Talk:Entering heaven alive

message: In the deletion discussion, several editors have suggested that the name of the article should be changed from "List of people who went to heaven alive".
===Some research===
(please feel free to add facts to this in whatever way would be useful)
The concept described in the article title has been called "translation into heaven", "ascension into heaven" and "assumption into heaven", all of which produce Google hits:
*"translation into heaven" — 3,260 Google hits
*"assumption into heaven" — 28,800 ghits
*"ascension into heaven" — 128,000 ghits
Google hits, however, may be biased toward Christian terminology, both because Christianity is represented strongly in the English-language World Wide Web and because both the founder of Christianity, Jesus of Nazareth and Mary, mother of Jesus are said to have gone to heaven without dying. *added note Jesus is believed to have died before ascension, while the considerably less certain ascension of Mary is said to have occured at the end of her life before death.
Christian figures: — 
*Jesus + "translation into heaven" — 4,820 hits
*Mary + "translation into heaven" — 1,960 hits
*Jesus + "assumption into heaven" — 21,300 hits (and the first 10 are about Mary)
*Mary + "assumption into heaven" — 24,700 hits
*Jesus + "ascension into heaven" — 107,000 hits
*Mary + "ascension into heaven" — 60,400 hits
 
Elijah:
*Elijah + "translation into heaven" — 625 hits
*Elijah + "assumption into heaven" — 2,830 hits
*Elijah + "ascension into heaven" — 13,600 hits
Muhammad (search results vary slightly depending on the spelling of "Muhammad"; I'm not sure whether or not Google combines spellings):
*Muhammad + "translation into heaven" — 9 hits (count 'em, NINE!)
*Muhammad + "assumption into heaven" — 278 hits
*Muhammad + "ascension into heaven" — 13,600 hits
"Ascension" is clearly the most popular term and therefore the one readers are most likely to use in search engines and Wikipedia searching. It's not the last word on the subject: Other factors should be considered, including neutrality of wording.
====Additional research====
Translation to heaven
Searching for the phrase "translation to heaven", instead of "translation into heaven", yields the following results:
*"translation to heaven" — 41,700 ghits
*Jesus + "translation to heaven" — 22,500 ghits
*Mary + "translation to heaven" — 6,310 hits
*Elijah + "translation to heaven" — 1,460 hits
*Muhammad + "translation to heaven" — 4 - 300 ghits depending on spelling
Despite the revised figures, "ascension into heaven" is still the most common usage in every instance.
Google Scholar
*"translation to heaven" — 56 hits
*"assumption into heaven" — 161 hits
*"ascension into heaven" — 368 hits
Google Books
*"translation to heaven" — 609 hits
*"assumption into heaven" — 632 hits
*"ascension into heaven" — 814 hits
The results show rather consistently that "ascension into heaven" is the most common of the three.  However, one question we should consider is this: is it perhaps the most common because it refers to a general idea of "entrance into heaven" instead of the particular concept of "entrance into heaven while still living"?  I'm not insisting that this is the case, but it's a possibility we should consider. -- Black Falcon 23:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the ppularity in the use of "ascension" related to Elijah and Muhammad indicates that the word is preferred by non-Christians for subjects that aren't specifically Christian. Christians, of course, should have a lot of weight in this matter, and the fact that the word is used in relation to a Christian subject is, IMHO, a strong point in its favor. I think only if it's actually inaccurate or even offensive in the context of another religion we should avoid it.Noroton 18:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed to support above. After some library work, I've found that the carefully objective Encyclopedia of Religion treats the subject under Ascension which is more than enough for me. -- BPMullins | Talk 21:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Neutral/Oppose See my comments below, are there sources that link Xian/Muslim views on this specific topic? Perhaps Jesus/Mohamed, but Mary/Mohamed? What about St John? That seems closer to Mohamed's experience. I'm leaning towards three seperate articles but willing to be reasoned with. killing sparrows 04:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion to change the name of the article

