The Historical Jesus II

[IanS]

Why couldn't Jesus have intentionally acted in a manner that could/would be interpreted as fulfilling the prophecies? He was called "rabbi", so he must have been familiar with the scriptures; surely he knew the Old Testament prophecies and what he would need to do in order to be seen as the Messiah.

Well if he existed, then of course he might have acted in any way he wanted. But the question is did he exist. And the only way to answer that is with genuine credible evidence. But there is actually no evidence of his existence as a human person known to anyone at all at the time.

The evidence which does exist, is all evidence of religious belief. There's plenty of evidence of that. Evidence that the gospel writers (for example) believed he existed (in some sense of existence at least) ... but what they wrote in their gospels was evidence of their religious beliefs, not evidenec that any of them had ever known any human Jesus. And as Randel Helms and others have shown, that was a belief they were certainly obtaining from reading messiah prophecies in their old testament.

If people here want to believe, as many have in fact stated, that they think it more likely that the gospels and letters would have been written about a real person (Jesus), then that is a matter for them. But in that case they are not basing their HJ belief on actual evidence of his existence. On the contrary, the evidence which is being used, i.e. the gospels and letters of the bible (which is the only source of evidence for Jesus), is evidence which is actually very strongly against that biblical messiah being a real person.

 

[Craig B]

The evidence which does exist, is all evidence of religious belief. There's plenty of evidence of that. Evidence that the gospel writers (for example) believed he existed (in some sense of existence at least) ... but what they wrote in their gospels was evidence of their religious beliefs, not evidenec that any of them had ever known any human Jesus. And as Randel Helms and others have shown, that was a belief they were certainly obtaining from reading messiah prophecies in their old testament.

I don't agree with that. But I do agree with the account of Helms' views given in his wiki entry.

Helms shows how the Gospel writers used the Old Testament as a source of material to build up fictional details about events surrounding Jesus.

Which is true? What you have stated, or the wiki account?

 

[dejudge]

Yes, this. There were a lot of Jesuses in Palestine in those days; if you were going to be the jeeziest Jesus who ever jeezed, you had to stand out from the crowd somehow. Born of a Virgin? Sure. Walked on water? No problem. Raised the dead? Multiplied food? Piece of baklava.

Where did you get your stories from? You made them up from your imagination in the 21st century.

You have completely forgotten that you have not even shown that any story of Jesus was actually known in the 1st century.

Please tell us when did the authors of the Gospels invent stories of the character called the son of a God?

It makes no sense to claim Jesus of Nazareth was born of a Ghost in order to make him the "jeeziest Jesus who ever jeezed".

"Might as well have not existed" and "never existed" are two different things. Certainly Jesus was nothing more than a fringe nutjob in his day; he only achieved the prominence he has due to the efforts of his hard core of nutjob followers who ascribed increasingly outlandish things to him to make him extra-jeezy.

Your statement is void of logic and evidence.

You have zero historical evidence and NO sources of antiquity to support your statement that "Certainly Jesus was nothing more than a fringe nutjob in his day".

Jesus of Nazareth was CERTAINLY described as the offspring of a Ghost, a Resurrecting Transfiguring water walker, the Lord from heaven and God Creator.

If Jesus was a known man with a human father then the NT stories would have been regarded as a pack of lies.

There is simply no evidence at all that people of antiquity actually knew of Jesus of Nazareth and no evidence that the Ghost stories were known or composed in the 1st centuiry.

All the existing Ghost stories of Jesus of Nazareth are dated to the 2nd century or later which appears to be corroborated by writings attributed to non-apologetic writers.

The writings of the DSS, Philo, Josephus, Pliny the Elder, Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius, that is, up to the start of the 2nd century, do not show any character called Jesus of Nazareth or any cult who worshiped Jesus of Nazareth as a God.

The abundance of existing evidence support the argument that the Jesus character and stories were fabricated in the 2nd century or later.

In fact, arguments about the FLESH of Jesus began in the 2nd century or later.

See "On the Flesh of Christ" attributed to Tertullian.

According to "On the Flesh of Christ" Jesus was born of a Virgin and the seed of Ghost WITHOUT a human father.

