After the Resurrection

[the_Radio_Star]

According to the Gospels, Jesus physically arose from the dead. Forty days after his Resurrection, Jesus accended to heaven. We've known for quite some time that heaven isn't in the clouds above us. So where did he go?

Space? How was it possible that nails in his wrist were able to kill him, but going into the vacuum of outer space did not?


A spiritual realm? How can a physical being possibly go into a physical realm? How can something from the physical world go into a spiritual world?

 

[theVirginian]

His body was transformed into what the Bible calls a glorified body. It is able to operate in both dimensions. Don't ask me how, I don't know.

 

[RavenPoe]

We are not physical creatures in a spiritual realm, but spiritual creatures in a physical realm?

 

[ebia]

According to the Gospels, Jesus physically arose from the dead. Forty days after his Resurrection, Jesus accended to heaven. We've known for quite some time that heaven isn't in the clouds above us. So where did he go?

Space? How was it possible that nails in his wrist were able to kill him, but going into the vacuum of outer space did not?


A spiritual realm? How can a physical being possibly go into a physical realm? How can something from the physical world go into a spiritual world?

We don't really have the language (in theology, let alone physics) to describe the relationship between heaven and creation. Suffice to say that they are distinct (at least at the moment).

 

[Phred]

Until someone can offer actual evidence that "heaven" exists and is more than just a fictional place anything anyone says about it is just speculation. "Heaven" doesn't exist until someone can show that it does.

In other words... IT'S A STORY PEOPLE!

 

[selfinflikted]

Hello, it was a miracle? /poe

 

[tapero]

According to the Gospels, Jesus physically arose from the dead. Forty days after his Resurrection, Jesus accended to heaven. We've known for quite some time that heaven isn't in the clouds above us. So where did he go?

Space? How was it possible that nails in his wrist were able to kill him, but going into the vacuum of outer space did not?


A spiritual realm? How can a physical being possibly go into a physical realm? How can something from the physical world go into a spiritual world?

God can do anything. Took Enoch to heaven in chariots in OT. Will rapture those alive at the rapture. God is able to do things. It's His creation.

 

[selfinflikted]

God is able.

God is apparently able to do a great number of supernatural and spectacular things. I wonder why it is that he is either unable, or unwilling to show himself?

 

[tapero]

God is apparently able to do a great number of supernatural and spectacular things. I wonder why it is that he is either unable, or unwilling to show himself?

Hi, I had added more to my text but you quoted while i was editing, but really doesn't change things.

God has revealed Himself to mankind, very much so, in the OT and new when Jesus came.

Next we go to Romans 1, where God says he is plainly seen in His creation.

Then on to the 1000 year reign where Jesus will be there.

Now, I can say, before I came to Christ, I did not see God as evident in creation; however I never spiritually sought God out in any way, didn't think of him,wonder of him, nor was raised about to know about him.

it appears Romans 1 is where we're at, and that the next occurrance (aside from the rapture) in re to seeing God is during the thousand year reign of Jesus.

God does say if you seek me with all you heart and soul and mind and strength you will find me.

So, if one does such, such will occur.

Not sure why God doesn't come to earth now; i imagine because all things are ordained which will come to pass in the future as God will make them come to pass.

Many are coming to Christ though without having a physical appearance, so there doesn't seem a problem there.

Blessed is He who hath not seen but believes.

 

[the_Radio_Star]

We don't really have the language (in theology, let alone physics) to describe the relationship between heaven and creation. Suffice to say that they are distinct (at least at the moment).

Ok, you don't know. That's always a much braver and more respectable answer than made-up-gobbledegook.

 

[the_Radio_Star]

Hello, it was a miracle? /poe

Yes. Every attempt to affairmatively explain how a physical being could enter a spirtual realm as a physical being has been an answer of "magic."

They never should have written the whole "acended into heaven" thing. That's just driving me nuts. There's no heaven in the clouds, so did he just go into outer space? Does that mean he was the first astronaut?

 

[ebia]

Yes. Every attempt to affairmatively explain how a physical being could enter a spirtual realm as a physical being has been an answer of "magic."

They never should have written the whole "acended into heaven" thing. That's just driving me nuts. There's no heaven in the clouds, so did he just go into outer space? Does that mean he was the first astronaut?

What phrase would you have Luke use to describe the indescribable?

 

[Phred]

What phrase would you have Luke use to describe the indescribable?

Made up?

 

[ebia]

Made up?

What? I don't understand the question?

Assuming or a minute that the Assencion really happened, but that the words don't exist to describe the event because it's entirely unique, how would you have Luke describe it?

 

[the_Radio_Star]

What? I don't understand the question?

Assuming or a minute that the Assencion really happened, but that the words don't exist to describe the event because it's entirely unique, how would you have Luke describe it?

If we assume that the author of Luke witnessed this Assencion (he didn't. Mark, the first Gospel, wasn't written until 30 years after Jesus died, Luke would have been even later than that), he could have simply written whatever happened.

 

[ebia]

If we assume that the author of Luke witnessed this Assencion (he didn't. Mark, the first Gospel, wasn't written until 30 years after Jesus died, Luke would have been even later than that), he could have simply written whatever happened.

Not if it was so far from normal human experience that there are no words to do so, especially as:
a. as you note, he probably wasn't there - he is trying to tell a story that has been told to him, probably by multiple people in multiple ways.
b. (like any other 1st century writer) he doesn't have a 20th century unhealthy obsession with factual accuracy over relevant truth.

 

[the_Radio_Star]

Not if it was so far from normal human experience that there are no words to do so, especially as:
a. as you note, he probably wasn't there - he is trying to tell a story that has been told to him, probably by multiple people in multiple ways.
b. (like any other 1st century writer) he doesn't have a 20th century unhealthy obsession with factual accuracy over relevant truth.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but that sounds like something someone would put into their signature in a most hostile sense. You basically said the Bible isn't concerned with factual accuracy.

If the Bible isn't factually accurate, how do we know Jesus ever lived at all? Let alone all of the other stuff?

 

[ebia]

Please don't take this the wrong way, but that sounds like something someone would put into their signature in a most hostile sense.

I don't know what you mean.

You basically said the Bible isn't concerned with factual accuracy.

The bible - like any ancient text - doesn't have factual accuracy as it's primary concern. Regarding factual accuracy as a measure of truthfulness is a modernist thing.

If the Bible isn't factually accurate, how do we know Jesus ever lived at all?

Because that is a fact where it's important that it be accurate. It's important that the ascencion's occurance be factually accurate. The exact date is more symbolic (and may or may not actually be accurate), the precise description doesn't need to be accurate at all.

 

[tapero]

I don't know what you mean.


The bible - like any ancient text - doesn't have factual accuracy as it's primary concern. Regarding factual accuracy as a measure of truthfulness is a modernist thing.


Because that is a fact where it's important that it be accurate. It's important that the ascencion's occurance be factually accurate. The exact date is more symbolic (and may or may not actually be accurate), the precise description doesn't need to be accurate at all.

 

[Phred]

What? I don't understand the question?

Assuming or a minute that the Assencion really happened, but that the words don't exist to describe the event because it's entirely unique, how would you have Luke describe it?

I don't assume it really happened...