| Apr 12 @ 8:26 AM |
When did the so called "raised" Christ ascend to the heavens?
|
|
sail_dancer
Posts: 9,865
|
Seems that there are many different opinions in the christian bible itself concerning this event.
Luke 24 and Mark 16 both say that Jesus ascended into the heavens on the same day he resurrected.
John 20 states that Jesus appeared to his disciples eight days after his resurrection, which means that Jesus ascended at least eight days after his resurrection.
Acts 1 says that Jesus ascended forty days after his resurrection.
The bible which is supposed to be the inerrant word of the christian god seems to have problems agreeing on the amount of time between the resurrection and the ascension of Jesus. I guess that we should go with the majority on this and have Jesus ascending into the heavens on Easter Sunday.
That is if Jesus actually rose from the dead on Easter Sunday. If Jesus died on Good Friday and rose three days later, that would mean that Jesus rose from the dead on Monday. Or did Jesus actually die on Thursday and rise on Easter Sunday?
Seems that the christian god whose inerrant word is contained in the bible has a problem with determining time or keeping his stories straight.
Yet christians will continue to have blind faith and insist that the bible is absolute truth. What is the truth about when Jesus died? How about when he rose from the dead? When did Jesus actually ascend into the heavens? What is the truth when it comes to these contradictions?
Funny that christians still wonder why nonbelievers question their claim of being the only religion with the truth.
Peace
|
|
  |
|
| Apr 12 @ 8:47 AM |
When did the so called "raised" Christ ascend to the heavens? |
|
uab_5
Posts: 4,759
|
Funny that christians still wonder why nonbelievers question their claim of being the only religion with the truth.
You know some of us have never said that.
A little M=S*Fb goes as far as reading every detail of a book[I].
|
| |
|
| Apr 12 @ 8:57 AM |
When did the so called "raised" Christ ascend to the heavens?
|
|
sealacamp
Posts: 3,681
|
When did so called humanism triumph over Christ?
S
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 12 @ 9:04 AM |
When did the so called "raised" Christ ascend to the heavens? |
|
sail_dancer
Posts: 9,865
|
Seal,
Answer the questions asked.
You continue to evade all questions about the contents of the bible you claim is the inerrant word of your god.
If these words are inerrant, answer and explain the questions asked of you.
Peace
|
| |
|
| Apr 12 @ 9:06 AM |
When did the so called "raised" Christ ascend to the heavens?
|
|
SweetNapaGuy
Posts: 8,496
|
When did other humans screw up a perfectly good philosophical message?
About one day after Jesus died. Then numbskulls took over the teachings and turned it into a religion. Where even interpretations completely contradictory to the original teachings could be treated as "inspired by the Holy Spirit."
Ugh...
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 12 @ 9:17 AM |
When did the so called "raised" Christ ascend to the heavens? |
|
sail_dancer
Posts: 9,865
|
uab,
You know some of us have never said that. But that is what "all" christian sects have in their doctrines.
I've told you before, you may call yourself christian, but you are more spiritual. You do not blindly accept the dogma that christianity insists is the only truth.
Peace
|
| |
|
| Apr 12 @ 9:52 AM |
When did the so called "raised" Christ ascend to the heavens?
|
|
uncrazy
Posts: 2,382
|
Maybe Seal wishes to create a new thought line in this thread.
I don't see any link between the original OP and the topic of humanism. Maybe Seal can expand his thougths on this.
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 12 @ 10:48 AM |
When did the so called "raised" Christ ascend to the heavens? |
|
Gallows_Humor
Posts: 13,662
|
ok..I'll "play" here... 
if there are no boundaries between the spiritual plane..and the worldly plane..
Jesus never left us...
|
| |
|
| Apr 12 @ 11:23 AM |
When did the so called "raised" Christ ascend to the heavens?
|
|
Peabianjay
Posts: 1,790
|
I don't see a contradiction:
Luke 24 and Mark 16 both say that Jesus ascended into the heavens on the same day he resurrected.
John 20 states that Jesus appeared to his disciples eight days after his resurrection, which means that Jesus ascended at least eight days after his resurrection The highlighted bit is speculation....and, according to Luke & Mark....not the case.
