A story

It is close to Easter, 2023, so I wrote this. Suppose Jim visited New York, and while there, he was arrested right before New Year's Eve, and then on January 2nd, some of his girlfriends go to visit him early in the morning.

Mason describes the following: The women visit the jail, only to find that Jim has already posted bail, so he's no longer there. Instead, he leaves a note with one of the guards:

Do not worry, for I know that you are looking for me. I'm not here, as I got the money to post bail. If you want, see if you can take a look at the horrible conditions they keep people here. Go tell my other friends I've posted bail, and that I'll see them in Boston. All the best! Jim.

As they left the jail, Jim drove by in his Porsche, rolled down the window and yelled “Greetings!” His girlfriends came to him, and kissed him. Then Jim said “Do not worry; go and tell my friends to go to Boston; there they will see me.” And he drove off.

The women go tell the rest of their friends, and they go to Boston, to Bunker Hill, where Jim had directed them. There, Jim passes out some amazing meth, and they enter a drug-induced dream state like none before.

Larry tells the same story, but the women find out that Jim was no longer there, so they returned to their other friends. Jim's other friends, however, thought this was a tall tail, as it was the morning of a day after a holiday, so how could he post bail so quickly? The other friends just didn't believe the women, so Perry drove to the jail, and he saw that Jim wasn't there anymore.

Two of Jim's friends were visiting the World Trade Center and were walking to a restaurant when Jim drove up to them in his Porsche, but he looked so disheveled from being in jail that they just didn't recognize him. Jim engaged them in conversation, parked his Porsche, and joined them for a walk. As they came to the restaurant, the two invited the still-unrecognized Jim in for dinner, and it was only after they sat down to eat that one of them recognized Jim. Jim had a good laugh, excused himself to go to the washroom, and then snuck out without even saying good bye.

After finishing their meal, the two caught an Uber back to where the hotel room were the others were staying, and said “Jim posted bail, and he has appeared to Perry!” Suddenly, Jim let himself into the room with a key card, and he had still not taken a shower in days. Some still didn't believe Jim had posted bail, as you need to appear in front of a judge. Jim went on to point out his tattoo, and said, "Can I have one of those tuna sandwiches?" (his favorite), and he ate it. After this, he passed out some amazing meth, and they entered a drug-induced dream state like none before, after which Jim led them out into the open spaces of Central Park where the group just enjoyed the openness of nature. Jim then hailed a taxi cab, which took him back to the hotel and his Porsche, and he left.

Later, Larry retold the story, saying last time I told you about where Jim passed out some great meth and then caught a cab. After posting bail, Jim had come back to his friends, and for the next forty (40) days, he was wining and dining all of them on his credit card. While partying it up with them, he told them not to leave New York, but to wait there for one of his other associates who was going to bring them top-quality heroin. Then they got together one last time, and they asked him about heroin distribution, and Jim told them that they would be distributing heroin throughout New York City, New Jersey, and wherever else they wanted. With a smile, he hailed a cab, and and was gone.

It would be difficult to not see the contradictions in these three stories: Mason's story differs significantly from Larry's first story, and Larry contradicts himself the second time he tells the story. Why then, do some people not see the same issues with Jesus?

Context of ascensions

The purpose of an ascension is a sign that Jesus was without sin. In Judaism, only Enoch and Elijah entered heaven without dying. In either case, it doesn't explicitly state that these individuals were without sin, but there was something significant about their character. The apostle Paul states in Romans 6:23,

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Now, Jesus died, but he was without sin, and thus, after his resurrection, he directly ascended into heaven, like Enoch and Elijah. As part of the Christian story, at least according to Matthew, John the Baptist was in some ways Elijah incarnate, although the specifics are not made clear; however, it would be quite frustrating if John the Baptist was Elijah, who ascended into heaven without death, was brought back to Earth, only to be killed by Herod Antipas. Given that John the Baptist was Elijah incarnate, who did not sin, but John the Baptist was not resurrected, does this mean that John the Baptist/Elijah did indeed sin the second time around?

There are other stories interwoven with Christian theology: some claim that Mary did not sin, either. In this case, if she did not sin, then why would she die? For example, after more than one-thousand eight-hundred years, the Catholic Church finally decided that because Mary was the mother of Jesus, that she, too, would have to be without sin. The Catholic Church determined that if something to do with sex or birth was the mechanism of the transmission of sin from parents to children, then Mary had to be sinless for otherwise, her original sin would be passed on to Jesus. For Mary to be born without sin, then like Jesus, she had to have had some miraculous conception, as well, just like Jesus. None of this is recorded or even hinted at in any of the gospels, and the author of Mark explicitly portrays Mary in a negative light when he writes:

When his family heard it, they went out to restrain him, for people were saying, “He has gone out of his mind.”

