Quesion about the ascention of Jesus.

[Niflmir]

If I showed the same kind of disrespect about gays as atheists here display about people of their faith, I would be labelled a bigot and a homophobe.

Go figure!

As I have pointed out elsewhere: opinions and beliefs are open season. This is the essence of debate. Religion is a belief that is chosen while homosexuality is neither.

What exactly are you coming on a forum for if not to have your ideas debated? Cheer leading try outs are elsewhere.

 

[Machjo]

Isn't the literal ascension pretty important? I thought that was what the Judaists are waiting around for, a literal ascension into heaven, such as what happened to Elijah?

In fact, isn't that why bodies are buried in Christian tradition? So that it can be raised up to heaven?

Ah, now this brings up another issue. According to the Tanakh (a. k. a. the Old Testament), Elijah ascended to heaven and was to return before the Day of the Lord. Jesus was questioned about this in the New Testament and clarifies that Elijah had returned, in the form of John the Baptist. Now, if Elijah's ascention, was literal, then his descent would have to be literal too, woudn't it? And if Christians squirm out of it by saying that it was all metaphorical or symbolic, then why could Jesus' ascention not be?Double standard? So which is it? If we say that Jesus' ascent was literal, then why not Elijah's? And if Elijah's ascent was literal, then his descent must be too. Since he has not yet literally descended, then that would mean the Jews are right that Jesus must be a false prophet and we have yet to await the Messiah. Now, if Jesus is not a false prophet, then that means Elijah's ascention was not literal, and neither was his descent (in fact, he descended into the body of another man!). And if that's the case, when it would be reasonable that Jesus' ascention was equally symbolic, and thus his descent will likewise be as Elijah's, like a thief in the night, possibly, like Elijah, in the body of another man born to another woman?

You see, this whole question of a literal ascent brings up all kinds of theological issues.

 

[Machjo]

While I'm not a Christian I would like to point out that resurrection after death was very popular theme in religion at that time. So I would suggest that like the resurrection of Horus or Mithra the Jesus resurrection is BS too. But it seems like you know that already.

to be fair to Christians, I'll make a distinction between two ideas. One has to do with the spiritual world, which science can neither prove nor disprove; it's simply beyond its purview. The other has to do with the physical world, which can be proven or disproven by science.

Based on these distinctions, no, science can neither prove nor disprove the existance of God, or certain moral or ethical principles, or whether God has the power to suspend the laws of physics to perform miracles, etc. Since these issues fall beyond the domain of science, there's no point debating them within a scientific context as no one will win such a debate.

As for the other, anything relating to the material world limited by time and space is open to scientific inquiry. Should a Christian choose to give a more symbolic or metaphorical understanding of the Ascention of Christ, then it falls into the first category, beyond the purview of science. But once he insists that it is literal, material, within the confines of our material universe constrained by time and space, then it is quite ligitimate of us to analyse the claims along scientific lines. And on that basis, a literalist interpretation of the Ascention of Christ is not only non-scientific, but anti-scientifc and in violation of certain principles of logic.

 

[Machjo]

His ascension came some # of days after being glorified. Why skip the most important event and cover the lesser important one?
The coming as when leaving is about the same velocity, height, whatever parameter you want. 2/3 of the worlds population will not be alive at the end of that day, that is different and that would be hard to miss in terms of there being a sign as to when it is safe to venture to Jerusalem for the first feast. Then you follow the next steps in the specific order and you end up at your destination for the next phase of redemption in progress.

If you are lost at this point, well keep reading, just the 4 gospels give you a very rigid outline. That part doesn't move or alter, all other Scripture come to be supportive of those 4 Books. Nobody said it was to be an easy journey. I've even said Cliffy might end up in hell for a post. In that instance it is better hell than the lake. If God sends a person to hell they cannot be sent to the lake without sinning at least one more time. Satan is not even a memory when those who hell holds are released.
If God was even a little bitchy towards men he would release hell before Satan is done, more for the lake.

The ones with the Son get to meet "Dad" on slightly different terms, instead of rebellious children (the ones in death and hell) He meets an adult version
when Christ's brings His followers (Israel and the Church) In smallest numbers it is 2 Christians having a lot more power with God than 12 former Tribes do. That doesn't even touch the 7 Churches and what kind of banshees they can be turned into when fed some slanted verses. Being in exile makes you equal to a virgin. The sword belongs to the nations, the Tribes are servants in the Nations, they do not seek the highest positions, God has already chosen their positions and when those are given. They should know by know, piss god off and things just don't go all that well after that. If Neb and the Romans weren't proof of that when the 3rd time comes around and they are being naughty and not nice God can resurrect them as promised and then kill them for 'troubling a Christian', thought and deed. Deeds are covered via an OT promise, NT promises say that thoughts also have to be repented, the ones repenting just deeds are making a hollow prayer (even worse is not repenting because previous promises would seem to make that step unnecessarily. Wrong, it bis a sin that grace does not cover

What are you on about here?