message: (please feel free to add facts to this in whatever way would be useful)
The concept described in the article title has been called "translation into heaven", "ascension into heaven" and "assumption into heaven", all of which produce Google hits:
*"translation into heaven" — 3,260 Google hits
*"assumption into heaven" — 28,800 ghits
*"ascension into heaven" — 128,000 ghits
Google hits, however, may be biased toward Christian terminology, both because Christianity is represented strongly in the English-language World Wide Web and because both the founder of Christianity, Jesus of Nazareth and Mary, mother of Jesus are said to have gone to heaven without dying. *added note Jesus is believed to have died before ascension, while the considerably less certain ascension of Mary is said to have occured at the end of her life before death.
Christian figures: — 
*Jesus + "translation into heaven" — 4,820 hits
*Mary + "translation into heaven" — 1,960 hits
*Jesus + "assumption into heaven" — 21,300 hits (and the first 10 are about Mary)
*Mary + "assumption into heaven" — 24,700 hits
*Jesus + "ascension into heaven" — 107,000 hits
*Mary + "ascension into heaven" — 60,400 hits
 
Elijah:
*Elijah + "translation into heaven" — 625 hits
*Elijah + "assumption into heaven" — 2,830 hits
*Elijah + "ascension into heaven" — 13,600 hits
Muhammad (search results vary slightly depending on the spelling of "Muhammad"; I'm not sure whether or not Google combines spellings):
*Muhammad + "translation into heaven" — 9 hits (count 'em, NINE!)
*Muhammad + "assumption into heaven" — 278 hits
*Muhammad + "ascension into heaven" — 13,600 hits
"Ascension" is clearly the most popular term and therefore the one readers are most likely to use in search engines and Wikipedia searching. It's not the last word on the subject: Other factors should be considered, including neutrality of wording.
====Additional research====
Translation to heaven
Searching for the phrase "translation to heaven", instead of "translation into heaven", yields the following results:
*"translation to heaven" — 41,700 ghits
*Jesus + "translation to heaven" — 22,500 ghits
*Mary + "translation to heaven" — 6,310 hits
*Elijah + "translation to heaven" — 1,460 hits
*Muhammad + "translation to heaven" — 4 - 300 ghits depending on spelling
Despite the revised figures, "ascension into heaven" is still the most common usage in every instance.
Google Scholar
*"translation to heaven" — 56 hits
*"assumption into heaven" — 161 hits
*"ascension into heaven" — 368 hits
Google Books
*"translation to heaven" — 609 hits
*"assumption into heaven" — 632 hits
*"ascension into heaven" — 814 hits
The results show rather consistently that "ascension into heaven" is the most common of the three.  However, one question we should consider is this: is it perhaps the most common because it refers to a general idea of "entrance into heaven" instead of the particular concept of "entrance into heaven while still living"?  I'm not insisting that this is the case, but it's a possibility we should consider. -- Black Falcon 23:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some research

message: Translation to heaven
Searching for the phrase "translation to heaven", instead of "translation into heaven", yields the following results:
*"translation to heaven" — 41,700 ghits
*Jesus + "translation to heaven" — 22,500 ghits
*Mary + "translation to heaven" — 6,310 hits
*Elijah + "translation to heaven" — 1,460 hits
*Muhammad + "translation to heaven" — 4 - 300 ghits depending on spelling
Despite the revised figures, "ascension into heaven" is still the most common usage in every instance.
Google Scholar
*"translation to heaven" — 56 hits
*"assumption into heaven" — 161 hits
*"ascension into heaven" — 368 hits
Google Books
*"translation to heaven" — 609 hits
*"assumption into heaven" — 632 hits
*"ascension into heaven" — 814 hits
The results show rather consistently that "ascension into heaven" is the most common of the three.  However, one question we should consider is this: is it perhaps the most common because it refers to a general idea of "entrance into heaven" instead of the particular concept of "entrance into heaven while still living"?  I'm not insisting that this is the case, but it's a possibility we should consider. -- Black Falcon 23:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional research

message: Remove the word "List" since the article can be constructed as something other than a list and there is no other Wikipedia article covering the subject across religions.
Use the word "Ascension" because it appears to be the most popular and appears neutral; we should try to make article names easy for readers to understand intuitively, without doing a lot of searching to find an article.
Ideas (feel free to add more):
Ascension and assumption — an editor has commented on the deletion page that "ascension" really refers to Christ and "assumption" to others, the idea being that Christ died, was resurrected and then went to heaven, while others didn't die. I think it's definitely worth considering, and it's a point that's now going to drive me to a dictionary or two. There's a point somewhere on a style page about naming articles that says nonspecialist language is to be preferred over specialist language, and that may be the case here. The Google hits seem to indicate popular usage, and if it's usage confirmed in a dictionary, I think that overpowers this objection. The distinction between the two words could be very useful in the body of the article. Noroton 23:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed wording