A few verses later, it states:

Then his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him.

Thus, Mary, together with her other sons, was coming to Jesus to restrain him, and at this point, Jesus rejects his own family, including Mary who is waiting outside:

[Jesus] replied, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” And looking at those who sat around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.”

This didn't stop the Catholic Church from declaring in 1854 that Mary was, like Jesus, was conceived without her parents having sex. Unlike Mary's conception, when she was still a virgin, Mary's mother most certainly was not. There is an Infancy Gospel of James written in approximately 150 CE, allegedly written by the half-brother of Jesus (he must have been on the order of 140 years old at the time--oh wait, humans cannot grow older than 120 years, according to the Judean scriptures), so maybe he was born when Jesus was 30 years old; or more realistically, someone made some stories up and claimed to write in the name of a brother of Jesus), and it names the parents of Mary to be Anne and Joachim. It describes how the two were trying to have children, but could not, and then Yahweh, through angels, promised them a child. Thus, Mary was born to an old woman, a story that perfectly parallels the birth of John the Baptist, and all these parallel stories in the Judean scriptures where Sarah, the wife of Abraham and the mother of Isaac, who was 90 years old before she first gave birth, and Hannah, the mother of the prophet Samuel, only finally conceived after menopause, whose husband had a second wife apparently described as Hannah's "rival". Anyway, it seems that in Yahweh's world, important individuals cannot be second sons, and they must be born to old childless women or virgins. Exactly how Mary was conceived is not specified. Was she a clone of her mother, or did Yahweh introduce a second X chromosome into an unfertilized egg? In the latter case, is Mary a daughter of Yahweh, like Jesus is the son of Yahweh? Is Mary both the mother and half-sister of Jesus?

Now, let us look at Enoch and Elijah.

Enoch

First, there seems to be nothing at all significant about the birth of Enoch, as he is only mentioned in a few short passages:

When Jared had lived one hundred sixty-two years he became the father of Enoch. Jared lived after the birth of Enoch eight hundred years and had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty-two years, and he died.

When Enoch had lived sixty-five years, he became the father of Methuselah. Enoch walked with God after the birth of Methuselah three hundred years and had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty-five years. Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him.

While Enoch died rather young, his son was the longest-living human on record, at least in the Judean scriptures, but it seems that his son was not a good person, as Methuselah died the same year as the flood. Remember also that Adam was still alive for the first 308 years of Enoch's life: it must have been something to see your great-great-great-great grandfather witness the birth of your grandson! Enoch is not mentioned again in the Judean scriptures, but is mentioned again in the letter to the Hebrews:

By faith Enoch was taken so that he did not experience death, and “he was not found, because God had taken him.” For it was attested before he was taken away that “he had pleased God.” And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would approach God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

Nowhere does it say that Enoch was without sin, but the wages of sin is death, right? Humorously, Enoch is mentioned one more time, in the letter allegedly written by Jude, the brother of Jesus and James. Here Jude allegedly writes:

It was also about these that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “See, the Lord is coming with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all the deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” These are grumblers and malcontents; they indulge their lusts; their mouths utter bombastic nonsense, flattering people to their own advantage.

This prophesy appears nowhere in the Judean scriptures, so how was Jude aware of this? This is because the author of this letter attributed to Jude copied it from a book that was attributed to Enoch, who lived 3000 years before Jesus was born, but was actually written between 300 and 100 BCE and only claimed to have been written by Enoch. Thus, a Christian scripture is referencing a falsely attributed work as being an actual prophesy. This, of course, forces Christian apologists to maintain that while the totality of the books of Enoch may be falsely attributed to Enoch, this one prophesy, somehow, must actually have been from Enoch himself: passed down to his great-grandson Noah, who dutifully recorded it somehow so that thousands of years later, while no other texts recorded this prophesy, it happened to be included in all the other false writings that the authors of these books made up.

In summary, the reasons given by Paul for why Enoch did not die was that he "pleased Yahweh," or as it is recorded in Genesis, he "walked with Yahweh." Paul uses this to emphasize that you cannot please Yahweh unless you have sufficient faith so as to believe in him; however, based on other scriptures, if Enoch did not die, he cannot have sinned, but this is not mentioned anywhere, including Paul's explanation.

