear in the clouds. He will catch His Saints up in the clouds. What's more to say? Are you implying that the resurrection didn't happen? There's overwhelming evidence for the resurrection.
Can you give an example or two outside of the bible of the evidence of which you speak?
I'm not sure why it matters that apologists do or don't talk about the ascension, for a couple of reasons. If the evidence for the resurrection is convincing, then the ascension just makes sense. Also, the ascension doesn't seem like the kind of event that is going to leave around physical evidence like an empty tomb or a shroud. More, while apologists may not address the ascension, you can be sure plenty of Christian theologians have written about it. I found this video rather meh.
Yeah theologically speaking Jesus the teacher and leader sends the Holy Spirit to help his friends. He didn't start a traditional religious empire. It was a spiritual one. This seems more the point and moving into heaven to be the mediator. I don't know any Christians that would think this is more silly than talking donkeys, pigs being sent off of mountains, or the fact the dead walked the Earth again
"If the evidence for the resurrection is convincing, then the ascension just makes sense."
It makes sense that Jesus would fly into the sky? Isn't it a bit odd? Where was he going? Into space? And why would there even be an ascension? Why wouldn't Jesus just continue his ministry? It's a weirdly suspicious coincidence that Jesus would disappear shortly after returning to life. The ascension seems to make far more sense if we _don't_ find the evidence for the resurrection convincing.
No, what would've made sense would have been for Jesus to have walked into Pilate's office and said, "Remember me?" That would have gotten everybody talking, and maybe someone would have written down a truly contemporary account from the Roman perspective, which would have been much better evidence.
@@erichodge567 better evidence isnt the point. Its about the lives he touched. And those changes inspiring more. And more from them.
@@partydean17 Jesus hasn't touched anybody for 2000 years you are just touching yourself.
Fascinating question. The resurrection, ascension and return of Christ are a package deal... all three are theologically inter-dependent. As a Christian I want to believe these are true (or will be true) ...nay, I MUST believe them to maintain my orthodoxy. However, verifying and objectively defending the "truth" of these doctrines escapes us all. All I can say is, the humanity, morality, compassion and words of Jesus remain the core of my faith. No man ever spoke like this man.. The rest of Christian milieu is mystery, or, perhaps as you suggest, merely historical context.
I'll have to see jesus's ascension telemetry first, before I may even think of reconsidering. Otherwise he might just as well have been beamed back to mothership, which sounds way more plausible.
It could have been done with wires
You've put out some great content. Would love to have more, if you feel like it!
I think Harnack's arguments for dating Luke early and the number of difficult and minute things that Luke casually shows himself to be reliable on is enough evidence for me to have a level of trust on the story. (Referring to Colin Hemer's book on Acts) Also, Christians believe they too will ascend with Jesus and meet him in the air when he returns per 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18. So I'm not entirely sure it is something they are entirely embarrassed of, but you do raise a good point about the overall oddity of it and you could be right to say that is why some shy away from it. I know it was something Ludemann pressed Craig on in his debate with him, iirc. I'd have to go back and check.
The fact that the resurrection appearances suddenly stopped is something I've seen more than one apologist say is actually evidence against hallucinations. Here is a quote from George Park Fisher:
"Had the followers of Jesus been in that state of mind out of which the illusions of hallucination might arise, and if this had been the source of what they thought to be actual reappearances of Jesus, these manifestations would have been much more numerous." But the convenience thing is a fair point and using the analogy of the Golden Plates is interesting.
Anyway, good first video! Your thoughts on this topic raise the level of the discussion by a lot. Looking forward to more! Hope you don't mind the 2 cents, figure a comment helps the algorithm.
Luke-Acts was written in the late 90-s to early 110's CE and is extremely unreliable.
The claim that "resurrection appearances stopped" implies that they ever began in the first place. The post-resurrection appearances in the Gospels are all late additions to the narrative. It looks like the original belief was only that Jesus had gone to heaven and that stories about appearances on earth did not begin to be written until Matthew's Gospel, no earlier than the 80's CE.
There is not a single shred of actual evidence that any of the disciples ever claimed to have seen Jesus on earth. The empty tomb story didn't even exist before Mark. What's most likely,, as per Crossan and Ehrman among others - is that Jesus' followers fled when he was arrested and that none of them ever really knew what happened to the body. The first "appearance" claims probably happened in Galilee, probably by Peter, but we don't know what he claimed to have seen. I think the first visions of Jesus were of Jesus in Heaven, ala the vision of Stephen, but it was also not unheard of for people to think that certain individuals came back in other bodies. We can see that right in the Gospels with John the Baptist being called an incarnation of Elijah and witha all the shape-shifting stories about Jesus.
This doesn't worry me as a believer as.a story as I think there are 3 plausible reasons why Luke describes something that fits their cosmology view that we know to be wrong. 1) luke used some poetic licence to convey spiritual truths, 2) God accommodated their cosmological view in how he displayed the Ascension to the disciples, they needed to understand what was happening spiritually and the easiest way to communicate this was with something in keeping with their cosmology or 3) they fitted what they saw into the cosmological understanding they had, they saw something happen that they interpreted one way if we had been there we would have seen something physical happen to but would have interpreted what we were seeing differently because of our understanding.
Just as Jesus used agricultural or shepherding metaphors to communicate with his audience... why wouldn't he "ascend" in a way that would help the witnesses understand where he was going and for what purpose?
Well, there’s the fact that the supposed ascension removed from the realm of empirical verifiability the centerpiece of the entire Christian narrative.