A more consistant conclusion: Jesus appeared to his disciples after ascending into the heavens. Return trip.
Acts 1 says that Jesus ascended forty days after his resurrection This, on the otherhand, seems to be a direct contradiction. Ascended twice? Dunno.
Since I didn't know....I looked it up. And, uh, Acts doesn't say that. (Found references to '40 days', but nothing about the ascent.) Seems to be all contradictions are speculation.
[Edited on 4/12/2009 11:36 AM]
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 12 @ 11:25 AM |
When did the so called "raised" Christ ascend to the heavens? |
|
sail_dancer
Posts: 9,865
|
Jesus never left us... That is more in line with what Jesus taught. 
If he was a true physical man, he left us in the physical and never returned in bodily form.
The essense of Jesus is in the spiritual, it is in the spirit that he rose to beat death.
That is why it matters little to me if Jesus ever walked this earth or was a myth to teach about an afterlife of some sort.
Peace
|
| |
|
| Apr 12 @ 12:06 PM |
When did the so called "raised" Christ ascend to the heavens?
|
|
sail_dancer
Posts: 9,865
|
This, on the otherhand, seems to be a direct contradiction. Ascended twice? Dunno.
Since I didn't know....I looked it up. And, uh, Acts doesn't say that. (Found references to '40 days', but nothing about the ascent.) Seems to be all contradictions are speculation. Here is what Acts says:Acts 1 (KJV)
1:2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
1:9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
Speculation? I don't think so. The bible doesn't agree with itself when it comes to Jesus' resurrection and ascension.
Peace
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 12 @ 12:36 PM |
When did the so called "raised" Christ ascend to the heavens? |
|
Peabianjay
Posts: 1,790
|
Seems you're right, Sail. (I have troubles decyphering "bible speak".)
So, what's it mean? Possibilities...
1) Someone got it wrong. John (etc) were human & fallible. As well, the numerous scribes that have copied & translated the bible. Someone screwed it up. Does that devalue "the word of God"? I think not....just proves we ain't perfect.
2) More than 1 ascent. The "return trip" idea, I mentioned before.
3) God isn't limitted by such mundane concerns like "Linear Time". (A quick example of what's impossible for those with limitted perspective, but possible in the "Grand Scheme". Draw a circle. Place the pen on the page, and draw a line to the middle of the circle, without intersecting the circle. Impossible? Yes-ish. But fold the page, and draw away....done deal. No, we can't fold reality....but, God is "all powerful", right?)
4) Intentional obfuscation. God is smarter than us. (No, really!) Given any event, policy, story or whatever....if there is no controversy, there is no discussion. The complexity, multiple viewpoints, vague contradictions results in people talking about, debating & discussing. (I, for one, would never have looked up, or read, those passages of Acts, were it not for the apparent contradiction.)
5) Who cares? That is....the time & place of the ascent is a red-herring. It just don't matter, isn't the point of the stories. It's as silly as dismissing Einsteins theory on relativity because of a spelling error on page 3.
Just some thoughts....
|
| |
|
| Apr 12 @ 1:36 PM |
When did the so called "raised" Christ ascend to the heavens?
|
|
sail_dancer
Posts: 9,865
|
So, what's it mean? It means that christians have a hell of a nerve to insist that the bible is the inerrant word of god.
Possibilities...
1) Someone got it wrong. John (etc) were human & fallible. As well, the numerous scribes that have copied & translated the bible. Someone screwed it up. Does that devalue "the word of God"? I think not....just proves we ain't perfect. I'll give you that, but now explain which parts of the bible should be taken as truth and which should be discarded. Who is to determine which parts are true? How about the virgin birth ..... talking ass ..... talking snake ..... Jesus walking on water ..... feeding of the multitudes ..... the resurrection ..... the ascension ..... etc.
The list goes on and on. What actually did happen if anything?
2) More than 1 ascent. The "return trip" idea, I mentioned before. So Jesus' second coming already occurred?
