Talk:Ascension of Jesus

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. Adding a proforma sig to enable archiving PiCo (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

"embarassment"?
" Despite this, in modern times the Ascension is seen less as the climax of the mystery of Christ than as "something of an embarrassment", in the words of McGill University's Douglas Farrow.[4]"

By whom? Why? Based on which study, survey or account? Of who?

Why is this statement put out there in the summary of a mystery of a religion? Does it describe the positive doctrines upheld by that religion, or is it perhaps a widely upheld belief of the professed religious?

What instructive value does this statement hold and what is its purpose here? It seems like a casual remark of any random person on the street, and not as a product of careful scholarship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.140.149.144 (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the following is WP:UNDUE for the lead:


 * At least, it should be attributed. The line comes from Ascension of Jesus. The line is not an accurate summary of this section; a summary would state that contemporray views on (the idea of) the ascension of Jesus are different from the classic views on the ascension. What's more, this section may be WP:SYNTHESIS: "The cosmology of the author of Luke-Acts was quite different:" - which source connects Dunn and Farrow with this statement? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  17:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The embarrassment of the modern academic community with the ascension as depicted in Acts springs from this: Acts shows Jesus moving physically in an upwards direction towards the sky: this made sense in the 1st century, when heaven was conceived as a physical place located on the other side of a solid sky - Jesus was going up to take his place at the right hand of God, whose throne was located on the floor of that sky directly over the Holy of Holies (which, incidentally, is why Jesus departs from the Mount of Olives - it's on the right of the Temple as these things were conceived in ancient Judea). Today, no theologian would hold that the sky is solid or that Heaven is located above it or that God has a throne that stands on its floor. Hence the embarrassment. Please read the sources given in the Bibliography before reverting this. (It might help too to see the article Biblical cosmology). 124.171.130.171 (talk) 04:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:LEAD: the lead summarizes the article. Quotes are unusual for the lead; providing a quote which is not in the article is not a summary of the article; and the quote on it's own is not an adequate summary of the point you're making above. The point is there when one takes the ascension story very literal; I think that this should be explained too. Two statements from Dunn and Farrow are just too sketchy here. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Bible scholarship is mostly about what it meant for them (authors), not for us. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Joshua Jonathan, that quotes are unusual in leads is irrelevant - I've been editing Wikipedia much, much longer than you have, and I know. Tgeorgescu is quite right, we try to reflect what subjects (in this case the ascension of Jesus) mean for scholars, not what they mean for editors (i.e, for you). If you want, I can write an entire paragraph on the embarrassment of the ascension, complete with meticulously sourced biblical scholarship. That's what I'm sort of famous for on Wikipedia.124.171.130.171 (talk) 09:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I meant: Bible scholarship is about what the Bible writings meant something like 2000 years ago. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

