iuhoosier11 wrote:


Holy smokes jmog, where did you come from? Haven't seen you on the Huddle in forever. I was just thinking the other day, "what ever happened to that guy?" Nice to have you over here.

jmog had to take a long break from JJ, but I heard about the charges and about this new site and decided to check it out.

Strapping Young Lad wrote:
Can you point out where he said he would raise from the dead, not denying he didn't, but i'd just like to read it...

Just a quick search through Matthew, I haven't checked Mark, Luke, and John yet but I'm sure he did in those 3 as well.

Matthew 16:21
Matthew 17:22-23
Matthew 20:17-19

jmog wrote:

Strapping Young Lad wrote:
Can you point out where he said he would raise from the dead, not denying he didn't, but i'd just like to read it...

Just a quick search through Matthew, I haven't checked Mark, Luke, and John yet but I'm sure he did in those 3 as well.

Matthew 16:21
Matthew 17:22-23
Matthew 20:17-19

Ahh I see. Well I think it is that some or many biblical scholars (at least the skeptics) don't take the words in red as things Jesus actually said, but things that redactors 'put in red', so to speak, many years later.

I know of scholars who hold the position that Jesus never actually claimed to be the Messiah or claimed that he would rise.

The reason you find passages like the examples you've given from Mathhew, is that generations later when editors wrote in the parts about him rising from the dead, it makes sense to also edit in a few lines about him prophesing these events, while your at it.

It makes him appear to have some other-worldy knowledge of the future...."well he knew he would be killed then rise on the third day, he must be the son of God".... That's the problem w/ the Bible. It has been edited by so many hands and so long after the actual events, stories become embellished.

It's the same principal with any kind of historical books....the longer after the actual events that the stuff was written down the more likey it strays from the truth....you probably already knew that.

Hope to hear back from you.....jmog.

Strapping Young Lad wrote:

Ahh I see. Well I think it is that some or many biblical scholars (at least the skeptics) don't take the words in red as things Jesus actually said, but things that redactors 'put in red', so to speak, many years later.

I know of scholars who hold the position that Jesus never actually claimed to be the Messiah or claimed that he would rise.

The reason you find passages like the examples you've given from Mathhew, is that generations later when editors wrote in the parts about him rising from the dead, it makes sense to also edit in a few lines about him prophesing these events, while your at it.

It makes him appear to have some other-worldy knowledge of the future...."well he knew he would be killed then rise on the third day, he must be the son of God".... That's the problem w/ the Bible. It has been edited by so many hands and so long after the actual events, stories become embellished.

It's the same principal with any kind of historical books....the longer after the actual events that the stuff was written down the more likey it strays from the truth....you probably already knew that.

Hope to hear back from you.....jmog.

So, I give you examples and then you throw out a blanket statement that basically says "well, Jesus never really said anything that we know of, it was all edited/changed later".

Sorry, but the burden of proof is now on you, show me proof that the things in the Bible attributed to Jesus, were changed/added in later. Prove/show me some evidence of that other than some opinion statement that some scholars believe it was added/edited later.

I wouldn't call the life's work of university scholar's a mere opinion....I'll have to do some research but I hope to continue this debate.

Quickly though, on the disharmony of the Gospels I've found a claim that only Luke mentions the Ascenscion and gives two different dates.....the first in April, then one forty days later in May.
One date appear in his Gospel, the other in his Acts of the Apostles.

I'm only going off of a recording and don't have a Bible nearby, but surely, assuming this is true (I'm sure it is as it comes from a very reliable source, a PhD in biblical studies of some sort)you recognize that there are variances even from one gospel to the next....and failing to mention the Acsension is a major point for three of four to have missed.

Strapping Young Lad wrote: I wouldn't call the life's work of university scholar's a mere opinion....I'll have to do some research but I hope to continue this debate.

Quickly though, on the disharmony of the Gospels I've found a claim that only Luke mentions the Ascenscion and gives two different dates.....the first in April, then one forty days later in May.
One date appear in his Gospel, the other in his Acts of the Apostles.

I'm only going off of a recording and don't have a Bible nearby, but surely, assuming this is true (I'm sure it is as it comes from a very reliable source, a PhD in biblical studies of some sort)you recognize that there are variances even from one gospel to the next....and failing to mention the Acsension is a major point for three of four to have missed.