0:46 ......"Evangelical Industrial Complex"
Now, that's goddamn funny!!
a joke is not an argument
@@kaptaink1959 May illuminate a point better than an essay. Years ago, 2 SA farmers talking. One says Dis you know Bishop Tutu is dead. Dead, dead, I didn't know he had been arrested.
Another explanation for the ascension could be a response to skeptics saying "if Jesus rose from the dead, then where is He?" Keep in mind, the FIRST public announcement of the resurrection was at Pentecost, not Easter. And it was the disciples that made that announcement, not Jesus himself. I can very well imagine someone in that crowd asking that question even if Luke does not record it in Acts. It's the kind of question I would have asked.
Apologists are very fond of saying that the Romans could have easily produced Jesus' body in response to the disciples' claim that he was still alive. Except that by that time there would have been no recognizable body. But they utterly ignore the fact that neither could the disciples produce a LIVING Jesus. It also explains why the Romans seemed to be unconcerned with what was being said at Pentecost in contrast to their involvement a few weeks earlier at Passover. I'm sure that Pilate's spies reported back to him that a large crowd was gathering outside a house in Jerusalem and that it was being claimed that one of the men he'd crucified was in fact still alive--but don't worry, he's nowhere to be seen; gone back to heaven as a matter of fact. So no threat to Rome here. The Romans really don't get involved until later in Acts when tensions between the Jewish leaders and the emerging Christian movement started causing civil unrest. That is all they cared about, not theology.
I agree it’s all BS but I guess I don’t understand why the focus on the ascension. As the story goes there’s not much evidence you could present that would back up the story even if we lived in a parallel universe where all the Bible myths are true
Yeah the ascension is not more BS than the rest of it. Still, Jebus flying up into the sky like mighty mouse is an amusing image.
Nothing is more "BS" than believing that Jesus did not exist. The evidence is overwhelming. Yet, these atheists cling to their beliefs. Sad....
@@Goodkidjr43 lol tell us you don't understand what an atheist is without telling us you don't understand what an atheist is... 🤣
@@Goodkidjr43 also... tell us about some of this "overwhelming evidence." what is it? if the evidence were so "overwhelming," then why doesn't every region on the planet believe it? oh, right... it isn't at all.
@@Goodkidjr43 What’s sad is that you would make such an ignorant assertion that there is overwhelming evidence of the Jesus as depicted in the New Testament. The New Testament Jesus is a highly mythologized figure, one that modern historiography cannot substantiate because there are almost no contemporary sources of this Jesus figure in the first century that are independent or outside of the New Testament. Further, historians have no disinterested sources, only evangelical sources from believers. There may have been some type of itinerant Jewish rabbi who was killed by the Romans for accusations of sedition against Rome, but the reliable surviving sources of evidence we have fails to corroborate any of the theological claims made by the New Testament authors. The New Testament is theology masquerading as history. Christianity emanated from Jewish theology, Greek Hellenism, and pagan theology.
The ascension is important due to scriptures that He says He is leaving His Holy Spirit to live in us and a reminder of him returning.
Solid stuff. Why do you only have 74 subscribers?? It's criminal!
395 a month later. When did he start his channel?
@@AlDunbar 9 more hours and it's up to 421
Well there are 3 or 4 guys that have monopoly of the Atheist Industrial Complex in TH-cam: the guy from RationalityRulwes, CosmicSkeptic, an indian guy that reads the Bible every week, and an ex-JW. Maybe they should go out and see if they can get a real audience, in the real world
@@octem2251 The Atheist Industrial Complex. Lol. Okay, dude. 👍
@@utubepunk well yes, I was generous, it's more like a big farm
Paul's description of "we will be translated" between physical and spiritual form answers all this. As does cursory analysis of, say, the visitation of angels to Lot, who were in physical form at the time, as spiritual beings. The proper conclusion, and one that answers the Ascension, is that such "translation" is a capability that spiritual beings fundamentally have. From spiritual to physical, or physical to spiritual. You can reject this notion, but special casing of the Ascension is not warranted relative to the rest of scripture.
I think that the answer is far simpler.
The Resurrection *barely* factors into Evangelical theology at all. For nearly all Evangelicals, the Resurrection isn't soteriologically necessary, and servas only as a means to prove that everything else He did was legitimate.
The Ascension doesn't factor into their theology at all except as a point of technical fact.
Evangelical apologists - and frankly nearly all non-Catholic and non-Orthodox apologists - refrain from discussing it because it is not part of their paradigm and is largely irrelevant to them.
Isn't the resurrection a core tenant of Christianity? I Corinthians 15, possibly the oldest legit Christian creed on record, includes the resurrection as one of the basic components of the faith. How is it that evangelicals only believe the resurrection incidentally? Are you saying that because of evangelicals focus on charismatic preachers, miracles, and apocalypticism?
If you want to deal with Jesus after the resurrection, then you have to go to the story of Elijah, when he spoke to Obadiah. God had told Elijah to present himself to Ahab, that He was going to send rain. Obadiah is Jesus, saying to the Holy Spirit, "I have saved two groups of prophets in a cave." That is extremely pertinent, as we see how the narrative in the book of Acts revolves around that of the evolving double portion outpouring of the Holy Spirit, identified by the narrative of both Elijah and Elisha being fulfilled before our eyes. You see this impossible one for one fulfillment happen. It can't be anything but God.I once thought it could have been faked, but Occam's razor says otherwise.
