Acts 1:11 (Please Read)

[Della]

Why do you think Jesus stresses all of his expression through figurative language?

Jesus himself told us why he spoke in parables to the crowds, but explained their meaning to his disciples. It was because they were not ready to believe what he had to say. Indeed, he was met with derisions by some, unbelief by others, and astonishment by many. He knew that until the outpouring of the Holy Spirit that we humans would not ready to accept what he had to say. Even his disciples thought he was to be an earthly king after he rose from the dead, not understanding what he meant by his kingdom being among us. He had to disabuse them of that idea even at that point. It was after Pentecost that they understood and began to preach with authority. You need to learn real Bible history and exegesis instead of speculating on your own, as you are doing.

Do you really think Paul literally believed that Jesus would shout from the sky–with a trumpet sound–that would be audible to all? Let alone be seen by all?

Why ever not? Do you think the God who created the universe by simply saying “Let it be” couldn’t make his voice heard to all the earth? You are thinking in earthly terms not divine ones.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Dupe threads merged to conform to Forum Rules

 

[TimGreeley]

Jesus himself told us why he spoke in parables to the crowds, but explained their meaning to his disciples. It was because they were not ready to believe what he had to say. Indeed, he was met with derisions by some, unbelief by others, and astonishment by many. He knew that until the outpouring of the Holy Spirit that we humans would not ready to accept what he had to say. Even his disciples thought he was to be an earthly king after he rose from the dead, not understanding what he meant by his kingdom being among us. He had to disabuse them of that idea even at that point. It was after Pentecost that they understood and began to preach with authority. You need to learn real Bible history and exegesis instead of speculating on your own, as you are doing.

Don’t worry, I’m pretty well-versed. ; ) And the parables of Jesus are not designed for heathen–they’re specifically designed*** for you***. And all of his disciples. While he did elaborate and distill their terms and implications in a couple of examples to those who followed him (disciples), the parables themselves were his main expressive and teaching model. This is agreed by a consensus of scholars. He expressly says this when he’s asked why he speaks in parables. It’s a figurative method of images and metaphors designed to reach into the hearts of those who have his truth in them. So that they be filtered from those who don’t have his truth. And what is that truth? The truth of Love. More specifically? Selflessness.

Why ever not? Do you think the God who created the universe by simply saying “Let it be” couldn’t make his voice heard to all the earth? You are thinking in earthly terms not divine ones.

I believe God could do anything. God is God. But the method of his revealing nature to us isn’t the type shown through the Bible, in my humble opinion, that is going to come in a loud crash at any minute of the day for everyone to see. It goes completely against God’s revealed nature for him to judge at an arbitrary moment’s notice while you’re eating Brunch on a cloudy sunday mid-afternnon in London. Jesus didn’t come from the sky! He came from Earth, as a human who grew to inculcate his impression upon the world. God humbled himself to us to show us humility is the paradigm of his truth. It’s been almost 2000 years without God’s “direct” working in the world after the Second-Temple fell to usher in the Christian Era. When a sign of God does come to all, just as the resurrection did, people will be ready for it. I would hope Jesus comes back, for his mercy is endless, and would offer everyone one last chance before his judgement. He is the King of Mercy.

 

[marymary1975]

Mary, why didn’t the angels say something more to the effect of “Why do you stand looking into the sky? Jesus will come back in due time…” Instead they give their weight to a long strangely-phrased explanation: “Jesus, who has left to Heaven, will come back in the same way he has arrived to Heaven”. Which is in clear contradiction of their original question to the apostles: “Why do you stand looking into Heaven?”

All this occurred as Jesus “was going”–not seconds, minutes, hours, or days after. The Apostles weren’t tarrying. And they were just reminded of their mission by Jesus.