The Ascension wasn't a major theme of the New Testament or the life/message of Jesus. Its not a surprise that only 1 of them describe it in detail. Also, that doesn't mean that it isn't mentioned anywhere else...it is mentioned in no less than: John, 1 Peter, Ephesians, 1 Timothy, and Mark.

The two spots the Ascension is mentioned, Luke 24 and Acts 1 (both books written by Luke) do not, to my knowledge, mention a month like you are saying. Luke just describes the scene giving no time frame, and Acts describes it as being 40 days after he rose from the dead (Easter Sunday morning), but since we know that the Jewish calendar and our calendar are slightly different (which is why Easter is sometimes in March and sometimes in April) I know for a fact that neither Luke or Acts mentions a specific month.

All this is from memory, I do not have my Bible right in front of me, and for some reason religious websites are blocked at work, so I can't even look it up .

Well I STRONGLY disagree w/ you about the importance of the Acsension...While I understand It's not a theme,but an event, I don't think we can kid ourselves by thinking it was not important enough to include in the Gospels......IT'S THE ASCENSION INTO HEAVEN!!!!!!! LOL

You'll have to agree that far less important things are included than the ASCENSION INTO HEAVEN....I mean THAT is not something we see everyday and if we did I have a feeling it'd be worth mentioning.....
I'll check it out but I'm willing to bet that if Dr Sheehan (I'm getting my info from a recording of a course he teaches at Stanford called "the Historical Jesus") says only one gospel, that of Luke mentions it, he's correct.....

He's been at this for a lot of years and is extremely knowledgable....I'd bet if he said something false which is easy to check out, someone would've called him on it prior.....

So I'll make you point out where the Ascension is mentioned....

As far as the 'forty days later', i don't think it's mentioned in the Book... Not sure if it's lost in translation in our English version or this is a date that historians dug up, but it's not that important....

My main point is that even these Gospels are not in harmony when telling Jesus story and that may not bode well for some of what many accept as HARD FACT about who Jesus actually was....

We've seen historical figures become mythologized in the years after their death....we see this in Roman history w/ the Caesars, as some of their life becomes almost miraculous, in writing after their death. I'm thinking it could be the same w/ Jesus.....

Hope to get your input on this...No rush.

jmog wrote:
Its not really that hard to tell what is a "life lesson" and what is a story to be taken literally, all it takes is some reading and contextual understanding.

Apparently it is hard to tell as Bible scholars, and even different denominations, argue over what to take literal and what is just a parable.

Strapping Young Lad wrote: Well I STRONGLY disagree w/ you about the importance of the Acsension...While I understand It's not a theme,but an event, I don't think we can kid ourselves by thinking it was not important enough to include in the Gospels......IT'S THE ASCENSION INTO HEAVEN!!!!!!! LOL

You'll have to agree that far less important things are included than the ASCENSION INTO HEAVEN....I mean THAT is not something we see everyday and if we did I have a feeling it'd be worth mentioning.....
I'll check it out but I'm willing to bet that if Dr Sheehan (I'm getting my info from a recording of a course he teaches at Stanford called "the Historical Jesus") says only one gospel, that of Luke mentions it, he's correct.....

He's been at this for a lot of years and is extremely knowledgable....I'd bet if he said something false which is easy to check out, someone would've called him on it prior.....

So I'll make you point out where the Ascension is mentioned....

As far as the 'forty days later', i don't think it's mentioned in the Book... Not sure if it's lost in translation in our English version or this is a date that historians dug up, but it's not that important....

My main point is that even these Gospels are not in harmony when telling Jesus story and that may not bode well for some of what many accept as HARD FACT about who Jesus actually was....

We've seen historical figures become mythologized in the years after their death....we see this in Roman history w/ the Caesars, as some of their life becomes almost miraculous, in writing after their death. I'm thinking it could be the same w/ Jesus.....

Hope to get your input on this...No rush.

I didn't say it wasn't an interesting event from a human perspective, but its not a major theme of the New Testament.

However, you are incorrect, Mark chapter 16 references the ascension as well. Mark 16:19 "So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God"

Sounds like a Gospel reference to the Ascension to me.

It was also mentioned in many of the epistles from 1 Peter, 1 Timothy, Ephesians, etc. So, throw in Mark, Luke, and Acts and you have at least half a dozen references to the Ascension, hardly just the twice (Luke/Acts) you initially said.