message: ====Support====
#Support --Richard 20:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the ppularity in the use of "ascension" related to Elijah and Muhammad indicates that the word is preferred by non-Christians for subjects that aren't specifically Christian. Christians, of course, should have a lot of weight in this matter, and the fact that the word is used in relation to a Christian subject is, IMHO, a strong point in its favor. I think only if it's actually inaccurate or even offensive in the context of another religion we should avoid it.Noroton 18:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed to support above. After some library work, I've found that the carefully objective Encyclopedia of Religion treats the subject under Ascension which is more than enough for me. -- BPMullins | Talk 21:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Neutral/Oppose See my comments below, are there sources that link Xian/Muslim views on this specific topic? Perhaps Jesus/Mohamed, but Mary/Mohamed? What about St John? That seems closer to Mohamed's experience. I'm leaning towards three seperate articles but willing to be reasoned with. killing sparrows 04:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ascension into heaven]] 

message: #Support --Richard 20:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: I reached this page through a link on the page for Enoch, grandfather of Noah.  In that context, I would suggest that perhaps there an important aspect here is not being recognized...  That being:  "before or without seeing death"   Enoch and Elijah are the only human Biblical figures to have received that honor and gift.
However, that is clearly not the actual topic of this article, so my issue is with the link that brought me here.
I would also assert that no one who is dead does or can enter heaven!  Resurrection must precede entrance to heaven.   On that basis I oppose the current article title.
However, the proposed "Ascention to Heaven" basically 'fixes' all my issues with the current title so I SUPPORT it!
 AuralArch (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #Neutral - I feel like Ascension into heaven is a bit clumsy of a title, although I agree that the word "ascension" is preferable to "translation" or "assumption".  I don't necessarily support the name but will accept it if concensus leans that way, barring the suggestion of something superior.  I can't think of anything better though, myself! Arkyan • (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the ppularity in the use of "ascension" related to Elijah and Muhammad indicates that the word is preferred by non-Christians for subjects that aren't specifically Christian. Christians, of course, should have a lot of weight in this matter, and the fact that the word is used in relation to a Christian subject is, IMHO, a strong point in its favor. I think only if it's actually inaccurate or even offensive in the context of another religion we should avoid it.Noroton 18:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed to support above. After some library work, I've found that the carefully objective Encyclopedia of Religion treats the subject under Ascension which is more than enough for me. -- BPMullins | Talk 21:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Neutral/Oppose See my comments below, are there sources that link Xian/Muslim views on this specific topic? Perhaps Jesus/Mohamed, but Mary/Mohamed? What about St John? That seems closer to Mohamed's experience. I'm leaning towards three seperate articles but willing to be reasoned with. killing sparrows 04:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral

message: Uhh, not to be picky, but I think Jesus died first and then went to heaven, 'was crucified, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven...', the Nicene Creed I think. The others listed all ascended without experiencing physical death, though I'm not sure if the distinction matters. I am supporting this article in the AfD, and whatever final form it takes I hope there is a way to reach the list (via Wikilinks) as a common but varying concept, especially the ties between Christian, Jewish and Islamic understanding of this concept. Thnx --killing sparrows 20:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He died, went to Hell, came back alive and then ascended into Heaven. -- Kendrick7talk 21:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. My point was that all the others were 'mortals,' or ordinary human beings who never experienced physical death. I don't mean to start a debate, just wondering if the distinction matters in the context of this article. Perhaps not as I believe Mohamed went to heaven, came back, and died later. killing sparrows 21:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be worth pointing out the distinction in the article.  However, Jesus would still deserve a place on the article b/c he ascended while alive.  --Tim4christ17 talk 17:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Jesus 

message: The article says the midrash says nine people ascended into heaven. Only three are named. Who are the other six? Also, other people should be included including Moriancumer (according to 9 Mohonri, Abraham (according to the Assumption of Abraham), and a few others. John Carter 14:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a citation for the assertion. Still no list of names. [The 'z' needs a dot under, and I don't have a unicode reference handy. Would somebody add it?] -- BPMullins | Talk 21:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not familiar with the Assumption of Abraham. Can you provide a cite? Sounds worth following up. -- BPMullins | Talk 14:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the section Abraham's Ascension here. John Carter 14:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks. I didn't think of searching on 'Apocalypse of A.' Thanks! -- BPMullins | Talk 20:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jews in Heaven? 