Elijah

Interestingly, Elijah's name is the only person whose name combines both El and Yahweh, the Samarian and Judean names of the supreme god, respectively. Most names starting with "J" often refer to Yahweh, while those ending in "el" refer to, of course, that god. But that is an aside. He is mentioned in 1 Kings 17-22 and 2 Kings 1 and 2. Nothing special is mentioned about his birth.

Chapter 17 deals with a drought and Elijah helping one woman living in one town in Phoenicia, another Semitic empire on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean, and also an expanding empire with colonies throughout the Mediterranean.

Chapter 18 deals with an elaborate ritual with groveling to get a meeting between Elijah and King Ahab with Obadiah as an intermediary, and though it is noted that Obadiah revered Yahweh greatly, no prior or further significant mention is made of him, other than a plot device to arrange this meeting. The result of this meeting is a contest between Elijah and the priests of Ba'al, and Elijah wins with fire coming down from heaven causing even rock to burn, consequently having the priests of Ba'al killed and ending the drought with another bizarre ritual.

Chapter 19 gets odd, as Jezebel, Ahab's wife and queen, a woman who came from Phoenician royalty, finds out and threatens Elijah, and despite the previous stunt that required temperatures as high as 1500º C to melt the stones (humans could not produce temperatures this high until the fourteenth century, over two thousand years later), Elijah was scared of her and fled to Beer-sheba in the south of Judea. He wanders into the desert wallowing in pity and self-doubt, wanting to die, but Yahweh aids him and with a great show of force with winds, an earthquake, fires, and then sheer silence. He then gives instructions to Elijah to wage war on the people of Israel:

Go, return on your way to the wilderness of Damascus; when you arrive, you shall anoint Hazael as king over Aram.
Also you shall anoint Jehu son of Nimshi as king over Israel, and
you shall anoint Elisha son of Shaphat of Abel-meholah as prophet in your place.
Whoever escapes from the sword of Hazael,
Jehu shall kill,
and whoever escapes from the sword of Jehu, Elisha shall kill.
Yet I will leave seven thousand in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has not kissed him.”

While becoming Elijah's disciple, Elisha kills a dozen of his parent's oxen, boils them, and passed that meat out to the people.

Chapters 20, 21 and 22 describes the war and the successors of the thrones of Judea and Israel, including the humorous statement that Yahweh is ‘a god of the hills, but he is not a god of the valleys.’

2 Kings 1 has the king of Samaria die because he inquired of the wrong prophets about his injuries.

Chapter 2 has Elijah ascend into heaven, leaving Elisha behind.

Thus, there are two stories in the Judean scriptures of old women bearing their firstborn through divine intervention with the mothers of Isaac and Samuel; and there are two such stories in the Christian scriptures of old women bearing their firstborn through divine intervention with the mothers of Mary and John the Baptist. There are two ascensions into heaven in the Judean scriptures with Enoch and Elijah, and there are two ascensions into heaven in at least some Christian doctrines: Jesus and Mary. However, nothing suggests that either Enoch or Elijah was free of sin, and there is no relationship between the mothers of Isaac and Samuel and these two fortunate enough to not die.

The humor here is that one hundred years later, the Catholic Church finally realized that if Mary was without original sin, then she could not die, either, and thus, over one thousand nine hundred years after Mary was present at Jesus's execution, it was determined that Mary, too, ascended into heaven, like Jesus, Enoch and Elijah (or at least the first time Elijah entered heaven--the second time, he had to die).

It seems to be Christian doctrine that the wages of sin is death, as this was said by Paul, and based on this, it was necessary that while Jesus died, he was resurrected, and then he subsequently ascended into heaven due to his sin-free life. The Catholic church determined that Mary, too, needed to be free from sin, so she two was given a divine conception in her mother's old age, and she, too, ascended into heaven. What is sad is that if Elijah had returned to Earth somehow as the son of Zechariah and Elizabeth, he then died, despite his former self being one of only two to ascend into heaven according to Judean scriptures. Doctrinally, however, this link between sin and death is not paralleled in the Judean scriptures. While those scriptures do not say that Enoch and Elijah were without sin, you'd think something like that might be at least mentioned. The Christian scriptures seem also to copy stories from the Judean scriptures where old women who are barren are finally given a child when they are past their childbearing years, with the only novelty being one of those offspring (if you believe the Catholic version) is a young virgin who subsequently also gives birth.