I just read Luke, Mark, and Acts. Acts is the only one that gives a date, I looked through a book also that I have that goes through the original greek, and Acts is still the only one that gives a date (40 days after the resurrection).

eersandbeers wrote:

jmog wrote:
Its not really that hard to tell what is a "life lesson" and what is a story to be taken literally, all it takes is some reading and contextual understanding.

Apparently it is hard to tell as Bible scholars, and even different denominations, argue over what to take literal and what is just a parable.

I think you are confusing parables (stories that Jesus used to teach lessons on how to live) with allegory and metaphors used throughout the Bible to describe prophesies and other lessons.

There is a huge difference.

Also, when I say its "easy" I didn't mean that some people won't disagree, I just mean that you name a part of the Bible and I'll tell you if it should/could be taken literally or if it should be figuratively taken.

jmog wrote:

Strapping Young Lad wrote: Well I STRONGLY disagree w/ you about the importance of the Acsension...While I understand It's not a theme,but an event, I don't think we can kid ourselves by thinking it was not important enough to include in the Gospels......IT'S THE ASCENSION INTO HEAVEN!!!!!!! LOL

You'll have to agree that far less important things are included than the ASCENSION INTO HEAVEN....I mean THAT is not something we see everyday and if we did I have a feeling it'd be worth mentioning.....
I'll check it out but I'm willing to bet that if Dr Sheehan (I'm getting my info from a recording of a course he teaches at Stanford called "the Historical Jesus") says only one gospel, that of Luke mentions it, he's correct.....

He's been at this for a lot of years and is extremely knowledgable....I'd bet if he said something false which is easy to check out, someone would've called him on it prior.....

So I'll make you point out where the Ascension is mentioned....

As far as the 'forty days later', i don't think it's mentioned in the Book... Not sure if it's lost in translation in our English version or this is a date that historians dug up, but it's not that important....

My main point is that even these Gospels are not in harmony when telling Jesus story and that may not bode well for some of what many accept as HARD FACT about who Jesus actually was....

We've seen historical figures become mythologized in the years after their death....we see this in Roman history w/ the Caesars, as some of their life becomes almost miraculous, in writing after their death. I'm thinking it could be the same w/ Jesus.....

Hope to get your input on this...No rush.

I didn't say it wasn't an interesting event from a human perspective, but its not a major theme of the New Testament.

However, you are incorrect, Mark chapter 16 references the ascension as well. Mark 16:19 "So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God"

Sounds like a Gospel reference to the Ascension to me.

It was also mentioned in many of the epistles from 1 Peter, 1 Timothy, Ephesians, etc. So, throw in Mark, Luke, and Acts and you have at least half a dozen references to the Ascension, hardly just the twice (Luke/Acts) you initially said.

I just read Luke, Mark, and Acts. Acts is the only one that gives a date, I looked through a book also that I have that goes through the original greek, and Acts is still the only one that gives a date (40 days after the resurrection).

I won't deny that the Ascension may be mentioned in a half-dozen places throughout the entire text, but remember I'm focusing on the more narrow task of The Four Gospels.....

You're partially correct about Mark containg mention of the Ascension. The final twelve verses of Mark are missing from the original manuscript...The style of these twelve verses, which are found in a younger manuscript, are written in a different style from the rest of the entire text of Mark....This suggests they were added by another editor at a later date....There actually are four (and maybe even more) endings for Mark's gospel, in all.....

You can see how this can be confusing...As I mentioned earlier, it is usually assumed that the closer the recording of an event is to the event itself, the more credible it is...

Now, I realize you dispute the importance of the Ascension..I still must disagree with that view...Any prophet can be murdered, but what sets Christ apart is the idea that he rose from the dead and then ascended into Heaven....I'm willing to bet that if I asked my Pastor or if you asked yours, he'd rank the Acension within the top three events surrounding Jesus' life...I'd place the events in this order: 1) the Ressurection 2) Birth 3) the Ascension...

I doubt you can deny the fact that events much, MUCH less important than Ascension are recorded by the Gospel writers....

So, since you deny the 'newsworthiness' of the Ascension by 3 of the 4 Gospel writers, I 'd ask you: why do think Luke found this event to be significant enough to mention twice, while the other merely shrug it off????

Why do you believe that these discrepancies exist in the Gospels???

Strapping Young Lad wrote:

I won't deny that the Ascension may be mentioned in a half-dozen places throughout the entire text, but remember I'm focusing on the more narrow task of The Four Gospels.....