It is not a contradiction because the two statements are talking about two different things. Again, the first statement has to do with the apostles’ mission. They were tarrying! They were terrified, afraid that Jesus was gone, they had no idea what to do, that is why they went to hide with the virgin Mary, they had no idea what was going on little less what Jesus was talking about when he spoke about the holy spirit. The angels were telling them to stop looking at heaven wondering what to do and do their mission because Jesus will be back a second time. There is no contradiction.

 

[Della]

Don’t worry, I’m pretty well-versed. ; ) And the parables of Jesus are not designed for heathen–they’re specifically designed*** for you***. And all of his disciples. While he did elaborate and distill their terms and implications in a couple of examples to those who followed him (disciples), the parables themselves were his main expressive and teaching model. This is agreed by a consensus of scholars. He expressly says this when he’s asked why he speaks in parables. It’s a figurative method of images and metaphors designed to reach into the hearts of those who have his truth in them. So that they be filtered from those who don’t have his truth. And what is that truth? The truth of Love. More specifically? Selflessness.

We understand them now because of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the reception of the sacraments, beginning with baptism. The point is, that the people of Jesus’ day didn’t “get it” because they were living under the Old Covenant. Even Nicodemus, who had studied the Scriptures (OT) had no clue what Jesus was talking about in John 3. We cannot understand anything without the Holy Spirit who was given to the Church to guide it into all truth.

I believe God could do anything. God is God. But the method of his revealing nature to us isn’t the type shown through the Bible, in my humble opinion, that is going to come in a loud crash at any minute of the day for everyone to see. It goes completely against God’s revealed nature for him to judge at an arbitrary moment’s notice while you’re eating Brunch on a cloudy sunday mid-afternnon in London. Jesus didn’t come from the sky! He came from Earth, as a human who grew to inculcate his impression upon the world. God humbled himself to us to show us humility is the paradigm of his truth. It’s been almost 2000 years without God’s “direct” working in the world after the Second-Temple fell to usher in the Christian Era. When a sign of God does come to all, just as the resurrection did, people will be ready for it. I would hope Jesus comes back, for his mercy is endless, and would offer everyone one last chance before his judgement. He is the King of Mercy.

The Scriptures themselves contradict your ideas here. Jesus is “from the sky” in that he is fully God (divine) as well as fully human. He became man to redeem and save us, not just to teach us. And we have no evidence that people will be ready for the Final Judgment. Many will be going about their daily lives, thinking nothing different is going to happen, but in the middle of their lives, Jesus will suddenly break in. God often does this spiritually now. One day he will do it literally. Jesus warned us to be prepared as if for a “thief in the night.” Sounds like a big surprise is coming for a good portion of the world. It’s our duty to be ready and to aid those who are searching for the truth to be ready. I take it you are not a Catholic. I recommend that you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church to get a better, fuller perspective on Church teaching on this, as well as other issues you have questions about.

 

[TimGreeley]

It is not a contradiction because the two statements are talking about two different things. Again, the first statement has to do with the apostles’ mission. They were tarrying! They were terrified, afraid that Jesus was gone, they had no idea what to do, that is why they went to hide with the virgin Mary, they had no idea what was going on little less what Jesus was talking about when he spoke about the holy spirit. The angels were telling them to stop looking at heaven wondering what to do and do their mission because Jesus will be back a second time. There is no contradiction.

But Mary, they were looking intently *** “as he was going” (NIV)***, not after! The angels appeared and spoke to them at this very moment! So this doesn’t imply any tarrying in my opinion… Why would they be terrified? Are you aware that most of the apostles had already been part of the supernatural ministry of Jesus, let alone already witness his resurrection body on many occasions before this one? I would imagine they would be in awe at his physical ascension as they were at every other miracle, but this doesn’t seem to sound like credible reasoning to me. If that was the case they would have left Jesus in terror before he was even crucified! Jesus left at the exact time after his last verbal statement of their mission to them. He had been preparing most of them at this time for more than 3 years!!! They were very ready to embark on their mission. This was not in any way like Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus–where Paul was terrified and even blinded to become incapacitated for three days.

