This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ascension of Jesus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on 11 dates. show |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
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)
" 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)
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. [1]
References
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)
Wat me raakt is dat Jezus bij zijn hemelvaart niets heeft achtergelaten. Alleen zijn liefde. ('What touches me is that Jesus did not leave anything behind with his ascension. Only his love.'
The Muslim view is not expounded at length, but at least deserves a mention. tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
Reason for reverting serial deletions: WP:VERECUNDIAM. tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
you will die, therefore the Bible is without errordoes 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)
On the relationship between the results of his work and the task of Christian theology, Wrede writes that how the 'systematic theologian gets on with its results and deals with them—that is his own affair. Like every other real science, New Testament Theology's has its goal simply in itself, and is totally indifferent to all dogma and Systematic Theology' (1973: 69).16 In the 1920s H. Gunkel would summarize the arguments against Biblical Theology in Old Testament study thus: 'The recently experienced phenomenon of biblical theology being replaced by the history of Israelite religion is to be explained from the fact that the spirit of historical investigation has now taken the place of a traditional doctrine of inspiration' (1927-31: 1090-91; as quoted by Childs 1992a: 6).tgeorgescu ( talk) 12:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
upward movement of Jesus Christ in the hierarchy of ideas—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)
@
Luke172021: 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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ascension of Jesus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on 11 dates. show |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
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)
" 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)
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. [1]
References
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)
Wat me raakt is dat Jezus bij zijn hemelvaart niets heeft achtergelaten. Alleen zijn liefde. ('What touches me is that Jesus did not leave anything behind with his ascension. Only his love.'
The Muslim view is not expounded at length, but at least deserves a mention. tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
Reason for reverting serial deletions: WP:VERECUNDIAM. tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
you will die, therefore the Bible is without errordoes 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)
On the relationship between the results of his work and the task of Christian theology, Wrede writes that how the 'systematic theologian gets on with its results and deals with them—that is his own affair. Like every other real science, New Testament Theology's has its goal simply in itself, and is totally indifferent to all dogma and Systematic Theology' (1973: 69).16 In the 1920s H. Gunkel would summarize the arguments against Biblical Theology in Old Testament study thus: 'The recently experienced phenomenon of biblical theology being replaced by the history of Israelite religion is to be explained from the fact that the spirit of historical investigation has now taken the place of a traditional doctrine of inspiration' (1927-31: 1090-91; as quoted by Childs 1992a: 6).tgeorgescu ( talk) 12:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
upward movement of Jesus Christ in the hierarchy of ideas—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)
@
Luke172021: 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)