Was Jesus a Human Being?

[Stann]

The central tenets of Christianity are that Jesus was God in human form, died on the Cross, was physically resurrected and then ascended to Heaven. From a logical viewpoint, I have the following questions:

1. If Jesus was a human being, he would have had 64 chromosomes, 32 from his mother and 32 from his father. The only exception would be if he was cloned from his mother. In that case wouldn't he have been female?

2. After Jesus died on the Cross, was he physically resurrected as a human being? If so, how did he ascend to Heaven? Is Heaven a physical place? Do other human beings live there as well? If not, why not?

He was an exceptional human being that offered the world a great philosophy ( like so many others ) only to have his followers turn it into another one of man's religions.

 

[Clyde 154]

Jesus may have been flesh and bone after his resurrection, but in what measure? Did he not already begin to transform to his divine nature again by then?

He didn't ascend to heaven, a physical place. He didn't float up into space at all; his ascension was his exultation to the Father.

The scriptures clearly denote the fact that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies concerning the Messiah/Lord as sitting on the throne of David.......in the fact that "....neither His flesh did see corruption". -- Acts 2:32

Meaning? The Body of Jesus was gone from the burial crypt and did not see corruption after 72 hrs. (Matt. 27:63, Mark 8:31 etc. as promised by Jesus and the prophecies concerning the Messiah) documented as His tomb being empty after 72 hrs. (Matt.28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20

During the 72 Hrs. in the burial tomb Jesus through His spirit (not physical but spiritual) Jesus was in Hades (not hell, but hades, the resting place of the dead until judgment -- Rev. 20:13) preaching to those who died previously under the Old Covenants. Note the passage of 1 Peter 3:18-20.........it clearly states that Jesus went and preached to those "asleep"/those who were..........and He did this through a "quickening" of the Spirit., ".....By which He (Jesus) also went and preached unto the spirits in prison." The Body of Christ remained in the Tomb for those 72.......then He arose as promised, and He walked this earth IN THE FLESH and was in the flesh when He ascended.

Thus, Jesus indeed was "flesh and blood" at His ascension into Heaven. When the disciples first saw Jesus after the resurrection they thought they were seeing a spirit/ghost.......but Jesus Identified Himsels and said, "Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I myself; handle Me, touch Me and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as ye see Me have." -- Matt. 24:30

In this same chapter, just a few verses later the Bible states that, while Jesus was still walking and talking with His disciples (physically)......."And He (Jesus) led them out as far as Bethany, and He lifted up His hands and blessed them. AND IT CAME TO PASS, WHILE HE BLESSED THEM, HE WAS PARTED FROM THEM AND WAS CARRIED UP INTO HEAVEN. -- Matt. 24:50-51

It should be no surprise that Jesus ascended into Heaven while in physical form..........this type of ascension is not unprecedented. "Enoch" and "Elijah" both ascended while in their physical bodies............Jesus, was alive and flesh and bones when He ascended. He arose from the dead. If you arise after being dead.......you are ALIVE.

 

[alang1216]

He was, because He is and was the Son.

Is your question why was the sacrifice necessary?

I've never been able to wrap my head around the Trinity. He was the Son but he was also the Father. So why was the sacrifice necessary?

 

[SweetSue92]

I've never been able to wrap my head around the Trinity. He was the Son but he was also the Father. So why was the sacrifice necessary?

The sacrifice was neither for Son nor Father, but for us. And only for us.

God is wholly perfect and wholly, well...holy. He cannot accept in His presence any taint of sin. He cannot in the way snow melts in sunlight. It's against His nature.

We are sinful. Now we have a problem, because God is also loving and wants His own with Him. If He just waves away sin, He is unjust--and justice is also in His nature. By His nature, the entire universe holds together. So it cannot be violated.

Sin requires punishment, and the "wages of sin is death". Jesus paid that price FOR us. In that way, the sin is paid, and we can yet be with God. In effect when God "looks at" us, He sees the sacrifice of Jesus--"paid". And His holiness and justice remains.

Many people don't like this reconciliation. But I have never heard a better one, frankly.

 

[alang1216]

Early Christians believed there were anywhere from one to 365 gods.

Are you on crack?