Mary, isn’t it obvious in the text that the angels are answering their own question? And what is their question imply? That Jesus won’t be returning from the Sky. So the physical sky–or Heavens–isn’t a possibility if their statements are read in relation to each other. As they should be, considering there is nothing else said before or after them,

 

[TimGreeley]

We understand them now because of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the reception of the sacraments, beginning with baptism. The point is, that the people of Jesus’ day didn’t “get it” because they were living under the Old Covenant. Even Nicodemus, who had studied the Scriptures (OT) had no clue what Jesus was talking about in John 3. We cannot understand anything without the Holy Spirit who was given to the Church to guide it into all truth.

That is purely theoretical extrapolation on your part sir. Are you telling me that a man outside of the Church, let alone before the advent of Jesus and the Church, would not understand the the parable of the Good Samaritan? Would not understand the Parable of the Lost Sheep? These parables–as Jesus says himself–or for everyone who has his truth in him. That could be anyone. Those people around him for whom they received ears were called his Apostles, Disciples, and followers…The Holy Spirit at Pentecost does not open one’s mind to the truth of Love and God. It is a supernatural vehicle of God for the facility and transmission of his truth. Not the Truth the itself. If you think someone who’s never heard of Christ living today wouldn’t understand his parables, you sir, are utterly confused concerning the message of Christ.

The Scriptures themselves contradict your ideas here. Jesus is “from the sky” in that he is fully God (divine) as well as fully human. He became man to redeem and save us, not just to teach us. And we have no evidence that people will be ready for the Final Judgment. Many will be going about their daily lives, thinking nothing different is going to happen, but in the middle of their lives, Jesus will suddenly break in. God often does this spiritually now. One day he will do it literally. Jesus warned us to be prepared as if for a “thief in the night.” Sounds like a big surprise is coming for a good portion of the world. It’s our duty to be ready and to aid those who are searching for the truth to be ready. I take it you are not a Catholic. I recommend that you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church to get a better, fuller perspective on Church teaching on this, as well as other issues you have questions about.

I am a Catholic. I don’t believe in the Justification by faith alone and nor do I believe in Penal Substitution.

I’m not arguing with that it won’t come like a thief in the night. In fact, in my interpretation it would truly be like a thief in the night! Just like it was never written that God himself would become a human person in the OT, it may very well be that this fact is “explicitly” missing. In fact there is more evidence from Acts 1:11 that Jesus will come back as a human again then that God would become a human through Jesus in the OT!

 

[Della]

That is purely theoretical extrapolation on your part sir. Are you telling me that a man outside of the Church, let alone before the advent of Jesus and the Church, would not understand the the parable of the Good Samaritan? Would not understand the Parable of the Lost Sheep? These parables–as Jesus says himself–or for everyone who has his truth in him. That could be anyone. Those people around him for whom they received ears were called his Apostles, Disciples, and followers…The Holy Spirit at Pentecost does not open one’s mind to the truth of Love and God. It is a supernatural vehicle of God for the facility and transmission of his truth. Not the Truth the itself. If you think someone who’s never heard of Christ living today wouldn’t understand his parables, you sir, are utterly confused concerning the message of Christ.

I cannot agree with you. To plumb the depths of spiritual things one needs the Holy Spirit. Without him one can have a certain understanding, but the full meaning will elude the person who relies only on his own resources. And, btw, I am a woman, not a “sir.”

I am a Catholic. I don’t believe in the Justification by faith alone and nor do I believe in Penal Substitution.

Since these topics weren’t part of the discussion I don’t see the relevance.

I’m not arguing with that it won’t come like a thief in the night. In fact, in my interpretation it would truly be like a thief in the night! Just like it was never written that God himself would become a human person in the OT, it may very well be that this fact is “explicitly” missing. In fact there is more evidence from Acts 1:11 that Jesus will come back as a human again then that God would become a human through Jesus in the OT!