Jesus of Nazareth was a product of myth/fiction and fabricated no earlier than the 2nd century based on the abundance of writings of antiquity.

 

[Craig B]

... but what they wrote in their gospels was evidence of their religious beliefs, not evidenec that any of them had ever known any human Jesus. And as Randel Helms and others have shown, that was a belief they were certainly obtaining from reading messiah prophecies in their old testament.

If people here want to believe, as many have in fact stated, that they think it more likely that the gospels and letters would have been written about a real person (Jesus), then that is a matter for them. But in that case they are not basing their HJ belief on actual evidence of his existence. On the contrary, the evidence which is being used, i.e. the gospels and letters of the bible (which is the only source of evidence for Jesus), is evidence which is actually very strongly against that biblical messiah being a real person.

How much of this writing of Helms do you accept?

When the author of Mark set about writing his Gospel, circa 70 A.D., he did not have to work in an intellectual or literary vacuum. The concept of mythical biography was basic to the thought-processes of his world, both Jewish and Graeco-Roman, with an outline and a vocabulary already universally accepted: a heavenly figure becomes incarnate as a man and the son of a deity, enters the world to perform saving acts, and then returns to heaven. In Greek, the lingua franca of the Mediterranean world, such a figure was called a "savior" (soter), and the statement of his coming was called "gospel" or "good news" (euangelion). For example, a few years before the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, the Provincial Assembly of Asia Minor passed a resolution in honor of Caesar Augustus ...

Did the members of the Provincial Assembly of Asia Minor believe in the literal existence of Caesar Augustus?

 

[IanS]

And once they assumed Jesus was the Messiah they automatically assumed that he must have fulfilled the messianic prophecies as they understood them; so for example they wrote in stories about him being born in Bethlehem. Two different and contradictory stories! Not known to the earlier writers of Romans and gMark.

Yes, this. There were a lot of Jesuses in Palestine in those days; if you were going to be the jeeziest Jesus who ever jeezed, you had to stand out from the crowd somehow. Born of a Virgin? Sure. Walked on water? No problem. Raised the dead? Multiplied food? Piece of baklava.

But that suggestion is no better. It has multiple things wrong with it. The most obvious of which is that lack of evidence which I explained above - i.e., you are proposing that maybe Jesus was a real person, who did not really do any of the things said in the OT, but that people decided to falsely claim that he had done those things. OK, so in that case; where is the evidence that any such human Jesus was ever known to anyone? The answer is that there never was any human Jesus ever known to any of the people that wrote about him in gospels and letters.

There is simply zero evidence that anyone at that time ever even claimed to have met a human Jesus (let alone any evidenece that anyone really had met him).

And that's apart from the fact that it's just a way of trying to retro-fit Jesus into existence by saying that although the Jesus stories were indeed being taken from the OT, maybe by the 1st century AD there was a real person who did not do any of those things in the OT but where people liked to say that he had done them. You could say that about literally any imaginary figure ... e.g., perhaps there was a real person who we call "Superman" and although he did not do any of the "super" things in the comics, people just said he did those things ... is that supposed to be a credible argument to say Superman really existed??

 

[Craig B]

i.e., you are proposing that maybe Jesus was a real person, who did not really do any of the things said in the OT, but that people decided to falsely claim that he had done those things.

No, I'm the best judge of what I am proposing, and it's not that.

In Mark we first meet Jesus getting baptised, along with many other people, by John the Baptist. In Matthew we get an absurd genealogy and then a miracle story about the magic conception and birth. In Luke we get a different miracle story about the magic conception and birth, then a different genealogy.

Meanwhile the story about the baptism by John is successively played down. It may be also that all manner of mystical beings were prophesied in the OT, but did they have four (named) brothers and two or more (unnamed) sisters living in Galilee?

All this looks like messianic details being added to existing material, some of it very recalcitrant from a prophetic point of view.

 

[IanS]

How much of this writing of Helms do you accept? Did the members of the Provincial Assembly of Asia Minor believe in the literal existence of Caesar Augustus?

Which bit of Helms analysis are you objecting to?