Funny aside: If sex or something involved in sex or birth is what causes sin to transfer from parents to children, then if sperm and eggs are mechanically harvested, joined, then re-implanted, and born through a caesarian section, this would mean we could produce offspring that are without "original sin"; or what if we mechanically reproduced the chromosome of a human, and allowed that to grow within an egg; that too, would produce an offspring without "original sin"?

We will now continue by describing the event of the ascension in the gospels, starting with the earliest, Mark, and then Matthew. We will jump ahead to John, to contrast this with Matthew, and then return to Luke, the author of which also wrote Acts, as the ascension is described in both Luke and Acts.

The ascension in Mark

Unfortunately, there is no ascension mentioned in Matthew, as the book ends with the finding of the empty tomb.

The ascension in Matthew

Unfortunately, there is no ascension mentioned in Matthew:

Mary Magdalene and the "other Mary" go to the tomb, there is a earthquake as an angel comes down and rolls away the stone, and he tells them “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. He is not here, for he has been raised, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has been raised from the dead, and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him.’ This is my message for you.”
The women leave the tomb with joy and fear but then Jesus meets them (“Greetings!”), and reiterates: “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers and sisters to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”
The eleven disciples go to Galilee to the mountain Jesus had directed them, where they met him, and where he gives them what has been called the Great Commission.

It is odd that both the angel and Jesus had to give the same message, and note that the disciples appear to have taken the women at their word, for they went to Galilee.

The ascension in John

Unfortunately, there is no ascension described in John, as the book ends with Jesus interacting with his disciples in Galilee, however, it is mentioned:

Mary Magdalene goes to the tomb but finds it empty, so returns to the disciples.
Peter and the disciple who Jesus loved return with her, and find the tomb empty, and they leave Mary alone at the tomb.
Jesus, in disguise, talks to Mary who is still at the tomb, but when he finally reveals himself, he tells her to tell the disciples “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”
That same day, Jesus appears to the disciples who are in a locked room, but Thomas is not there.
Thomas does not believe the other disciples.
A week later, with Thomas there, Jesus shows up again.
Jesus last meets seven of the disciples after they returned to Galilee and once again disguises himself. Jesus then gives them a great catch of fish, and they talk and there is a significant--and almost homoerotic--emphasis on the “the disciple whom Jesus loved.”

And that's it.

You will note that both Matthew and John record Jesus's final interactions with the disciples in Galilee, but while Matthew directs the disciples to go to Galilee, John seems to simply have Jesus some of his disciples who happened to have been there. In Matthew, Jesus addresses eleven (11) disciples, while in John, Jesus addresses only seven (7) disciples. Certainly, there is no record of any instructions given to Mary at the tomb, and Mary does not see any angels in or near the tomb. However, most importantly, no ascension is mentioned.

The ascension in Luke

The ascension is clearly described in Luke, as the book ends with the women finding the empty tomb, Jesus visiting his followers, and Jesus ascending into heaven that same day in Bethany:

We begin with a comment that indicates that it was women who visited the tomb:
The women who had come with him from Galilee followed, and they saw the tomb and how his body was laid. Then they returned and prepared spices and ointments. On the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment.
The women go to the tomb, find the stone rolled away, and they enter the tomb and find it empty. Suddenly, two men in dazzling clothes stood beside them, and the women were told: “Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be handed over to the hands of sinners and be crucified and on the third day rise again.” There was no message about meeting Jesus in Galilee.
The women return and tell what happened to the remaining eleven disciples, but their “words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them.”
Peter, however, runs to the tomb, apparently alone, and discovers that the women were telling the truth.
Two of his followers “on that same day” were walking to a village seven miles from Jerusalem, and Jesus appears to them, but disguises his appearance. Jesus asks “What are you discussing with each other while you walk along?” This allows the author of Luke to then claim that Jesus, while still unknown to these two, gave them a lesson on why Jesus had to die: “Oh, how foolish you are and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have declared! Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and then enter into his glory?” Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures. What is sad here, again, is that author only says that Jesus told all these stories, and gave all the interpretations, but nothing is written as to what these stories were, and what the interpretations were. You may recall, this same author, in Chapter 2, indicated that Jesus was “sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions.” It also says that “And all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers.” However, nothing significant is recorded, despite just a few paragraphs before, the author of Luke being able to record verbatim the words of Simeon.
As the three came to the village, they stop for a meal, and the followers suddenly realized who Jesus was, and “he vanished from their sight.” These two then, at “[t]hat same hour they got up and returned to Jerusalem.” They find the eleven disciples (all eleven, including Thomas), and other followers, and they say “The Lord has risen indeed, and he has appeared to Simon!” This is unfortunate, as there is no record in the above statements that Jesus appeared to Peter (Simon): the women saw men or angels, and Peter only found the empty tomb. These two were the first followers who are recorded as having seen Jesus.
Jesus then appears amongst them, and they think they see a ghost; however, to prove that he is resurrected, he eats some boiled fish. As above, the author of Luke manages again to say that Jesus explained why he had to die, and why he was resurrected: “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you—that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled.” The text then claims that Jesus “opened their minds to understand the scriptures,” but once again, all the details are left out, and Jesus simply concludes with the Christian doctrinal statement “Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.”
The following few verses are clear: “Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and, lifting up his hands, he blessed them. While he was blessing them, he withdrew from them and was carried up into heaven.”

