Talk:Ascension of Jesus/Archive 1

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. &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 14:15, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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. J I P | 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. J I P  | 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)

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 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)

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)


 * In the original sense, yes, Jesus' body existed up in the sky. That's why he floated up into the air instead of turning into a ghost or something. Some even say that it is this miracle, a human body incorporated into the Trinity, that lets humans ascend toward godhood after death. These days we think of heaven as a spiritual dimension or something, but in those days it was "the heavens," the celestial realm, and world above. Leadwind (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The author substitutes the word Jesus after he quotes Paul's reference to the Risen Christ. Since the demise of the ancient Mysteries and Gnostics, it became the belief that the physical body of Jesus was the Resurrection Body of Christ. These so-called heretics would claim that at baptism Christ united with the body of Jesus. This mystery itself is no longer understood.  Then Jesus-Christ can become the second Adam, the Son of Man by permeating the members.  Paul cites the members as body, soul, and spirit.  Christ overcomes these and thus overcomes the world.  All members, including the physical body, are spiritualized within those 3 years.  And in 3 days, this spiritualized, new body, arises, resurrects through the spirit.  This body can be touched and felt but it is no longer physical, no longer must it obey gravity and the laws of nature.  It is acceptable into Heaven.  The Logos God became flesh making it possible for all humans to become Logos, to become part of the spiritual body of Christ. 16 October 2009  —Preceding unsigned comment added by UMinventor (talk • contribs) 22:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

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)
 * The author substitutes the word Jesus after he quotes Paul's reference to the Risen Christ. Since the demise of the ancient Mysteries and Gnostics, it became the belief that the physical body of Jesus was the Resurrection Body of Christ. These so-called heretics would claim that at baptism Christ united with the body of Jesus. This mystery itself is no longer understood.  Then Jesus-Christ can become the second Adam, the Son of Man by permeating the members.  Paul cites the members as body, soul, and spirit.  Christ overcomes these and thus overcomes the world.  All members, including the physical body, are spiritualized within those 3 years.  And in 3 days, this spiritualized, new body, arises, resurrects through the spirit.  This body can be touched and felt but it is no longer physical, no longer must it obey gravity and the laws of nature.  It is acceptable into Heaven.  The Logos God became flesh making it possible for all humans to become Logos, to become part of the spiritual body of Christ. 16 October 2009     —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.46.166 (talk) 22:50, 16 October 2009 (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)

U.S. 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)

Expanded lead
I built out the lead some. The old lead listed Bible verses but didn't tell the reader much, so now the lead summarizes those verses. This page is a good topic and could use some more scholarship. Leadwind (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Why did Jesus rise up into the sky?
The traditional answer is that he was rising bodily to the heavens, which were physically situated above the earth. Is there a modern answer, now that Heaven is considered a spiritual dimension rather than a physical location? Leadwind (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably for the benefit of the watching apostles, who at that time would have still believed heaven was in the sky. +Angr 11:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Jesus Seminar
The article references the Jesus Seminar for some statements. Prefaced by words like "Scholars of the historical Jesus commonly say..." this gives the impression that most scholars doubt the veracity of the ascension and believe it to have been constructed by early believers in the context of a church dispute. I worry about putting this sort of important statement referencing only the Jesus Seminar, which has been questioned for its scholarship and accuracy. Connor Gilbert (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The Jesus Seminar features several scholars who are notable in their own right, and its main sin is merely that it popularizes the skeptical outlook that is common in academia. JS does take a minority view in concluding that Jesus didn't preach a coming apocalypse, but otherwise they're pretty much in synch with what I've read in other, solid sources (e.g., Sanders, Thiessen & Merz). But please do improve the page by finding some good reliable sources and citing them. If you could find an RS that says that plenty of scholars think Jesus really did rise up into the sky, that would be a fine addition to the page. Leadwind (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Docetism
New here. The reference to docetism on Line 27 is messy and in need of work.

First of all, the primary feature of docetism is NOT the evilness of matter, but the illusory nature of Jesus' body. In the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on docetism cited on the Wikipedia entry on docetism, it distinguishes docetism from gnosticism (though there is historically a great deal of overlap): "As Clement distinguished the Docetae from other Gnostic sects, he probably knew some sectaries the sum-total of whose errors consisted in this illusion theory; but Docetism, as far as at present known, as always an accompaniment of Gnosticism or later of Manichaeism."

Second, even if docetism is a form of gnosticism, not all gnostic sects taught that matter was evil. So still, the reference is inappropriate.

Third, I would revert wording back to "docetic beliefs" from the edit "beliefs of Docetism", since the latter makes it seems like docetism was a coherent school of beliefs, rather than an appellation put on certain beliefs of a sect by those outside the sect.

I'm new here, but I will reword this if no one else wants to.Jim Casy (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Error in History section
The following text currently appears in the article:

''The site was ultimately acquired by two emissaries of Saladin in the year 1198 and has remained in the possession of the Islamic Waqf of Jerusalem ever since. The martyrium, though now only bare stone, enshrines the rock said to bear the imprint of the right foot of Christ as he ascended, and is venerated by Christians as the last point on earth touched by the incarnate Christ. The Crusader building was converted to a mosque but was never used by Muslims since the overwhelming majority of visitors were Christian. As a gesture of compromise and goodwill, Saladin ordered the construction of a second mosque and mihrab two years later next door to the chapel for Muslim worship while Christians continued to visit the main chapel.''