If you are saying that Helms is wrong in what he says there, then by all means quote something more authoritative to show that Helms is wrong.

Helms is showing where, how, and why the NT gospel writers took their messiah beliefs from OT fictional prophecy. If you say he is wrong about that, then by all means quote some better authority showing why Helms is wrong in what he explains about the OT as the source of gospel stories about Jesus.

Since you say you have not actually read Helms book, instead of complaining about it in oblique tenuous terms, you might do better to at least read the text from your own link. Better still, just buy the book and then see what you have to say after a neutral objective reading of it.

 

[dejudge]

Did the members of the Provincial Assembly of Asia Minor believe in the literal existence of Caesar Augustus?

You seem to have no idea that Caesar of Augustus was a figure of history and that writings of antiquity mentioned the father of Augustus. There also artifacts which support the historicity of Caesar Augustus.

The father of Caesar Augustus was Gaius Octavius--Not a Ghost.

The mother of Caesar Augustus was Atia.

Examine Suetonius' Life of the Twelve Caesars.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Augustus*.html

His father Gaius Octavius was from the beginning of his life a man of wealth and repute.......... While returning from Macedonia, before he could declare himself a candidate for the consulship, he died suddenly, survived by three children, an elder Octavia by Ancharia, and by Atia a younger Octavia and Augustus.

Examine Tacitus' Annals.

http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.1.i.html

Then followed much talk about Augustus himself, and many expressed an idle wonder that the same day marked the beginning of his assumption of empire and the close of his life, and, again, that he had ended his days at Nola in the same house and room as his father Octavius.

Plus, coins of Augustus have been found.


http://www.cerberuscoins.com/Augustus/

Why do you believe the Bible stories of Jesus are historical accounts??

Jesus of Nazareth was a fiction/myth character WITHOUT a human father.

 

[Craig B]

Which bit of Helms analysis are you objecting to?

If you are saying that Helms is wrong in what he says there, then by all means quote something more authoritative to show that Helms is wrong.

I think he is in fact right, more or less, as far as the material I have read goes.

The passage I have cited seems to state that Mark was writing in c 70 CE about a person, not personally known to him, who lived in and after the reign of Augustus. The Gospel writers included in their accounts of this person, material derived from their understanding of OT prophecies. I agree with all of this, but I'm surprised that you agree with it. If this passage is not typical of Helms' work, or gives a misleading impression of his real views, I will be glad to hear from you on that score.

I also wrote to indicate that some of the Jesus material doesn't look like OT prophecy, and if you wish to comment on that too, I will read your words with interest.

 

[Craig B]

You seem to have no idea that Caesar of Augustus was a figure of history and that writings of antiquity mentioned the father of Augustus. There also artifacts which support the historicity of Caesar Augustus.

And, as I have pointed out many times, dejudge, that proves that even if people come to be venerated as Saviours and worshipped as Gods, that doesn't mean they didn't exist. Augustus and Alexander were worshipped and had crazy stories written about them, but they did exist. Therefore, now please try to remember this so that we don't have to go through it all again, to say "this person has crazy stories written about him" doesn't necessarily mean that the person doesn't exist.

Let me put it another way: if somebody says, Jesus had crazy stories written about him, so he must be entirely mythical (or a hoax concocted by a pack of liars centuries later) then I can say in response "But look at the crazy stories they told about Augustus and Alexander! Yet we know they existed. We have coins and contemporary inscriptions commissioned by them!" So the evidence you use to deny the existence of Jesus in fact argues in favour of that existence, dejudge.

 

[IanS]

No, I'm the best judge of what I am proposing, and it's not that.

Actually you very clearly were proposing exactly what I said. And people can read that clearly enough for themselves.

In Mark we first meet Jesus getting baptised, along with many other people, by John the Baptist. In Matthew we get an absurd genealogy and then a miracle story about the magic conception and birth. In Luke we get a different miracle story about the magic conception and birth, then a different genealogy.

Meanwhile the story about the baptism by John is successively played down. It may be also that all manner of mystical beings were prophesied in the OT, but did they have four (named) brothers and two or more (unnamed) sisters living in Galilee?