Whatever my drug usage does not change the fact that you don't know as much about Christianity as you might think. Read this.

In any event, your talk about gods demonstrates that you don't grasp the metaphysical distinction between pagan materialism and classic theism.

Please enlighten me, I thought I did know but I'm always willing to learn.

As for the questions regarding the intricacies of Christology. Yes, no doubt, there were varying misunderstandings among the body, held by devoutly sincere followers doing the best to honor the truth, but what you don't seem to be aware of is that Paul, Peter, and John addressed those misunderstandings in their epistles, denouncing the various gnostic heresies. Hence, your understanding of things is incorrect. Confusion is one thing. The glaring apostasies of Gnosticism are quite another. The latter were addressed by the apoltles themselves centuries before the theological synods of the Middle Ages.

What you don't seem to be aware of is that we have no writings of Peter or John (the Gospel of John never claims to be written by the Apostle, that was a later tradition) and I don't recall Paul or any other Apostle ever mentioning Gnosticism.

Gnosticism was a very popular and widespread set ot sects of Christianity that flourished for centuries. It only became a heresy when the power of the Roman Church was able to suppress it.

 

[alang1216]

The sacrifice was neither for Son nor Father, but for us. And only for us.

God is wholly perfect and wholly, well...holy. He cannot accept in His presence any taint of sin. He cannot in the way snow melts in sunlight. It's against His nature.

I think this is something Christians have debated since the very beginning of Christianity. For a being that can not accept in His presence any taint of sin he certainly created a world filled with it.

We are sinful. Now we have a problem, because God is also loving and wants His own with Him. If He just waves away sin, He is unjust--and justice is also in His nature. By His nature, the entire universe holds together. So it cannot be violated.

Seems like the old paradox, can God make a rock so big even he can't lift it?

Sin requires punishment, and the "wages of sin is death". Jesus paid that price FOR us. In that way, the sin is paid, and we can yet be with God. In effect when God "looks at" us, He sees the sacrifice of Jesus--"paid". And His holiness and justice remains.

Is Jesus dead or is he still with the Father?

 

[alang1216]

You are wrong, but you are also a little correct. It depends on which definition you are employing.

The Church is the Body of Christ. Christ is the head and we are the body. Christ gave all authority over THE Church to the apostles. In that sense, there is only one church.

In the other sense which you are employing, as the apostles went their different ways, communities were created, bishops were appointed, so yes, different "churches" were established, sometimes with their own ethnic charachter.

But in terms of One Body, One Lord, One Baptism, One Head Jesus Christ, there is only one Church.

And to be blunt, the authentic successors of the apostles are todays Catholic bishops and the successor of Peter in particular is the bishop of Rome.

A very Catholic view. Did all the Apostles agree on their theology? Not as I understand it. Some believed Christians had to become Jews to be Christian while others did not?

 

[Devils_Advocate]

Jesus was a creation by a Roman Emperor that needed the low class of Society to follow him, and seeing a Emperor could not be below a person like Jesus the Emperor made Jesus into a God.

Also Jesus could never be God seeing he was the Son of God and called to his Father, so he ain’t God but according to the myth he was the Son of one…

 

[alang1216]

Go back to the teaching about which Jesus was most insistent: Sins are forgiven. Turn from sin and obey God. Religious leaders of the day were insistent that Jesus had no authority to teach sins are forgiven.

The OT has very exacting rules for sacrifice to forgive sin and Jesus lived by that very book.

Jesus said he was anointed by God to bring this message, this new covenant (or testament). They said, Prove it.
Today, we take forgiveness of sins so much for granted that we hardly remember that a man died to bring us this message. He gave/sacrificed his own life to make sure the world heard and understood.

Besides his resurrection, Jesus' apostles had another sign. Jesus talked of this new covenant/testament between God and mankind--and covenants had always been sealed with blood (of animals). This one was sealed with Jesus' own blood, his sacrifice--and not because of any demand by God, other than His command that Jesus proclaim the forgiveness of sins.

Maybe but I think much of Christian theology developed well after Jesus' death.

 

[Not a Monkeys Uncle]

I've never been able to wrap my head around the Trinity

If you could fully wrap your head around the nature of an infinite God then he would not be very infinite would he.