None of this is possible in the dates given. Saladin died in 1193, and certainly could not have acquired the chapel in 1198, or ordered the construction of a mosque there in what would have been 1200. This either happened in 1188-90 (my guess, since this was shortly after he took Jerusalem), or it was his brother and eventual successor Al-Adil I. Jsc1973 (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ascension of Jesus as described by Quran?
I came to this article hoping to read about the Ascension of Jesus as described by non-Christian sources such as the Quran. Somebody with this knowledge, please contribute to this article. --207.98.200.108 (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It is described at Jesus in Islam, but maybe it deserves mention here too. Sakkura (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

An Oriental Orthodox issue
"The bodily Ascension into heaven is also understood as the final token of Christ's two natures"

This statement is posted in a conjoint EO & OO section. However, the OO do not believe in two natures in Christ. So, either the statement should be edited to reflect that it is only relevant to EOy or it should be removed. Deusveritasest (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Beliefs presented as facts
Most everything here is described as though the Biblical accounts are unambiguously factual (hence, "in-universe"). Could the wording not be cleaned up to indicate that these accounts are held as Christian tenets, but are not necessarily factual? 75.71.46.105 (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I fixed the first paragraph, but there are other instances of that. But the first sentence says "in Christian teachings", so it does not flatly claim facts there, but teachings. This type of copy editing is not earthshaking, just takes work. The rest of it needs to be copy edited too. I will put it on my list.... as soon as I find the list. History2007 (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Eastern and Oriental Christianity
Last paragraph. The first sentence is incomplete. Respectfully,  Tiyang (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. History2007 (talk) 07:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Article needs help
I tagged a few cases, but refs were deadlinks and some are just online sources rather than WP:RS. The theology section is pretty incomplete... History2007 (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a note that a year later all those issues have been addressed and corrected. History2007 (talk) 00:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I Can't Make Sense of the Counting
I'm sorry, the following ended up on the wrong talk page (The Resurrection of Jesus) - my fault, my apologies. But the question still remains.

The third day after Good Friday is the following Monday, unless you count both days, Friday and Sunday. The same goes with the ascension. If Jesus first appeared on Easter Sunday, then forty days later (i.e after Easter Sunday) would be a Friday - unless of course, one counts both Easter Sunday and the Ascension of Jesus. The wording "...celebrated on the 40th day of Easter (always a Thursday)" doesn't make sense either, unless Easter starts on a Saturday. Could anyone explain? All the best 85.220.22.139 (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Ascension days after resurrection confusing - clarification needed
The first paragraph describes the ascension as " occurring 40 days after the resurrection". This was incorrectly interpreted by an acquaintance as 40 days after THE DAY of the resurrection, leading them to question why Ascension Day was on a Thursday and not a Friday. There are also many statements that Jesus was resurrected and ascended 40 days LATER. Acts 1 states that Jesus was seen by his disciples for 40 days. He was seen on the day of his resurrection and ascended on the 40th day - 39 days after the day of resurrection. Perhaps it would be clearer if the phrase was changed to "occurring on the 40th day of resurrection." I'm not thrilled about that one either and wanted to give others an opportunity to come up with a better clarification rather than make the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuietJohn (talk • contribs) 04:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't come up with a better suggestion than the one you made.Ckruschke (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Ascension of Jesus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120717161854/http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/homilies/1979/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_19790524_seminari-ingl-roma_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/homilies/1979/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_19790524_seminari-ingl-roma_en.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121118012439/http://www.vatican.va:80/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19890405en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19890405en.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070616160651/http://www.transfigcathedral.org/faith/Bulgakov/0599.pdf to http://www.transfigcathedral.org/faith/Bulgakov/0599.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Bias
What a bullshit page. Why does wikipedia just present opinions, of who? Some person who gives their opinion in their book. That is not truth. It is just an opinion. This non believer does not believe in the ascension, that non believer does not believe in the ascension. So why do we need to hear the opinion of these non believers, and what is their authority of having any knowledge of the historical event, to tell us that they think it did not happen? Why not ask your neighbour or a baby, their opinion about history, if opinion is the only think wikipedia cares about? As long as we put that opinion into a book, or some print, and then make it our source for wikipedia. Inflating the value of that opinion, to be more important than the fact that the bible says clearly there is an ascension, and that it says it is 40 days after the resurrection. And the opinion given on the page, that luke presents it as the same day. Where does it say that? Can't the opinion writers on this page read text? Don't insert your own view, when it does not say it happened the same day. It says "when he had led them out to the vicinity of bethany". Where in this text does it say, when it was that he did that? Then since another account says, after 40 days he ascended, and had appeared to many others while resurrected. Let's use our brain, and say so then he led them out to bethany after 40 days, after appearing to people and doing what he wanted to do over the 40 days.

Perhaps next wikipedia might let history rewriters convert the resurrection, and divinity and all other pages about Christian dogma, on wikipedia, to just propagate the opinions of non believing 20th or 21st century people with no authority to tell us the truth about history which happened thousands of years before they lived, who ignore history, and who think publishing their opinion in a book makes them the mouthpiece of truth, and revising all historical truth that has gone before them for greater numbers of people over greater numbers of years, including ones who have authority on the events.

The page is overwhelmingly presenting a secular anti Christian propaganda. Thanks for your dishonest effort at presenting lies of people without authority, as truth.

Jesus ascended into heaven, and Christianity has believed that, ever since the time it happened. Where were these secular anti Christian opinion muck spreaders? How is their opinion, considered outweighing the understood reality for 2000 years, without them presenting any evidence for replacing the lasting view, with their self honoured opinion?