You're partially correct about Mark containg mention of the Ascension. The final twelve verses of Mark are missing from the original manuscript...The style of these twelve verses, which are found in a younger manuscript, are written in a different style from the rest of the entire text of Mark....This suggests they were added by another editor at a later date....There actually are four (and maybe even more) endings for Mark's gospel, in all.....

You can see how this can be confusing...As I mentioned earlier, it is usually assumed that the closer the recording of an event is to the event itself, the more credible it is...

Now, I realize you dispute the importance of the Ascension..I still must disagree with that view...Any prophet can be murdered, but what sets Christ apart is the idea that he rose from the dead and then ascended into Heaven....I'm willing to bet that if I asked my Pastor or if you asked yours, he'd rank the Acension within the top three events surrounding Jesus' life...I'd place the events in this order: 1) the Ressurection 2) Birth 3) the Ascension...

I doubt you can deny the fact that events much, MUCH less important than Ascension are recorded by the Gospel writers....

So, since you deny the 'newsworthiness' of the Ascension by 3 of the 4 Gospel writers, I 'd ask you: why do think Luke found this event to be significant enough to mention twice, while the other merely shrug it off????

Why do you believe that these discrepancies exist in the Gospels???

So now you want to only talk about the Gospels and leave the rest of the canonical New Testament out? Interesting I guess, but we can keep talking about Acts even though its not a gospel...you need to pick one direction and run with it, either only talk about the gospels or talk about the whole New Testament, one or the other.

Sorry, but you talk to any pastor who believes in the sin sacrifice of Christ which is the MAIN FOCUS of the New Testament, they'd rank the death on the cross, is preceding trials and torture, etc ranked far more important than the ascension.

You can also deny the way Mark ends all you like, and that's an interesting theory, but its a HUGE assumption at best, not fact. The fact remains that the last 12 versus of Mark were in tact when the the Council of Nicea gathered all of the early Christian texts and combined them to form the New Testament we have today. I would think that Bible scholars who were only 200 years removed from the time in question would be better suited to determine if Mark had the correct ending or not than someone 2000 years later.

Think about it, right now we have a pretty good understanding of how the Declaration of Independence went down 200 years ago, but 2000 years from now do you really think someone would be better suited to now tell us that we got it wrong? You fully admit that the closer to the time of the actual happenings the more accurate the texts. I agree with this whole heartedly, which is why I trust the Council of Nicea with regards to the book of Mark's validity over some Bible scholar now.

Also, I would put some of Jesus' teachings above the ascension as well, specifically the sermon on the mount.

To be honest, you even listed the birth as #2, but you do realize that only Luke goes into detail of his birth right? Why are you not as up in arms about the other 3 gospels not discussing the birth as in detail as luke, as you are with regards to the ascension?

Lastly, just because only one or 2 gospels mentions a particular event does not mean its a "discrepancy", it just means the person writting said gospel apparently did not think that event was as important as many others.

FYI, there are only about 3 events in Jesus' life that are recorded in all 4 gospels. His death/resurrection, and his feeding of 5000...thats it, in his 30some years of life, only 3 events are recorded in all 4 gospels.

Why would that be? Well, they are 4 different accounts of the same man's ministry. Just like when police talk to 4 different witnesses of the same exact crime the reports/stories aren't told the exact same way. Some people find different parts of the story more interesting and it sticks out in their mind more.

First, I've been focusing on the disharmony of the Gospels since the go, but you're right about the sacrifice being first so that' push the Ascension to fourth on the list of the importance....


Now, as far as the theory on the ending of Mark not being fact, this theory goes a lot deeper than what I've mentioned here and these things are judged with the same principals as anything else is judged by historical methods....

That's one thing that really bothers me about debating Christians on the accuracy of scripture...Their whole worldview is based on assumptions and faith in an unseen sky god who keeps records of our every action, yet you want to talk palpable facts?????

My facts are far more tangible than anything Christianity can offer....

Give me a break....you surely don't question the accuracy of the historical method with such vigor in regard to other areas of ancient history, do you???? If so, then we know nothing of the history of civilization and historical figures, in your eyes...Why so skeptical of the methods of history and archaeology when it comes to the Bible and Jesus????

I don't scoff at these findings as assumptions....they are methodical findings. How would you propose that I "prove" these things to you???? I can site the work done on the topic for two centuries by historians, but you don't seem willing to accept that, so how?????

