/christian/ -The Ascension: Why only Luke?

Name
Email
Subject	REC STOP
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
Password	(Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
Archive	Archive [500 char limit]
* = required field	[▶Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Flag	open flag menu
Embed	(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webp,webm, mp4, mov, pdf Max filesize is16 MB. Max image dimensions are15000 x15000. You may upload5 per post.

File: f74729db83f3849⋯.jpg (219.71 KB,791x1176,113:168,the_ascension_of_Christ.jpg)

The Ascension: Why only Luke? † 03/18/21 (Thu) 01:15:51 1ec79d No.854133

In Luke's account, all 11 disciples (Judas being now dead) witnessed the ascension. Matthew and John, themselves disciples and therefore witnesses to the event, do not include an account of it in their gospels. Why would they leave out such an important event?

I don't want to cast doubt on anyone, but the fact that only Luke gave an account can lead one to believe that he "added it in".

To those who have had this doubt, how have you overcome it?

____________________________

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 03/18/21 (Thu) 02:48:35 b8ce2e No.854136

>Saint Luke Lied.

no, he didn't. If you don't believe that Jesus Christ, our Lord and our God, ascend into heaven under his own power as God, you're not Christian. The ascension is part of the Nicene Creed. If you reject any part of the Creed, you're not Christian.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 03/20/21 (Sat) 10:11:57 b49460 No.854257

>>854133

It's also in Mark 16 and Acts 1

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 03/20/21 (Sat) 11:39:44 2e9e71 No.854260

If they all did, then people would be saying they copied from each other, or else that the accounts are too different. There is just no winning with these people.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 03/20/21 (Sat) 12:06:00 2e9e71 No.854262

>>854260

I should add that Christ, our Savior, already dealt with said situation in the following passage of Scripture:

"For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.

The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children."

-Matthew 11:18-19

He also said, "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you." Jn. 15:18.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 03/24/21 (Wed) 01:13:16 1ec79d No.854390

>>854257

>It's also in Mark

Yes, but it was added in much later. All early copies of the gospel of Mark did not include the ascension.

>>854260

>>854262

>people would be saying they copied from eachother

Regardless of whether the other gospels mention the ascension, it is obvious that the synoptics worked off each other. Either the Q document theory is correct (Matthew and Luke copied from Mark and added what is unique to Mt. and Lk.), or the church Tradition is correct (Mark and Luke copied from Matthew). The synoptics were definitely not written independently, that is to say, without knowledge of eachother.

>or else [they would say] that the accounts are too different

This doesn't necessarily follow. There are different accounts of the resurrection, for example, and despite those differences I believe in it.

Believe me I'm trying my best to have faith in it but I just can not empathize with the gospel writers as to why they would leave it out. It just doesn't make sense.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 03/25/21 (Thu) 18:07:34 2e9e71 No.854446

>>854390

Ok anon, what I see as missing from this analysis is an understanding of everything that the New Testament is telling us. It makes little sense to believe in only part of someone's account and not the entire thing. Obviously, if they make a mistake in one place, that also bears on the rest of the account. But also, this is because each of the authors reinforce each other. In 2 Peter 3, specifically verses 15-16, the apostle Peter tells us that Paul's epistles are scripture. So it is not like we can stay consistent and yet say that only part of the New Testament is valid. It all stands or falls together.

With that said, note what we learn about the word of God in 2 Timothy 3:16. There, Paul wrote that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God." This means that truly, the Bible is the word of God. It also says in Revelation 19:9, "These are the true sayings of God." Hence, God is the one who authored and inspired it. The prophets and apostles all along were simply speaking as they were inspired to do. Hence Peter tells us, "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

Hence, the theories that there are multiple origins of Scripture falls short, actually it all originated in the mind of God. And as it is written in Titus 1:3, God "hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;"

So with all that being said, it is obvious that Scripture has a common inspirational source. But multiple different people were inspired according to His will so that the end result is what the Lord willed. So, whenever they stopped is when the inspiration of God told them. Now, it is possible for people who want to reject that word by coming up with impossible standards. If it's not one thing it will be another, like I was saying earlier. Either it was all a conspiracy to copy from one another because none of them were original like they say they are, or else it was all people making things up, like the apocryphal gospels are, and contradicting each other (although there is really an explanation there, they just aren't interested in finding it).

At the end of the day, though, there will of necessity be some who fulfill the prophecies, like "scoffers" who will come in the last time, and those who "wrest the scripture unto their own destruction." The presence of such people only confirms Scripture to us. As Peter wrote in 1 Peter 2:

>6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

>7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

>8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 03/25/21 (Thu) 23:18:11 1ec79d No.854454

>>854446

There are a number of things I want to address, and questions to ask. Therefore I will number them:

1a) Consider just the synoptics. Do you believe that Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote their gospels independently of each other? That is to say, when each of them wrote their gospel they did not know the contents of the other gospels, nor did they have access to them in physical form? I mean that they did not physically read the other gospels nor did they hear them read aloud? 1b) Aside from your belief, does the church and/or the consensus of biblical scholarship have any teaching that would answer that question?