All this looks like messianic details being added to existing material, some of it very recalcitrant from a prophetic point of view.

Uh hu, ... so where in the above are you providing the evidence of a human Jesus known to anyone?

You say that to you (i.e. in your belief!) "this looks like messianic details being added to existing material" ... what "existing material"? Do you mean a human Jesus is your proposed "existing material"? ... where did he come from then? ... where is the evidence that of any of those gospel writers who you say "added messianic details", ever added any such details to any real person they actually knew as the human Jesus? ...

... where is the evidence that anyone ever wrote to claim they had met a human Jesus?

 

[Craig B]

Actually you very clearly were proposing exactly what I said. And people can read that clearly enough for themselves.

Let these readers decide for themselves. Good. I noted Helms' chronology, and his seeming concession of the occurrence of "the birth of Jesus of Nazareth". In these things either you disagree with Helms, or the cited text is not representative of his thinking. Can you comment on this?

Uh hu, ... so where in the above are you providing the evidence of a human Jesus known to anyone?

You say that to you (i.e. in your belief!) "this looks like messianic details being added to existing material" ... what "existing material"? Do you mean a human Jesus is your proposed "existing material"? ... where did he come from then? ... where is the evidence that of any of those gospel writers who you say "added messianic details", ever added any such details to any real person they actually knew as the human Jesus? ...

Uh hu. I have become familiar with these views of yours, and with your insistence on the following, which you know has never been found, and doesn't require to be found to render probable the existence of an historical Jesus.

... where is the evidence that anyone ever wrote to claim they had met a human Jesus?

In return I would have thought and hoped that you might have become familiar with my view, that because some of the Jesus material is not evidently derived from prophecy, and makes little sense of a saviour and Davidic messiah, the reasonable assumption may be made that is is possibly authentic.

Nor, of course, is this my view alone, but it is the consensus of the scholarly world, including the secular scholarly world. Such persons as Hitchens and Dawkins embrace this opinion, or at least have stated it in their writings.

 

[dejudge]

...In return I would have thought and hoped that you might have become familiar with my view, that because some of the Jesus material is not evidently derived from prophecy, and makes little sense of a saviour and Davidic messiah, the reasonable assumption may be made that is is possibly authentic.

Your assumptions are worthless when you have been repeatedly asked for evidence.

You cannot present any actual evidence that the Gospels are historical accounts or that the authors claimed they were writing historical events.

Nor, of course, is this my view alone, but it is the consensus of the scholarly world, including the secular scholarly world. Such persons as Hitchens and Dawkins embrace this opinion, or at least have stated it in their writings.

Your statement is an established fallacy. Scholars have NEVER conceded that Jesus was a figure of history.

In fact, the Quest for the historical Jesus have suffered multiple failures due to lack of historical evidence.

Presently, historians and Scholars are arguing that Jesus is a figure of mythology and that the HJ argument is logically fallacious.

Plus, many many Scholars are Christians who worship Jesus as a God and ask the resurrected Jesus to forgive their sins so that they can go to heaven to be with their Lord and Saviour.

In any event, Scholars have already admitted Jesus of Nazareth NEVER had any real existence.

An historical Jesus of Nazareth is mere modern fiction.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/schweitzer/chapter20.html

Albert Schweitzer's "Quest for the historical Jesus"

The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give His work its final consecration, never had any existence.

He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism, and clothed by modern theology in an historical garb.........................................The mistake was to suppose that Jesus could come to mean more to our time by entering into it as a man like ourselves. That is not possible. First because such a Jesus never existed.

The fact that the Quest for an HJ has had multiple failures is evidence that there was NO historical data for Jesus of Nazareth up to this very day.

 

[Craig B]

Plus, many many Scholars are Christians who worship Jesus as a God and ask the resurrected Jesus to forgive their sins so that they can go to heaven to be with their Lord and Saviour.

Well, I wonder if Hitchens is now enjoying the Beatific Vision. But Dawkins is still alive, so we must ask him if he is a Christian who worships Jesus as a God and has asked the resurrected Him to forgive his sins so that he can go to heaven to be with his Lord and Saviour. But I bet he'll say No.

