/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>680922

Being the immortal Son of God, capable of walking through closed doors and the like as described in the New Testament, it likely didn't affect him at all.

Or do you think the resurrection was a metaphor?

>>680927

Not sure what you mean, can you elaborate? Even if he could survive the vacuum of space, where did he go? Heaven isn't literally in the sky.

>>680932

>Even if he could survive the vacuum of space

Resurrected bodies don't need sustainance and are in every way invulnerable (though that of the damned can feel pain, according to popular theory). Now you sound like an edgy fedora.

>>680933

You're still not answering the question, I granted him surviving space….so? and?

>>680934

he flew off into the clouds lad

http://www.churchyear.net/ascension.html

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Isn't the Ascension of Jesus based on Outdated Science?

This question is not about the Ascension holiday per se, but related to the truth of the historical Ascension. However, since belief in the ascension is directly tied to celebrating its feast, it should be addressed. Some theologians and philosophers have claimed that modern people cannot believe in Jesus' ascension, because the story assumes the outdated science of a "three-tiered universe."

It is true that many Biblical authors likely perceived the universe as three-tiered, in which heaven is spatially "up" above a sky dome (and hell is below the earth). Luke may or may not have had this cosmology in mind when writing about the ascension. Even if he did, this does not discount the truth of the ascension. What ultimately happened at the Mount of Olives that day was that Jesus returned to the Father, to a reality that is outside of space and time as we know it. Assuming this return was miraculous, it likely wasn't a spatial/material act at all. It was an event above human perception and explanation. However, the witnesses had to render the event in terms they (and we) could understand, using the tools, knowledge, and science of the day (as we would do as well; we can hardly be expected to explain events in terms and frameworks beyond those of our day!). As such, the miraculous event was recorded as a spatial ascension, because we humans live within space-time, and conceive of reality spatially and temporally.

These ideas owe a debt to C.S. Lewis. In a 1942 sermon, Lewis described the Ascension as:

…a being still in some mode, though not our mode, corporeal, withdrew at His own will from the Nature presented by our three dimensions and five senses, not necessarily into the non-sensuous and undimensional, but into, or through, a world or worlds of super-sense and super space. And He might choose to do it gradually. Who on earth knows what the spectators might see? If they say they saw a momentary movement along the vertical plane - then an indistinct mass - then nothing - who is to pronounce this improbable?" (God in the Dock, p. 35; also see "Horrid Red Things," in Ibid. pp. 68-71)

>>680935

lol

>>680936

ya but this is a symbolic account, not a literal account. Bible literalists have a problem with the ascension.

>>680937

>ya but this is a symbolic account, not a literal account. Bible literalists have a problem with the ascension.

Prove it, kid.

>>680938

This thread already proves it. Look at the responses literalists give, >>680933 >>680935

compared to an actual answer which is metaphorical >>680936

>>680939

Why is it that every part of the Bible that makes you unconformable is automatically metaphorical?

He rose into the sky, then into Heaven beyond the physical universe (traveled "eckwards", if you want).

Literalists don't have a problem with the ascension, you're the one who's getting triggered by it.

>>680936

This is an interesting perspective, which is why I posted it. I also think it could be that Jesus did quite literally go up into the clouds and then disappear into Heaven. He did not need to go up and into the clouds in order to do so, but it suited his purposes to do it that way, rather than simply teleporting as such.

>>680940

>why bible use metaphors???!!!!

Why does Jesus talk in parables? Why is there poetry in the bible? Why does it use metaphors? Because it conveys truths about things beyond our perception and the limits of our language require metaphors and analogies. Also metaphors get the brain juices flowing.

Some parts are metaphorical, that doesn't make them any less true, it just means they convey a message indirectly, by analogy. Because we can't comprehend all the ways of God.

So like Christs' ascension, we can't understand how he teleported or dematerialized and entered heaven, so we are told he 'ascended' upwards…

The literalist account would reduce his ascension to paganism, to Jesus floating in space/clouds as if heaven was up there in our dimension. Like how the greek gods lived on top of a mountain.