You have written:

>2) It makes little sense to believe in only part of someone's account and not the entire thing.

This line of reasoning is only applicable on a per-author basis, and is not applicable to the entirety of the New Testament because the New Testament is written by multiple authors. It is not "someone's account" but the accounts of many people. Consider that, for example, we assent that Mark's gospel is the first gospel and we are also under the impression that Matthew and Luke just took Mark and added stuff to it to embellish it. Should we then not believe Mark's account? I believe that even if the others lie then we should not call Mark a liar.

>all scripture is given by inspiration of God

>the theories that there are multiple origins of Scripture falls short, actually it all originated in the mind of God

3) How do you apply this to our current discussion of the ascension? Let us say "Luke's account of the ascension originated in the mind of God". What does that mean? Please clarify.

I've been trying to find on the internet an answer to 1b) but it is very hard to search for. I'd much appreciate if you knew some resources that can help me answer this.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 03/26/21 (Fri) 01:48:43 2e9e71 No.854457

File: 5536ba449e2c736⋯.jpg (57.36 KB,590x332,295:166,0002b.jpg)

>>854454

>1a pt. 1) Do you believe that Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote their gospels independently of each other?

Yes. They were as I said above, all dependent on God for inspiration. This is as mentioned in 2 Timothy 3:16, 1 Peter 1:21, Galatians 1:11-12, Titus 1:3, and more. If we were to discount all these, then because of the fact of who it came from it would also invalidate the witness of the others. Therefore, if we truly do hold the witness of the others (Matthew, Mark, Luke) as valid, then these must also be valid, and these epistles explain the inspiration of all Scripture.

Furthermore having proven that the inspiration (by God) of the Gospels must follow from accepting their own veracity, it follows moreover that if these men depended entirely on God for inspiration of the word, then of course, they depended zero amount on each other. And this, in turn, means that the answer to the question is yes, because they were inspired to write the word of God.

>1a pt. 2) That is to say, when each of them wrote their gospel they did not know the contents of the other gospels, nor did they have access to them in physical form? I mean that they did not physically read the other gospels nor did they hear them read aloud?

These two questions are not the same as the earlier one. It wouldn't matter whether or not they knew what the other Gospels contained, if they were only writing by inspiration of God, and being inspired directly by the Holy Spirit to write God's word as Paul explains.

>1b) Aside from your belief, does the church and/or the consensus of biblical scholarship have any teaching that would answer that question?

The church is the pillar and ground of the truth, and keeps Scripture. Scripture has the answer to that question, as just earlier explained above. The answer here would therefore be exactly the same to the answer already explained above.

>2) This line of reasoning is only applicable on a per-author basis, and is not applicable to the entirety of the New Testament

As already explained, if anyone chooses to discount the witness of the apostles, Peter and Paul, from the epistles, and says that what they say is irrelevant, then that also discounts the witness of the Gospel writers who are from the same church.

>2) Should we then not believe Mark's account?

Yes.

>2) I believe that even if the others lie then we should not call Mark a liar.

According to 2 Timothy 4:11, the apostle Paul worked with Mark.

So then if Mark was correct in his Gospel, that means he was in the right church along with Paul.

>3) How do you apply this to our current discussion of the ascension? Let us say "Luke's account of the ascension originated in the mind of God". What does that mean?

Just that God inspired him what to say as is described in the New Testament. Paul wrote this:

"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

– Galatians 1:11-12

So you see how "inspiration" by God explains how really, all of the books of the Bible originated from the same mind, and this explains the similarities and how none of it contradicts itself.

>I'd much appreciate if you knew some resources that can help me answer this.

Study the Holy Bible to find out. That is God's word, which precedes anything apart from it. Any true scholar also would tell you the same. And most importantly we don't have to rely on anyone's belief (as you point out), with that in hand. If anything there didn't make sense, just let me know.

Romans 10:17

"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

2 Peter 1:20-21

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

John 5:39

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

-Amen

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 03/26/21 (Fri) 03:59:51 1ec79d No.854459

File: 46ff1861f9db79e⋯.jpg (98.46 KB,623x900,623:900,staugustine2.jpg)

>>854457

>Yes. They were as I said above, all dependent on God for inspiration. This is as mentioned in 2 Timothy 3:16, 1 Peter 1:21, Galatians 1:11-12, Titus 1:3, and more.