I was wondering if anyone else noticed this. Apologists are all over the Resurrection, so skeptics train their fire on it as well, but the Ascension is a very, very fat target. It is hard to spiritualize away, since it is very graphically described, and is essential to Christian doctrine since Luke has an angel tell the amazed disciples that Jesus will come back precisely as he left.
i think apologist don't focus on the Ascension because the Christian movement would have continues even if Jesus stayed on earth. it is not a necessary for the resurrection story to be true.
@@kaptaink1959 , which would be true except for John 16:7, in which Jesus tells his apostles:
"But I tell you the truth, it is for your benefit that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you."
If the Christian movement is to continue, it must have the Holy Spirit, and so Jesus must ascend to his Father. Therefore, the Ascension is absolutely essential doctrine in Christianity.
@@erichodge567 thanks that is very thought provoking. let me mull this over. Good day to you
@@kaptaink1959 , and good day to you.
Three years now an atheist. I'm glad TH-cam sent me to your channel!
Perhaps the main reason that apologists don't bring the ascension into their discussions is simply because it isn't necessary. When it comes to atheism/agnosticism Christians are being attacked on the resurrection front and center and therefore they must defend it. Likewise with Judaism. They attack the resurrection, not the ascension. Islam levels a similar attack on the resurrection of Jesus simply because they don't believe that Jesus was crucified to begin with. But oddly enough, Islam DOES believe in the ascension. Neither the ascension nor the resurrection are attacked by the practitioners of most other religions. So when it comes to apologetics, once a Christian has persuaded an unbeliever on the merits of the resurrection, the ascension is accepted as a matter of course. Therefore, why would you expect Christians to bring up an argument no one is arguing about? That would make no sense.
Secondly, the New Testament doesn't teach that the ascension was the first time that Jesus had gone to the Father. You remember that when Jesus was raised from the dead Mary Magdalene wasn't supposed to touch him because he hadn't returned to the Father yet. But by the end of the day it seems as if he had, because when he appeared to the disciples they were all touching him. Luke also tells us that Jesus appeared to the disicples in various settings accross the span of 40 days. Paul tells us in First Corinthians that Jesus appeared to over 500 people at once. Therfore, "the ascension" as Luke relates it is simply his way of telling us that Jesus was physically leaving for the last time (at least till his second coming, which then the angels also explained in Acts 1).
Thirdly, your concepts of the three tiers of creation is not "unscientific" as you seem to insinuate. The "three tiers" were always to be understood SPIRITUALLY. That is to say that Heaven (not on this planet) and Hell (within this planet) are SPIRITUAL places; not physical ones. The Bible explains how Satan and his demons had fallen from Heaven to this earth long before the six days of creation (Ezekiel 28:12-19 & Is 14:12ff among others). Therfore Hell was part of the earth long before God brought the planet into orbit around the sun and recreated the surface in Genesis 1. And since that creation was upon the surface of the earth, Hell (Sheol, Hades, however you would like to refer to the underworld) remained below it. When angels "descend from Heaven" onto the earth it is simply because they are coming from a spiritual place outside our atmosphere (perhpas even outside our galaxy) - from a spiritual dimension that we cannot sense with our physical senses - ie. "Heaven.". So then yes, Heaven is "above" and Hell is "beneath." This isn't mythology.
Fourthly, your dating of Luke to "over 50 years after Jesus" (to account for your supposed "myth" of the ascension), is absolutly false. It makes no sense whatsoever that so many secular scholars want to date the writtings of the Gospels to such late dates. There is way more evidence within the Gospels themselves that they were written much earlier (like within 30 years at the latest). First, it's quite obvious that Jerusalem hadn't been destroyed by the Romans when the Gospel accounts were written or else comments would have been made pointing to the fullfimment of Jesus prophecies about Jerusalem. From a simply cursory reading of the Gospels it is evident that Jerusalem was still intact at the time of the writtings. Secondly, Luke was the last of the synoptic Gospels. We know from the book of Acts that Paul had not been martyred by the time Luke was wrapping up his account to Theophilus. And we know that Paul was Martyred under Nero in 64 AD. Therefore, Luke had to have FINISHED the book of Acts within 30 years after Jesus' crucifixion. And according to Luke's opening in acts chapter 1, the Gospel account was "the former account." SO, if we have Acts written within 30 years, Luke written before Acts, Matthew written before Luke, and Mark being the first Gospel written before either Matthew or Luke..... that makes the early WRITTEN accounts of these eye witnesses most probably within the first 20 years of the occurences. That is NOT enough time for myths to evolve. The hundreds of eye witnesses would have debunked any myth trying to rear it's head.
We also know that Mark's greatest source of reference (if not the only one) was Jesus' disciple Peter. It is likely that Peter dictated in Aramaic while Marik translated into written Greek. We also know that Matthew and Luke already had written copies of Mark in their possession because of the various quotes lifted straight out of Mark. And that is something which would make a lot of sense since most people, when trying to recall events "for the record" which had transpired some 10-20 years ago, even though they were eye witnesses, they will most probably collaborate in writting their accounts in order to remind each other, etc. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that if Mark had already been written, Matthew and Luke would have wanted to make use of it so as to get Peter's take on the events being written. ALhtough MAtthew was also an eye witness he would have most probably asked the other disciples for their input, INCLUDING the previously written account of Peter/Mark. (So if there ever was a Q source, that Q would have been Peter/Mark's account.)
The fact that certain "scholars" try and pin the Gospel accounts to later dates of authorship is a testimony to thier biases which are not founded neither in history or science. They "assume" that the stories of resurerctions and healings have to be myths and THERFORE try and pin the dates of writting to be as late as possible. But there is no evidence for such dates; certainly none that can ask us to question the evidence that I've stated above.