This low level edit-warring over the Farrow quotation needs to stop. Looking at the edit history of the page it has been going on since February. Every few days the quote is added, then a few days later (re)moved. If it continues I shall refer it to an admin for action. I'm pleased to see a discussion has started here; please resolve it here before editing the main page. Thanks, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The quote is valid and should be included. The only question is "how?" Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:10, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * First by providing the context, in the relevant section. @IP124: if you know so much, how come you're not aware that the lead summarizes the article? The quote you re-added is not in the article, nor does it explain why the ascension is regarded as an embarrassement by whom. Also, you removed sourced info with this edit; exactly the kind of info providing context. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  10:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've read pages 7-9 of farrow; there's more to him than just a catchy quote. I've added some on this, but maybe there are editors with a theological background who can do a better job here explaining the absence/presence "embarrassment." Anyway, presenting the quote without the context is misleading. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  11:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Willem Jan Otten:
 * Bron: Trouw, 8 juni 2019. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Bron: Trouw, 8 juni 2019. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Unwarranted deletions
The Muslim view is not expounded at length, but at least deserves a mention. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Seeing this article is about Jesus Christ and the Christian religion it seems the mention of the islam view is rather irrelevant. There is no inclusion in the muhammad article lead that Christians claim muhammad is a false prophet and it would appear correct in there not being one. NPOV is an important aspect to wikipedia articles. Anyone with half a brain can realize that religions often contradict one another's beliefs. Why not just allow the reader to form their own viewpoints without bogging each article down with minutia and countless opposing viewpoints. Should the republican article contain the fact that democrats oppose many of the ideas and viewpoints held by republicans? Besides wikipedia does not allow for original research with the inclusion of commentary and opinions in secondary sources. Furthermore, the priimary sources capitalize "Son of Man" which you also reverted while blantantly reverting my edits. Have a blessed day and God bless you.2600:1700:7610:41E0:8C11:5768:A157:AB5E (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Christ fuhr gen Himmel
It is about this change. First the single sentence seems to be lost. Second I am unsure wether Christ fuhr gen Himmel is a good exampel for an ascension hymn; at least in an english speaking Encyclopedia. The de:Christ Himmelfahrt neither mentiones that hymn nor is there an article about it.—Hfst (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit war
Reason for reverting serial deletions: WP:VERECUNDIAM. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * It is deeply disingenuous to present the claim of one scholar as factual, especially when what the scholar is saying can easily be debunked by simply checking what is said in the primary citation with elementary reasoning, then fall back on 'Wikipedia is about appeals to authority'. If this is really about having a repository of the opinions of the scholarly community, then it would be treated as apparent that scholars believe that Luke presents the resurrection and ascension on the same day instead of deliberately disinforming people who simply stumble on the page; judging by your edit history though, I'm sure you knew that already and simply don't care. If this is some way of soothing some deep-seated religious trauma through moderating internet encyclopedias to 'own those fundamentalists', let me give you a little bit of advice: therapy works better and no amount of internet mod authority will give your life real meaning. Remember that death comes for us all, and live accordingly. 67.239.64.253 (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, friend, you don't win souls with truisms. I believe in God, but also that life is objectively meaningless. And your feeling that you "know" the meaning of life is just a subjective idea. I don't say it is right or wrong, but it is merely your own opinion. Not WP:THETRUTH.
 * But there is not 1 (one) scholar cited, there are 3 (three). tgeorgescu (talk) 04:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "but also that life is objectively meaningless." Isn't that common knowledge? We live, we die, we are forgotten, and our life's work is undone. My family told me this when I was about 6 or 7 years old, in order to explain that our dead relatives will never return. Plus, most of my family (including the self-described Christians) did not believe in an afterlife. Dimadick (talk) 04:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Let's get back to the IP: multiple scholars, not one, have noticed this discrepancy between Luke and Acts. The "one scholar" probably refers to Dunn, who is not 'just one scholar', but one of the most relevant scholars of New Testament studies, whose "claims" are almost by definition ('Wikipedia gives a summary of the relevant scholarly literature) relevant. And, checking the primary source (Luke): yeah, that's one day they're describing - according to my "elementary reasoning," but also according to multiple authors. If you don't like discrepanies and intend to harmonize them, in this case by WP:CENSORSHIP, you should start a blog. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * PS IP: good for you that your therapy works fine. And editing on Wikipedia definitely gives me real-life meaning; I love the idea that sound knowledge and sane reasoning, accessible to everyone, can enlighten some readers burdened by (religious) dogma's and suppressing ideologies. As in: the Bible is not faultless, think for yourself. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yup, the statement you will die, therefore the Bible is without error does not even remotely make sense. It only makes sense if we remember that people who pointed out the objective errors of the Bible used to be sentenced to the capital punishment. If a professor wrote a penal law treatise as fallible as the Bible, his peers would say he has lost his mind. And the inevitability of death would have no impact upon such judgment. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @IP: you can fool yourself that I'm the Big Bad Wolf who ruins everything Christian at Wikipedia, or you can accept an explanation which is more compliant with Occam's razor, namely that the powers of WP:BESTSOURCES are opposing you. In fact, everybody should know that at Wikipedia editors who merely push their own POV are very easy to defeat. Editors who simply push a POV get contained, at a certain point they will rebel against containment measures, so they will misbehave, and they will get blocked and then banned. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "And the inevitability of death would have no impact upon such judgment." Death is both inevitable and part of humanitys universal experience. Both the Bible and Christianity itself have very little impact to our understanding of this experience. They are merely irrelevant. Dimadick (talk) 08:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just a noob here with a question: Why does this page imply controversy regarding the separation of Resurrection and Ascension by 40 days based on a just a few sources? There is no controversy in my RSV Bible -- it doesn't include the words "ascended into heaven" in Luke 24:51 -- and no translation says anything like "that same day." Further, there is no controversy among 2/3 of all Christians, nor among Catholic and Orth. priests, all of whom are scholars with MDivs or STLs and preside at the Mysteries of Ascension roughly 40 days after the Resurrection. Luke172021 (talk) 10:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * means based upon top Bible scholars. Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED for the protection of Catholic/Eastern Orthodox sensibilities. It is a hardcore website based upon mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Climate change denial is not in the first paragraph of the Climate Change article, because the top scholars who endorse it hold an extreme, minority view. In a similar way, the views of top scholars Dunn and McGill should also be pulled out of the first paragraph and pushed down the page -- if included at all -- because they are extreme, minority views [which] might be confusing to folks wanting to learn about the mystery of the Ascension of the Lord. Why would you say I'm protecting sensibilities or trying to censor? And WP is hardcore? I thought WP it was reliable, mainstream, collaborative knowledge for all. This is my first WP experience.  Sincerely sorry if I'm doing something wrong. Luke172021 (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is based upon highbrow scholarship, not upon lowbrow apologetics. Your definition of fringe isn't ours, see WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia is heavily biased for the mainstream academia, I wrote an essay thereupon, see WP:ABIAS. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information. But "lowbrow apologetics"?  Aargh. Luke172021 (talk) 11:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It is because mainstream Bible scholars don't cater to ordinary churchgoers, they cater to the mainstream academia. tgeorgescu (talk)  12:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The reader needs to know, rather than obscure academic piffle, that the Ascension concerns the upward movement of Jesus Christ in the hierarchy of ideas, not about literally going up into the sky. It's about how the truth of how Jesus Christ became a beacon to the world; not about rising upward in space, but upward in the way that a kite is visible to more and more observers the higher it goes. There is a hidden agenda in asking "Did Jesus Christ ascend that very day or some time later?" -- it is an underhanded way of asserting that Christians believe in a sky fairy. Every serious Christian knows that the Ascension of the Creator and Logos to his place in human culture (philosophy, ethics, history, etc.) is both an observable fact and an aeternal, continuing process that supercedes the merely temporal/material. That belongs at the top of the article. Not some silly argument onever heard that beforever how many angels fit on the head of a pin. Luke172021 (talk) 12:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ❌, see https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/gre13.htm
 * This might not be apparent to you, but Wikipedia does not cater specifically at Christians, but at an worldwide, multi-religious and multi-ethnic audience.
 * upward movement of Jesus Christ in the hierarchy of ideas&mdash;I was various sorts of Christian and never heard that before. E.g. did not know that Jesus Christ was an idea. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't say Christ was an idea, but you know that. Your sarcasm is not helpful in properly editing this page. The 1911 Britannica has no reference to an alleged controversy in its article on the Ascension, nor is there any controversy in the 1939 International Standard Bible Encyclopedia entry on the Ascension. Someone who comes to the WP page on the Ascension doesn't need to know, in the first paragraph, about some alleged controversy that Dunn introduced 20 years and that languishes in obscurity. Introducing a supposed controversy in the first paragraph violates the standard form of the Inverted pyramid (journalism). Dunn's ideas belong at the bottom of the article or should be deleted. Luke172021 (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We're not doing journalism, we are a hardcore encyclopedia based upon mainstream academic scholarship. Take it or leave it, it's part of the package. We do render theology as opinion, never as WP:THETRUTH. If I wasn't clear enough: Dunn trumps the Church Fathers, because Dunn is or was a modern, mainstream Bible scholar. If you have no respect for people like Dunn, sooner or later you will be shown the door. E.g. the Church Fathers had absolutely no idea of the modern historical method. Or about the Kantian concept of objectivity. In short: if you did not get the point by now, you will never get it, so it is futile to argue with us. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem. I have canceled my monthly donation to Wikimedia Foundation.  I maintain that the Ascension is a religious holiday and any article about it should be about its religious meaning and importance, not about trying to tear it to pieces with a materialistic, temporal hammer.  If WP isn't about free, reliable, agenda-free information for all, I don't want to play.  Say no more -- you win. Luke172021 (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Donations aren't leverage over content. Since Wikipedia isn't a pulpit for WP:SOAPBOXING, nor a PR venue. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My experience with you has been so miserable, and your condescension so off-putting, that I no longer want my money feeding this project. This isn't me attempting leverage, or soapboxing.  This is me, a monthly donor since 2018, leaving the project after my first interaction because how I was treated. Luke172021 (talk) 10:27, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We have WP:RULES of how we write articles. We won't change our rules just because you threaten to stop donating. I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard that. Fact is that you had already disagreed with how Wikipedia works, but probably you weren't aware of it. We won't compromise scholarly information for the sake of money. Love of money is the root of ruining encyclopedias. The Wikimedia Foundation has plenty of donors who appreciate Wikipedia for what it really is, not for what they wished it to be. If every donor would get their way, to push their own POV, Wikipedia would be ruined. My two cents are that the same trolls come time after time to lambaste our religious neutrality and then the very same people claim each time that they have stopped donating. But the WP:RULES are clear, and this is a fight the trolls can't win. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @IP: we neither endorse nor combat against theological orthodoxy. We're religiously neutral and matters of theological orthodoxy are not for us the determining factor. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't compare Dunn to a climate change denier.... That the NT-writings contain discrepancies, and reflect particular opinions, beliefs, and agendas, can hardly be called an 'extremist' point of view, and shouldn't be surprising to anyone acquainted with Biblical scholarship. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  03:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I added that info to the lead diff, together with an expansion of the article, in response to the line According to the New Testament narrative, the Ascension occurred on the fortieth day, which is obviously a religious perspective, not a scholary perspective. That is, Wikipedia was used to present a religious perspective, not an overview of the scholarly literature. And scholars do agree that the NT-accounts are at odds with each other. As for the detail on the limits that Acts puts on the 'bona fide experiences': yes, that's the view of one author, and going against the contemporaneous Christian view. But, Dunn is a highly relevant scholar; his views are not fringe or so; Paul definitely was a controversial figure in early Christianity; and divergence between early Christian factions is historically, and theologically relevant. Wikipedia is not a faith-based encyclopedia; it's secular, and inherently aiming at questioning status qua by providing relevant, scholarly information. So, these are good reasons to keep this info in the lead. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)