Why is it, with anti Christians, it is only a few of a minority of a short modern period, want to rule over and outweigh the testimony of a majority with a longer history? Your little voice of disbelief is worth more than the millions before you? Come on, please delete the whole page if you won't try to make it truthful. Don't give us a page of crap and anti Christian mind washing revising of truth and history.

God bless us, and the poor dishonest self publishing self important anti Christian opinion propagaters.

There is a quote on the page, that says "Despite this, the Ascension itself has become an embarrassment.[25]". An embarrassment? Who were you talking to, non Christians? Christians believe in the ascension and it is certainly no embarrassment. It is this wikipedia page, that is an embarrassment to wikipedia's credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.129.116 (talk) 02:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I want to make a final suggestion, please rename this page as "An anti Christian's opinion on the ascension of Jesus Christ". That is a perfect name for the page, and you can separate it, from a true page about the ascension of Jesus from Christian views. Because who else's views matter, if they don't believe in it? And at least present the Christian view, most, and don't present the minority anti Christian view as if it is the only view, and as if Christians don't believe in the ascension. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.129.116 (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Removed objectionable, non-neutral POV language.
I have removed the following sentence: "Despite this, the Ascension itself has become an embarrassment ."

This statement is unsupported by what follows, and certainly a claim that most Christians would reject. Justanothereditor98027 (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's supported by the source. PiCo (talk) 05:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ascension of Jesus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091027124118/http://www.geocities.com/johnnymcdowell/Bultmann_Apologetics.html to http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=431

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Article State
The start of the article was abominable. As a scholar, I find it hard to believe that anyone read the sources. It saddens me that the world of Theologians, Biblical Scholars, and Biblical Historians are skewed in biased summaries. Many of the text did not address what the researches and commentators said. The modifications I made hopefully make a less-biased article. I realize that WP:OR is not allowed, so I did not add anything that the sources did not say. Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 09:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Your edits need some work (I take it you're not used to Wikipedia), but there's room for them. If you you put your material here I'll help you.PiCo (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe you are mistaken. Although I am new to Wikipedia I am well versed in the underlying guidelines. Including WP:3O if we cannot resolve the issues and WP:CYCLE. You state that my "edits need some work". The burden of proof is now on the person who makes the claim. I would be willing to work with you if there is room for improvement. I'm not sure why there was a need to revert as the article is back to a worse state. Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello Dr.Ryan. Thanks for the courteous reply. I guess the essential problem is that you believe your edits make the article better and I believe they make it worse. on Wikipedia. I do think though that the Theology section is too brief and could usefully be extended. So if you'd care to put here the material you'd like to include I'll help put it into a form that Wikipedia can use.PiCo (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding, but I'm a bit confused as to what you want me to do. The most recent edit I made does contain all the changes I think are appropriate. If you want to organize it, I disagree that it needs editing. You haven't made an effort to reintegrate the changes back.


 * Thanks. I'll comment at the end.PiCo (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Edits for Theology section
Here is the pasted content:

The common thread linking all the New Testament ascension references, reflected in the major Christian creeds and confessional statements, is the exaltation of Jesus, meaning that through his ascension Jesus took his seat at the right hand of God in Heaven: "He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty." (Apostles' Creed) It implies the human Jesus being taken into Heaven and marks the beginning of Christ's heavenly rule.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (Item 668) states:
 * Catholicism
 * "Christ's Ascension into heaven signifies his participation, in his humanity, in God's power and authority."

Referring to Mark 16:19 ("So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken unto them, was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God.") Pope John Paul II stated that Scripture positions the significance of the Ascension in two statements: "Jesus gave instructions, and then Jesus took his place.

John Paul II also separately emphasized that Jesus had foretold of his Ascension several times in the Gospels, e.g. John 16:10 at the Last Supper: "I go to the Father, and you will see me no more" and John 20:17 after his resurrection he tells Mary Magdalene: "I have not yet ascended to the Father; go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God".


 * Eastern and Oriental Christianity

In Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox theology, the Ascension is interpreted as the culmination of the Mystery of the Incarnation, in that it not only marked the completion of Jesus' physical presence among his apostles, but consummated the union of God and man when Jesus ascended in his glorified human body to sit at the right hand of God the Father. The Ascension and the Transfiguration both figure prominently in the Orthodox doctrine of theosis. The bodily Ascension into heaven is also understood as the final token of Christ's two natures: divine and human.

The Westminster Confession of Faith (part of the Reformed tradition in Calvinism and influential in the Presbyterian church), in Article four of Chapter eight, states: "On the third day He arose from the dead, with the same body in which He suffered, with which also he ascended into heaven, and there sits at the right hand of His Father, making intercession, and shall return, to judge men and angels, at the end of the world."
 * Protestantism

The Second Helvetic Confession addresses the purpose and character of Christ's ascension in Chapter 11:


 * Christ Is Truly Ascended Into Heaven. We believe that our Lord Jesus Christ, in his same flesh, ascended above all visible heavens into the highest heaven, that is, the dwelling-place of God and the blessed ones, at the right hand of God the Father. Although it signifies an equal participation in glory and majesty, it is also taken to be a certain place about which the Lord, speaking in the Gospel, says: 'I go to prepare a place for you' (John 14:2). The apostle Peter also says: 'Heaven must receive Christ until the time of restoring all things' (Acts 3:21).

