Nonsense pictures of Ascension?

2

Comments

  • It is a tradition going back to the very early years of the church.
  • As my baptist father-in-law used to say, "and it is an Assumption, too".
  • Fortunately Baptists don't make any assumptions. :rolleyes:
  • At least they have a sense of humour.
  • Evangelical assumptions tend to be about the meaning of biblical passages; but, from an outside persecution, the Feast of the Assumption seems to be in another league altogether.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited September 2018
    Gee D wrote: »
    It is a tradition going back to the very early years of the church.

    As far back as this?
  • At least that and probably earlier.
  • magnilo wrote: »
    Evangelical assumptions tend to be about the meaning of biblical passages; but, from an outside persecution, the Feast of the Assumption seems to be in another league altogether.
    Freud strikes again.🙄 I meant “outside perspective”.

  • Baptist TrainfanBaptist Trainfan Shipmate
    edited September 2018
    magnilo wrote: »
    Evangelical assumptions tend to be about the meaning of biblical passages; but, from an outside persecution, the Feast of the Assumption seems to be in another league altogether.
    Yes, exactly. However, we do seem to have strayed from the initial point of this thread ...

  • Gee D wrote: »
    At least that and probably earlier.

    I suspected as much. Link?
  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    Back to the topic, I tend to take most of the miraculous stuff at face value as a starting point. Not that I stress that if I don't believe it all I'm a bad Christian. I just figure that what was written is what the Gospel writers believed. From there I'm happy to delve into symbolism, layers of meaning, cultural context, and lessons to be learned. For me, however it came about, the important bit is that Jesus took his humanity with him back to his heavenly abode with the Godhead. Glory be! :smile:
  • Hmm ... but the disciples clearly saw something, even if it was only in their minds' eyes.
  • Luke 24:51 describes the ascension like this:
    While he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven.

    The word translated "he parted" is διίστημι (diistēmi), taken at face value, simply suggests that Jesus actively walked a short distance away from the disciples before being "carried upwards" somehow (ἀναφέρω anapherō), as a passive subject, into heaven. It's very hard, I think, not read this as an eyewitness account of a miraculous physical departure in an upwards direction. However, when taken with the account in Acts 1, I guess it could be read as Jesus simply walking off into the sky at a low trajectory with his back to the disciples until he's occluded by cloud. But whatever happened there's definitely a note of finality about it.
  • They saw the second and public ascension. Not the first and private one forty days before.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    They saw the second and public ascension. Not the first and private one forty days before.
    Are you suggesting that Jesus commuted for a while before finally relocating?

  • Baptist TrainfanBaptist Trainfan Shipmate
    edited September 2018
    Basically, yes. It's a liminal period.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited September 2018
    magnilo wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    They saw the second and public ascension. Not the first and private one forty days before.
    Are you suggesting that Jesus commuted for a while before finally relocating?

    Ickzackly. 's'obvious ennit? Mary Magdalene. Thomas. Don't touch. Touch. He didn't wait 40 days to transcend now, did He? Popping in and out of the real from who knows where.
  • You put it so nicely, m'lud.
  • Case dismissed.
  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    Hmm ... but the disciples clearly saw something, even if it was only in their minds' eyes.

    Like I said, I do take the reports at face value even while considering other points.
  • magnilomagnilo Shipmate
    edited September 2018
    Martin54 wrote: »
    They saw the second and public ascension. Not the first and private one forty days before.

    Is there any evidence in scripture (or tradition) that the risen Jesus ascended into heaven before the event that we call The Ascension? Scripture suggests that Jesus’ spirit entered paradise very soon (“this day”) after his death, but I don’t know of any post-resurrection (i.e. embodied) access to heaven prior to the Ascension. Perhaps the sheer physicality of the Ascension accounts in Scripture are designed to avoid a phantasmagorical view of Christ’s body.
  • John 20:17 New International Version - UK (NIVUK)

    17 Jesus said, ‘Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”’

    John 20:27 New International Version - UK (NIVUK)

    27 Then he said to Thomas, ‘Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.’

    but in parallel with the first verse:

    Matthew 28:9 New International Version - UK (NIVUK)

    9 Suddenly Jesus met them. ‘Greetings,’ he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshipped him.

    As with everything, the texts are ambiguous. And make no sense at all if the Acts ascension HAS to be what Jesus was referring to in the first verse, forty days later.

    It raises all manner of obvious ontological questions if that is so.

    His reaction to Mary could have been quite mundane: "Don't fuss, there's work to be done.". Or meaning, "I won't be a minute.".

