Appearance and Ascension of the Gods:
MANY cases are related by their respective sacred narratives of the
ancient Saviors, and other beings possessing the form of man, and previously
recognized as men, reappearing to their disciples and friends, after having
been consigned to the tomb for three days, or a longer or shorter period of
time, and of their final ascension to the house of many mansions. It is
related of the Indian or Hindoo Savior Chrishna, that after having risen
from the dead, he appeared again to his disciples. "He ascended to
Voiacantha (heaven), to Brahma," the first person of the trinity (he himself
being the second), and that as he ascended, "all men saw him, and exclaimed,
'Lo! Chrishna's soul ascends to his native skies.'" And it is further related
that, "attended by celestial spirits, ... he pursued by his own light the
journey between earth and heaven, to the bright paradise whence he had
descended."
Of the ninth incarnation of India, the Savior Sakia, it is declared,
that he "ascended to the celestial regions;" and his pious and devout
disciples point the skeptic to indelible impressions and ineffaceable
footprints on the rocks of a high mountain as an imperishable proof of the
declaration that he took his last leave of earth and made his ascent from
that point.
It is related of the crucified Prometheus, likewise, that after having
given up the ghost on the cross, "descended to hell" (Christ's soul was "not
left in hell," see Acts ii 31), "he rose again from the dead, and ascended
into heaven."
And then it is declared of the Egyptian Savior Alcides, that "after
having been seen a number of times, he ascended to a higher life," going up,
like Elijah, in "a chariot of fire."
The story of the crucifixion of Quexalcote of Mexico, followed by his
burial, resurrection and ascension, is distinctly related in the "holy" and inspired "gospels" of that country, which Lord
Kingsborough admitted to be more than two thousand years old.
Of Laotsi of China, it is said that when "he had completed his mission of
benevolence, he ascended bodily alive into the paradise above." (Prog. of Rel
. Ideas, vol. 214.) And it is related of Fo of the same country, that having
completed his glorious mission on earth, he "ascended back to paradise, where
he had previously existed from all eternity."
It is related also in the ancient legends, that the Savior or God
Xamalxis of Thrace, having died, and descended beneath the earth, and
remained there three years, made his appearance again in the fourth year
after his death, as he had previously foretold, and eventually ascended to
heaven about 600 B.C. Even some of the Hindoo saints are reported in their
"holy" and time-honored books to have been seen ascending to heaven. "And
impressions on the rocks are shown," says an author, "said to be of
footprints they had left when they ascended."
It is related both by the Grecian biographer Plutarch, in his life of
Romulus, and by a Roman historian, that the great founder of Rome (Romulus)
suddenly ascended in a tempest during a solar eclipse, about 713 B.C. And
Julius Proculis, a Roman senator of great fame and high reputation, declared,
under solemn oath, that he saw him, and talked with him after his death.
In common with most other religious conceptions, the doctrine of the
ascension has in the ancient legends an astronomical representation.
Having said that a planet was buried because it sunk below the horizon,
when it returned to light and gained its state of eminence, they spoke of it
as dead, risen again, and ascended into heaven. (Volney, p. 143.) What is the
story of the ascension of Christ worth in view of these ancient pagan
traditions of earlier origin?
ASCENSION OF THE CHRISTIAN SAVIOR
The different scriptural accounts of the ascension of Christ are, like the
different stories of the resurrection, quite contradictory, and, hence,
entitled to as little credit. In Luke (xxiv.), he is represented as ascending
on the evening of the third day after the crucifixion. But the writer of
Acts (i. 3) says he did not ascend till forty days after his resurrection;
while, according to his own declaration to the thief on the cross, "This day
shalt thou be with me in paradise," he must have ascended on the same day of
his crucifixion. Which statement must we accept as inspired, or what is
proved by such contradictory testimony?
Which must we believe, Paul's declaration that he was seen by above five
hundred of the brethren at once (i Cor. xv. 6), or the statement of the
author of the Acts (i. 15), that there were but one hundred and twenty
brethren in all after that period? How would his ascension do anything
toward proving his divinity, unless it also proves the divinity of Enoch
and Elijah, who are reported to have ascended long prior to that era?
As these stories of the ascension of Christ, according to Lardner, were
written many years after his crucifixion. is it not hence probable they grew
out of similar stories relative to the heathen Gods long previously
prevalent in oriental countries?
As these gospel writers could not have been present to witness the
ascension, as it must have occurred before their time of active life, does
not this fact of itself seriously damage the credibility of the accounts,
and more especially as neither Mark nor Luke, who are the only reporters of
the occurrence, were not disciples of Christ at the time, while Matthew and
John, who were, say nothing about it? -- another fact which casts a shade on
the credibility of the story. |