A few theological meanings of the ascension include:


 * 1) Jesus's earthly ministry ceased and had succeed. All He had done was accomplished.
 * 2) Jesus is now in Heaven and in the full glory of God
 * 3) Jesus is now preparing a place for humans in Heaven

It also includes new roles for Jesus including:

His position as the eternal High Priest As "mediator of the New Covenant"
 * Hebrews 4:14 "Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess."
 * Hebrews 9:15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 02:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion
Again thanks. Here are my comments:
 * All three church positions are identical, and this position is already covered in the article. ("[T]hrough his ascension, Jesus took his seat at the right hand of God", from the lead and the section Christian Theology", and "It implies the human Jesus being taken into Heaven and marks the beginning of Christ's heavenly rule," from Christian Theology). That's hardly surprising, since they're all equally Christian. Unnecessary repetition should be avoided.
 * You're conflating several aspects of Christology under the heading Ascension. This is most noticeable when you quote the Westminster Confession, "On the third day He arose from the dead (the resurrection), with the same body in which He suffered, with which also he ascended into heaven (the ascension, stressing that it was bodily not visionary), and there sits at the right hand of His Father (the enthronement), making intercession, and shall return (the parousia), to judge men and angels, at the end of the world (Last Judgement)." We need to stick to the Ascension.
 * The Second Helvetic Confession touches the reason why the Ascension has become an embarrassment: "Christ, in his same flesh, ascended above all visible heavens into the highest heaven, that is, the dwelling-place of God and the blessed ones." For us the idea of rising straight up like an astronaut conjours up images of outer space, not heaven. It would be more useful to attack this problem head-on.

I ask you to consider these points seriously.PiCo (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your reply.
 * First I disagree with the "embarrassment" that is a weasel word and violates WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL
 * Second is the fact that the Background section is larger than the theology section, you seem to be conflating cosmology with background
 * "Christian imagination" is also a weasel word and implies that Christians imagined things despite (debatable) accounts. If I were a believer, this certainly isn't NPOV to me
 * The complete section regarding "Background" is bogus. It is not sourced properly, and certainly doesn't derive from those articles.
 * Christology is apart of the theology of Ascension, it is more related than describing potential cosmology of heaven.
 * Last is your constant reverting. As I stated reversion policies are not implemented like that. "Please leave the older version in place till the talk on Talk Page" is not a Wikipedia policy. If you chose to ignore these, I will ask for a 3rd opinion or intervention, if you continue to do this, I will have to have a moderator/admin involve. Please understand I do not wish to escalate this, but you have to understand this article is not in any positive state.
 * Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 07:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that you don't understand the definition of the word imagination. It certainly is not a weasel word. Oxford defines it as "The faculty or action of forming new ideas, or images or concepts of external objects not present to the senses." and The ability of the mind to be creative or resourceful." Are you saying Christians lack this? You are going to have to be more specific about the background section that you've renamed Scholarly commentary. A few minor comments - please don't tell readers what is worth noting, this is an encyclopedia article not an essay or scholarly paper. I don't know who added these websites but  (an inerrantist site), ditto, and I'd also avoid EWTN as well for various reasons, including that some of its views are controversial within the Catholic Church. Please don't ask questions in articles but of course you can attribute views, including quotes with questions, to their source. As for embarrassment, I'd reword that as an attributed quote. Finally we don't have moderators. We have Administrators who do not act as moderators, we have ways of dispute resolution such as WP:DRN or WP:RfC, but we don't have people who can step it and say with absolute authority that certain content is correct (although I can as an Admin block people for adding certain content that violates policy). Editors vary in experience. You have 31 edits, Pico has over 43,000, I've got 189,000.  Doug Weller  talk 10:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Dr. Ryan E., please leave the stable version of the article in place until Talk is finished. Your original edit was extremely large and amounted to an effective rewrite of the article. That in itself isn't forbidden, but in doing so you deleted a great deal of referenced material, and, of course, your edit was reverted almost immediately in favour of the standing version of the article. The usual thing in such cases is to take the matter to Talk and try to get a consensus there. So, no more major edits please.
 * Now to the points you raise above.
 * First I disagree with the "embarrassment" that is a weasel word and violates WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL
 * The description of the ascension as an embarrassment is from a reliable source, Farrow's ''Ascension and Ecclessia" (2004). In other words, it's not a weasel word and does not violate npov.
 * Second is the fact that the Background section is larger than the theology section, you seem to be conflating cosmology with background
 * I agree, the Theology section could surely be longer. Cosmology, is, however, background - the early Christians believed in the bodily ascension of Jesus because it conformed to an existing concept of cosmology, one which placed heaven directly above the Earth (above Jerusalem in fact), so that upward movement took one to the Throne of God and not into outer space. Our readers need this information to understand why the early Christians (who by the time of Luke were Greek, not Jewish) pictured the divine ascent of their Saviour in just this way and no other.
 * "Christian imagination" is also a weasel word and implies that Christians imagined things despite (debatable) accounts. If I were a believer, this certainly isn't NPOV to me.
 * I think this has been adequately covered by another editor above.
 * The complete section regarding "Background" is bogus. It is not sourced properly, and certainly doesn't derive from those articles.
 * I count 10 source tags marking 9 different sources, all of them respected academics in the field of biblical studies. You are of course welcome to check the article against the sources, but on the objective evidence this charge is simply bizarre.
 * Christology is a part of the theology of Ascension, it is more related than describing potential cosmology of heaven.
 * The Ascension is part of the area of theology known as Christology (the nature of Christ), not the other way round. Apart from that minor detail, I have to confess I don't understand your point. Perhaps you could restate it.
 * Last is your constant reverting. As I stated reversion policies are not implemented like that. "Please leave the older version in place till the talk on Talk Page" is not a Wikipedia policy. If you chose to ignore these, I will ask for a 3rd opinion or intervention, if you continue to do this, I will have to have a moderator/admin involve. Please understand I do not wish to escalate this, but you have to understand this article is not in any positive state.
 * An admin is already involved, but of course you're welcome to seek a third opinion or make an RfC if you wish. Thanks for your input, but I really would like you to focus on improving the Theology section, which we both agree could use more work.PiCo (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * , it's too late for a third opinion. I've given one, as an editor of course, not an Admin. Doug Weller  talk 13:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Improvements to background
Not only are they not "unilateral changes" to whole whole section, but they are improved based on the sources. It is no longer a collaborative effort when edits are simply reverted. Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 05:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Ryan E., your changes were unilateral in that they were done despite have already been rejected some weeks ago. I'll go through your edit in detail pointing out why specific passages were rejected. The original version of the section is concise, logically structured, and thoroughly sourced:


 * Theologian James Dunn describes the ascension as at best a puzzle and at worst an embarrassment for an age which no longer conceives of a physical heaven located above the Earth.[8] The cosmology of the author of Luke-Acts was quite different: his age believed in a three-part cosmos with the heavens above, a flat earth centered on Jerusalem in the middle, and the underworld below.[9][10] Heaven was separated from the earth by the firmament, the visible sky, a solid inverted bowl where God's palace sat on pillars in the celestial sea.[11] Humans looking up from earth saw the floor of heaven, made of clear blue lapis-lazuli (Exodus 24:9-10), as was God's throne (Ezekiel 1:26).[12]


 * Ascension stories were fairly common around the time of Jesus and the gospel-authors,[13] signifying the deification of a noteworthy person (usually a Roman Emperor), and in Judaism as an indication of divine approval.[14] Another function of heavenly ascent was as a mode of divine revelation reflected in Greco-Roman, early Jewish, and early Christian literary sources, in which particular individuals with prophetic or revelatory gifts are thought to have experienced a heavenly journey during which they learned cosmic and divine secrets.[14] Figures familiar to Jews would have included Enoch (from the Book of Genesis and a popular non-Biblical work called 1 Enoch); the 5th-century sage Ezra; Baruch the companion of the prophet Jeremiah (from a work called 2 Baruch, in which Baruch is promised he will ascend to heaven after 40 days); Levi the ancestor of priests; the Teacher of Righteousness from the Qumran community; the prophet Elijah (from 2 Kings); Moses, who was deified on entering heaven; and the children of Job, who according to the Testament of Job ascended heaven following their resurrection from the dead.[15][16] Non-Jewish readers would have been familiar with the case of the emperor Augustus, whose ascent was witnessed by Senators; Romulus the founder of Rome, who, like Jesus, was taken to heaven in a cloud; the Greek hero Heracles (Hercules); and others.[17]

Now the section as you want it:
 * The cosmology of the author of Luke-Acts was a three-part cosmos with heaven or heavens, an earth centered on Jerusalem, and hell.[8][9] Heaven was separated from the earth by the שָׁמַיִם (shamáyim), referred to the sky, Heaven, air, firmament, or heavens. However, this word is never used during the Ascension account, as the New Testament was not written in Hebrew.[10] The Old Testament makes a distinction between Creation and God, who is ultimately above all the created bodies in the universe. Worshiping the heavenly bodies that were created including the sun, moon, or stars was seen as idolatry. Heaven is referred to as the "dwelling place of God".[11] Humans on Mount Sinai saw, in a vision, the floor of heaven, made of clear blue (described as like lapis-lazuli) (Exodus 24:9-10), as was God's throne (Ezekiel 1:26).[12] An instance familiar to the Jews would have included the prophet Elijah's departure (from the Bible Book of 2 Kings).


 * Ascension stories were fairly common around the time of Jesus and the gospel-authors,[13] signifying the deification of a noteworthy person (usually a Roman Emperor), and in Judaism as an indication of divine approval.[14] Another function of heavenly ascent was as a mode of divine revelation reflected in Greco-Roman, early Jewish, and early Christian literary sources, in which particular individuals with prophetic or revelatory gifts are thought to have experienced a heavenly journey during which they learned cosmic and divine secrets.[14]


 * Non-Biblical, extra-canonical sources include the ascension stories of figures familiar to Jews. These would have included Enoch (named in the Book of Genesis), with the ascension story in the non-Biblical work called 1 Enoch); the 5th-century sage Ezra told in 4 Ezra; Baruch the companion of the prophet Jeremiah (from a work called 2 Baruch, in which Baruch is promised he will ascend to heaven after 40 days); Levi the ancestor of priests; the Teacher of Righteousness from the Qumran community; the prophet Elijah (from 2 Kings); much later, Moses, who was deified on entering heaven, according to the Latter-day Saints Book of Moses[15]; and the children of Job, who according to the Testament of Job (not to be confused with the Biblical Book of Job), ascended to heaven following their resurrection from the dead.[16][17] Non-Jewish readers would have been familiar with the case of the emperor Augustus, whose ascent was witnessed by Senators; Romulus the founder of Rome, who, like Jesus, was taken to heaven in a cloud; the Greek hero Heracles (Hercules); and others.[18]

Taking the problems one by one:


 * 1) "The cosmology of the author of Luke-Acts was a three-part cosmos with heaven or heavens, an earth centered on Jerusalem, and hell." You have deleted the preceding sentence: "Theologian James Dunn describes the ascension as at best a puzzle and at worst an embarrassment for an age which no longer conceives of a physical heaven located above the Earth. You've deleted the data that the said cosmos included a flat earth with Jerusalem in the middle (which is the point of being flat and circular), and turns the "underworld" of the original into Hell, which is theologically incorrect (Hell was a later invention, not held by Jews of the 1st century). All this can be verified from the sources. This background, of course, explains what Luke-Acts envisages in its account of the Ascension - a vertical movement from the centre of a flat disk into a solid Heaven located immediately overhead.
 * 2) You write: "Heaven was separated from the earth by the שָׁמַיִם (shamáyim), referred to the sky, Heaven, air, firmament, or heavens." You are confused: the heaven (shamayim) was not separated from the earth by itself (shamayim), but by the raqiya, a solid barrier between Heaven and Earth. This is sourced and clearly stated in this sentence of the existing text: "Heaven was separated from the earth by the firmament, the visible sky, a solid inverted bowl where God's palace sat on pillars in the celestial sea."
 * 3) You add this sentence: "However, this word is never used during the Ascension account, as the New Testament was not written in Hebrew." Presumably by "this word" you mean shamayin. The sentence is nonsense. You've put a source at the end of it, but the source doesn't support it.
 * 4) You add this: "The Old Testament makes a distinction between Creation and God, who is ultimately above all the created bodies in the universe. Worshiping the heavenly bodies that were created including the sun, moon, or stars was seen as idolatry. Heaven is referred to as the dwelling place of God". All I can say is, so what? What is the connection with the Ascension?
 * 5) You added this: "Humans on Mount Sinai saw, in a vision, the floor of heaven, made of clear blue (described as like lapis-lazuli) (Exodus 24:9-10), as was God's throne (Ezekiel 1:26)." You add a source, but the source doesn't support what you write - God's throne and the floor of Heaven are not described as visionary by the source.
 * 6) "An instance familiar to the Jews would have included the prophet Elijah's departure (from the Bible Book of 2 Kings)." An instance of what? In the original text this was in a different position and made sense, in your version, it doesn't.
 * 7) The single final paragraph of the original has been split in two, ruining the unity. In between the now-two paragraphs you've inserted this sentence: "Non-Biblical, extra-canonical sources include the ascension stories of figures familiar to Jews." This is hardly literate and quite incorrect - there was no Bible in the 1st century AD and the canon of the Jewish scriptures was not yet closed. The sentence is nonsense.

You are, of course, welcome to contribute to the project, but we expect you to respect sources and write logical, clearly structured prose.PiCo (talk) 07:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is a summary of what I see:
 * "Humans looking up from earth saw the floor of heaven, made of clear blue lapis-lazuli"
 * First this is a problem, I mean have you read Exodus? This fails to pass WP:V at the very least
 * The quote "Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky"
 * "Theologian James Dunn describes the ascension as at best a puzzle and at worst an embarrassment"
 * This is borderline NPOV
 * Furthermore, how does this belong in the cultural background section?
 * "a flat earth centered on Jerusalem in the middle,"
 * Let's read the source: "The ancient Israelites imagined the universe as a tripartite structure: heaven or sky above, earth in the middle, and netherworld below."
 * Nowhere does this assert a flat earth
 * This is also known as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH which is not allowed on Wikipedia
 * Dr. Pennington, great guy by the way, would be sorely disappointed in his source.
 * I added a further summary referenced
 * "Heaven in the OT...as a reference to the dwelling place of God" (this completely is gone, but is in my edit)
 * I literally quote Dr. Pennington "Heaven is referred to as the "dwelling place of God"."
 * I also expand with "Worshiping the heavenly bodies that were created including the sun, moon, or stars was seen as idolatry"
 * This is seen to quote Pennington: "Failure to maintain this distinction by worshipping the created...was strictly forbidden"
 * This is seen to quote Pennington: "Failure to maintain this distinction by worshipping the created...was strictly forbidden"


 * 1) Lastly is my entire section on non-Biblical sources
 * Since this is an article on the Biblical ascension, I would want to differentiate to readers what is Biblical and what is not, we should not mix sources together or risk WP:OR
 * I would refer you to the entire section written in Freedman's text here:
 * Not only is there a blatant disregard for what he wrote, he makes a clear differentiation between what is and what isn't in the Bible. Not only this, but for example readers would like to know where the Book of Moses is in, I would refer them to the Book of Moses article and ascribe it to the LDS canon


 * In response to, I did not imply the discussion is closed. Just that no one has brought up valid arguments against my edits, just revert. I want to apologize if my user page is condescending. However, I regard that as having truth to it. There seems to be plenty of reverts with no explanation of why.


 * In response to . "If you have a problem with that particular source, find another source" It is not my job to find a source to something that is unsourced if there are no sources on it, but to remove unsourced material. The Israelites may certainly have believed in a flat earth, but the source does not say that, the Bible never states that directly, and according to policy WP:V "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." In any case, my other points are valid.