As a Catholic you should know that doctrine is determined by Sacred Tradition not by personal interpretation. The Church is the arbiter of all matters pertaining to faith and morals, not us individuals. You can think certain verses say whatever you want them to say, but if the Church interprets them otherwise, then we, as Catholics, are to bow to the Church. And no, it’s not obvious that your interpretation says what you think it does, in any shape, form or manner.

 

[TimGreeley]

I cannot agree with you. To plumb the depths of spiritual things one needs the Holy Spirit. Without him one can have a certain understanding, but the full meaning will elude the person who relies only on his own resources. And, btw, I am a woman, not a “sir.”

As a Catholic you should know that doctrine is determined by Sacred Tradition not by personal interpretation. The Church is the arbiter of all matters pertaining to faith and morals, not us individuals. You can think certain verses say whatever you want them to say, but if the Church interprets them otherwise, then we, as Catholics, are to bow to the Church. And no, it’s not obvious that your interpretation says what you think it does, in any shape, form or manner.

Della, have you read the parables recently? If you’re saying that someone couldn’t understand the Good Samaritan before Jesus or the Pentecost, then you’re unequivocally condemning all of them as evil people. Do you understand what you’re saying? That includes the Jewish Patriarchs and everybody’s ancestors and relations all the way back to Adam. I don’t think you intend to say that, so I can only guess you’re fumbling on your theology…

I bow to Pope Francis on all matters, but the Church just like the Judaic Temple Era is a human body. It has gone through its own tribulations and errors, as your history should inform you. Just like Jesus was quoting the OT to the Pharisees, and they disagreed with him concerning its interpretation, you should be very careful to understand what’s being intuited even though it may not be under the auspices of the Church. A remnant of the Judaism that exists today has endured simply because of their servile, literal reading of the text, without understanding what it could imply. Many didn’t follow Jesus without his supernatural signs–to his great consternation (Matthew 10:15). For his message was very simple. Love.

 

[JM3]

Acts 1:11 is a widely known and quoted verse, but I’ve never understood its popular and common interpretation. The interpretation explains that the angels inform the “Men of Galilee”, after they watch Jesus ascend to Heaven, that he’ll return the same way as they had just seen him leave. From Heaven–or the Sky. But in any of editions of the Bible that I read (ESV, NASB, NIV, DRA, etc.), that interpretation completely ignores the first and commencing line of the angels*** “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky” (NASB)***. The angels are clearly informing them while they’re *** “gazing intently into the sky” ***that Jesus will not return the way he had just left. The angels, in the next line, instead seem to be saying–even though obliquely–that Jesus will return just in the same way he came and left. That is, from my interpretation, be born once again.

Can anyone understand my confusion of this popular interpretation of the verse? Here it is in full from Acts 1:9-11 (NASB):

"9 And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10 And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them. 11 They also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”

The teaching of the Church.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/how-we-teach/new-evangelization/upload/Disciples-Called-To-Witness-The-New-Evangelization.pdf

Preface

“‘But you will receive power when the holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, throughout Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.’ When he had said this, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him from their sight. While they were looking intently at the sky as he was going, suddenly two men dressed in white garments stood beside them. They said, ‘Men of Galilee, why are you standing there looking at the sky?’”
—Acts 1:8-11

Christ commands us to be his witnesses to the ends of the earth. We are to proclaim his Good News to all people, everywhere and at all times. After Christ promises the disciples that the Holy Spirit will come upon them, he ascends into heaven. The disciples, rather than heeding Christ’s command to be his witnesses, stare “intently at the sky.” It takes “two men dressed in white garments” asking, “Men of Galilee, why are you . . . looking at the sky?” for the disciples to begin to realize the meaning of Christ’s command (Acts 1:10-11).