And that's it. Jesus ascends into heaven the same day the women find the empty tomb.

You will note all eleven were present at that meeting, but in the gospel of John, Thomas was not there at that first meeting, and Thomas only saw Jesus one week later, but the author of Luke explicitly records that all eleven disciples were there, so this must have included Thomas, and Jesus ascended into heaven that same day, so how did he appear to Thomas one week later? Finally, nothing is recorded as having happened in Galilee, what-so-ever, and in the first chapter of Acts, the author of Luke (and Acts) states that “[w]hile staying with them, [Jesus] ordered them not to leave Jerusalem but to wait there for the promise of the Father.”

Unfortunately, it gets better, for the author of Luke and Acts reiterates the story of the ascension in the first chapter of Acts.

The ascension in Acts

The ascension is reiterated in Acts: Immediately, the author provides an interesting statement:

After his suffering he presented himself alive to them by many convincing proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.

The ascension in Luke seems to occur on the exact same day that the women find the tomb empty. There is no record of Jesus appearing to his followers more than once, and definitely not for forty days.

Jesus also tells his followers to stay in Jerusalem and wait for the Holy Spirit:

While staying with them, he ordered them not to leave Jerusalem but to wait there for the promise of the Father.

“This,” he said, “is what you have heard from me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

Finally, we have the ascension described, so the events surrounding the ascension appear to have occurred on the fortieth day:

So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, is this the time when you will restore the kingdom to Israel?”

This question, of course, allows the author to describe why, after fifty years, the Romans are still in Judea, and why Jerusalem has fallen:

[Jesus] replied, “It is not for you to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority.”

The author of Luke and Acts has Jesus follow this with a doctrinal statement:

“But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

We now have a statement about the ascension:

When he had said this, as they were watching, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.

Not recorded in Luke is another parallel to the events at the tomb:

While he was going and they were gazing up toward heaven, suddenly two men in white robes stood by them.

They said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking up toward heaven? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.”

Thus, the author of both Luke and Acts seems to have changed his interpretation as to what happened around the ascension. One may argue that in the gospel of Luke, it does not explicitly state that the ascension happened that same day, but it can be reasonably inferred. Also, there is no mention of Galilee by the author of Luke and Acts.

Summary

It should be clear that the authors of the gospels are hopeless confused about the post-baptismal events. You will recall that the author of Mark was most likely parallels the ideas of the adoptionist interpretation of Jesus: Jesus was born of Mary and Joseph, Jesus was adopted the Son of Yahweh at his baptism and the Spirit of Yahweh entered into him, and that same spirit left him on the cross. Jesus, however, was resurrected a few days later. With this view, there was no need for the author of Mark to include any events before his baptism or after his resurrection. The authors of Matthew and Luke both copied from Mark, but they likely did not have access to each other's works, so both the birth narratives and the post-resurrection narratives are hopelessly confusing, but focusing only on the ascension:

Mark makes no mention of it.
Matthew has the Jesus give the women at the tomb a message to pass onto the disciples: they are to meet him in Galilee. The disciples apparently believe the women, all eleven (11) disciples go there, and they meet Jesus, and there is no mention of the ascension.
John has Jesus appear to most of the disciples the day the women visited the tomb, but Thomas is not there. The next week, Thomas is there. Finally, Jesus appears to seven (7) of the disciples who happen to be in Galilee.
Luke has some men or angels tell the women that Jesus is risen, who return to tell the disciples, who don't believe the women. Peter runs back and only finds the empty tomb. Jesus then appears to two followers, but disguises himself, and teaches them why Jesus had to die and be resurrected. After revealing himself, he disappears. The followers return to the disciples, claiming that “The Lord has risen indeed, and he has appeared to Simon!” even though they were the first two recorded to have seen Jesus alive and Peter (Simon) only finding an empty tomb. Jesus appears again to all the eleven (11) disciples, and teaches them, and on that same day (apparently) leads them out to Bethany where he ascends into heaven.
Acts repeats the story, but now Jesus remains around Jerusalem for forty days, and tells the disciples to not leave Jerusalem. After forty days, Jesus ascends into heaven, but there is a repeat of the two men or angels who speak to the disciples.