    But for 40 days He wasn't the full Monte Second Person of the Trinity?
  • I've been mulling over the last couple of posts and I can't see any overwhelming evidence of any post-resurrection commuting.

    My instinctive understanding of Jesus' reaction to Mary is "don't touch, I've just come out of the oven/am radioactive".

    This is not very good hermeneutically.

    My more reflected understanding of his words is that Jesus is announcing, via Mary, a new phase for the disciples, the age of the Spirit in which they will have to get used to not having him around in person.

    If you think about it that would represent quite a radical change for these people who have been physically, literally following him around for several years. Now they will have to learn to follow the Spirit; holding on to Jesus, or to the form of ministry he engaged in during the incarnation, would be a big mistake for them.
  • There is of course the mystery of his discontinuous existence on earth. He makes tangible appearances but doesn't seem to be around otherwise. Very different to spending virtually every hour of every day with other people.
  • Which would make sense in the light of my analysis just now. Although I've no idea where he was when he wasn't with any of our witnesses.
  • Then I guess the question we're now asking is this: did the resurrection fully effect the glorification of Jesus, or was the ascension (as recorded in Luke 24 and Acts 1) a necessary event in time by and through which the incarnate Jesus entered a higher state of glory?
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited September 2018
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Although I've no idea where he was when he wasn't with any of our witnesses.
    Well, according to the Mormons ….

  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Which would make sense in the light of my analysis just now. Although I've no idea where he was when he wasn't with any of our witnesses.

    He was back to being the 2nd Omni-Guy of course.
  • He was no longer just local. His theophany was.
  • Just His theophany was.
  • magnilomagnilo Shipmate
    edited September 2018
    It does seem that the post-resurrection Jesus was exercising the 3 omnis, but I don’t think that it necessarily means that his glorification was complete. In short, I’m simply not convinced of this hidden ascension idea. I’m more inclined to believe that the Ascension, as recorded in Holy Scripture, describes an historical event which has profound theological significance precisely because it changed the fabric of reality in a very real way: God, in the person of his Son, ascended into the heavenly realms as a fully and eternally glorified human being.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited September 2018
    So we agree that incarnations resurrect in stages, just a question of when. There's nothing historical about it of course. And everywhere in the universe and infinitely beyond where this happens and has done so for eternity changes the fabric of reality - locally - in a very real profoundly theologically significant way. And God can be less than fully glorified?
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    So we agree that incarnations resurrect in stages, just a question of when.
    No, I don’t agree with that, but I do think that glorification is progressive in some sense.
    And God can be less than fully glorified?
    Yes, if we’re talking about God incarnate in the person of his only begotten Son, Jesus of Nazareth.

  • How can you possibly disagree? We both believe in a phased resurrection. Progressive glorification. What are you disagreeing with? To me it's obvious that Jesus wasn't the Second Omni-Guy when He came to. Because He said so. To Mary. After that time He behaved theophanously (theophanically?), 4-dimensionally. Something happened in between I infer. The only begotten Son of God united with God the eternally begotten Son.

    No, we're not talking about God incarnate limited to the human Jesus. Except for Earth. No story we made up about our Jesus can be applied from Him in particular to everyone else's.

    If He is (as in is, was and shall be), that's a fact.
  • I’ve often thought that perhaps Jesus just slipped away into the crowd, and walks the highways and byways. And thus we are indeed called to seek and serve Christ in each other, never quite knowing where or when he might be passing by.
  • It's a fun thought that he might have bumped into the two on the road to Emmaus by accident having slipped away thus :)
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    Clearly he was around for a bit. Most of our direct information is clustered around the resurrection or the ascension, but Paul in 1 Cor 15 lists multiple appearances, not all of which are accounted for in the Gospels and Acts. I can’t see any reason why he might not have been appearing to many people all over the place before his ascension.
  • magnilomagnilo Shipmate
    edited September 2018
    Martin54 wrote: »
    To me it's obvious that Jesus wasn't the Second Omni-Guy when He came to. Because He said so. To Mary.
    I don’t think it’s obvious that the risen Jesus wasn’t God. In fact, I think that it’s a mistaken belief.
    After that time He behaved theophanously (theophanically?), 4-dimensionally. Something happened in between I infer. The only begotten Son of God united with God the eternally begotten Son.
    I get what you’re saying and I can see how you got there. But I’m not coming with you because I don’t think your inference lines up with Scripture and Tradition.
    No, we're not talking about God incarnate limited to the human Jesus.
    Well I am because I think that’s who Jesus is.
    Except for Earth. No story we made up about our Jesus can be applied from Him in particular to everyone else's.
    As the famous football chant goes: “There’s only one Lord Jesus.”