I see what you're getting at. Galatians and Titus are very clear that God revealed the gospel to Paul directly, and that he did not learn from another man. However, it does not follow from this that there was no copying going on with the other authors. For example, it is known that Luke traveled with Paul. Is it likely that God gave Luke a vision in the same way he gave to Paul? Or is it more likely that Paul communicated the gospel to Luke. Truly I believe the latter; although the former is not impossible, it is not the best explanation in my opinion. Regardless, even if there was copying or otherwise transferal of information from one apostle to another by an oral tradition, it does not necessarily follow that the derived works are not inspired by God (because any additions/subtractions are also by the direction of the Holy Spirit), and so we should not assume that necessarily ALL authors had the same experience as Paul where God communicated the whole gospel to him. Do you see what I mean?

>According to 2 Timothy 4:11, the apostle Paul worked with Mark

Which leads me to believe that Mark discovered the gospel via Paul or Paul + other sources + revelation from God.

>it follows moreover that if these men depended entirely on God for inspiration of the word, then of course, they depended zero amount on each other

This is where I disagree. See above.

>So you see how "inspiration" by God explains how really, all of the books of the Bible originated from the same mind, and this explains the similarities and how none of it contradicts itself.

I do see what you mean, but like I said above I don't think this means that they didn't learn traditions from each other.

>The church is the pillar and ground of the truth, and keeps Scripture

I mean to say if the church has made any statements about it outside of what is in the scriptures.

I did some research and found this in the CCC

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm#124

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm#76

>126 We can distinguish three stages in the formation of the Gospels:

>1. The life and teaching of Jesus

>2. The oral tradition. "For, after the ascension of the Lord, the apostles handed on to their hearers what he had said and done

>3. The written Gospels. "The sacred authors, in writing the four Gospels, selected certain of the many elements which had been handed on, either orally or already in written form

So the position of the church is that there was a community and they knew each other. This makes more sense, because if they were in contact then maybe the author of Matthew, for example, left out the account of the ascension because he knew that Luke or someone else was going to include it.

Further:

> 76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

>- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";33

>in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing".

So it's a mix of oral + written tradition + movement by the Holy Ghost.

I guess the root of my doubt stemmed from this line of reasoning: "IF, for example, Matthew was writing his gospel alone and he thought that either a) his gospel was going to be the only one that ever existed or b) expected that the other (presumably dispersed/diaspora'd) apostles would not have a chance to write a gospel or c) believed for any other reason that the ascension would be an unrecorded event if he did not record it, THEN WHY did he not include an account of the ascension if he in fact witnessed it?". The answer is that assumptions a,b,c are wrong because: a) Matthew knew other gospels would be written b) He expected that others would write about it and c) Had no other reason to believe that he needed to record it. Matthew knew that there were going to be other gospels that would address it, and so he did not feel the need to put it in. Tying this in to what you're saying, God is the author of it all, and so he did not write it in Matthew because he, being the sole author, knew it would be written in Luke/Acts.

Another reason I have this doubt is because if I were Matthew I would definitely without hesitation include an account of the ascension if I did in fact witness it. But I think I have enough, both from the CCC and from the "one author" argument that you put forth that will keep my doubts at bay.

Thank you anon

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 03/26/21 (Fri) 20:43:10 2e9e71 No.854471

>>854459

>http://www.vatican.va/

Oh that's a cult site anon. It's not actually the church. This link is like something you might find out of Salt Lake City about how the mormon founders are infallible: Of course they would say that, it doesn't mean that's what the historic church teaches though.

>Tying this in to what you're saying, God is the author of it all, and so he did not write it in Matthew because he, being the sole author, knew it would be written in Luke/Acts.

Sure anon, that makes sense according to what we said earlier. Some readers get tripped up over all kinds of things, like the Gospels being too similar (or too different) for them to believe. They can always find something to object to if that's what they are looking for. I also think that our Lord authored all Scripture with the explicit goal that the believers would be comforted and supported by his words, while those who were nonbelievers would always "stumble at the word," because they were "disobedient," like Peter described.

Consider what Christ himself said in the gospel of Luke 8:10.

"And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand."

It also says the following in John 12,

"But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him:

That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?

Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,

He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them."

And it is for all of the above reasons I believe, that many unbelieving people, who have come simply to "wrest the scriptures", always end up in false interpretations. Scripture becomes a permanent stumbling block to them. This is confirmed by what Paul said in 1 Cor. 2:12-14, see below.

"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

And it also says back in 1 Cor. 1:18,

"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."

>from the "one author" argument

Yeah, that's key. Obviously for people who do not believe in the presence of God, which is now a lot of people, they will stumble at this and never understand Scripture. But remember what 2 Peter 1:20-21 says if you want to get the Biblical view on this: "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 03/26/21 (Fri) 22:21:52 d7ce6f No.854472

>>854471

are you alleging that vatican.va is not a vatican website?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.