![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2021\/05\/JesusAscension2.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Michael J. Alter is the author of the copiously researched, 913-page volume,\u00a0The Resurrection: a Critical Inquiry<\/em><\/a> (2015). I initially offered\u00a0 59 \u201cbrief\u201d replies to as many alleged New Testament contradictions<\/a> (March 2021). We later engaged in amiable correspondence and decided to enter into a major ongoing dialogue about his book. He graciously (and impressively!) sent me a PDF file of it, free of charge, for my review.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Mike describes himself as \u201cof the Jewish faith\u201d but is quick to point out that labels are often \u201cmisleading\u201d and \u201cdivisive\u201d (I agree to a large extent). He continues to be influenced by, for example, \u201cReformed, Conservative, Orthodox, and Chabad\u201d variants of Judaism and learns \u201cfrom those of other faiths, the secular, the non-theists, etc.\u201d Fair enough. I have a great many influences, too, am very ecumenical, and am a great admirer of Judaism, as I told Michael in a combox comment<\/a> on my blog.<\/p>\n He says his book \u201ccan be described as Jewish apologetics\u201d and one that provides reasons for \u201cwhy members of the Jewish community should\u00a0not\u00a0convert to Christianity.\u201d I will be writing many critiques of the book and we\u2019ll be engaging in ongoing discussion for likely a long time. I\u2019m quite excited about it and am most grateful for Mike\u2019s willingness to interact, minus any personal hostility.<\/p>\n To see all the other installments, search \u201cMichael J. Alter\u201d on either my Jews and Judaism<\/a> or Trinitarianism & Christology<\/a> web pages. That will take you to the subsection with the series.<\/p>\n I use RSV for all Bible verses that I cite. His words will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Michael Alter wrote:<\/span><\/p>\n CONTRADICTION #115<\/em> Omissions Detailing the Ascension<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n There is no explicit account of the Ascension in the oldest Christian\u00a0sources: the writings of Paul.<\/span> (p. 701)<\/p>\n Alter will likely appeal to his use of the disclaimer\u00a0\u201cexplicit\u201d<\/span> but there is at least some<\/em> sort of mention in Paul:<\/span><\/p>\n 1 Timothy 3:16<\/strong> . . .\u00a0taken up in glory.<\/span><\/p>\n Ephesians 4:8-10\u00a0<\/strong>Therefore it is said, \u201cWhen he ascended on high he led a host of captives,\u00a0and he gave gifts to men.\u201d\u00a0[9] (In saying, \u201cHe ascended,\u201d what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth?\u00a0[10] He who descended is he who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is reminiscent of what was written about God in the Hebrew Bible:<\/span><\/p>\n Proverbs 30:4-5<\/strong>\u00a0Who has ascended to heaven and come down?\u00a0Who has gathered the wind in his fists?\u00a0Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment?\u00a0Who has established all the ends of the earth?\u00a0What is his name, and what is his son\u2019s name?\u00a0Surely you know!\u00a0[5] Every word of God proves true;\u00a0he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Paul\u2019s words in Ephesians are arguably at least as \u201cexplicit\u201d as the Gospel of Luke, which simply says that He \u201cwas carried up into heaven\u201d (24:51) and Luke\u2019s description in Acts: \u201che was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight\u201d (1:9).<\/span><\/p>\n Matthew (see chapter 28), who church tradition declares to have been an\u00a0apostle and a witness of Jesus\u2019s ascension, failed to report this event.<\/span> (p. 702)<\/p>\n . . . which is not, of course, a \u201ccontradiction.\u201d Marco Polo never mentioned the Great Wall of China. Using the usual hyper-critical, irrational methodology applied to the Bible, this would prove that the Great Wall doesn\u2019t exist, or that Marco Polo never visited China. Christians say that not every book has to have everything about the Christian faith in it. What we needed to know and believe, God saw fit to include somewhere in the New Testament. Other things are also found only or primarily in oral tradition (just as with mainstream pharisaic and rabbinical Judaism).