Talk:Ascension
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Orthodox dates
I think the Orthodox dates of the Ascension should be listed along side of the Western ones, since they're often different, depending on the Orthodox date for Easter.
[edit] Awkward image
I removed the image at right from the article. For one, it was improperly placed: at the very end of the article (after the categories) with no formatting information (so it was full-size, which is generally a very bad idea). Secondly, it adds very little to the article, with no explanatory text describing how it relates to the topic. Because of the table in the article, I couldn't find an elegant way of integrating it into the article. If someone else wants to try, please do so, but only if you address to two problems noted above. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:15, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Superstitions
How about some actual biblical content instead of a bunch of superstitions? Like, why is the ascension significant in the grand scheme of salvation?
- You're absolutely right. I think that the superstitions are all a bunch of garbage. Why they, instead of biblical accounts, are listed here is beyond me. However, they can be removed and replaced by biblical content. You might try talking to the editors about this dillemma, or you could edit the page yourself if you know enough about what the Bible says about the ascension. As for your question, the ascension is very important in the grand scheme of salvation. Muslims believe that Jesus ascended into Heaven before he died, while he was on the cross. This theory is nonsense. That would be defeating his purpose for being on earth. He did die and rise again, and he ascended into Heaven after his reserrection. Scorpionman 18:26, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that the entire Superstitions section be removed from the article. Without some verifiable reference, they are meaningless and don't contribute to the page. Unless someone objects, I'm going to act on this (not earlier than a week from today). -Rholton 19:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- I added a fact template. Give it a bit, if no source is added it goes bye bye. Dominick (TALK) 19:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Should this whole article come under "superstition"? (135.196.109.220 09:25 25 May 2006)
- It is a belief, but a belief isn't necessarily a superstition. (Gimmetrow 19:48 25 May 2006)
- Yes it is. Different word, same meaning. (135.196.109.220 17:10 2 June 2006)
- It is a belief, but a belief isn't necessarily a superstition. (Gimmetrow 19:48 25 May 2006)
Please sign your posts using ~~~~.
The words belief and superstition can be synonymous, though there's an obvious difference in tone. I'd suggest that we stick to doctrines in this article, which are verifiable. –RHolton≡– 19:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] bodily vs. body
An anon edit changed "...holds that Jesus bodily ascended..." to "...holds that Jesus body ascended..." While this is arguably clearer (and should probably be possessive if changed), the adverbial form seems a common religious formula. Saying "Jesus' body ascended" may even misrepresent the doctrine according to some beliefs. Therefore I am reverting. Gimmetrow 19:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
You can't really build the tower of Babel to reach God, yet you can fly away to heaven like Jesus from Mount Bethany. Yeah, sure. Just don't try and take a plane there... he he... (140.211.161.22 22:37 31 May 2006)
[edit] No non-Biblical accounts?
The article says that there are no non-Biblical accounts of the Ascension. This is very much not the case! There is an extraordinary account of it in the Pistis Sophia. In fact the Gnostics happily discuss the Ascension all over the place! ThePeg 1.8.2006
