O.K. Dan in further answer to your question "Why not now, why not now? old Sam....." here is why!
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."
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 werebut 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. |