The bible often says "god is my rock" but that doesn't mean God is minerals and stones; Jesus calls himself the vine and his followers are branches, that doesn't mean he's a plant being…

>us literalists are really smart! and take everything at face value!

yes, except things like baptism and eucharist. those are just metaphors or symbols. :^)

>>680942

>So like Christs' ascension, we can't understand how he teleported or dematerialized and entered heaven, so we are told he 'ascended' upwards…

Three different eyewitness accounts say he literally rose up into the sky, then became hidden from their sight in a cloud. I agree that at that point he likely teleported, but he did indeed levitate first.

>The literalist account would reduce his ascension to paganism, to Jesus floating in space/clouds as if heaven was up there in our dimension. Like how the greek gods lived on top of a mountain.

No? I never said that.

<us literalists are really smart! and take everything at face value!

>yes, except things like baptism and eucharist. those are just metaphors or symbols. :^)

Never said that either. You really seem to enjoy putting words in others' mouths. Be a little more charitable.

>>680943

It doesn't say he teleported. So it would be possible for him to be floating in the clouds/sky/space if we were literal. As if the sky is heaven.

>never said that

lots of literalists are of the protestant fundamentalist persuasion who take eucharist/baptism metaphorically, ironically. even if it doesn't apply to you.

I'm not a literalist but OP's fedora-tier argumentation makes it appealing.

There are three heavens in the Bible.

(1) Our Immediate Atmosphere

(2) Outer Space (The Sun, Moon, And Stars)

(3) The Home Of God

So even if Jesus just ascended to the first two that still counts as ascending to heaven. Of course I believe he did go to the third heaven after to sit at the right hand of the Father. As for why he would go to space first, who knows. Maybe he passed through a wormhole to get to the third heaven? We are not given the details on how this stuff works.

Ascended up past the firmament into heaven.

>>680946

Honestly, it's what holds me back from becoming Apostolic. The Richard Dawkins-type snobby elitist attitude is extremely off-putting.

>>680946

most atheists like arguing with literalists, easy to caricature literalist beliefs, "hurr how can an apply transmit moral knowledge? how can a snake talk they have no vocal cords….!! GOTTCHA" but when they encounter more nuanced or symbolic interpretations they short-circuit and get agitated.

>>680952

apple* not apply

>>680951

dawkins prefers arguing with literalists, they operate on his intellectual level.

>>680955

yes the ascension should be read metaphorically, heaven isn't literally in the sky/space.

>>680955

Go away, Satan.

>>680954

Rule 2. Calling someone stupid won't make them see it your way.

>>680957

CHAOS FROM ORDER

>>680958

i didn't say stupid.

>>680961

Sure.

>>680959

The difference between chaos and order is that you can make order from chaos but you can't make chaos from order.

Order = death.

>>680922

Don't you get tired making this thread every couple of months?

>>680973

>Exact same post

>Exact same fedora meme arguments

>Exact same writing style

>Exact same verbatim responses when people disagree

>Exact same endless circular arguments

>Not the same poster

>>680978

"Assumption" nothing, it is an exact copy of countless "lol it didn't really happen that way, Look how intellectual I am" posts. Nobody cares how euphoric you are, nobody cares how smart you think you are.

>>680973

>>680978

>see how he recoils, "I've been found out!"

>>680984

Interesting to see that your ID changed at least once.

It literally makes no difference if Christ zoomed up into the clouds or sort of just faded.

>>680990

if you are reading it symbolically of course, but if you are a literalist it makes a big difference, it means heaven is in the sky/clouds and Christ is there now, in the sky/clouds. But even literalists aren't that literal and they will submit to some metaphor at play…

>>680922

>What happened to him as he flew up vertically into space?

Obviously he was taken up to heaven. It's not like this was the first time that happened.

>>681009

see

>>680948

>>680922

Dunno. Went up to heaven I guess. Why do you ask?

>>681127

You guess heaven is in the clouds or you guess it's in space? A literal interpretation is goofy.

>>681200

Maybe you're just to autistic.

>>681228

autists don't get metaphors and figures of speech

I think he rose up in the clouds so that others could see him better. I don’t winnie the pooh know. Who cares? The resurrection was more important than this hairsplitting difference