 

[jonathan_hili]

Your interpretation is completely sound in my opinion if you read the verse without the opening line:*** “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking in to the sky?”***. Why would the angels tell them not to look into the Heavens if they’re affirming in their next line that he will be coming from the Heavens? This to me is a glaring contradiction considering that they’re tandem expressions one after the other. This is what your interpretation is saying in fewer, summary words:

"Why do you look outside? He’ll be coming the same way he had left, from outside…"
(Do you see it now?)

Concerning every other reference of Jesus–or the Son of Man–returning in glory on the clouds… Just as Jesus said “I am the door”, I don’t take it literally that he’ll arrive in the sky on clouds. But that is my opinion. I would recommend anyone to look at the work of N.T. Wright concerning that language, it really is revealing.

Hi Tim, I’d suggest reading the verse in the context of Luke’s narrative (in both the Gospel and Acts). The whole thrust is towards mission - going out into the world to preach the Gospel. If the disciples stood around looking at the sky all day, they wouldn’t achieve very much, especially since they were yet to be filled with the Spirit. Notice what Jesus had just said to them before his ascension: don’t worry about when I will restore the kingdom; rather you are here to be my witnesses.

Furthermore, the end of Luke’s Gospel also does not suggest your interpretation. Rather, the emphasis is on getting on with mission once Jesus has ascended to the Father.

 

[TimGreeley]

The teaching of the Church.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/how-we-teach/new-evangelization/upload/Disciples-Called-To-Witness-The-New-Evangelization.pdf

Preface

“‘But you will receive power when the holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, throughout Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.’ When he had said this, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him from their sight. While they were looking intently at the sky as he was going, suddenly two men dressed in white garments stood beside them. They said, ‘Men of Galilee, why are you standing there looking at the sky?’”
—Acts 1:8-11

Christ commands us to be his witnesses to the ends of the earth. We are to proclaim his Good News to all people, everywhere and at all times. After Christ promises the disciples that the Holy Spirit will come upon them, he ascends into heaven. The disciples, rather than heeding Christ’s command to be his witnesses, stare “intently at the sky.” It takes “two men dressed in white garments” asking, “Men of Galilee, why are you . . . looking at the sky?” for the disciples to begin to realize the meaning of Christ’s command (Acts 1:10-11).

JM3, have you read the Gospels and Acts through recently? Do you really think it took those angels to ask that question to remind them of the import of their mission? Weren’t the 11 apostles being prepared for almost 3 years at this point–and already witness to countless miracles? Remember they stare intently at the sky "while he was going" (NASB)–not any second later. At that time the angels spoke to them. If the scene is depicted literally from the Bible, it doesn’t appear as they were tarrying–which that commentary interpretation implies. I recommend reading it in context again and you then may see my interpretation.

 

[TimGreeley]

Hi Tim, I’d suggest reading the verse in the context of Luke’s narrative (in both the Gospel and Acts). The whole thrust is towards mission - going out into the world to preach the Gospel. If the disciples stood around looking at the sky all day, they wouldn’t achieve very much, especially since they were yet to be filled with the Spirit. Notice what Jesus had just said to them before his ascension: don’t worry about when I will restore the kingdom; rather you are here to be my witnesses.

Furthermore, the end of Luke’s Gospel also does not suggest your interpretation. Rather, the emphasis is on getting on with mission once Jesus has ascended to the Father.

That interpretation is generally sound in context of the mission, except it doesn’t really excuse the phrasing and sentence construction of the angels. Why didn’t they say, “Why do you look into the sky? Jesus will come back in due time…” Instead they make a logical contradiction of terms if you interpret their second sentence as meaning that he’ll arrive physically from the sky. And remember they were staring into the sky "as he was going" (NIV)–not any second later. The interpretation that they were tarrying is not biblical. And nor does it really have credence if you realize that these 11 Apostles were being prepared and inculcated with miracle-working and missionary work for over 3 years of Jesus’ ministry! They were more prepared than anything, as they showed through their subsequent martyrdoms, after the Resurrection of Christ.