<\/span><\/p>\n John, the author of the last gospel, a person who church tradition declared\u00a0to have been an apostle and a witness of Jesus\u2019s ascension, also did not report\u00a0this event.<\/span> (p. 702)<\/p>\n In fact he does<\/em>\u00a0mention it, three times:<\/span><\/p>\n John 3:13\u00a0<\/strong>No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man.<\/span><\/p>\n John 6:62<\/strong>\u00a0Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?<\/span><\/p>\n John 20:17<\/strong>\u00a0Jesus said to her, \u201cDo not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Only Luke provided an\u00a0exclusive description of Jesus\u2019s ascension, although here there is much to doubt\u00a0regarding the authenticity of this narrative.<\/span> (p. 702)<\/p>\n This is false, as just shown. And as usual, Alter is skeptical of a text that he doesn\u2019t personally care for, while rarely if\u00a0 ever presenting hard evidence<\/strong><\/em> that all these passages he claims aren\u2019t authentic, or are contrived, made up, etc.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n ADDENDUM: Clarifying Note on My Methodology<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n With this reply I have concluded my critique of Michael Alter\u2019s book. In closing I want to clarify one thing about my methodology throughout. Alter made a comment<\/span> in one of my comboxes<\/a>, but seems not to have read my response. Here is the main part of my counter-reply (with his words in<\/span> green<\/span>):<\/span><\/p>\n You imply that I am being deliberately disingenuous again in this reply:<\/span><\/p>\n Unfortunately, Dave has deliberately decided\u00a0not<\/b><\/u>\u00a0to inform his readers about SPECULATION #144 Reasons for Judas\u2019s Betrayal (pp. 453-455).\u00a0The Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry<\/i>\u00a0offers eight speculations plus seven more from Fr. Raymond Brown. Therefore,\u00a0fifteen speculations are shown to the reader<\/u>. . . . Question for Dave, are fifteen speculations sufficient . . .?<\/span><\/p>\n You appear to have missed the method I have been employing throughout my replies. I laid it out very clearly from the beginning (no secrets or mysteries here!): I would respond to accusations of\u00a0contradictions<\/b><\/i>\u00a0in the NT, and do all I could to show that they are unfounded. This was quite obvious in my first \u201c59 Replies\u201d paper and throughout my current replies. I look through your book specifically to find instances of where you allege a contradiction. I utilize the same exact methodology in my replies to atheists when they, too, suggest \u201ccontradictions\u201d in the Bible (and yes, I have defended your \u2014 and my \u2014 Hebrew Bible many many times, too, along with the New Testament).<\/span><\/p>\n I do this not only based on my methodology of \u201cdefeating the defeaters\u201d but also because I figured that if I started tackling your many \u201cSpeculations\u201d and \u201cIssues\u201d [titles of sections] that you would very likely come back and say, \u201cwell, hey, I was only speculating<\/em><\/strong>, as I said!\u201d Therefore, I have stuck to the sections in your book that have \u201cContradictions\u201d in the title of the subsections. You can\u2019t deny that you are asserting contradictions in those<\/em> portions.<\/span><\/p>\n Because of this I didn\u2019t\u00a0read<\/i>\u00a0the section you reference in the first place.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Here is what I wrote in<\/span> my first installment<\/a>, making it clear that I would be focusing on specific allegations of NT contradictions, as opposed to his entire book:<\/span><\/p>\n You\u2019ll soon discover that I have particular interests and am uninterested in other things. That will be true with regard to your book. I am primarily interested in\u00a0<\/span>demonstrating that<\/span> alleged NT contradictions really aren\u2019t so<\/a><\/i>, or \u201cdefeating the defeaters\u201d: as Protestant philosopher Alvin Plantinga likes to say. The idea is to question whether\u00a0internal contradictions<\/i>\u00a0are present, and to refute each one that is alleged. That\u2019s what I did so far in<\/span> my 59 replies to your book<\/a>: based on what I could read of it. So you already see what I will mostly be doing as I proceed.