Talk:Ascension of Jesus
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
[edit] When is it?
The article goes to great lengths about Christian history but never manages to mention how it is defined when Ascension Day actually is. All I know is that it's some Thursday between early May and early June, but between that, it varies seemingly randomly. JIP | Talk 04:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- OK, according to the Finnish Wikipedia, Ascension is forty days after the first Sunday after the first full moon after vernal equinox. No wonder it varies so much, as it relies both on real-life astronomical phenomena and on our artificial week calendar. JIP | Talk 04:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox is commonly known as Easter Sunday. Ascension Day is forty days after Easter Sunday.195.128.250.19 22:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Location of Heaven
I want to comment on the following paragraph:
"Even within the pious Christian tradition, the language used by the Evangelists to describe the Ascension must be interpreted according to usage. To say that He was taken up or that He ascended, does not necessarily imply that they locate heaven directly above the earth; no more than the words "sitteth on the right hand of God" mean that this is His actual posture. In disappearing from their view "He was raised up and a cloud received Him out of their sight" (Acts 1:9), and entering into glory He dwells with the Father in the honour and power denoted by the scripture phrase, would have had to have been an assumption based on the disappearance."
I do not think that this sentence can be sustained rationally: "To say that He was taken up or that He ascended, does not necessarily imply that they locate heaven directly above the earth". If the destination of Jesus was Heaven and He ascended, the logical conclusion is that Heaven is above the Earth. Otherwise, Jesus did not need to ascend at all. Also, this is the way Elijah and Enoch went to Heaven, which implies that it was a common belief of the time that Heaven was above the Earth (even many centuries afterwards, Mohammed is claimed to have ascended to Heaven on a horse). Also, Apolonius of Tyana and Romulus ascended to Heaven. And in Marcion's Gospel, Jesus is claimed to have come down from Heaven. So this was a common belief, and this what Luke most likely thought about the location of Heaven.
[edit] Disambiguation
The following was added in a recent edit: "Also refers to the process of gaining Enlightenment and several meditation techniques. See also Ishaya's [sic] Ascension." This seems to me to be inappropriate. The {{otheruse}} tag already states that this particular article is about the Ascension of Jesus Christ and refers the reader to the disambiguation page for other uses. Ishayas' Ascension is already mentioned on that page. I would recommend removing the edit altogether, but was interested in getting other opinions first. MishaPan 19:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Body of Jesus,etc
Ascension and Asumption say that "Bodies" ascended to heaven. Then do these Bodies exist somewhere in the universe or what? This bothers me. SmJOE 06:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ascension (disambiguation)
Shouldn't this be a disambiguation page? When I hear 'ascension' I think first of the ascension of a king and then right ascension (not to mention the Spanish name Ascensión, which is the name of a former girlfriend of mine). The word means too many different things to different people, so it should start with a disambiguation. This article could then become Ascension (Jesus) or something similar. DirkvdM 07:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- No responses after a week so I'll make it so. DirkvdM 12:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Copied from my talk page: DirkvdM 11:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Not if you maroon the article on the liturgical festival (and the biblical event it commemorates) as you have done, surely. Where can the article be found now? Masalai 09:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- I don't know what you mean. The article is right here. At the risk of sounding condescending: are you familiar with how Wikipedia works? Ascension now redirects to a disambiguation page, as is customary for a term that can have several meanings, none of which is obviously predominant (the most likely thing people will be looking for when they search for it in an encyclopedia). The link to this article is at the top of that page. Sorry if I stated the obvious, but I don't understand your question. DirkvdM 11:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- And the link on the disambiguation page to "Ascension" simply led back to the self-same disambiguation page. Yes, I do know how it works. It's been fixed now. Thank you. Masalai 12:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Ah, the double redirect thing, I suppose. Seems like I don't know how it works. :) DirkvdM 18:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Disambiguation link repair should be done now. - cohesion 20:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
I suggest moving this to Ascension of Jesus to match Jesus and Virgin Birth of Jesus and Death and resurrection of Jesus.-Andrew c [talk] 01:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Seems fine to me, but I don't usually work on these articles. It would just involve switching the redirects. :) - cohesion 04:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] US Practice (and elsewhere?)
Most Dioceses in the United States have transferred the celebration of this from Thursday to the following Sunday. It seems to me this ought to be noted, and I'm wondering whether any other countries have done this. MrArticleOne (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure England and Scotland have, and could find ref's if its desired. Carl.bunderson (talk)