Fifthly, the issue of Jesus being "received by a cloud" (Acts 1:9) falls in line with a lot of "cloud sightings" whenever spiritual forces are being transported all throughout scripture. When Jesus returns it will be "on the clouds." God went before the Israelites in the dessert "in a pillar of cloud." Elijah was taken up in a fiery chariot by a "whirlwind cloud." Daniel saw the "son of Man coming on the clouds." God's presence on Mt Sinai, in the Temple, both going and coming, etc., etc., is always hidden by a cloud. We could go on and on. Why so much about clouds? Because the clouds are a physical manifestation of the spiritual transportation device. When JEsus was "recieved by a cloud" he was simply getting on the "spiritual UFO" so to say. It's as simple as that. You don't have to go and try to make every story that Jesus' disciples gave into some kind of "myth" simply because you don't WANT to believe. Please, next itme do a little more research before making such outlandish assertions.
"please next time do a little more research before making such outlandish assertions"
You a believer in non-,existent beings are asking that of others? Hilarious!
'Religions are only understood from the inside' - Simone Weil. The understanding of the ascension by theists or atheists is probably irrelevant. We don't know what ascension would look like. And the people who witnessed it would have no means of describing it. And those are the people we'd like to hear from. Mental gyrations in our time about the ascension are mostly ineffective.
It's slick of Craig to try and separate the ascension from his supposed "case" for the resurrection. The fact that Jesus conveniently disappears-- AND isn't seen for thousands of years-- are pieces of data that count against the resurrection. Craig is cherry-picking
Hey if I just got crucified and resurrected, I'd take off too man.
Actually Jesus is seen by Paul years after death, resurrection and ascension. Which is a hole in the plot as Jesus is not supposed to be on earth after ascension.
No one is discarding the ascension, it is the fulfillment of Daniel's profecy (7:13-14) about the King's Coronation, perfect in line with Luke's account. But I grant that the ascension is rarely discussed because of other issues, mainly escathological ones. And even about what constitutes the Gospel, that today is highly influenced, not by Scripture, but by things like the clear cut seen in Dante's Divine Comedy with it's view of heaven or hell as the ultimate destiny of humanity.
Because Jesus physically ascensing into heaven on a cloud is about as believable as a talking donkey.
Yet there they are, documented as having taken place.
The limited discussion of the Ascension is an interesting observation. As a Christian myself, I do believe the Ascension happened- Obviously. However the Ascension doesn't matter so much as the resurrection of Jesus. The question we shoild actually focus on, in my opinion, is is the resurrection true or not. If the evidence shifts more towards the resurrection happening why is the limited discussion of the Ascension so puzzling?
Plus the limited discussion of the Ascension hardly, if at all, affects Christian theology or beliefs given that the core of Christian belief is the death and resurrection of Christ
As a Roman Catholic, I think I can give a few reasons why.
If Christ did heal people instantaneously and rose from the dead, is the Ascension really much of a leap?
If we, with the scriptures, believe that Christ is the existence that is provided to all things, as he upholds all things (Hebrews 1:3), and he shows this by recreating people both spiritual (Mark 2) and also physically (John 9), not to mention instantaneously, does this not make manifest the fact that he is this existence? This is before we get into interesting things like Daniel predicting the Crucifixion (or maybe his baptism) to the year in Daniel 9:24-27 and all of the other prophecies of the Old Testament sometimes up to 1400 odd years before his incarnation.
You have Christ showing himself to have all of the attributes of God already. The Ascension is, comparatively, small fare in terms of it happening.
So, I would reject it's an awkward question philosophically. In fact, I think it's really easy to take account of. Him moving in a way which we aren't accustomed to seeing men do is accounted for by the fact that he is God. We also see it with various saints as well, so mere participation in God's being is more than sufficient.
As for attestation, it's in the longer ending of Mark as well, so there is multiple attestation. I would also dispute that the acts account is any more than 30 years post Ascension, because if it were then why doesn't he mention the Martyrdom of St Paul and St Peter?
In terms of it being suspiciously convenient, this would make some degree of sense if it wasn't cooked into Jesus' entire view of the Old Testament. He explicitly states in Matthew 24 that there will be a final day of judgement. How can one come upon the clouds of heaven if not up there?
It seems to me that Jesus' entire Eschatology is based on what is described here as the Apostles basically coping.
This view is even cooked into the specific psalm he references, as YHWH is sat at the right hand of YHWH, while YHWH places his enemies underneath his feet (Sometimes Jews will point out that the word "Adoni" is used to describe Lord in the first line, but the later context makes it clear that the Adoni is YHWH, and hence we have the Hypostatic Union).
In terms of "Mythology", I don't understand why people in the west are so insistent on this view. These sorts of things happen all of the time. They tend to happen more in places like India and in Africa, but they also happen in the West. We have 1000+ year old Eucharistic Miracles which have had scientific tests on them. There is an entire historiography on the Miraculous Tilma of Guadalupe. There are the thousands of people who saw Fatima, including people who were not aware of the story leading up to it. Likewise, there is at least one medical study into Lourdes.
"But" you may ask "Why can't we find him up there in the clouds". First off, I think that this understanding of heaven makes very very little sense. As Moshe Greenberg points out in his book on the Religion in (Old Testament) Israel, by at the very least later Judaism, there is an understanding of Creatio Ex Nihilo, and hence a sort of Classical Theism (In other words, God isn't superman). In other words, there is reason to doubt Bultmann, and I vigorously reject it as does the entire Christian Tradition. Even St Paul does in Hebrews, for how can God uphold all things and grant their existence if he is bound by position? So, God is in heaven, but heaven is outside of the universe. But when we speak of "Where is Christ's Body?", we must remember God is omnipotent under the view of Later Judaism, and so God could retain Christ's body in any way he wishes.