As far as the council of Nicea having the correct information, by 325 AD Christ had become mythologized greatly in the centuries that had past since his death...those in attendance at the council were not alive at the time of Jesus and his followers...I contend they had LESS of an advantge on discerning historical accuracy than we have today....

The attendees certainly were not interested in giving a historical analysis of the texts...

If you are not willing to accept two centuries ofhistorical analysis of the Gospels, why should I accept the ability of the Council members to have accepted the correct texts and omitted the incorect ones in a matter of months?????

This particular discrepancy in the Gospels is simply the first one I've uncovered but there are more questions I have concerning the historicity of Jesus...and I will follow a direction, but there is no outline for this debate.

I still fail to see how one gospel describing the ascension (now 4th on your list) while the others don't as a "discrepancy".

Then in your eyes nearly the whole set of 4 gospels are "discrepancies" since only 3 events in Jesus' life are recorded in all 4. The birth, in your own admission of "importance" is higher than the ascension, is only detailed in Luke. Why no outrage there?

I am not negating your "historical methods", but I am saying that they are not proof that the last 12 verses of Mark were from a different author.

You hate to debate Christians because our whole worldview is based on faith in some "sky god"? Is having faith that some glob of proteins turned into humans over billions of years really that much easier to believe in? Not that I want to turn this into a creation vs evolution debate, but to believe in a "sky god" is no less "insane" than believing in evolution, as a matter of fact some of the smartest men that ever lived have argued that the more they learn about science the more they realize there IS a God.


You don't know ANYTHING about my "worldview" but you started with the "hostile tones" in the last one and started to get derogatory with the "man I hate debating Christians because of their worldview in some 'sky god'".

I would venture to bet that when it comes to science and how the world works in a scientific form, I bet I understand as much or more than just about anyone on the huddle. There are other areas I know little about, but science is not one of them.

If you ever want to get into radiometric dating (Carbon 14, Uranium-Lead, etc) techniques and the actuall problems with accuracies and wrong assumptions made with them, we can get into that anytime you'd like.

Like I said that merely ONE small example of how out of tune the four gospel writers seem to be....Yes, In my eyes the whole set of gospels are discrepant....

Yes, I placed the Ascension third but i was thinking of the EVENTS, sort of, under the umbrella of the sacrifice, as that is the major theme of Christianity...Yet you act like there is a huge difference between moving an event from 3 to 4...I am thinking if one were to rank all the events of Jesus' life (all mentioned in either of the four Gospels, anyhow) in order of importance... I hardly see much difference between placing something third or fourth...Point is it is near the top and therefore very important....

Let's just be honest, I will prove nothing more here than you will....But I still fail to see any ideas of yours being able to defend the historicity of these texts....

If the 12 verses were not from a different author, what is your opinion why Mark "chose" to completely change the style for this tiny but important portion of the text????

I never alluded to my view on the creation of our existence so not sure where you are going with that....

Never said "hate" or became hostile, just frustrated that I give good evidence for something then you ask for "proof", when Christianity is based on something far from proof...

Like I said, why should I trust the Council of Nicea got things right in only a few months while you discount two centuries of historical work????? Should I opt for the simple defense of asking you for some "proof"???

And, if you still think the Ascension is a take-it-or-leave-it event, I think the Council's attendees would disagree...They were sure to mention this event in the Nicean Creed, adopted at their meeting in 325....

Any answers to my questions????

I'll post them again: Why do you think Luke (and for your benefit Mark) are the only ones who choose to mention the ascension???? Was it more important to them for some reason??? Less important to the other two gospel writers???

Why do think Mark would choose to change the style of his writing for these last verses??? I believe he was still writing fo rthe same audience....Does that seem odd to you???

Strapping Young Lad wrote:

I'll post them again: Why do you think Luke (and for your benefit Mark) are the only ones who choose to mention the ascension???? Was it more important to them for some reason??? Less important to the other two gospel writers???

Why do think Mark would choose to change the style of his writing for these last verses??? I believe he was still writing fo rthe same audience....Does that seem odd to you???

1. The same reason only Luke goes into detail of the birth, Luke was a medical doctor and would go more into semantics of physical things like births and ascensions while the other two main gospel writers (Matthew and John) were disciples of Jesus, Matthew was a tax collector and John was a fishermen, they would stick closer to the content of Jesus' ministry than some single event. I'm sorry, but to be honest the Ascension is not that important when it comes to what a Christian believe as the main Creed/believe system that surrounds Jesus' ministry. His virgin birth is important, his death, burial, and resurrection is important, his sermons and teachings are important, his Great Commision (given just before the Ascension) is important, but how he got to Heaven is not that important.

