Greg2003

Why isn't the place of Jesus' ascension (or the fact of his ascension for that matter) particularly important in xianity? Doesn't John imply that jesus stuck around a long time after resurrection and then there's no mention of ascension? If jesus came back in physical form and proved it, why wouldn't his ascension to heaven be just as important as Mohammed's. The Muslims built a mosque. The xtians didn't build anything. Why?

MortalWombat

Maybe because they can't decide which place (and when) the ascension occurred.

Mark 16:14-19 -- The Ascension took place (presumably from a room) while the disciples were together seated at a table, probably in or near Jerusalem.

Luke 24:50-51 -- It took place at Bethany on the same day as the resurrection.

Acts 1:9-12 -- It took place at Mt. Olivet after 40 days.

[ September 30, 2002: Message edited by: MortalWombat ]</p>

Toto

Yes, it's just too embarrassing to confront those contractions on what should be such an important matter. And we have two books of the Bible written by the same person with two different locations. (Luke and Acts, although the Mount of Olives is about 1,200 yards from Jerusalem on the path to Bethany, so the apologists argue that the reference to Bethany should be translated as "on the road to Bethany".)

Matthew and John have no mention of the ascension

Mark places the ascension "in Galilee", after meeting "the eleven". 16:7; 16:14 (most scholars think this was added to Mark at a later date.)

And Paul never mentions the ascension.

David Bowden

And if you think it gives 'em trouble trying to establish exactly where he took off from...

...wait'll you ask 'em exactly where his body ascended to. How far did he go, etc.? Is he still out there, going....?

-David

[ September 30, 2002: Message edited by: David Bowden / wide-eyed wanderer ]</p>

lpetrich

A related question is why Paul showed no interest in where Jesus Christ had lived and died; he visited Jerusalem without showing any interest in where JC had (allegedly) been crucified.

This is in remarkable contrast to the relic-mongering that would begin a few centuries later and that would often reach absurd proportions.

leonarde

From the OP: My speculations:

1)the relationship between the physical and the spiritual was more convoluted in the case of Jesus
than in the case of Mohammed. The latter has NEVER
been claimed to be anything other than a man (a man favored by God but a mere man). In Jesus' case, by contrast, you have the idea of TWO natures in one person: there is an interplay between those two natures but sometimes it is difficult or impossible to see where one nature
leaves off and the other takes over. The Resurrection itself was the crucial event of Christian history: the final confirmation of Christ's divinity. Jesus went to great lengths (eating food and asking that Thomas touch the nail holes) to establish the CORPOREALITY of this Resurrection (he was no mere ghost). The Ascension was a sort of reverse Resurrection: NOW you see the single most amazing thing ever seen by a human being, now you see....nothing at all! This overshadowed the importance attached to the Ascension. Since there
was no bodily Resurrection for Mohammed there was
no such overshadowing.

2)The Transfiguration of Christ, witnessed by three apostles, was something LIKE a prefiguring of the Ascension and Peter suggested at that time that 3 booths(?)be erected on the mountain to commemorate it. But this suggestion seems to have
gone over like a lead balloon, possibly because
Jesus was still alive but possibly because such
monuments were alien to Jewish sensibilities of the time.

3)The 30 or 40 days that Jesus "stuck around" after the Resurrection seem to have involved multiple appearances to people in Judea and Gallilee: Jesus walking thru walls or just materializing out of thin air (and presumably dematerializing at some point too). The Ascension would have been just one more dematerialization albeit a sad one since it was the last.

Cheers!

MortalWombat

Or one day, take your pick.

leonarde

I couldn't remember whether it was 40 days or 30.
What's your excuse?

Cheers!

Greg2003

I think his excuse is that Mark and Luke make it sound like he ascends the day of the resurrection. I'm trying to figure out the how the ascension can be taken as literal, proof of Jesus' divinity (regardless of the resurrection overshadowing it) and yet the accounts are contradictory and Christians don't seem interested in the ascension at all.

leonarde

My ideas:

1)the closest disciples, those who saw him post-
Resurrection, knew in a certain sense that he shared the divinity of the Father in a way that
even Elijah did not.

2)therefore the Ascension was not NEEDED to PROVE
any special relationship with God.

3)in the case of Elijah and Mohammed, an ascension without a physical death was itself one of the very strongest signs of being favored by God.

Cheers!