To say that this is "mythological", in my view, is a denial of the present reality in which we live. To hold reality to this view that all is matter is to break reality, because to hold this is to say that somehow properties, which all have one origin in matter, can somehow cancel each other out and stratify those properties universally. However, if all is matter, then how can this be? We would need something to be less than matter, which is dependent on matter, and hence there is a contradiction.
To close, you can think it's cope from apologists, but I don't really think it is.
Lots of 'ifs' there. Typical lack of evidence response from a Christian who believes the Pope is God's representative on earth, that Mary was and remained a virgin (like that would matter AT ALL), and thinks a man who could be a pedophile can forgive your sins.
Sure seems logical that God could work out all those "contradictions" and all that other theology U spoke of to simply make creatures like himself who wouldn't have to suffer and then eventually some (the few) go toddling off to heaven, BUT, then throwing away most of his creation into the firey pit! You'd think 🤔!? Seems like God wouldn't be able to do anything less. IF he's all so perfect! NO amount of scriptural mumbojumbo has yet to come up with anything credible on how a perfect God who CANNOT sin somehow found himself some sin in a closet? somewhere in the cosmos by way of making humans and then allowing them to sin via...., well, U know, that whole nonsense in the garden. What's so terrible and why do some people find it so difficult to accept the idea of nothingness after death? OF COURSE, I want to live on in some great afterlife! But all you have to do is accept the idea of nothingness after death and all that other stuff (Bible) goes away. Including God. You simply won't be missing out on anything!
I get it. We find strength in stories of a loving God and heaven, etc. But we should be telling fantasy from reality as adults everybody. And, I think it's ok to find strength in these ideas if God is going to take EVERYONE to heaven. Otherwise, how could we possibly find strength / comfort in these things of God if at the same time we accept /believe in a hell for unbelievers!? For example... family U love, friends, strangers, anyone! We don't even need to know all those other people in the world to have a healthy respect for them by way of not wanting to see them as going to a hideous, unnecessary, convoluted, and any other appropriate word to stick in here, place called hell 🔥🚒!!! And should U think that everyone going to heaven is unjust because it doesn't punish the murderer, etc. consider what punishment is really about. Separation from killing anymore. That's what we try to do here on earth with the murderer. That's what happens at death (can't murder anymore). AND, how about God using the same idea? Simple construct of the murderer being repurposed into a non-murdering person. Perfect! What's not to like?
Yes, I know, you will try to hold on to the idea God must torture people in hell because, of course,.....got it from the Bible. We can do better!
@@markdomar4944 Where are the ifs?
@@JohnWaaland You've not named a single contradiction
@@ComputingTheSoul Well you throw down so much convoluted theology/philosophy I can't make heads or tails. I won't go long like I did before and I wanted to come back to the central issue here. Obviously, peoples concerns over the idea of hell is very important! It's the key to all this religion stuff. Religion is very interesting! But when people merge into literal ways of thinking we harm ourselves and possibly others.
You're free of course to believe in a literal way. Can be damaging though. When kids are fear mongered into heaven because who wants to go to hell? But heaven/hell are INVISIBLE and we haven't got all of this theological stuff worked out yet. And will we ever as long as it's INVISIBLE?
Why can't all of us just talk about religion as storys of myth, legend and the like. It's interesting and full of drama! But, we completely go off the rails when we teach kids that they must genuinely fear things within religion that we are taking literally.
Parents tell their kids about Santa and then later it falls away. But when the kid realizes that it's myth does the parent say, guess what? Santa really does exist and you can believe it's really true. Of course not! So why do we treat invisible things within religion as tho it's literally true?
I'm trying to uphold the idea of reality and non-reality, fact from fiction, etc.
If you go into a bookstore/library and cannot tell the difference between fact/fiction, don't worry, things are clearly marked....lol. I realize separating the two can be hard sometimes but seriously a god that walks on water, parts the Red Sea, and has power to LITERALLY toss a person into hell or lovingly float a person into heaven?
See our dilemmas here?
People have it really rough trying to figure out which religion to follow but if we don't take it literally we'll neither make the mistake of fear mongering about hell OR overpromising this invisible thing called heaven!
So, what does the Catholic church teach about hell? I'm STILL confused 🤔
Apologists also never talk about victims. They'll have long winded and convoluted arguments about perpetrators, free will and the problem of evil, but seldom if ever show any regard for the victims of violence as if that too is an inconvenience.
What's wild is being raised in a non-evangenical Christian setting, I notice the stark differences in the worldview that I was taught. Integral to that was an emphasis on the trinity mythology, specifically a mythology that would have explained the ascension immediately with Pentacost, and that what descended after Pentacost was both father and son, and was given onto the disciples, and that christ lives on through the actions that we pass on to each other.
This interpretation has a big issue though to evangelicals, it posits Revelation as the ramblings of a crazy old man facing persecution. Without Revelation, what could you lord over people's heads in a predatory fire and brimstone manner? I'm a fan of this mythology, because when I came to the age where it was obvious that this was a mythology, I didn't feel like I had been duped or taken advantage of in any way, just told stories to encourage me to be good.