2. Mark could have easily written the two different passages years apart, he went on missionary journeys just like Peter and Paul did, so possibly he stopped and wrote the part months or even years apart, and as people get older their thinking/styles can change. Just a possibility, just like its a possibility that it wasn't written by Mark.

If you don't see you were "hostile" with snide remarks then you need to re-read your post about "belief in a sky god" and "don't like debating with Christians", it was disrespectful, just as if I would have said that everyone who doesn't believe the Bible is an idiot.

How he got to heaven is not important??? Ok, I'll play along...Anyhow, accordingly, he did ascend into heaven...Now, you say you believe that most biblical events are to be interpreted literally, so do you include the ascension as an event to be taken literally????

BTW, I still disagree w/ your nonchalant attitude toward the ascension. It's "not that important when it comes to what a Christian believe(s) as the main Creed/believe system....", you say. The ascension certainly is mentioned in the Nicean Creed and still included in the Apostles Creed today, which is a profession of exactly what beliefs a Christian holds. This is said every time a Catholic Mass is conducted and used by all denominations that I'm familiar with, so it's definately relevent...That seems to directly contradict your above quote....

I'm pretty sure Christian religion is based on the belief in a god who resides in the heavens...My sky-god comment seems accurate to me...I don't like when Christians desire some "proof", when evidence is provided, as if they can provide some "proof" themselves...It's unfair for you to expect me to "prove" something to you, or visa versa...I wouldn't ask you to "prove" God's existance just provide strong evidence that points to it...And your right, if I would called you an idiot that would be disrespectful, however I never have so....

If you can't see how "sky god" was demeaning, then maybe the conversation should be over because your biased attitude skews your thinking.

Yes, I take the Ascension literally, but to be honest, you go into any Protestant church I'd bet that the message that Christ gave right before his Ascension (the Great Commision) is preached 100 times more often than the Ascension itself. The Ascension itself is more important to people who like to look more at technicalities of how Jesus became a man and how he left the Earth.

I'm not saying its not important at all, I'm not saying I don't believe in it, I'm just saying that in my 30 years of going to church I bet I've actually only heard a few sermons preached on the Ascension, but things like the birth, death/burial, resurrection, sermon on the mount (HUGE importance for Christians and how they should live), and most of Jesus' actual teachings are preached 100s of times more often than the physicality of the Ascension.

You keep neglecting to answer my question of why no outcry of Jesus' birth not described in detail in all 4 gospels, if you are that up in arms about the Ascension.

Like I said above, there are only 3 events in all of Jesus' life recorded in all 4, his death/burial, his resurrection, and the feeding of the 5000. All 4 writers gave their view of things that happened, and just like if you had 4 witnesses of the same event, they would all tell slightly different aspects of the same event.

If you took offense to 'sky-god' then I apologize, but people objectively refer to gods throughout history as sky-gods, sun-gods, etc., accordingly, despite the realization that these gods certainly had names of their own by the people who worshipped them.....once again my apologies.

Also, I do question the authenticity of most events recorded in the Gospels, but you've requested that I choose a direction and stick with it, so I've chosen the ascension as my focus for the moment......you accuse me of jumping from topic to topic, then ridicule me for sticking to a single topic...maybe it's you who are hostile???? I hope we both can continue, favorably.

Now, when I imagine the ascension being a literal event I encounter questions, to say the least.....If Jesus ascended, even traveling at the speed of light he would still, at this point in time, not have been able to escape the Milky Way galaxy. Has your religion implied anything, based on physical laws and our knowledge of the universe, on the whereabouts of Jesus at the moment, the location of heaven, or anything along these lines??? If it hasn't what are your views on these topics, if any????

You said you know a lot about science. Perhaps you can explain the literal ascension further....

Strapping Young Lad wrote: If you took offense to 'sky-god' then I apologize, but people objectively refer to gods throughout history as sky-gods, sun-gods, etc., accordingly, despite the realization that these gods certainly had names of their own by the people who worshipped them.....once again my apologies.

Also, I do question the authenticity of most events recorded in the Gospels, but you've requested that I choose a direction and stick with it, so I've chosen the ascension as my focus for the moment......you accuse me of jumping from topic to topic, then ridicule me for sticking to a single topic...maybe it's you who are hostile???? I hope we both can continue, favorably.