This might help: One person does not necessarily equate to one being.

Example:

A cat is one being and NO persons
A dog is one being and NO persons
A man is one being and one person

Okay?

God is one being and three persons

"Being" refers to what we are
"Person" refers to WHO we are

The Bible is plain and clear that the Son of God IS God. Jesus so much as says so when he refers to himself with I AM.

The Bible is also plain and clear the The Father is God.

So right off the bat you have two persons in the one being of God.

The Divinity of Christ
The Divinity of Christ by Peter Kreeft

BRIEF EXCERPT:

The doctrine of Christ's divinity is the central Christian doctrine, for it is like a skeleton key that opens all the others. Christians have not independently reasoned out and tested each of the teachings of Christ received via Bible and Church, but believe them all on his authority. For if Christ is divine, He can be trusted to be infallible in everything He said, even hard things like exalting suffering and poverty, forbidding divorce, giving his Church the authority to teach and forgive sins in his name, warning about hell (very often and very seriously), instituting the scandalous sacrament of eating his flesh—we often forget how many "hard sayings" he taught!

When the first Christian apologists began to give a reason for the faith that was in them to unbelievers, this doctrine of Christ's divinity naturally came under attack, for it was almost as incredible to Gentiles as it was scandalous to Jews. That a man who was born out of a woman's womb and died on a cross, a man who got tired and hungry and angry and agitated and wept at his friend's tomb, that this man who got dirt under his fingernails should be God was, quite simply, the most astonishing, incredible, crazy-sounding idea that had ever entered the mind of man in all human history.

The argument the early apologists used to defend this apparently indefensible doctrine has become a classic one. C.S. Lewis used it often, e.g. in Mere Christianity, the book that convinced Chuck Colson (and thousands of others). I once spent half a book (Between Heaven and Hell) on this one argument alone. It is the most important argument in Christian apologetics, for once an unbeliever accepts the conclusion of this argument (that Christ is divine), everything else in the Faith follows, not only intellectually (Christ's teachings must all then be true) but also personally (if Christ is God, He is also your total Lord and Savior).

The argument, like all effective arguments, is extremely simple: Christ was either God or a bad man.

Unbelievers almost always say he was a good man, not a bad man; that he was a great moral teacher, a sage, a philosopher, a moralist, and a prophet, not a criminal, not a man who deserved to be crucified. But a good man is the one thing he could not possibly have been according to simple common sense and logic. For he claimed to be God. He said, "Before Abraham was, I Am", thus speaking the word no Jew dares to speak because it is God's own private name, spoken by God himself to Moses at the burning bush. Jesus wanted everyone to believe that he was God. He wanted people to worship him. He claimed to forgive everyone's sins against everyone. (Who can do that but God, the One offended in every sin?)....(SNIP)

REST OF ARTICLE >> The Divinity of Christ by Peter Kreeft

 

[jwoodie]

He was an exceptional human being that offered the world a great philosophy ( like so many others ) only to have his followers turn it into another one of man's religions.

Jesus was a unique person who willingly gave up his own life to demonstrate the worth of the individual soul. Whether he was the Word, the Son of Man, the Son of God or God himself are man-made distinctions created by the ensuing religion of Christianity.

 

[alang1216]

If you could fully wrap your head around the nature of an infinite God then he would not be very infinite would he.

Yet many Christians, like yourself, are kind enough to try and help my understanding. Do you and they understand it?

This might help: One person does not necessarily equate to one being.

Example:

A cat is one being and NO persons
A dog is one being and NO persons
A man is one being and one person

Okay?

God is one being and three persons

"Being" refers to what we are
"Person" refers to WHO we are

So what is the connection between the various 'persons'? Does one know things the others don't?

The Bible is plain and clear that the Son of God IS God. Jesus so much as says so when he refers to himself with I AM.

The Bible is also plain and clear the The Father is God.

So right off the bat you have two persons in the one being of God.

In fact the Bible is not plain and clear that the Son of God IS God. That seems to be a tradition that evolved over time. I don't see anything about this until John's Gospel, that last written Gospel of the NT.

 

[Not a Monkeys Uncle]

Yet many Christians, like yourself, are kind enough to try and help my understanding. Do you and they understand it?