In a sense, a bunch of friends who were hoping that Judea would become independent again were following a charismatic leader who was subsequently executed for having had himself anointed, and consequently, proclaiming he was the Judean king. This was relayed to the priests and Sadducees, and given the trouble he had caused, they turned him over to the Romans, who had him executed for sedition. These friends lost a good friend and teacher, and they started to make stories up about why all this happened. As they dispersed, they came up with different, and unfortunately, contradictory stories about the life and death and resurrection of their teacher Jesus. Others believed, and they continued to embellish the stories, having not only Jesus ascend into heaven, but also his mother Mary. They are all harmless stories, until followers insist that all are true simultaneously and consequently impose their beliefs on others, to the detriment of everyone else.

If you're a Muslim, you can rest assured that the stories in the Christian scriptures regarding Jesus's ascension into heaven are clearly contradictory, and this contrasts with the more straight-forward statements in the Quran:

That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah"; but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not: Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.

Quran: An-Nisa' (ٱلنِّسَاء or The Women) 157–158

وَقَوْلِهِمْ إِنَّا قَتَلْنَا ٱلْمَسِيحَ عِيسَى ٱبْنَ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولَ ٱللَّهِ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَـٰكِن شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ ۚ وَإِنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ ٱخْتَلَفُوا۟ فِيهِ لَفِى شَكٍّۢ مِّنْهُ ۚ مَا لَهُم بِهِۦ مِنْ عِلْمٍ إِلَّا ٱتِّبَاعَ ٱلظَّنِّ ۚ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ يَقِينًۢا ١٥٧

بَل رَّفَعَهُ ٱللَّهُ إِلَيْهِ ۚ وَكَانَ ٱللَّهُ عَزِيزًا حَكِيمًۭا ١٥٨

While perhaps vague, these statements do not lead to the contradictions found in Christian scriptures.

Apologetics

Of course, these issues described above have been noted by, for example, by Bart Ehrman, and there are apologies for theses observations. It may be true that, for example, the author of Luke simply summarized forty days of activities in a single flow of sentences. After all, if you were writing about a friend who visited you for forty days, consider the following description of such a visit: “Out-of-the-blue, she visited me and our friends in New York and the evening she arrived, we had a few discussions. Then she led us out to the train station and left.” That, together with the fact that the stories in Matthew and John in no way overlap indicate that the authors had no clue what really happened, and each is piecing together stories they have heard, stories that were made up and reinterpreted: the massive catch of fish recorded in John is not mentioned at all in Acts (or Luke for that matter), except that that is the seminal event that causes Simon (Peter), James and John to follow Jesus at the start of his ministry, not after his resurrection, and that this calling of Simon, James and John differs significantly from what is recorded in Mark and Matthew, where Simon and Andrew are called first, and only later James and John, which differs again from John, where Andrew (apparently a disciple of John the Baptist) immediately recognizes Jesus as the Messiah the day after Jesus's baptism, and convinces his brother Simon to join them. The stories are irreconcilable, but the apologist simple tries to sow doubt here, sow doubt there, and never tries to explain the entire narrative.

Remember, if Yahweh is all powerful and all knowing, he could have easily inspired his authors to at least not make such obvious blunders. However, the true believer is not interested in the truth, they are only interested in the belief, and apologists will simply try to sow a little bit of doubt, just enough so that the true believer has reassurance that the issue may not really be an issue, and so can rest more easily in their faith, claiming, of course, that dealing with this obvious issue has only “strengthened their faith.”

Also, remember that if the gospels are so divinely inspired, why are Matthew and Luke in general harmony with each other whenever both authors copied off of Mark, but when they crossed into material not covered in Mark, such as the birth narratives and the post-resurrection narratives, they diverge greatly. In general, there is a much higher probability that if two stories follow each other in Mark, that they also follow each other in Matthew and Luke, than not, and yet, when the authors of Matthew and Luke no longer have Mark to rely upon, the authors appear to have absolutely no overlapping, no coherence and no similarity for those stories that are told with respect to Jesus's birth or post-resurrection activities.