 

[Machjo]

If I showed the same kind of disrespect about gays as atheists here display about people of their faith, I would be labelled a bigot and a homophobe.

Go figure!

I fully agree that we ought to respect people's Faiths. And I mean no disrespect to the Christian Faith in asking these questions. But as mentioned in my post above, while spiritual questions cannot be answered by science, material ones can. And a literalist interpretation of the ascention of Christ is no longer a spiritual issue, but a physical one, and thus verifiable by science, maths, logic, etc. There is no logical way for Christ to ascend literally without having followed a particular trajectory at a particular velocity at a particular rate of acceleration for a particular duration of time. If we argue that his ascention was a metaphorical or symbolic ascention of some kind, that's different. But if literal, then he traversed time and space, and it is thus mathematically verifiable.

This is not to disrespect Christianity, but is a legitimate question.

 

[Cliffy]

Nothing that questions a belief is legitimate to a believer. They take it as an attack on their beliefs (which they call faith). Pointing out facts really pisses them off.

 

[Machjo]

Nothing that questions a belief is legitimate to a believer. They take it as an attack on their beliefs (which they call faith). Pointing out facts really pisses them off.

But I'm not even challenging their Bible; I'm even giving them the benefit of the doubt on that. I'm simply questioning their understanding of it. Even their own Bible never insists on being understood literally.

 

[Scott Free]

to be fair to Christians, I'll make a distinction between two ideas. One has to do with the spiritual world, which science can neither prove nor disprove; it's simply beyond its purview. The other has to do with the physical world, which can be proven or disproven by science.

Based on these distinctions, no, science can neither prove nor disprove the existance of God, or certain moral or ethical principles, or whether God has the power to suspend the laws of physics to perform miracles, etc. Since these issues fall beyond the domain of science, there's no point debating them within a scientific context as no one will win such a debate.

Then they also fall beyond the realm of reality and therefore don't exist except in peoples misguided minds.

As for the other, anything relating to the material world limited by time and space is open to scientific inquiry. Should a Christian choose to give a more symbolic or metaphorical understanding of the Ascention of Christ, then it falls into the first category, beyond the purview of science.

Not really, it just falls into the category of abnormal psychology and delusional thinking a.k.a faith.

But once he insists that it is literal, material, within the confines of our material universe constrained by time and space, then it is quite ligitimate of us to analyse the claims along scientific lines. And on that basis, a literalist interpretation of the Ascention of Christ is not only non-scientific, but anti-scientifc and in violation of certain principles of logic.

I could claim invisible pink space bunnies live on mars and they answer my prayers. Since science can't "prove" that they don't exist to your satisfaction doesn't mean that the topic is beyond science it just means it's beyond you.

There are probably no space bunnies on mars (I admit it) and in point of fact, the probability is so low no one of understanding would seriously entertain the notion for even a moment. The absolute same can be said of the god myth except that as a species we are still held back from such understanding by our profound superstitions which I believe have been reinforced by social selection.

There is absolutely no sign of god. To say god cannot be disproved is irrelevant. Pink bunnies on mars cannot be disprove either. What you need for such a claim is proof that they do exist. You have non and so they do not exist. Pure and simple. If you want to be deluded then go ahead but I do not wish to share that delusion nor will I accept such belief being put forward as logical.

The fact is that believing in god is a mental illness just like believing in pink bunnies on mars would be.

One (Martian bunnies or god) is not more probable than the other. If anything god is less probable because we know bunnies do exist here on earth.

 

[MHz]

Even their own Bible never insists on being understood literally.

Ezekiel 37 starts off with about a dozen verses that describe something, it is literal event that will take place as described.

Both Daniel and Revelation have passages that are called visions, they also have something called explanations. Those explanations describe real events, it doesn't answer who everybody is as that is made clear in other verses, that is why all those references )Ge:1:1-Re.22:21.

Rather than me guess what you are referencing why not same me some time and give me some sort of starting marker.

 

[JLM]

When I was studying catechism in Catholic school as a kid, one the the points taught in class that had always confounded me was the question of the ascention of Jesus. It was always taught as a literal ascention, and explicitely so when I'd questioned the teacher about it. Generally speaking, the answer I always got was that it was a question of Faith. While I can accept that not all can be proven, the problem with a literal ascention is its implications on the material, and thus scientifially verifiable, world.