I'm not coming in with this to defend Christianity, but having a biblically consistent narrative to counter the rapture-obsessed dogma that permeates modern Christianity is really helpful to engage with people married to the mythology. Instead of putting them on the defensive by attacking their beliefs, engaging with them in a way that breaks down the abusive narrative they've been taught is a really effective way to get those "questioning balls" rolling. My goal isn't to convince people that God/Jesus aren't real, but instead that I read the same book, and the things they're saying sound different from what I read.
What I'd like to see, someday, is a video of how Christianity triumphed. What was the appeal, that even through persecution it prevailed? There must be _some_ lessons there regarding politics, revolutionary movements, psychology, religion, and socioligy.
Wright has the risen Jesus slipping into another dimension. He knows Luke’s account can’t possibly be taken as historical. I give him credit for that.
that's why all the pictures of Jesus are two-dimensional
The ascension shows that he’s “worthy,” just as Enoch and Elijah ascended into heaven without dying. Makes sense theologically.
Ok, a few things:
1) On the justification for the ascension happening, I think you are right that the historical evidence for the ascension is not as strong as the historical evidence for the resurrection.
2) However, once the resurrection is proven, the ascension is a pretty obvious answer to why Jesus cannot be found walking around on earth. Also, if you accept that Jesus was God due to the resurrection, and that He founded a Church, which cannot error regarding the fact that the ascension happened, etc. that's a strong reason to believe that the ascension happened. So, I don't think that the weakness of the historical evidence for the ascension is embarrassing to apologists since, from their perspective, there are very strong reasons to believe the ascension happened.
3) You speak of interpreting the scriptures as if being taken up to heaven isn't literal as if it is only due to some sort of "agenda." I have noticed this sort idea from atheists that, unless you're interpreting the Bible in a Kent Hovind 'read the Bible like a five year old' way, you're just distorting the real meaning to make it fit your beliefs. I'd invite you to consider that this might come from your background in fundamentalism. I don't know enough about you to know that you had a fundamentalist background for sure, but this is sort of the tact that fundamentalists take with respect to the Bible.
In reality, we all come to texts with certain philosophical presuppositions that color how we interpret the text. Now, we should obviously try to consider what the author's presuppositions were, as you do in the video, but there is a limitation to that when we are talking about scripture because, if God really inspired scripture, then we aren't necessarily talking about human background beliefs. Approaching the scriptures as if human authors are the sole source of its content is simply begging the question.
4) Besides, it would make sense for the Biblical authors to not intend the ascension to be literal given the fact that the Biblical authors obviously would not think "the right hand of the Father" is literally as they thought God was immaterial. Yet, there are many verses about Jesus ascending to His Father in heaven to sit at His right hand. For this reason, even long before telescopes were invented, many Church Fathers interpreted this to mean some sort of metaphysical "above" heaven rather than a literal "above" heaven:
"God's seat is said to be in heaven, not as though heaven contained Him, but rather because it is contained by Him. Hence it is not necessary for any part of heaven to be higher, but for Him to be above all the heavens [...]
glorified bodies, Christ's especially, do not stand in need of being so contained, because they draw nothing from the heavenly bodies, but from God through the soul. So there is nothing to prevent Christ's body from being beyond the containing radius of the heavenly bodies, and not in a containing place. Nor is there need for a vacuum to exist outside heaven, since there is no place there, nor is there any potentiality susceptive of a body, but the potentiality of reaching thither lies in Christ."
-St. Thomas Aquinas www.newadvent.org/summa/4057.htm#article4
So, it isn't simply straight-forwardly true that someone before modern science, say, would interpret the scriptures as teaching heaven is literally beyond the clouds in the way you describe. In fact, it isn't even clear that modern cosmology proves there is nothing beyond our visible universe; we technically don't know. The reason we don't believe in this sort of literal heaven beyond the clouds is because of these metaphysical arguments regarding God being immaterial, which early Christians would have access to.
Thanks for the great response!
Tidy reply friend
Are you really arguing that the most likely source of the bible is God? It seems the best you can do is that it's not guaranteed to be wrong. The bible is hardly a masterpiece of consistency and clarity. If it is the deliberate work of God, He's intentionally misleading the majority of believers on any given issue and He's done an absolutely awful job at depicting Himself in a positive light.
@@goldenalt3166 I’d say that’s more of a testament to individuals’ ability to rationalize what they want to believe into a text than the lack of clarity in scriptures.
That said, my position isn’t that God is the most likely source of the scriptures. My position is that God would likely communicate with man, if He existed, and the scriptures are the most likely candidate out of all of the available scriptures for a record of that communication.
@@Tdisputations Why would you think that? If God is consistent and omnipresent, I'd expect His communication to be so as well. The "holy spirit" is much more likely candidate.
There's a huge uncovered middle ground in the whole discussion - it's possible to believe the resurrection without believing in Biblical inerrancy.
that's a dodge. explain the ascension. Did it happen or not?
@@scambammer6102 I don't think it's a dodge. Mainstream Christians must believe in the ascension. (It's in all the creeds.) Theologically, what's important is that both his body and soul left this plane of existence for the one known as "heaven". It's less important exactly how that happened. A non-literalist has no problem accepting that the story in the gospels was written to reflect a cosmology that made sense to people at the time. That in fact Jesus most likely did not simply float up to a physical heaven above the sky. What exactly happened can be left as a "mystery". Non-literalists would include the Catholic Church and most major Protestant denominations.
I haven't polled the other apologists, but I don't think we talk about it because it is largely irrelevant from an apologetics standpoint. It has no bearing on whether Jesus rose from the dead and no major doctrines rely on it.
Imagine for a moment that the ascension was not discussed. Suppose the Bible just didn't mention it. What would be lost?
