Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox
So, would you say that the Christian thing is just for our galaxy? Aren’t we still trying to determine how many planets there actually are in our galaxy? Symbolism has its place- the gospel of John was full of it. Matthew end with Jesus up on the mountain- closer to heaven? Mark has him go up to heaven, Luke same, John has him eating fish on the sea shore- except he does talk earlier to Mary Mag about ascending.
Heaven plays a major concept in the whole bible and I suspect, up until the Wright brothers, it was still somewhat assumed that heaven was just beyond the clouds, just out of sight. Today, heaven is as nebulous to Christians as 6000 years creation. To say “ Oh, they just didn’t have a full view of the cosmos” or the Bible really wasn’t giving a scientific view of creation, kind of leaves us with a what else is not real- the flood, David, a real Jesus, resurrection? Heaven is one of those things that lost importance, as did discussing creation.
Symbolism doesn’t seem to account for the activities in the book of Acts.
|
No. I was interpreting the Ascension according to the biblical cosmology. You seem to be thinking in terms of the modern scientific cosmology. The ancient writers didn't have access to that. Their symbolism was based on what they could see with the naked eye.
It seems to me that speculating about whether it was real or not real in terms of the modern scientific cosmology leads one down a bottomless rabbit hole. On the other hand reading the text symbolically one may answer the questions what does it mean and what higher truth does it embody in terms of the texts themselves? That would seem to make it relevant to everybody who is conscious.
I'm not sure what you mean about symbolism not accounting for the activities in the book of Acts. Can you explain what you see as the problem?