3) God isn't limitted by such mundane concerns like "Linear Time". (A quick example of what's impossible for those with limitted perspective, but possible in the "Grand Scheme". Draw a circle. Place the pen on the page, and draw a line to the middle of the circle, without intersecting the circle. Impossible? Yes-ish. But fold the page, and draw away....done deal. No, we can't fold reality....but, God is "all powerful", right?) Why exactly would god if he wished to leave his word to us in the bible, cause us to stand on our heads to understand it? Does god in your mind take pleasure in screwing with us?
4) Intentional obfuscation. God is smarter than us. (No, really!) Given any event, policy, story or whatever....if there is no controversy, there is no discussion. The complexity, multiple viewpoints, vague contradictions results in people talking about, debating & discussing. (I, for one, would never have looked up, or read, those passages of Acts, were it not for the apparent contradiction.) We still have a problem here. Are you saying that christians should accept the results of debating theologians as the factual inerrant word of god?
5) Who cares? That is....the time & place of the ascent is a red-herring. It just don't matter, isn't the point of the stories. It's as silly as dismissing Einsteins theory on relativity because of a spelling error on page 3. And if the error was in the actual equation? Also Einstein's theory can be retested to show that it is sound.
When it comes to a book, that has so many outrageous stories, how do you test them for the true inerrant word of god? How do you determine if there actually was a talking ass? or a talking snake? Any book that has inaccurate or made up information is considered FICTIONAL. To call the bible anything but fictional ..... christians have a lot of explaining to do.
Peace
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 12 @ 3:50 PM |
When did the so called "raised" Christ ascend to the heavens? |
|
uab_5
Posts: 4,759
|
I've told you before, you may call yourself christian, but you are more spiritual. You do not blindly accept the dogma that christianity insists is the only truth.
Thank you...I think? 
|
| |
|
| Apr 12 @ 5:04 PM |
When did the so called "raised" Christ ascend to the heavens?
|
|
Peabianjay
Posts: 1,790
|
It means that christians have a hell of a nerve to insist that the bible is the inerrant word of god. That is....no error was made. Any contradictions were intentional.
Note also, one shouldn't make the mistake of extending criticism of a select group of Christians that follow this belief to all Christians. That is, the claims of some christians, can't be used to dismiss Christianity as a whole.
What actually did happen if anything? Scientific evidence has confirmed some things happened which more or less coincide with biblical accounts. The level of accuracy is, of course, highly debatable.
So Jesus' second coming already occurred? Maybe? Probably not. Don't really wanna pursue this, since it's mostly a different issue.
Why exactly would god if he wished to leave his word to us in the bible, cause us to stand on our heads to understand it? Does god in your mind take pleasure in screwing with us? Pleasure? No....not in my mind. "Screwing" with us to stimulate the necessary debate to keep a topic interesting, alive & active. Provoke thought, which furthers understanding.
Are you saying that christians should accept the results of debating theologians as the factual inerrant word of god? Not at all. Again, man is fallible....so, until God himself shows up and tells ME, "This is how it is." I will always have doubts & questions.
My personal belief is more along the lines of Buddhism. "The answer is within." The bible is a starting point, to incite thought, provoke debate, but the ultimate answer is up to the individual. Presumably, an answer that is reached by following Jesus, The Bible, etc....is a Christian answer. (Even, ironically, if that answer is dismissing the Bible as fiction.)
So....after sundry ideas discussed, I have to agree, "Claiming the modern day bible is the inerrant word of God" seems to place an unreasonable amount faith in man.
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 12 @ 5:31 PM |
When did the so called "raised" Christ ascend to the heavens? |
|
sail_dancer
Posts: 9,865
|
Not at all. Again, man is fallible....so, until God himself shows up and tells ME, "This is how it is." I will always have doubts & questions.
My personal belief is more along the lines of Buddhism. "The answer is within." The bible is a starting point, to incite thought, provoke debate, but the ultimate answer is up to the individual. Presumably, an answer that is reached by following Jesus, The Bible, etc....is a Christian answer. (Even, ironically, if that answer is dismissing the Bible as fiction.)
So....after sundry ideas discussed, I have to agree, "Claiming the modern day bible is the inerrant word of God" seems to place an unreasonable amount faith in man. That is a very healthy way of thinking.
Christianity is a label that is over used. There are too many people that call themselves christians that do not follow or believe their own denominations doctrines (dogma). It is the people that still keep their minds open and question things that complain and say I shouldn't lump them all together. I didn't do the lumping they did by deciding to call themselves christians.