You say it is central to the gospel. I have literally never heard a gospel presentation that makes mention of the ascension. How would this come up in that discussion?
If Jesus didn't ascend, he could have done, and still be doing to this very day, the exact work that he instead left to the disciples.
_Does Jesus supposedly want every person to believe that he was resurrected?_
According to Christian mythology: _Yes he does!_
So why ascend? That looks like sheer laziness!
Why allow, for example, Thomas to poke his holes, _but nobody else,_ then ascend?
Aren't we all owed the same post- resurrection visit from Jesus that Thomas got, just after he betrayed Jesus?
It's very important because I'm asking why there's no interaction with Jesus in modern times like he supposedly "did" back in the day. 🤪
It was easy for him back then now it's difficult? 🙃🤸🤸
So where exactly is Jesus headed to when he is physically going "up" from the surface of the Earth during daylight hours from the vicinity of Israel? Is heaven a physical place in this universe? The references to ascension are clearly pointing to an ascension to a physical place in the sky. Apologists are masters of the post-hoc rationalization so I guess we can queue up the sci-fi explanation of extra-dimensional portals to hand-wave away the ridiculous implications of a physical heaven. Don't pretend that this isn't a problem, the silly narrative of the gospels are highlighted with this comic book Superman ascension and it highlights that that is exactly what the writers of the bible are doing in writing these gospel stories- they're just making stuff up and telling stories.
it may not be relevant from an apologetics standpoint, but it is very relevant from a theological and historical standpoint. If Jesus didn't ascend into heaven as described in the bible, then is he still here and never left? If he didn't leave then how is he going to return to slaughter and just those who don't love him back as he commands? If he did leave but not ascended in the bible, then how did he leave? and if it wasn't as described in the bible then what else is just mythology in the bible such as the resurrection?
Bravo! The apologists, especially WLC and John Lennox, should be hammered about this without mercy. The reason they avoid it is that the apologists are a gang of phonies. Would like to read about Wright's words on the Ascension.
I like this video because it points out the problem with evidentialist apologetics. Evidentialist apologetics assumes faith results from intellectual activity. But intellectual activity alone can't result in saving faith, because saving faith is a miraculous gift from God. “Most certainly I tell you, unless one is born anew, he can’t see God’s Kingdom.” (John 3:3) "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God..." (Ephesians 2:8)
Also, faith is fundamentally epistemological. It is how the true Christian knows truth. "Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, 'If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.'" (John 8:31-32) "I have given them your word... Sanctify them in your truth. Your word is truth." (John 17:14,17) The Bible is God's Word: "Every Scripture is God-breathed..." (2 Timothy 3:16) "For no prophecy ever came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke, being moved by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter 1:21) And, God cannot lie (Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18). The true Christian knows that what they believe is true not because of some empirical, historical, or rationalistic evidence, but because God said it. "In the hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began." (Titus 1:2) The true Christian, who has been given the supernatural gift of faith, knows that the ascension is metaphysically true, not because it makes naturalistic or rationalistic sense, but because God revealed it in His Word.
In the Bible there are only two possible epistemologies. One that is false, and one that is true. The false one is "leaning on your own understanding"(Proverbs 3:5), and the true one is believing God who cannot lie. Adam and Eve foolishly chose not to believe God, to lean on their own understanding, and believe the serpent's lie. As a result, they died, just as God said they would. But God, who is rich in mercy, promised in the gospel, eternal life to everyone who believes. But first, before the person can believe, they must be resurrected from spiritual death to spiritual life. "You were made alive when you were dead in transgressions and sins." (Ephesians 2:1) "But when the kindness of God our Savior and his love toward mankind appeared, not by works of righteousness which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy, he saved us through the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:4-5)
When you look at most evidentialist apologists, they don't believe that regeneration is necessary for faith. They may believe that regeneration is something that happens after faith, but they don't believe that it is necessary for faith. And, as such, there is part of God's Word that they don't actually believe.
whether something is talked about to YOUR satisfaction, or if YOU think something is embarrassing, or if something looks mythological to YOU, doesn't mean it's not true. i think that darwinian evolution is embarrassing to the scientific community, but that is not an argument against it. your perception of something being embarrassing or not is NOT a standard for truth.
I think the silence stems from so many Christian apologists being fundamentaly materialist. The resurrection is mysterious which is problematic for people who need to mechanize everything.
"Confirmation bias"? How so? This seems like an odd complaint. I don't think it's obvious that Luke made this up.
Thank-you for your videos. I have gone through your same journey and you are being honest with the issues.
I am not an apologist, but I am a Christian. I am not sure I understand the point of your video. Are you asking why apologists don't defend the historicity of the ascension? If so, I don't think you will ever see that kind of defense. The resurrection has evidence that can be discussed, but the ascension, as you have pointed out, had limited attendance and attestation.
What I can offer is the reason why Jesus rose into the air, from a theological perspective, not that it proves anything. On Palm Sunday, when Jesus rode into Jerusalem, people came out of the city to meet him outside and then go with him in a procession to declare his kingship. This was common for Roman emperors as well.
In 1 Thessalonians 4:17, we are told that believers will rise into the air to meet the returning Jesus -- the dead first, then the living -- presumably to return with him to earth in a heavenly procession. Thus, at the ascension, the disciples are told, "This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven."
The rising up of Jesus' body into the air was indicative of how he would return. However, where did his body end up? How can a physical body be in the spiritual heaven? That's something that Bible doesn't tell us, and thus we don't know. It is not necessary to assume that just because Jesus rose up into the air that this was some sort of physical passageway into the spiritual heaven.