 * In response to PiCo,
 * "Theologian James Dunn describes the ascension as at best a puzzle and at worst an embarrassment"
 * This is about cultural background correct? If so, how does this belong here? One man's opinion? See #7...
 * The source does say " Jerusalem in the middle" but not "flat"
 * Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek are "hell" the source does not say that somehow hell does not exist. The "underworld" is Hell they are literally the same things according to the source.
 * " Heaven was separated from the earth"
 * This was not my meaning here, I am simply saying that it was separated from earth and it is called " shamáyim".
 * You've put a source at the end of it, but the source doesn't support it"
 * I'd say this is painfully obvious since the NT was written in Koine Greek
 * " All I can say is, so what?
 * It relates to the cosmology at the time and the cultural (even more so than the tree part universe) strict non-idolatry. I'd say it belongs in the background
 * God's throne and the floor of Heaven are not described as visionary
 * here is a reputable source in any case I have a problem with "was lapis-lazuli) " it said it was like lapis-lazuli
 * An instance of what?
 * Instance of ascension... agree it could be improved, obviously doesn't warrant a revert here
 * This is hardly literate and quite incorrect
 * Once again you can improve it, join the paragraphs back together if you wanted to, but instead you revert. " there was no Bible in the 1st century AD" Well there certainly is today, this is a modern day reference to these books. Clarifying what is regarded as Biblical and what is not. The Hebrew scriptures and law was certainly existent and, for example, the Book of Moses is only in recent LDS scripture. So how are the Jews familiar with that? The Jews regarded scripture is familiar history, but where is the evidence all these other books were? The source clearly separates the two, so we should as well.
 * Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * User:Random832/WP:V is not a suicide pact, especially when there are plenty of WP:RS cited in biblical cosmology and flat Earth. E.g., Also, WP:V does not mean that you have to verify it to the Bible. It means that bona fide Wikipedia editors are able to verify it to a WP:RS. The Bible by default cannot be a WP:RS, since it is a WP:PRIMARY religious source, it isn't modern scholarship. Mainstream scholarship trumps Sola Scriptura. We don't pander to biblical literalists, we pander to Ivy Plus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , I agree the Bible is not a WP:RS from a modern secular guideline. I agree to that. However quoting User:Random832/WP:V is not a suicide pact is hilarious as that is not a guideline (as clearly stated at the top). It is up to you (claiming it to be true) to find a source, otherwise you are shifting the burden of proof. I certainly wouldn't pander in any way, except there are real scholars who actually have written about this. Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 02:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Here are some brief replies in point form:
 * "Theologian James Dunn describes the ascension as at best a puzzle and at worst an embarrassment" This is about cultural background correct? If so, how does this belong here? One man's opinion?
 * Dunn's comment is famous in scholarly circles. It's relevant to our article because it serves as an introduction to the rest of the paragraph - the ascension made perfect sense in an age in which heaven was a physical place located above the sky and God's throne was located above Jerusalem, but we've lost that cosmology and so it's become an embarrassment. (Do you personally conceive of heaven as a location and the sky as solid? Because this is the picture behind the ascension story in Acts).
 * ''The source does not say the Earth was conceived as flat." The source is Wright 2002 but the page reference is incomplete, the flatness is mentioned on page 201 (and elsewhere, and in multiple other sources). I'll correct the article, and thank you for drawing this to my attention.
 * Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek are "hell" the source does not say that somehow hell does not exist. The "underworld" is Hell they are literally the same things according to the source. Hell is a culturally dependent construct - or if you prefer simpler language, humans invented it. It doesn't exist except as an idea. The same goes for sheol and hades. Consequently, as they come from three very different cultures, they're different. Sheol was underground, it held both the good and the wicked, and was for everyone - there was no heaven for the good in ancient Israel. Hades was fairly similar, but not exactly. Hell is a Christian idea. This is all basic cultural anthropology - see the article Biblical cosmology, or rather the books referenced there.
 * "Heaven was separated from the earth" - this was not my meaning here, I am simply saying that it was separated from earth and it is called " shamáyim". Yes, Heaven was separated from Earth, but what separated it was the raqia (firmament), "a solid inverted bowl where God's palace sat on pillars in the celestial sea." We need to keep that, because it makes clear where Jesus was going when he ascended. "Heaven was separated from the earth by the שָׁמַיִם (shamáyim), referred to the sky" (etc), is simply untrue - Earth was separated from Heaven by the raqia.
 * You complain that the word shamayim is not used in the New Testament. True, but irrelevant - we're talking about the concepts behind the ascension story, not the language used to narrate it.
 * I deleted this passage on the grounds of irrelevancy: "The Old Testament makes a distinction between Creation and God, who is ultimately above all the created bodies in the universe. Worshiping the heavenly bodies that were created including the sun, moon, or stars was seen as idolatry. Heaven is referred to as the dwelling place of God". You justify its inclusion on the basis that it "relates to the cosmology at the time and the cultural (even more so than the tree part universe) strict non-idolatry [and therefore] belongs in the background." But the passage you wrote isn't cosmology, it's theology. Not that this matters - I still don't see how a ban on worshiping the sun, moon and stars impacts on the Ascension story in Acts. (Heaven as the place where God resides is relevant - Jesus was ascending to take his place on God's right hand - but we make that clear).
 * You say that the visit of the Jewish elders to God's presence in Exodus was a vision and not real. This is an example of the embarrassment that the original Israelite cosmology causes for moderns, as noted by Dunn. What happened on Sinai was real, or else the covenant between Israel and God has no meaning. I'm afraid we're getting into rather abstruse scholarship here, but in brief it relates to the way in which covenants were made in the ancient world - the two parties gathered for a ritual meal, sacrificed an animal to the gods (or in this case, to God) and ate it together, the three-way sharing of the sacrificial animal - the two human partners and God - signifying its divine authority.
