Anyone find it a little suspicious that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John barely mention Jesus' ascension?

Question

You may recall the story, for example, of Jesus riding a donkey into the city, and the people throwing confetti on him and shouting "Hosanna!" -- whereas Jesus' ascension into heaven is mentioned in two sentences. Two of the four writers ignore it entirely.

You think maybe they wanted to keep the details to a minimum -- perhaps knowing that a simple lie is likely more successful than a detailed lie?

Answer 1

Heh, the funny part is that the end of the book of Mark didn't even exist in earlier versions found recently. It ends with Jesus Crucifixion. It appears as if some monk decided that the book of Mark needed to shore up a few loose ends, so they tacked the post Crucifixion stuff on after the fact.

Makes a pretty good case for fallacy.

Answer 2

Just because you add the word suspicious to your question does not call the fact into question. I do not find it "suspicious". It is an even that needs little explanation as from an earthly vantage point it would seems wonderous yes, but not be completely understood. Plus you may want to check your facts although the Gospel according to Mark in most transalations ends without a discription of the ascension there is an account that although not included in most texts does discribe it....

Mark: 16:19 After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. 16:20 They went out and proclaimed everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the word through the accompanying signs.

What more do you want? Special effects desciptions?
Even taking the usual description from Luke:

Luke: 24:50 Then126 Jesus127 led them out as far as Bethany,128 and lifting up his hands, he blessed them. 24:51 Now129 during the blessing130 he departed131 and was taken up into heaven.132 24:52 So133 they worshiped134 him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy,135 24:53 and were continually in the temple courts136 blessing137 God.138

I see nothing wrong with this. We live in an age of special effects and perhaps the words would come more easily to use(morph, transfigure, transform) these are things we would all understand today. The writers of the Bible wrote what they knew and kept it simple so that ALL may understand and believe. You assume devious and malicious intent. I pray for your tortured soul.

Your statement calls into question what exactly? The validity of the the Bible?(on a single statement? I think not.). The fact that jesus rose into heaven? That is not the sole basis for Chritianity. Jesus was Crusified for our sins, died and was buried on the third day he rose from the dead, all 4 accounts tell of these facts, he is seated at the right hand of the Father...In one way or the other this is told to us in all accounts.
As for your statement: "You think maybe they wanted to keep the details to a minimum -- perhaps knowing that a simple lie is likely more successful than a detailed lie?"

Why say this? As though we have so many other ascensions to compare the details with? That we would be able to prove this one a fraud with more details? Would you recognize the ascension of any being if it occured not 10 feet from your face?

Answer 3

Matthew -- its pretty much implied when Jesus commissions the disciples and say "And surely I will be with you always, to the very end of the Age".

Mark - the earliest gospel ends abruptly, so had the extra ending added on later. Modern translations note this. It is the shortest and simplest though. It was pretty obvious that Jesus had ascended surely to early believers. The ministry, claims, crucifixion and resurrection were the most important things.

Luke - it clearly says it.
Acts - the continuation of Luke - clearly says it.

John - the passages prior to the Passion and Crucifixion has Jesus saying he will leave them to go back to the Father.
Also when Jewish adherents don't like some of his teaching he asks them what will they think if he goes back to the Father, which wasn't the popular Jewish expectation for the Messiah.

Answer 4

It does merit some suspicion. The reason is probably that the method of ascension is not for everybody with ears to know. No, no, no it is not a matter of deceit. rather an unwillingness to impart certain details. God only gives as much knowledge (perception) of His word as a person is willing to accept. That is why Jesus spoke in so many parables. It just wasn't everybody's time , just for some . and so it is to this day. don't worry everybody will have their time.
I hope this helps!

Answer 5

They are not part of those who saw him ascend, they wrote their Book taken from hearsaysand their writings surfaced 65 years after Jesus' death. It is also a suspect for the apostles who claims they are the ones who were able to see him went up bodily meaning you have to take their words for it in case you will ask if other people outside their group saw Jesus ascend. Now it will become more suspiscious if the bones found in the ossuary in Jerusalem was really that of Jesus. ( how can Jesus and Mary, the mother leave fragments of their bones if the church claim they both ascended bodily?)
In fact, you should also suspect why his rising from the dead and getting out of the guarded tomb have different accounts on how he was discovered missing. It is also suspiscious when authorities of the church gave shallow answer that those account were written in different times for different audience.

Answer 6

Yes, it is a little suspicious, along with the fact that each of the gospels tells of it differently or not at all. Also the gospels tell of the finding of Jesus' empty tomb differently, wether it was Mary Magdaline who found it or an angel who pushed aside the boulder.
Who knows what really happened. The gospels were written three hundred years after the events took place. It all depends on how you look at it.

Answer 7

Considering how the Bible was handled from the death of the Apostles until now, and the many omissions that men with their own agendas happen to leave out of the scriptures, I'm amazed, but equally grateful that mention of his Ascension made it into the scripture at all.

Answer 8

Matthew and Luke took alot from Mark which is the earliest gospel......

And they all coincide with one another whether anyone believes that or not.....thus the name 'synopitc'

John stands alone in a sense that it is God's love letter to His people.....but still a gospel and an account of the life of Jesus (from about 30 on)

Answer 9

I find it more than suspicious that the entire story of Jesus falls apart after Jesus death. The descriptions are all different, and take on the quality of legend, not history.

Answer 10

They weren't there personnally so they didn't witness it. Jesus spent very little time with the diciples after his resurection. There were over 500 witnesses of his life after death but few saw the ascension.