 

[jonathan_hili]

That question itself implies to that he’s not arriving again from the sky. They then aloofly phrase their answer as to how he will actually arrive: ***“This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.” (NIV)

---

I guess there are three alternatives here:

(a) The traditional interpretation, where the angels are asking why they are looking into the sky, and that Jesus will return in the same manner.
(b) Your interpretation, that the angels are implying (through a rhetorical question) that Jesus will return in a different manner and then say in the next line that he will return in like manner.
(c) Another interpretation which has yet to be suggested.

Personally, I don’t see how (b) can be correct. It would mean that the angels are contradicting themselves, which seems rather odd and pointless. Why would Luke include it in his Gospel if this is what they meant?

Since Jesus has just told the disciples that, frankly, it ain’t their business when God will establish the kingdom; all they need worry about is going about their mission, it makes sense for the angels to push them on, i.e. interpretation (a).

 

[jonathan_hili]

Mary, isn’t it obvious in the text that the angels are answering their own question? And what is their question imply? That Jesus won’t be returning from the Sky. So the physical sky–or Heavens–isn’t a possibility if their statements are read in relation to each other. As they should be, considering there is nothing else said before or after them,

Again, sorry Tim, but this makes no sense. If the angels are answering their own question a you suggest, then they are contradicting themselves.

Q. Jesus won’t return in like manner (i.e. from Heaven/the sky), don’t you know that?
A. Jesus will return in like manner (i.e. from Heaven/the sky).

If so, the angels need to take lessons in logic and aren’t very good messengers.

Regardless, let’s say your interpretation is correct, what’s the implication? That Jesus won’t be returning from the sky? Okay, and…?

 

[TimGreeley]

I guess there are three alternatives here:

(a) The traditional interpretation, where the angels are asking why they are looking into the sky, and that Jesus will return in the same manner.
(b) Your interpretation, that the angels are implying (through a rhetorical question) that Jesus will return in a different manner and then say in the next line that he will return in like manner.
(c) Another interpretation which has yet to be suggested.

Personally, I don’t see how (b) can be correct. It would mean that the angels are contradicting themselves, which seems rather odd and pointless. Why would Luke include it in his Gospel if this is what they meant?

Since Jesus has just told the disciples that, frankly, it ain’t their business when God will establish the kingdom; all they need worry about is going about their mission, it makes sense for the angels to push them on, i.e. interpretation (a).

Jonathan, can’t you see that (a) is the contradiction? Why would angels appear and propose that question if they didn’t mean anything by it? Jesus was the one who just arrived and reminded them of their mission. Wouldn’t it be awfully redundant and even unholy for a couple of Angels to remind them once again about their mission? They weren’t tarrying as any biblical text explains: "…gazing intently into the sky while he was going" (NASB). Not any second or minute later, but while.

"…will come in just the same way you have watched Him go into heaven." (NASB)
You need to be careful as to what anything in the Bible could mean. Of course, it’s very easy and desirous of the reader to jump to the conclusion of an Ascension reversed. But any statement needs to be understood in reference to what comes before it. Being that Jesus ** just reminded them of their mission for the penultimate time until Pentecost, I don’t think what the Angel’s were doing was reminding them of their in asking "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky?" (NASB).**

 

[jonathan_hili]

That interpretation is generally sound in context of the mission, except it doesn’t really excuse the phrasing and sentence construction of the angels. Why didn’t they say, “Why do you look into the sky? Jesus will come back in due time…” Instead they make a logical contradiction of terms if you interpret their second sentence as meaning that he’ll arrive physically from the sky. And remember they were staring into the sky "as he was going" (NIV)–not any second later. The interpretation that they were tarrying is not biblical. And nor does it really have credence if you realize that these 11 Apostles were being prepared and inculcated with miracle-working and missionary work for over 3 years of Jesus’ ministry! They were more prepared than anything, as they showed through their subsequent martyrdoms, after the Resurrection of Christ.

Sure, they were prepared - to a point of course, as they had yet to receive the Spirit in full - but that didn’t mean they didn’t need a bit of encouragement at times.