For instance, if Jesus ascended literally, then he must have followed a particular trajectory at a particular velocity within a particular acceletory pattern for a set period of time before reaching Heaven, which woud thus allow us to pinpoint Heaven at a particular co-ordiate in space. At that stage, it's no longer a matter of Faith that simply cannot be either proven or disproven. If the ascention is literal, even if we accept miracles, it still must have involved a trajectory, a velocity, an acceleration, and a time frame, allowing us to pinpoint a co-ordinate, something not spiritual, but very much material and as such, verifiable by science.
It cannot be compared to other miracles, either, Let's take healing the sick, resurecting people, or walking on water as examples. In all of these cases, God could suspend the laws of physics to allow these events to occur. As for the ascention of Jesus, of course he could do the same in order to allow Jesus to ascend. The difference, however, is in its implications concerning heaven. If Jesus physically ascended towards Heaven, that implies that heaven is not a spiritual domain, but very much an astral one.

So while I could accept a spiritual ascention, with the story in the Gospel taken as a symbolic representation of that ascention, with the concept of ascention itself to be symbolic (sinse even up and down are relative gravitational concepts), I can't see how that ascention could be literal without implying that Heaven is at a particular co-ordinate in space, since a literal ascention would involve movement in physical space to reach it.

I'd be curious to know how most Christians here understand the ascention of Jesus and that understanding's implication for your conception of Heaven as either a spiritual or physical place.

I'm not sure if Heaven occupies a physical location or more a state of mind, but Karrie is probably the best person to go to for wisdom about something this complicated.

 

[JLM]

If I showed the same kind of disrespect about gays as atheists here display about people of their faith, I would be labelled a bigot and a homophobe.

Go figure!

Don't you think everyone has the right to believe whatever they want without ridicule from someone else UNLESS of course they are maligning someone?

 

[Scott Free]

Seriously funny.

How do you figure stuff like this out exactly? Just sort of drift off in a daydream and go with whatever pops in?

 

[JLM]

Seriously funny.

How do you figure stuff like this out exactly? Just sort of drift off in a daydream and go with whatever pops in?

Pertaining to whom and to what?

 

[Gordons]

Appalling treatment of British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, could be written off as another example of the Obama administration’s incompetence. Visit Moderator Edit for more on the failures of the Obama administration.

 

[Cliffy]

Appalling treatment of British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, could be written off as another example of the Obama administration’s incompetence. Visit Moderator Edit for more on the failures of the Obama administration

Holy Cow, Gordons! How did Brown and Obama get into a thread on Jeezuz?

 

[Ron in Regina]

Appalling treatment of British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, could be written off as another example of the Obama administration’s incompetence. Visit Moderator Edit for more on the failures of the Obama administration

First things first. Gordons, welcome to Canadian Content.

Interesting link. Not sure how that (or Gordon Brown or the
Obama administration) pertain to this Threads subject of
questioning the accention of Jesus though...

If you look at the blue bar at the top of every page, you'll
see many different subject categories, like Politics....
Your link (& comments on Gordon Brown and the Obama
administration) would fit somewhere in there much better
than a thread on religion.

 

[Cliffy]

Appalling treatment of British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, could be written off as another example of the Obama administration’s incompetence. Visit (SPAM REMOVED) for more on the failures of the Obama administration

Weren't you on here a few hours ago as Gordons? I see you skulking in the background. I repeat my original request, "Holy Cow, Gordons! How did Brown and Obama get into a thread on Jeezuz?"

Moderator's Edit: Spam removed.

 

[Cliffy]

If I showed the same kind of disrespect about gays as atheists here display about people of their faith, I would be labelled a bigot and a homophobe.

Go figure!

You forgot to mention your "disrespect" for anybody who is not a rabid conservative catholic like you. You are a nasty hateful guy, Jack, that is why I like picking your nose.

 

[JLM]

You forgot to mention your "disrespect" for anybody who is not a rabid conservative catholic like you. You are a nasty hateful guy, Jack, that is why I like picking your nose.

Morning Cliff, you have to excuse Y.J. as he can be a little slow on the uptake at times. He already has ALL the answers to EVERYTHING. :lol::lol:

 

[Cliffy]

Mornin' JLM! Jack reminds me of another catholic that used to live here. He wouldn't take his meds either. They had to keep carting him off to the psych ward. The town got a restraining order out on him and now he can't come within 50 kilometers of here.