Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Ask God -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (26281)	7/15/1999 3:06:00 PM
From: Sam Ferguson	Respond to of 39621

While Andy is fetting you that book reference here is something else to check:" 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.