Why do these people place so much emphasis on what they call themselves? Why are they considering themselves something that they do not fully agree with?
I happen to believe that the words and teachings of Jesus are very important. In my eyes he was a great Master with an important message for all. But just because christians are supposed followers of Jesus, I would not consider myself christian.
Christianity is a religion that has written doctrines and statements of faith. By calling themselves christian they are announcing to the world their adherence to these doctrines and statements of faith. So it is they that lump themselves together.
Peace
|
| |
|
| Apr 12 @ 7:03 PM |
When did the so called "raised" Christ ascend to the heavens?
|
|
Peabianjay
Posts: 1,790
|
So it is they that lump themselves together. Some do, yes.
If I profess to be a Christian, some Christians will attempt to "drag me in" to their perspective, "See what we see! It is the right way!". As well, some non-Christians, will push, "Ah, you are a Christian, so you must believe...."
When really, professing to be a Christian means no more, and no less, than "Belief in Jesus".
Jesus the prophet, Jesus' teachings, Jesus the son of God, Jesus as part of the trinity....these views are neither necessary, nor forbidden, in order to be "Christian", although, of course, various sects will argue otherwise.
By calling themselves christian they are announcing to the world their adherence to these doctrines and statements of faith. Well, no. Now you're the one doing the "lumping".
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 12 @ 8:02 PM |
When did the so called "raised" Christ ascend to the heavens? |
|
jamminjerry
Posts: 4,085
|
you monkeys are so funny! what the hell does this chit matter! what matters is seeking the kingdom of God! what matters is giving your life for a friend! there are so many more things that my teacher said and even a few things that he did that matters much more than symbolism. get a freaking life!!! listen to the words! and once you have heard those words, live them!!! live them. i ain't once seen an idiot dragging a cross to nowhere! ain't that the symbolism you wallow in! not once have i witnessed a human enduring the same as my teacher. but do not despair! that is not required of you! my teacher made it easy,(or not) "seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you". nuff said we be jammin 
|
| |
|
| Apr 12 @ 8:03 PM |
When did the so called "raised" Christ ascend to the heavens?
|
|
sail_dancer
Posts: 9,865
|
Jesus the prophet, Jesus' teachings, Jesus the son of God, Jesus as part of the trinity....these views are neither necessary, nor forbidden, in order to be "Christian", although, of course, various sects will argue otherwise. Please post the christian denominations that do not have Jesus being the son of god or the second person of their trinune god.
I have searched the internet and have not found one. You may have your own beliefs but if you belong to a christian denomination or even christian so called non-denominational churches, you will find that they have a statement of faith that includes:
1. Jesus is the son of god.
2, God is comprised of the Father, the So, and the Holy Spirit.
3. Jesus was sacrificed as a ransom for the sins of the world.
4. Jesus rose from the dead.
5. Jesus ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father,
Most of the other dogma beliefs such as "once saved, always saved" will vary by denomination.
Well, no. Now you're the one doing the "lumping". No I'm not.
Check out the statement of faiths of christian groups and you will see that I am correct.
Peace
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 12 @ 8:59 PM |
When did the so called "raised" Christ ascend to the heavens? |
|
Peabianjay
Posts: 1,790
|
I'll concede...a bit. lol
The examples I gave were poor (at best), and you quite easily backed me into a corner. So, ya, I have to concede that much. The trinity, son of god, etc. appear to be universally held beliefs of all organized christian churches.
But, I won't back down entirely, either. (Stubborn, aren't I?)
Perhaps a new term is needed to describe those that have faith in Christ, follow Christ and The Bible, but do not follow any traditional doctrine/church.
Note also, "Jesus is the son of god." doesn't exlude the rest of us. Every person on earth can be viewed as a child of God. "Our Father who art....."
Further: Father, Son & Holy Ghost. Is "son" a singular person (Jesus), or all of humanity?
Disclaimer: Just letting my thoughts wander, for the most part. My personal beliefs are....uh....pretty wacked out. Nothing like any organized religion I'm aware of....yet.....like all of them, too.
|
| |
|
|
|
|