Not fully, no, but I understand enough of it that God allows me to.

So what is the connection between the various 'persons'?

The procession. That is the Caluclus of Theology. I cannot fully explain it.

The Son proceeds from the Father. In the West we say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. In the East they say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Believe it or not this has seperated the western church from the orthodox church for a thousand years. I would not lose sleep over it.

Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit | EWTN

EWTN is a global, Catholic Television, Catholic Radio, and Catholic News Network that provides catholic programming and news coverage from around the world.

www.ewtn.com

In fact the Bible is not plain and clear that the Son of God IS God

Here I must disagree. The Divinity of Christ is quite clear in the Bible. For example, in John 5:18 we are told that Jesus’ opponents sought to kill him because he “called God his Father, making himself equal with God.”

In John 8:58, when quizzed about how he has special knowledge of Abraham, Jesus replies, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I Am”—invoking and applying to himself the personal name of God—“I Am” (Ex. 3:14). His audience understood exactly what he was claiming about himself. “So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple” (John 8:59).

In John 20:28, Thomas falls at Jesus’ feet, exclaiming, “My Lord and my God!” (Greek: Ho Kurios mou kai ho Theos mou—literally, “The Lord of me and the God of me!”)

In Philippians 2:6, Paul tells us that Christ Jesus “[w]ho, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped” (New International Version). So Jesus chose to be born in humble, human form though he could have simply remained in equal glory with the Father for he was “in very nature God.”

Also significant are passages that apply the title “the First and the Last” to Jesus. This is one of the Old Testament titles of Yahweh: “Thus says Yahweh, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, Yahweh of armies: ‘I am the First and I am the Last; besides me there is no god’” (Isa. 44:6; cf. 41:4, 48:12).

This title is directly applied to Jesus three times in the book of Revelation: “When I saw him [Christ], I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand upon me, saying, ‘Fear not, I am the First and the Last’” (Rev. 1:17). “And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: ‘The words of the First and the Last, who died and came to life’” (Rev. 2:8). “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay everyone for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the beginning and the end” (Rev. 22:12–13).

This last quote is especially significant since it applies to Jesus the parallel title “the Alpha and the Omega,” which Revelation earlier applied to the Lord God: “‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty” (Rev. 1:8).

Does one know things the others don't?

No.

 

[Ringtone]

I think this is something Christians have debated since the very beginning of Christianity. For a being that can not accept in His presence any taint of sin he certainly created a world filled with it.


Seems like the old paradox, can God make a rock so big even he can't lift it?


Is Jesus dead or is he still with the Father?

LOL! There's no such paradox in the first place. Rather, the question errantly suggests a false dilemma.

 

[Clyde 154]

LOL! There's no such paradox in the first place. Rather, the question errantly suggests a false dilemma.

There is no paradox or false dilemma involved. God creates, then commands that which He created to take its natural course via the physical laws of nature (Law) that He also established/created to govern ..........its called "free will". Every man is created with the ability to define his own course in life....aka, "destiny". Laws do not make one moral or immoral..........a law simply defines morality for mankind. Physical Laws of Nature define the scope and boundry of that which is natural.

God creates then commands compliance to nature with the Laws He set in place to define the scope and boundry of that which is natural. (Genesis 1). Its established in Scripture that God cannot control the free will decisions of mankind, therefore man is free to choose between right and wrong, morality and immorality....etc. That is how man is made in the image of God, WHO IS A SPIRIT (John 4:24). The image that man reflects the image of God therefore must be a Spiritual Reflection in being LIKE GOD.....a man's spirit is His mind, (Genesis 3:22, Man has become as ONE OF US ...i.e., the Godhead that which controls this flesh sack called a human being).

A man's thought process is composed of pure energy that no man to date can define or reproduce and no man knows, with all his modern technology just where that energy goes when the flesh decays and the blood (the life of the flesh is in the blood (Lev. 17:14) stops flowing. Its a proven fact of those physical laws of nature that Energy can not be created or destroyed, only converted from one form of energy to another ....its called the Law of Conservation. What happens to the energy that is man's thought process (which can be quantified while living through scans) stops at death? Science does not know......man does not know......but God knows. That Spirit/Energy goes back to God who first gave it (Eccl. 12:7) in order to JUDGE via the very laws that He established.