  • Aye, He was God after all, by then. As Thomas said. Not unascended, partially glorified God. God.
  • magnilomagnilo Shipmate
    edited September 2018
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Aye, He was God after all, by then. As Thomas said. Not unascended, partially glorified God. God.
    My understanding is that Jesus was, is, and ever shall be fully God. His glorification doesn’t equate with him somehow becoming more God. Perhaps the Ascension was something more like reverse kenosis; a taking up of the full privileges of his deity.

  • Aye. He was fully God in nature. But, while incarnate, pre-mortem, and possibly briefly after, He wasn't fully, all of, God the eternally begotten Son Second Person of the Trinity. Unless we are the only intelligent species in the practically infinite universe and infinitely beyond, from eternity.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Aye. He was fully God in nature. But, while incarnate, pre-mortem, and possibly briefly after, He wasn't fully, all of, God the eternally begotten Son Second Person of the Trinity. Unless we are the only intelligent species in the practically infinite universe and infinitely beyond, from eternity.
    It sounds like you’re saying that Jesus had some horcruxes.

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited September 2018
    Jesus was a Horcrux (not that He needs backups) of God the eternally begotten Son. Of which there are infinite from eternity. Horcruxes. Downloads. Mobile apps. IAs. Of the nature of God.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Jesus was a Horcrux (not that He needs backups) of God the eternally begotten Son. Of which there are infinite from eternity. Horcruxes. Downloads. Mobile apps. IAs. Of the nature of God.
    O Keeee

  • I knew you'd agree. I mean He couldn't be a waldo with infinite arms in incarnational form sock puppets could He? You know like the ancient Greek hecatoncheires?
  • As my son put it. We had to get rid of Jesus to get the Holy Spirit.

    I do note Matthew, Mark, and John make no mention of an ascension nor do any of the epistles.

  • magnilomagnilo Shipmate
    edited October 2018
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    As my son put it. We had to get rid of Jesus to get the Holy Spirit.

    I do note Matthew, Mark, and John make no mention of an ascension nor do any of the epistles.
    I think you’ll find the ascension in the epistles, and certainly the session which I’d argue assumes the ascension, don’t you think?
    16 I do not cease to give thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers,
    17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him,
    18 having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints,
    19 and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might
    20 that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places,
    21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named
    , not only in this age but also in the one to come.
    22 And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church,
    23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all. - Ephesians 1:16-23


  • magnilo wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    As my son put it. We had to get rid of Jesus to get the Holy Spirit.

    I do note Matthew, Mark, and John make no mention of an ascension nor do any of the epistles.
    I think you’ll find the ascension in the epistles, and certainly the session which I’d argue assumes the ascension, don’t you think?
    16 I do not cease to give thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers,
    17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him,
    18 having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints,
    19 and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might
    20 that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places,
    21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named
    , not only in this age but also in the one to come.
    22 And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church,
    23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all. - Ephesians 1:16-23


    Aye, a fine metaphor for things utterly beyond our ken.
  • Mudfrog wrote: »
    All I would say is that something happened that day.
    They were on the hillside and Jesus was with them.
    I see no reason whatever to say this is a made-up episode or literary device - no more than any other miraculous happening in the gospels, or the entire Bible for that matter.

    We were not there and I would simply suggest that whatever happened, Luke wrote it down in the only language he had. The theology books tell us that it was all symbolic of a change in station and status, etc, and that is not untrue; but if that's all it was - all meaning and no event - then what's the point of the empty tomb, bearing in mind that the resurrection happened to Jesus and not to the disciples?

    I think perhaps a reverent silence on speaking too confidently about it being symbolic might be useful.
    My personal rule of thumb about some of the descriptions of events in the Bible is that there must have been much more to an event than we actually read, but there was never less.
    Yes, I'd go with that.

    Me too. I've heard many people say "it didn't happen this way" or "that way", but they leave their listeners in confusion. If St Luke was lying or misinformed, then what do they suppose did happen?
  • The other thing is to note is in my experience God when revealing the divine to us humans uses the culture of the day. The case was that a large number of people at the time believed heaven was up so that is the way Jesus went. I expect, today that if it happened there would be something like a blaze of light which comes between Jesus and the Disciples and then the two angelic beings.
Sign In or Register to comment.