 

[dejudge]

And, as I have pointed out many times, dejudge, that proves that even if people come to be venerated as Saviours and worshipped as Gods, that doesn't mean they didn't exist. Augustus and Alexander were worshipped and had crazy stories written about them, but they did exist. Therefore, now please try to remember this so that we don't have to go through it all again, to say "this person has crazy stories written about him" doesn't necessarily mean that the person doesn't exist.

As I have said before the fathers of Augustus and Alexander are mentioned in writings of antiquity and there are artifacts of Augustus.

Plus, the existence or non-existence of Augustus and Alexander do not prove that Jesus of Nazareth did exist.

It does not logically follow the Romulus, Remus, Perseus, Satan, the angel Gabriel and Jesus existed because other characters did or not exist.

It does not logically follow that Remus, Romulus, Perseus, Adam, Eve, Satan and the andel Gabriel existed because there are crazy stories about them.

Let me put it another way: if somebody says, Jesus had crazy stories written about him, so he must be entirely mythical (or a hoax concocted by a pack of liars centuries later) then I can say in response "But look at the crazy stories they told about Augustus and Alexander! Yet we know they existed. We have coins and contemporary inscriptions commissioned by them!" So the evidence you use to deny the existence of Jesus in fact argues in favour of that existence, dejudge.

Let me put it another way.

All we have of Jesus of Nazareth are crazy stories.

We have no coins and contemporary inscriptions of Jesus of Nazareth.

The evidence we use to argue for the historicity of Augustus and Alexander is MISSING for Jesus of Nazareth.

Let me put it another way.

If we remove the myth of Augustus and Alexander we are left with historical data.

If we remove the myth from Jesus we are left with NOTHING.

Jesus of Nazareth was a product of NOTHING historical.

Jesus was a product of Myth.

Now, a Ghost is not real [not historical].

Jesus was the product of a Ghost. [nothing real]

It is documented. See the existing manuscripts and Codices from the 2nd century or later.

The father of Jesus was NOTHING but a Ghost.

By the way, God is a Ghost.

John 4:24 God is a Spirit.

 

[dejudge]

I really don't know why people here believe the Ghost stories in the NT are based on history.

It is clear that people of antiquity believed Ghosts were really real.

Everything about Jesus and the disciples are directly related to a Ghost.

1. In gMark A Ghost bird entered Jesus when he was baptized and after that he started to walk on water like a Ghost.

2. In gMatthew he was born of a Ghost.

3. In gLuke he was born of a Ghost.

4. In gJogn he was the Son of Ghost.

5. In Acts the disciples got power to preach from a Ghost.

6. In the Pauline Corpus Jesus was a Ghost.

7. In writings of Ignatius Jesus was born of a Ghost.

8. In Clement Jesus was the son of a Ghost.

9. In Justin's writings Jesus was born of a Ghost.

10. In Irenaeus' "Against Heresies" Jesus was born of a Ghost.

11. In Tertullian's On the Flesh of Christ" Jesus was born of a Ghost.

12. In Hippolytus' Refutation of all Heresies" Jesus was the Son of a Ghost.

13. In Clement of Alexandria Jesus was the son of a Ghost.

14. In Origen's "Against Celsus" Jesus was born of a Ghost.

15. In Eusebius' Church History" Jesus was the Son of a Ghost.

The Jesus character of the NT is just a Ghost story that people of antiquity BELIEVED was true.

People of antiquity BELIEVED Ghosts were actual figures of history.

In antiquity the Jesus story only made sense because it is stated that he was born of a HOLY GHOST.

An historical Jesus made NO sense in antiquity.

Only a "historical" Ghost can do those things that Jesus did in the NT.

God is a Ghost and Jesus is the Son of the same Spirit.

Acts 2:4

And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

People of antiquity must have believed Ghosts did actually exist and that Jesus was one of them.

 

[Craig B]

I really don't know why people here believe the Ghost stories in the NT are based on history.

It is clear that people of antiquity believed Ghosts were really real.

Everything about Jesus and the disciples are directly related to a Ghost.