 * "I have a problem with "was lapis-lazuli) " it said it was like lapis-lazuli." The source says it was'' lapis - read Wright more carefully, pages 56 and the first few lines of 57.
 * You complain because I say your English "is hardly literate". It's difficult to be diplomatic about this, but your language really is difficult to understand at times. Take this: "Heaven was separated from the earth by the שָׁמַיִם (shamáyim), referred to the sky". I know what you mean, but that's not grammatical.
 * Finally, it's important to understand what this section is doing. It's explaining to the reader the cosmology and the cultural norms that formed the ascension story in Acts. The ancient Jews, and most Greeks and Romans too, believed that God/the gods lived above the Earth in a real and solid heaven and that it had a solid floor which was the boundary of the atmosphere and which they saw as the sky. Jews in particular thought that God had a throne - a real one - located directly above Jerusalem, and when Jesus went to sit on God's right hand he needed to rise vertically into the air and go upwards until he arrived at that throne. That's the cosmology, and that's what the first paragrpah is about. The second paragraph is about the cultural beliefs of the wider Greco-Roman-Jewish world, in which ascension to heaven were fairly common. Roman emperors in particular insisted that they became divine at death and went to join the great gods - I doubt that anyone believed it, not even the emperors, but it was essential imperial propaganda and to deny it was treated as blasphemy, which was a capital offense. And as Christians believed that Jesus, not the emperor, was the true ruler of the universe, and also greater than even Moses and Elijah, they claimed a similar ascension for him. That's where Luke's ascension story comes from - cosmology and culture. Today we no longer believe in that world, with solid skies and divine emperors and ascending Moses and Elijah, hence the embarrassment Dunn speaks of. PiCo (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Do you personally conceive of heaven as a location and the sky as solid? Because this is the picture behind the ascension story in Acts
 * What I believe and what you believe is irrelevant.
 * "Dunn's comment is famous in scholarly circles"
 * Bull. A quick Google Search here and here shows that he not only does not show up on Google Books as a top result, but also is not quoted on any websites except here in Wikipedia.
 * "the ascension made perfect sense in an age in which heaven was a physical place"
 * From reading scholarly theologians and Ehrman, my understanding is that Christians regard it as a real place (outside of our universe), real because Jesus told about it, real because Acts says that he was raised up hidden by a cloud and Jesus has been taken from you into heaven
 * Ancient writers may certainly have thought heaven was directly above in the sky, but it seems a bit weird that if they would be making up the story, that they would be criticized and then say that he was taken from them. In any case I think this whole "embarrassment" is definitely POV-pushy, since that's clearly not a scholarly view. It's a scholarly view of what he thinks the theological aspects are (opinion).
 * "the flatness is mentioned on page 201"
 * Please read the source again, it says they were the beliefs and by that time, Hellenistic astronomers began to image the cosmos in terms of several concentric
 * "humans invented it" and " It doesn't exist except as an idea. "
 * This is your complete editor bias. The scholarly source does not say that, and you cannot assume that every scholar believes that.
 * By this logic you could argue the "underworld" is just an idea, or that math is just an idea, and language is just a social construct and so is every single country, empire, or kingdom that has ever existed.
 * "there was no heaven for the good in ancient Israel"
 * I agree, Jesus was also unknown to Abraham, Moses, etc. From the Christians I've talked to, they believe in progressive revelation which is that God used people in their place and in their time to reveal what he wanted them to know.
 * In any case, if you are going to include what a Dunn thinks about Christian beliefs today and you also have to include what other scholars think about the event today including that hell exists as being part of the background of ascension
 * On the other hand you can keep hell out of it (only talk about Jewish beliefs at the time) but you also have to keep modern day Dunn's opinions out of it. It's either/or or else it becomes biased to PARTS of academia while conveniently leaving out fellow-scholar's works.
 * "but what separated it was the raqia (firmament)"
 * This is irrelevant.
 * " because it makes clear where Jesus was going when he ascended"
 * Do you actually believe Jesus went into a solid bowl? No I'm pretty sure Acts even says he went into heaven, not the "solid, inverted raqia" and that he was hidden by a cloud and taken away, not that he was directly above their heads
 * " True, but irrelevant - we're talking about the concepts..."
 * True, but VERY relevant. The wording is not used by the writer of Luke-Acts for a specific reason.
 * " What happened on Sinai was real"
 * Yes, the vision (again please READ the source I provided) that happened on Sinai was real. This whole "embarrassment" thing is certainly not the view of more than one scholar. We are relying on one source here to represent the majority, when my source clearly disagrees...
 * " but your language really is difficult to understand at times"
 * Then fix and don't revert, so you agree we should add LIKE back and distinguish between Biblical and non-Biblical sources?
 * "Luke's ascension story comes from - cosmology and culture"
 * This is a theological and beliefs issue. Of course Luke-Acts regarded it as literal history. Why is this not mentioned?
 * "Today we no longer believe in that world, with solid skies and divine emperors and ascending Moses and Elijah"
 * Maybe not you (although as someone still searching, I've been going through as many scholarly sources as possible), but 2.4 Billion people do, and there are many respectable scholars in the field who do hold that Elijah went on a chariot of fire (he did not ascend to heaven, get your story straight, furthermore they are careful not to suppose a materialistic closed-universe bias) and again this is exactly why I want to clear up the difference between Biblical and non-Biblical sources. Moses's story comes MUCH later in the LDS book is can't be a Jewish conception during that time. Even if it was, it was not regarded in the same way the Hebrew Bible (scripture) was.
 * Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 02:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You honestly believe that Elijah went to heaven in a fiery chariot. There's no point continuing this conversation. I's suggest your next step is to make an RfC - request for comment. That should attract uninvolved editors. PiCo (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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