How to respond to this objection on the Ascension?

[MarcoPG]

Yeah I think that would be the other point actually. We know that it’s folly to take a few verses in complete isolation and formulate a belief based on them. Scripture as a whole makes it crystal clear that Jesus is God. To rip these verses out and not take that into account is silly.

Yes, and you know, if he wants to stick to those verses, I should try to respond on these. But it isn’t Sola Scriptura, it is much less than this

 

[Seraphim73]

Yes, and you know, if he wants to stick to those verses, I should try to respond on these. But it isn’t Sola Scriptura, it is much less than this

Well you can make the Bible or any other book for that matter mean pretty much anything you want if you pick the right sentences. Even an atheist should understand that.

 

[patrick457]

It seems that the greek is passive too. Do you have another understanding (Do you perchance read greek far better than me? )? Another source or possibility?
Thank you

There is this thing called the “divine passive.” To put it simply, the ‘divine passive’ is the use of passive verbs to imply that God is the author of the action. (Another good example of the ‘divine passive’ is the Beatitudes: “they shall be comforted … they shall be filled … they shall be shown mercy.”) Remember the Jewish aversion to using the divine name? The divine passive served as a loophole to that: the Jews, who were sensitive to using God’s Name, or even to the word ‘God’, can refer to God without ever having to use the Name, thanks to this circomlocution.

When the gospels say that Jesus “was raised” and “was taken up,” those are cases of the divine passive - they emphasize God’s (i.e. the Father’s) role in the Resurrection and the Ascension. But at the same time, there are also cases where active verbs are used: e.g. “rise again.” Not to mention that in John, Jesus says:

“For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again.”

I guess your friend forgot to read these verses. I’d rather have him say that the texts say contradictory things (“raised up” vs. “rise up”), since that would at least recognize the existence of instances where Jesus speaks of raising Himself up. The Christian would have no problem to say that both are correct: after all, the Father is God, and Jesus is also God (but is not a different ‘god’ from the Father) - the two instances have different emphases, one emphasizing the Father, the other the Son.

 

[MarcoPG]

I guess your friend forgot to read these verses.

I don’t even kno if he is aware of them. For him I guess, the ascension is a subject discussed when it happens, namely after Jesus’ Resurrection, and logically wwould not be found anywhere else…