1. In gMark A Ghost bird entered Jesus when he was baptized and after that he started to walk on water like a Ghost.

2. In gMatthew he was born of a Ghost.

3. In gLuke he was born of a Ghost.

4. In gJogn he was the Son of Ghost.

5. In Acts the disciples got power to preach from a Ghost.

6. In the Pauline Corpus Jesus was a Ghost.

7. In writings of Ignatius Jesus was born of a Ghost.

8. In Clement Jesus was the son of a Ghost.

9. In Justin's writings Jesus was born of a Ghost.

10. In Irenaeus' "Against Heresies" Jesus was born of a Ghost.

11. In Tertullian's On the Flesh of Christ" Jesus was born of a Ghost.

12. In Hippolytus' Refutation of all Heresies" Jesus was the Son of a Ghost.

13. In Clement of Alexandria Jesus was the son of a Ghost.

14. In Origen's "Against Celsus" Jesus was born of a Ghost.

15. In Eusebius' Church History" Jesus was the Son of a Ghost.

The Jesus character of the NT is just a Ghost story that people of antiquity BELIEVED was true.

People of antiquity BELIEVED Ghosts were actual figures of history.

In antiquity the Jesus story only made sense because it is stated that he was born of a HOLY GHOST.

An historical Jesus made NO sense in antiquity.

Only a "historical" Ghost can do those things that Jesus did in the NT.

God is a Ghost and Jesus is the Son of the same Spirit.

Acts 2:4

People of antiquity must have believed Ghosts did actually exist and that Jesus was one of them.

I think you're getting a bit mixed up with this "ghost" thing. Anyway, Christians insist that Jesus was also a bodily human being. Especially John who has Thomas sticking his fingers into Jesus' wounds, then the risen Jesus cooks a lakeshore fish breakfast for his friends. The risen Jesus ate lots of fish. Here he is in Luke 24, eating fish to show he's NOT a ghost.

36 While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” 40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence.

So you CAN see you have been READING too many heretics like Crapocrates and I bet you THINK Jesus was a ghost so he can't send you to the Bad Fire FOR heresy.

 

[dejudge]

I think you're getting a bit mixed up with this "ghost" thing. Anyway, Christians insist that Jesus was also a bodily human being. Especially John who has Thomas sticking his fingers into Jesus' wounds, then the risen Jesus cooks a lakeshore fish breakfast for his friends. The risen Jesus ate lots of fish. Here he is in Luke 24, eating fish to show he's NOT a ghost.

You forget that Thomas examined the body of the Resurrected Ghost in gJohn.

You make me laugh.

You must have seen a wounded resurrected Ghost.

What does a wound on a resurrected Ghost look like?

The resurrected Jesus ate fish!!! The resurrected Jesus was a cook!!!

You cannot be serious!!!

So you CAN see you have been READING too many heretics like Crapocrates and I bet you THINK Jesus was a ghost so he can't send you to the Bad Fire FOR heresy.

You must have been reading too much Bible Ghost stories.

 

[Craig B]

The resurrected Jesus ate fish!!! The resurrected Jesus was a cook!!!
You cannot be serious!!!
You must have been reading too much Bible Ghost stories.

I've shown you him eating fish in Luke 24, but he could cook fish too. Here's John 21.

9 When they landed, they saw a fire of burning coals there with fish on it, and some bread. 10 Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish you have just caught.” 11 So Simon Peter climbed back into the boat and dragged the net ashore. It was full of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn. 12 Jesus said to them, “Come and have breakfast.” None of the disciples dared ask him, “Who are you?” They knew it was the Lord. 13 Jesus came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish. 14 This was now the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples after he was raised from the dead.

 

[dejudge]

You must have been reading too much Bible Ghost stories.

I've shown you him eating fish in Luke 24, but he could cook fish too. Here's John 21.

Why don't you show us the part where the resurrected Ghost ASCENDED to heaven in gLuke 24.


Luke 24.

48 And ye are witnesses of these things.

49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

50 And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.

51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

The wounded resurrected Ghost could cook, eat fish and ASCEND to heaven in gLuke.

You make me laugh.

Jesus was a "real" resurrected Ghost.

It is most fascinating that Craig B believes the Ghost stories in the Bible were really real.