How do we know that Free Will Exists and God abides by His decision to grant it? The proof can be found in scripture.

"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great on earth, and that every imagination (thought process) of his heart (Spirit/Soul) was only evil continually. And it repented (made sorry) the Lord that He had made man on earth, and it grieved Him at His heart." Genesis 6:5-6

How could God have been sorry and grief stricken if He had pre determined man's life choices? He could not have according to all the basic laws of logic and reason. It proves that the greatest gift of life is the ability for everyone to be the master of their own fate via the spiritual decisions they make, as man has no excuse........the Laws of both nature and God define what is right and what is wrong. Its man's choice to decide between the 2.........and by majority man has a history of poor decision making..........as ALL MEN sin at some point in their lives, either through Omission or Commission, and you are a liar if you say you do not. (1 John 1:8)

 

[Ringtone]

Whatever my drug usage does not change the fact that you don't know as much about Christianity as you might think. Read this.


Please enlighten me, I thought I did know but I'm always willing to learn.


What you don't seem to be aware of is that we have no writings of Peter or John (the Gospel of John never claims to be written by the Apostle, that was a later tradition) and I don't recall Paul or any other Apostle ever mentioning Gnosticism.

Gnosticism was a very popular and widespread set ot sects of Christianity that flourished for centuries. It only became a heresy when the power of the Roman Church was able to suppress it.

The teachings of the Gnostics were heretical and refuted as such by the Apostles from the jump! I have forgotten more about the pertinent history than you'll ever appreciate if you don't snap out of it.

What is Gnosticism? How did the early Christian leaders respond to its teachings? - ETHOS Institute for Public Christianity

The phenomenal success of Dan Brown’s controversial novel, The Da Vinci Code, and the recent hype surrounding the discovery of the Gospel of Judas have generated public and media interest in Christian Gnosticism. Scholars have not achieved a consensus on the origin of Gnosticism. Early sources...

ethosinstitute.sg

The Apostles, the Apostolic Fathers, and the early Church Fathers of the First, Second, and Third Centuries refuted the heresies of Gnosticism.

Paul countered Gnosticism most especially in I Corinthians, I Timothy, Galatians, and Colossians, John, in all of his letters, Peter, in his first letter. Jude refuted it as well.

What the Bible says about Gnosticism

When the apostle John wrote his first epistle near the end of the first century, the Gnostic philosophy had swept through the Roman world and had …

www.bibletools.org

What were the beliefs of Docetism and Gnosticism? - BibleAsk

Docetism and Gnosticism are concepts that were introduced in the early church. These ideas did not have Biblical support, but were familiar to the beliefs

bibleask.org

Gnosticism In 1 John and 2 John - Spiritual Experience

Gnosticism In 1 John and 2 John Gnosticism In 1 John and 2 John – Most of the Christians already kno

spiritualexperience.eu

John?s Response to Proto-Gnosticism in His First Epistle

Based on the internal evidence of 1 and 2 John, a problem had arisen within the church, possibly throughout Asia Minor. We know from church history that near the end of the first century, and in the early second century, proto-Gnosticism, specifically Docetism, arose within the church (Bruce, 16?17;

blog.lexhampress.com

Apostolic/Church Fathers:

Irenaeus: Against Heresies

Irenaeus's attack on 2nd century Gnosticism in Against Heresies. He argues that Gnostic teachings are inconsistent, and defends the authority of scripture and apostolic teaching.

www.theologian-theology.com

Tommy Knighten » Mormonism, Gnosticism, and a Response Informed by the Church Fathers

What is the New Testament argument against Gnosticism?

I'm aware that the rise of Gnosticism was after the New Testament was written – but it would seem that a lot of the ideas on which it was built were floating around at the time. (Particularly Greek...

christianity.stackexchange.com

Gnosticism vs. Ortodoxy in the Light of Leadership, Text and Transmission (MA assignment)

Gnosticism vs. Ortodoxy in the Light of Leadership, Text and Transmission Introduction Throughout the second century, Christian literature of Orthodoxy[1] indicates a situation so desperate that i…

hoganhagbard.wordpress.com

 

[Ringtone]

There is no paradox or false dilemma involved. God creates, then commands that which He created to take its natural course via the physical laws of nature (Law) that He also established/created to govern ..........its called "free will". Every man is created with the ability to define his own course in life....aka, "destiny". Laws do not make one moral or immoral..........a law simply defines morality for mankind. Physical Laws of Nature define the scope and boundry of that which is natural.