Now, when I imagine the ascension being a literal event I encounter questions, to say the least.....If Jesus ascended, even traveling at the speed of light he would still, at this point in time, not have been able to escape the Milky Way galaxy. Has your religion implied anything, based on physical laws and our knowledge of the universe, on the whereabouts of Jesus at the moment, the location of heaven, or anything along these lines??? If it hasn't what are your views on these topics, if any????

You said you know a lot about science. Perhaps you can explain the literal ascension further....

Not everything religious can be explained in scientific terms. Most Christians do not know, nor can they conceive where heaven is located.

So, trying to the explain the metaphysics on Jesus' Ascension is pointless to someone who envisions everything in the abstract.

Religious faith is just that...faith. Just as Christians, (or Muslims for that matter) cannot prove such things, you cannot prove the non existence of a deity, as Jmog already pointed out.

I don't really understand why anyone is so interested in debating religion. What exactly is the point of doing so?

If you don't believe in the concept of a Supreme Being, well then good for you. Be happy that you don't live in a theocratic country, where such discussion would lead to your head being chopped off.

Strapping Young Lad wrote: If you took offense to 'sky-god' then I apologize, but people objectively refer to gods throughout history as sky-gods, sun-gods, etc., accordingly, despite the realization that these gods certainly had names of their own by the people who worshipped them.....once again my apologies.

Also, I do question the authenticity of most events recorded in the Gospels, but you've requested that I choose a direction and stick with it, so I've chosen the ascension as my focus for the moment......you accuse me of jumping from topic to topic, then ridicule me for sticking to a single topic...maybe it's you who are hostile???? I hope we both can continue, favorably.

Now, when I imagine the ascension being a literal event I encounter questions, to say the least.....If Jesus ascended, even traveling at the speed of light he would still, at this point in time, not have been able to escape the Milky Way galaxy. Has your religion implied anything, based on physical laws and our knowledge of the universe, on the whereabouts of Jesus at the moment, the location of heaven, or anything along these lines??? If it hasn't what are your views on these topics, if any????

You said you know a lot about science. Perhaps you can explain the literal ascension further....

1. I said you were jumping around and couldn't choose whether to stay in the gospels or include Acts as well, not topics.

You are making some major assumptions with regards to the physics of the Ascension.

1. You are assuming that "heaven" is a physical place that if we found the right place to look we could see it with our telescopes. Many Christians believe heaven is a spiritual place only, not some physical place out in space somewhere.

2. You are assuming, that Jesus can only travel up to the speed of light. Lets assume Christians are correct for a minute and God created the whole universe and set it in motion given the physical laws we now know (gravity, laws of motion, electromagnetics, etc) don't you think if there is a being powerful enough to create these laws, the being would be powerful enough to bend/break them himself? For instance wouldn't this "creator" be able to travel at whatever speed it wanted to whether it was faster than the speed of light or not? You have to also understand that most Christians believe in God's omnipresence, meaning he can be everywhere at all times...this goes against the laws of physical matter as well, I can't be at work and at home at the same time, but God can (according to Christian beliefs).

You assume that the creator of the physical universe, the one that choose the physical laws the universe would adhere to, is not powerful enough to "get around" those laws.

I believe, as does many Christians, that heaven is a literal place, but it might be spiritual or in another "dimension" that we can't see right now, however near the "end times" it will manifest itself in a physical form.

Heaven could also be a physical place even right now, I could easily be wrong, and if it is the distance it is from the Earth is not important, as I said earlier, if Jesus/God created the physical laws of motion (aka can't travel faster than the speed of light) then why can't they break them and travel instantly?

Thanks for your input, and if you don't see the point in debating religion that's certainly up to you.

I don't really know what you expect me to say...People have been debating religion since debate and religion occupied the same time and space, or at least I'm willing to bet that's the case.

But I will tell you why I'm interested...I don't believe there is a God, nor am I willing to say that there is no God. So by debating someone who has a firm belief and is knowledgeable, not only do I get to ask questions on ideas that are confusing to me and hopefully get some refreshing answers, but it also motivates me to study more Scripture and thus learn new information on my own...

So, I enjoy talking religion. I just find it interesting. Maybe you don't but don't assume that others feel that way.

Also I understand that religion requires faith, but even that seems overly simplified....right now there are Muslims out there who possess every bit of faith in their God as you have in yours...but fact is,one or both of you are wrong....

Edit: this post is in response to Footwedge.....