Some things in the Bible are defensible, and some simply need to be taken on faith. Christianity is a faith, after all.
You are obviously intelligent and well read. Also, it seems you made an earnest attempt to study apologetics.
This is not the only supernatural event that occurs.
Luke 16:29-31 KJV
Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. [30] And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. [31] And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
I started in philosophy, from atheism, agnosticism, Hinduism, buddhism, Kant, Marx , Jung (I know, psychologist), Benham, Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Taoism, Satanism, Islam, witchcraft, native American spiritualism. Literally every world view under the sun. They all fail at some point.
The gospel of Jesus Christ does not fail. Yes, the ascension is supernatural. So is being resurrected after death. I understand, you do not want to pretend to believe. But show me a theology, philosophy or existence theory that does not contradict at some point.
You have been presented with reasons to believe in the testimony of Jesus, it still requires you to believe. How many miracles were left out? Would it be more convincing if there were no claims of supernatural events?
But going back, if you grant the resurrection, it follows that God has at will control over the physical universe. He can appear and dissappear, walk on water, walk through fire, fly, become large , whatever. Bit you are arguing here that the ascension was not recorded in an acceptable manner and that is the lynch pin for unraveling Christianity?
But if you do not want to believe, that's is your prerogative. I have only met a few people that had a very deep history of studying the word of God who still rejected it. I will pray for you. I hope you find the truth on your journey.
He must have used a space suit and a jet pack.
Unfortunately, the ascension defeated the purpose of the resurrection anyway.
Without the resurrection, the ascension is impossible.
Until we're all on the same page about the resurrection, then why would it be surprising that the "Christianity 101" teachers are not diving into the more complex concepts while their audience still can't acknowledge the basics?
Well, a lot of "christians" seem to believe in the resurrection...how many millions over the decades repeat the "Apostle's Creed" which mentions resurrection: "the resurrection of the body..." which I take to mean they believe not only in his resurrection, but theirs as well and the end of days.
Several readers wonder at the veracity of ascending, never mind that it isn't all that specified exactly how this is done or how rapidly it proceeds. But many stories report a similar phenomenon. What would happen to a thing that was NOT attracted to Earth's gravity? Presumably it would proceed in a straight line with whatever velocity it happened to possess at the time.
So, set up some calculations. Assume earth radius of 6371000 meters and an XY chart with the center of the Earth at 0,0.
Next, we assume that at the moment of disconnect from Earth gravity, the object of interest is at the top of a circle, X=0, Y=6371000. This is the tangent of the straight line to be taken by the object and the Earth.
The Earth is rotating 0.004363 radians per minute. The linear velocity is 27798.73 meters per minute. Naturally, the circumferential velocity of the Earth is exactly the same.
BUT as the Earth rotates away; at first a point on the line and a point on the Earth nearly keeping pace but the Earth by rotating starts to reduce the X increment and increases (in a negative direction) the Y increment. After 360 minutes, the Earth has rotated 90 degrees, the linear particle is now ahead of it BUT from someone on Earth point of view, the linear particle is no longer directly above but is trailing about 60 degrees to the west. It is also rather far away (7335.80867 kilometers).
Excel or Open Office spreadsheet
Column A: Minutes (0 through 360)
Column B: Radians of Earth Rotation (0 through 1.570796)
Column C: X coordinate of the Ascension (in meters)
Column D: Y coordinate of the Ascention (in meters). Fixed at 6371000 all cells in column (straight line).
Column E: X coordinate of the viewer standing on Earth (in meters)
Column F: Y coordinate of the viewer standing on Earth.
Column G: Vector distance of viewer to Ascender. =SQRT( ((C3-E3)*(C3-E3))+((D3-F3)*(D3-F3)) ) You should recognize this as Pythagorean's Theorem.
Column H: Apparent angle from viewer to Ascender expressed as degrees above horizon: =90-(57.3* ATAN((C3-E3)/(D3-F3)))
Minute 1: 60.65 Meters AGL, 89.92 degrees
Minute 2: 242.59 Meters AGL, 89.83 degrees
Minute 3: 545.82 Meters AGL, 89.75 degrees.
The acceleration is going to be rapid, by 2 minutes and 240 meters high apparently (almost) straight up and out of sight.
Because "Wake Up" by Rage Against the Machine was playing in the background
A physical resurrection doesn't necessitate a physical ascension. Douglas Farrow's Ascension Theology points out that even Origin read the Ascension as a mental state rather than a physical location.
The ascension has, literally, nothing to do with The Gospel. Not sure why you think it does. No one is "discarding" the ascension--it's just not integral. The bible could have described his ascension however it wanted and it wouldn't make any difference to the philosophical teachings of the Gospel message. Jesus' purpose had already been fulfilled before he ascended---so it's just a miraculous event that symbolizes the end of Jesus' time on Earth.
Every question you have about the Bible has been answered by someone, somewhere. Which is why reading the early church fathers is so important.
True, as has every question about the Quran etc.
Great intro to the topic.
Can you do the analysis of NT Wright's explanation? Otherwise it feels a little bit unfair to call out William Lane Craig referring to the ascension requiring a discussion of it's own and then never getting back to it.
The reason why the ascension doesn't get as much apology is because once a person accepts the resurrection, the ascension becomes plausible. Jesus' ascension is different from Joseph smith's fable; Smith says that he alone saw the angel, while all the disciples witnessed the ascension. If the ascension was a later doctrinal addition it would have become something controversial, & there is no controversy about the ascension.