God creates then commands compliance to nature with the Laws He set in place to define the scope and boundry of that which is natural. (Genesis 1). Its established in Scripture that God cannot control the free will decisions of mankind, therefore man is free to choose between right and wrong, morality and immorality....etc. That is how man is made in the image of God, WHO IS A SPIRIT (John 4:24). The image that man reflects the image of God therefore must be a Spiritual Reflection in being LIKE GOD.....a man's spirit is His mind, (Genesis 3:22, Man has become as ONE OF US ...i.e., the Godhead that which controls this flesh sack called a human being).

A man's thought process is composed of pure energy that no man to date can define or reproduce and no man knows, with all his modern technology just where that energy goes when the flesh decays and the blood (the life of the flesh is in the blood (Lev. 17:14) stops flowing. Its a proven fact of those physical laws of nature that Energy can not be created or destroyed, only converted from one form of energy to another ....its called the Law of Conservation. What happens to the energy that is man's thought process (which can be quantified while living through scans) stops at death? Science does not know......man does not know......but God knows. That Spirit/Energy goes back to God who first gave it (Eccl. 12:7) in order to JUDGE via the very laws that He established.

How do we know that Free Will Exists and God abides by His decision to grant it? The proof can be found in scripture.

"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great on earth, and that every imagination (thought process) of his heart (Spirit/Soul) was only evil continually. And it repented (made sorry) the Lord that He had made man on earth, and it grieved Him at His heart." Genesis 6:5-6

How could God have been sorry and grief stricken if He had pre determined man's life choices? He could not have according to all the basic laws of logic and reason. It proves that the greatest gift of life is the ability for everyone to be the master of their own fate via the spiritual decisions they make, as man has no excuse........the Laws of both nature and God define what is right and what is wrong. Its man's choice to decide between the 2.........and by majority man has a history of poor decision making..........as ALL MEN sin at some point in their lives, either through Omission or Commission, and you are a liar if you say you do not. (1 John 1:8)

There is no paradox or false dilemma involved.​

I don't think you and I are on the same page. There is nothing paradoxical about God's omnipotence, and that's what I told alang1216. alang1216 wrongfully believes that the rock riddle is an unresolvable paradox. Technically, it's a storied and readily resolvable false dilemma predicated on a fallacious understanding of what divine omnipotence is.

 

[norwegen]

Thus, Jesus indeed was "flesh and blood" at His ascension into Heaven.

Not so. He had taken on a different form. And no one saw him float skyward.

 

[Clyde 154]

Not so. He had taken on a different form. And no one saw him float skyward.

How do you know that no one saw him ascend into Heaven? Show me the Book, Chapter and Verse. You would contract other clear, unambiguous passages in order for you not to have your little feelings hurt when the passages prove you were wrong?

You are quite wrong with your baseless opinion, as the scriptures themself contradict your logical fallacy. There were eyewitnesses to the ascension of Jesus, "Now when He (Jesus) had spoken these things, WHILE THEY WATCHED, HE WAS TAKEN UP AND A CLOUD RECEIVED HIM OUT OF THEIR SIGHT.........." -- Acts 1:9

Its already been established that Jesus was not a spirit, after His resurrection. (Luke 24:39)

Its the scriptures that define true Christian Doctrine and Faith.......not man's opinions or traditions. "Faith cometh by hearing that hearing by the Word of God." -- Rom. 10:17 We are commanded to test all things through the words that are recorded in scriptures to TEST ALL THINGS to see if what is being instructed is based upon scriptural truth. (1 Thess. 5:21, Acts 17:11)

The Word of God is our only weapon against the wiles of Satan, whose 2 primary weapons are deceit and deflection.

 

[norwegen]

How do you know that no one saw him ascend into Heaven?

I didn't say that. I said no one saw him ascend skyward. His resurrected body had taken on a different form; his flesh and blood did not float skyward.