I think it has been shown that it is not likely that things in the bible historically happened as described.
That of course doesn’t mean that the whole thing is false. But it does challenge to produce something, anything from the Bible that is 100% veritably true. Is there one historically proven fact that can be said, “this has been verified as true”?
I agree. The most sensible explanation I ever read said that this was a poetical way to say that the appearances of the resurrected Christ stopped. It was time to relate to him in a new way, no longer bound to the earth.
1 Like
Brad
Have you read C S Lewis on this? He points out that for Jesus to “disappear” does not give any indication that he has gone to God, or has even remained in existence, whereas “ascension” is full of meaning in relation to the Hebrew (biblical) worldview that was actually shared by the one who ascended. So the image that appeals more to our materialistic cosmology is also more misleading for our theology. If we take the trouble to recapture the Hebrew worldview, we can learn what we need to know about the event.
Perhaps the best way of thinking about what “really” happened is to remember that the only reality any of us knows is via our own perceptions. Since, by God’s good providence, nobody with a modern worldview witnessed the scene, then the only human reality it had was that perceived through the actual witnesses’ worldview.
Part of the error of our modern, pre-quantum, worldview is, of course, that there is an objective “view from nowhere” independent of human observers (or even of God, since our worldview even to try and see him “objectively”). Thomas Nagel, as well as quantum theory, has demolished that conceit - which leaves us having to look at the ascension through the only eyes that actually witnessed it, rather than our imaginations.
It’s tough on us, but only because our worldview is so limited by “Newtonian” metaphysics.
Jon, haven’t Christians already learned what they need to know about the ascension? I am puzzled by your statement… since you seem to be suggesting that there is something that Christians don’t know about the event (many Christians believe everything concerning the ascension has already been revealed).
What’s said in the parentheses is difficult to make out, can you please clarify.
Tony
1: Yes, I agree - my point was that if we go beyond the Hebrew worldview and try and express it “scientifically”, we lose what we need to know. And partly that’s because God revealed it within that worldview deliberately, not ours.
And so I suggest it’s more productive to try and think in the way they thought to understand the spiritual meaning than to assume we “would have seen it more accurately”.
O would add, though, that though the average Christian has little problem getting the gist of the ascension if they don’t put their skeptical modern hat on, we still are moderns, so there are more riches to be gained by exploring the way the writers/disciples saw the world - that too keeps us from regarding them as “primitive” in some way.
2 You’re quite right - mnissing out the verb “is” made a tricky concept incomprehensible.
My thought was that, in order to think the way we do now, especially in science, we have invented the “view from nowhere”, ie the imaginary “Objective observer” set outside space and time, with a nonb-subjective overview. Point 1 is that relativity and quantum theory have both shown that reality can’t be like that (though it can be convenient for theorising).
Point 2 is that we apply such an idea to “the study of God” as if the “objective observer” could get outside God himself to analyse him. But if there were a “View from nowhere” it would necessarily be God’s view, and would require his self-knowledge.
Does that make more sense?
Yes, that makes more sense Jon, thank you for clarifying. I pretty much already understood what you were getting at, but wanted to make sure before I answered that part of your comment which interested me.
I’ll begin with the second part of your comment first, since it gets to the crux of the issue, and affirm that the imaginary “objective observer” set outside space and time with a non-subjective overview must be the way to examine the theoretical problem—we don’t want our own subjectivity getting in the way of our investigation.
Point (1)—that relativity and quantum theory have both shown that reality can’t be like that, but that it is convenient for theorizing has been established (the objective observer is actually located in the future).
Point (2)—that we apply such an idea to “the study of God” as if the “objective observer” could get outside God himself to analyze Him must be our mode of operation. As you correctly suggest, if there were a “view from nowhere” it would necessarily be God’s view, and would require His self-knowledge. Therefore, since this “view from nowhere” requires God’s self-knowledge, God’s conscious outgrowth is necessarily invoked, and this implies a different aspect of God. Let’s elaborate further and get to the heart of the matter.
Why is it an error for there to be a “view from nowhere” independent of human observers? I beg to differ and don’t consider this an error. As you mentioned in the previous comment concerning C S Lewis…
For this specific reason itself is there a need for an objective “view from nowhere” independent of human observers—because that objective “view from nowhere” is the view that has been reserved for the Messiah and His Bride. (The correct upbringing, an open mind, and the pertinent information to make the necessary connections is what is required here—others, well enough, might put it a different way saying that one must be invited by God’s mercy and grace.) However, we cannot say that this “view from nowhere” is independent even from God [Elohim] since God [Elohim] is omnipresent. Nevertheless, because this “view from nowhere” is located at a specific location in space and time, we can say that only a certain aspect of God [Elohim]—the Messiah and His Bride—are able to see from this “view from nowhere” vantage point. The only way to see the fullness of the truth concerning God [Elohim], God [Yahuwah], the Messiah, and His Bride is from this privileged perspective.