<\/span><\/p>\n I would like to thank Mike Alter again for the opportunity to make all these critiques (made possible because he sent me a PDF file of his book) and to amiably discuss them with him. It\u2019s been an enjoyable and intellectually stimulating challenge, and I learned a lot, as I always do whenever I set out to study and\/or defend the Bible. As usual, we don\u2019t seem to have changed each other\u2019s mind about anything major, but it\u2019s still nevertheless worthwhile to engage on these topics if only to understand other viewpoints better and to entertain sincere and honest objections to our own. Communication is always good. We both agree to let readers make the final judgment regarding our efforts.<\/span><\/p>\n I wish him all the best in life and pray that God showers him with blessings.<\/span><\/p>\n ***<\/span><\/p>\n Photo credit:\u00a0<\/strong>moritz320<\/a>\u00a0(8-17-18) [Pixabay<\/a> \/\u00a0Pixabay License<\/a>]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Summary<\/em>: Michael Alter argued for a supposed absence of the Ascension in St. Paul (not explicitly); then claimed that the Gospel of John didn\u2019t mention it, either. I prove the falsity of both contentions.<\/span><\/p>\n Tags<\/em>:\u00a0alleged Bible contradictions,\u00a0alleged Resurrection contradictions,\u00a0Bible \u201ccontradictions\u201d,\u00a0Bible \u201cdifficulties\u201d,\u00a0Bible Only,\u00a0biblical inspiration,\u00a0biblical prooftexts,\u00a0biblical skeptics,\u00a0biblical theology,\u00a0exegesis,\u00a0hermeneutics,\u00a0Holy Bible,\u00a0inerrancy,\u00a0infallibility,\u00a0Jewish anti-Christian polemics,\u00a0Jewish apologetics,\u00a0Jewish critique of Christianity,\u00a0Jewish-Christian discussion,\u00a0Michael J. Alter,\u00a0New Testament,\u00a0New Testament critics,\u00a0New Testament skepticism,\u00a0Resurrection \u201cContradictions\u201d,\u00a0Resurrection of Jesus,\u00a0The Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry, supposed absence of the ascension, ascension of Jesus<\/span><\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Michael J. Alter is the author of the copiously researched, 913-page volume,\u00a0The Resurrection: a Critical Inquiry (2015). I initially offered\u00a0 59 \u201cbrief\u201d replies to as many alleged New Testament contradictions (March 2021). We later engaged in amiable correspondence and decided to enter into a major ongoing dialogue about his book. He graciously (and impressively!) sent […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":56663,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[448,172],"tags":[4129,12966,6450,525,524,514,2637,1879,1633,1878,1387,1386,535,4068,140,13451,13448,13445,13457,13454,282,13495,13498,13261,1347,13624,13481],"class_list":["post-56662","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-jews-judaism-old-testament","category-trinitarianism-christology","tag-alleged-bible-contradictions","tag-alleged-resurrection-contradictions","tag-ascension-of-jesus","tag-bible-contradictions","tag-bible-difficulties","tag-bible-only","tag-biblical-inspiration","tag-biblical-prooftexts","tag-biblical-skeptics","tag-biblical-theology","tag-exegesis","tag-hermeneutics","tag-holy-bible","tag-inerrancy","tag-infallibility","tag-jewish-anti-christian-polemics","tag-jewish-apologetics","tag-jewish-critique-of-christianity","tag-jewish-christian-discussion","tag-michael-j-alter","tag-new-testament","tag-new-testament-critics","tag-new-testament-skepticism","tag-resurrection-contradictions","tag-resurrection-of-jesus","tag-supposed-absence-of-the-ascension","tag-the-resurrection-a-critical-inquiry"],"yoast_head":"\nIt\u2019s a \u201cnegative\u201d sort of evidence for NT trustworthiness and internal consistency and cohesion. It doesn\u2019t prove<\/em> inspiration, but it is consistent<\/em> with it; that is, inspired revelation\u00a0would not and could not contain real contradictions. And it\u2019s an\u00a0objective\u00a0<\/i>enterprise: one of logic. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\nThis will give you an idea of how I approach these things, and where my main interest in your book lies. I will still have a lot to respond to, because you allege many contradictions.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n