I’m just not sure how your interpretation avoids the angels contradicting themselves.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Jonathan, can’t you see that (a) is the contradiction? Why would angels appear and propose that question if they didn’t mean anything by it? Jesus was the one who just arrived and reminded them of their mission. Wouldn’t it be awfully redundant and even unholy for a couple of Angels to remind them once again about their mission? They weren’t tarrying as any biblical text explains: "…gazing intently into the sky while he was going" (NASB). Not any second or minute later, but while.

(A) isn’t a contradiction if interpreted as has been traditionally:
“Why are you staring at the sky (i.e. waiting for him to return now)? Jesus will return in the same way as you saw him go into heaven (but not just yet).”

Also, as another suggestion, it depends how we under why in the passage. Do the angels mean by why: “What is your physical purpose of looking at the sky (i.e. to see if Jesus is coming back or watching Jesus going)?” or by why: “What is your spiritual purpose of looking at the sky (i.e. to hold on the Jesus and this moment)?”

Furthermore, the emphasis it seems is the disciples looking at Jesus going, not necessarily anticipating him coming back. Perhaps the angels, then, are hurrying them on as a means of underscoring that Jesus has gone and they have other things to do now.

I don’t see why it would be either redundant or unholy for the angels (who are God’s messengers, after all) to emphasise upon the disciples their mission. And remember, Luke would have specifically used them to underscore that point because it is such an important theme in his narrative (plus it bookends the coming of Jesus with angels announcing his arrival and his departure).

 

[TimGreeley]

But Jonathan, that’s exactly why the common, cursory interpretation fails in my opinion! They didn’t say “he will be returning from the sky in due time…”. The Bible says “Why do you look into the sky? He’ll be returning from the sky”, in your interpretation.

But Jonathan, that’s exactly why the common, cursory interpretation fails in my opinion! They didn’t say “he will be returning from the sky in due time…”. The Bible says “Why do you look into the sky? He’ll be returning from the sky”, in your interpretation.

I updated one of my posts to you from before with more explanation. Please read it.

 

[Becky4906]

Jonathan, can’t you see that (a) is the contradiction? Why would angels appear and propose that question if they didn’t mean anything by it? Jesus was the one who just arrived and reminded them of their mission. Wouldn’t it be awfully redundant and even unholy for a couple of Angels to remind them once again about their mission? They weren’t tarrying as any biblical text explains: "…gazing intently into the sky while he was going" (NASB). Not any second or minute later, but while.

Simply based on the fact that you are referencing Protestant translations - quoting Church Tradition may not convince you…but here goes…(and please note - I’m a convert, not a cradle Catholic, and I say this in all humility to try and help you - if my words come out in any other way, that is not my intent and I apologize)

“even unholy for a couple of Angels” - According to Thomas Aquinas - Angels are God’s greatest created creatures, they are closer to God than we are and it is only by God’s grace that we are elevated to Heaven. Furthermore, Angels are unable to disobey God - so if they are delivering a message to the Apostle’s, they are delivering God’s message. God does not contradict Himself, and if you are interpretatgin a scripture in such a way that it causes God (or his messengers) to contradict Himself, I’m afraid that is an error in your interpretation.

As a former Baptist, I completely understand that the next point I will make may fall on deaf ears, but I’m going to make it anyway…
The Church has set teachings and Traditions for a reason - that reason is because apart from the specific grace and revelation of God, we are not smart or wise enough to interpret scripture 100% correctly 100% of the time. Let’s face it - humans really aren’t that smart and we certainly cannot know the ways or thoughts of God. I know that it is a strongly held Protestant belief that each person may interpret scripture for himself, but perhaps that is why there are thousands of Protestant denominations who disagree and splinter off, and only “One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic” Church.

So - long point short - if you find the verses conflicting, or leading you to heretical interpretations - the error lies in your interpretation, not in the scriptures or the words of the Angels.