I want to comment on the following paragraph:
"Even within the pious Christian tradition, the language used by the Evangelists to describe the Ascension must be interpreted according to usage. To say that He was taken up or that He ascended, does not necessarily imply that they locate heaven directly above the earth; no more than the words "sitteth on the right hand of God" mean that this is His actual posture. In disappearing from their view "He was raised up and a cloud received Him out of their sight" (Acts 1:9), and entering into glory He dwells with the Father in the honour and power denoted by the scripture phrase, would have had to have been an assumption based on the disappearance."
I do not think that this sentence can be sustained rationally: "To say that He was taken up or that He ascended, does not necessarily imply that they locate heaven directly above the earth". If the destination of Jesus was Heaven and He ascended, the logical conclusion is that Heaven is above the Earth. Otherwise, Jesus did not need to ascend at all. Also, this is the way Elijah and Enoch went to Heaven, which implies that it was a common belief of the time that Heaven was above the Earth (even many centuries afterwards, Mohammed is claimed to have ascended to Heaven on a horse). Also, Apolonius of Tyana and Romulus ascended to Heaven. And in Marcion's Gospel, Jesus is claimed to have come down from Heaven. So this was a common belief, and this what Luke most likely thought about the location of Heaven.
Adding a proforma sig to enable archiving PiCo (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