In coming full circle, in regard to the first part of your comment, these considerations are raised. You said;
However, if we do go beyond the Hebrew worldview, do we “really” lose what we need to know? I don’t think so. In reality we have much more to gain. With the addition of western philosophical principles, scientific considerations, and eastern mystical perspectives the Hebrew worldview comes into fullness of splendor. What God revealed at the pinnacle of Hebrew thought 2000 years ago was immediately and intentionally covered up within that first century. Therefore, by strictly remaining in the confines of the Hebrew worldview previous to that pinnacle, without any philosophical, scientific, and eastern mystical considerations, we remain ignorant concerning the objective facts about the reality of the universe, our world, human behavior, and, life and death.
Instead of assuming whether or not we would have seen it more accurately in the first century, wouldn’t it be more productive for us to see it accurately today?
Jon, shouldn’t we conclude that for the most part, the first century people, and disciples for that matter, were primitive until Jesus Christ came along. It was Jesus who brought a fresh spirit to wake the people from their delusions. However, as we know, that spirit was quickly stifled. And instead of being concerned whether we should worry about them being primitive, we should worry more about us moderns being considered primitive, because as it is, many people are still suffering from the same delusions.
I’ll agree with you here Jon if you’re referring to the spiritual knowledge about the “ascension” held by the prophets (obviously, this would entail Jesus as well) and, of course, this would definitely include some of the kings who ruled Ancient Israel and Ancient Judah, and most certainly various members of the priestly sects.
If the genuine meaning of the ascension, shared by the one who ascended, is accurately understood in its Hebrew (biblical) worldview it would explicitly suggest that by God’s good providence some with a modern worldview did actually witness the scene. (Of course I’m referring to the concept of the past lives of the soul—the reincarnation of the soul from parent to child).
Ascension implies the act of ascending; ascend: 1. to move, climb, or go upward; mount; rise: 3. to rise to a higher point, rank, or degree; proceed from an inferior to a superior degree or level: 7. ascend the throne, to become king or queen. Ascension, ascending – ASCENSION Definition & Usage Examples | Dictionary.com
It would be sensible then to consider that the Hebrew (biblical) worldview of the ascension implies the upward progression of the soul (psyche). Through its past lives and numerous incarnations the soul evolves as it reaches for full authentic maturity. This idea, of course, is in line with the eastern mystical tradition of Hindu thought. It is also in line with the concept of evolutionary creationism.
A thought provoking book on the subject is The Seat of the Soul, by Gary Zukav, a graduate of Harvard University. Here is the back-cover copy of the book;
"The Seat of the Soul is about the birth of a new species—and the explosion of human perception past the five senses. It is about the values of the soul—harmony, cooperation, sharing, and reverence for Life. It is about authentic power—the alignment of the personality with the soul. It is about nonphysical guides and Teachers.
The Seat of the Soul is written for the largest, fastest-growing market the world has ever seen or ever will see. That is because the new species is being born inside of us. The Seat of the Soul is about this birth, what it means, and how to participate in it wisely."
I will end with a quote citing the Hindu perspective of Christianity taken from a guide to advanced yoga techniques (inner workings);
"We have concluded our presentation of the mystic teachings underlying the Hindu Philosophies, and shall now pass on to a consideration and presentation of the great Mystic Principles underlying that great and glorious creed of the Western world–the religion, teachings, and philosophy of JESUS THE CHRIST. These teachings, too, as we should remember, are essentially Eastern in their origin, and source, although their effects are more pronounced in the Western world. Underlying the teaching and philosophy of the Christ are to be found the same esoteric principles that underlie the other great systems of philosophies of the East. Covered up though the Truth be by the additions of the Western churches and sects, still it remains there burning brightly as ever, and plainly visible to one who will brush aside the rubbish surrounding the Sacred Flame and who will seek beneath the forms and non-essentials for the Mystic Truths underlying Christianity.
We realize the importance of the work before us, but we shrink not from the task, for we know that when the bright Light of the Spirit, which is found as the centre of the Christian philosophy, is uncovered, there will be great rejoicing from the many who while believing in and realizing the value of the Eastern Teachings, still rightly hold their love, devotion and admiration for Him who was in very Truth the Son of God, and whose mission was to raise the World spiritually from the material quagmire into which it was stumbling."
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 4 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.