message: I'm taking the liberty of cross-posting here these comments from the deletion discussion because they raise objections that can be used to improve the article:
:*Comment This certainly isn't a joke, and there are sources for the individuals given. However, there are significant WP:OR and WP:NPOV problems not solvable simply by changing the title. One difficulty is that there are enormous differences between the degree of belief and sourcing for various individuals. In Judaism, for example, Elijah is specifically mentioned in the Bible, while other figures are mentioned only in relatively minor Midrashic sources. Simply listing them creates an appearance of  commonality of belief and importance which simply doesn't exist in the underlying religious traditions. A more fundamental problem is that the whole topic, as it stands, represents WP:OR -- it claims a commonality among figures who have different stories. for example it presents them as going to a common, a place called "Heaven", which is impliedly represented as being common to every religion listed, even though not every religion listed has this concept. I'm not sure that changing the name would solve the problem. I'm not questioning that this could be a valid topic. It's the business of original researchers to identify common themes in disparate cultures and to provide explanations why regarding the themes as common is legitimate. But I don't believe it's the business of Wikipedia to do this sort of original research. And it's even less the business of Wikipedia to do it in a way that treats commonality as a hidden assumption which the reader is required to take for granted. The article should at least address the question of whether other religions actually have a comparable concept of "heaven" rather than fitting them into the framework of ones own worldview unquestioningly. --Shirahadasha 01:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment I've posted requests for editors to look at this article and deletion discussion at WikiProject talk pages for Bible, Christianity, Judaism, Islam and, I think, Religion hoping to get some useable insight of this general sort. But I have to respond that absolutely none of Shirahadasha's points show any reason at all to delete, only to further improve the Judaism section of the article (there's already a notice at the top of that section calling for improvements). There is a Wikipedia article, Heaven, which is linked to in the top paragraph of this article and where the Jewish concepts of the afterlife are discussed, and it would be proper to note some differences in the concept of heaven or note the absence of the belief in heaven in Judaism, if that's the case. Of course, that explanation would have to address the citations from Genesis and 2 Kings already in the article. I'm going to copy and cross post S's valuable comment above to the article's talk page and respond to other points about article content, which don't need to be addressed further here.Noroton 19:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for posting the above here for reference, it's easier to have it in one place. I do think that we have to be careful to avoid WP:SYN though. I stated in the Afd and on this article's talk page my desire for the different faiths being addressed on the same page, but I'm having second thoughts. Being raised in a Western/Christian culture, as I assume most of us are (whether we are 'believers' or not), it is easy to assume that 'heaven' is a universal concept, but is that really the case? WP has an article, Heaven, that in the opening paragraph mentions acceptance of Jesus Christ as a personal savior, but goes on to discuss other faiths outside the Abrahamic tradition, which seems a very POV weighting to me! I can see an article on Buddhism and it's views on afterlife, and how, who or when they get there, but I doubt that has a place here. One could say that the Buddha, while alive, attained that faith's highest state while chilling under the Bo tree, but it would be a stretch to say that has anything to do with this article.Even dividing Jewish and Christian views here is problematic as the OT folks mentioned here must be part of the Christian concept, but the specifically Christian people (Jesus, Mary) are not part of the Jewish tradition, and both I assume reject the idea that Mohamed be seen as part of the same tradition. I think this is part of the point that Shirahadasha was trying to make. If there is a place in WP for this concept generally or inclusively, it should be much closer to Afterlife than Heaven. If that isn't possible, would it be better to address each faith in a seperate article? Isn't it somewhat a synthesis to even list these together, especially in regard to anything outside the J/C/M tradition, which have at least a common origin?
The experiences we are grouping together have at least as many differences as commonalities. Jesus died physically first, Mary (according to tradition, not scripture) did not die first. Mohamed went, returned, then died. St John, not mentioned here yet, claimed to have been 'taken up,' and returned to write about the experience, arguably analogous to Mohamed's journey. The language describing the OT dudes experiences varies although I'm sure sources can be found to tie the experiences and final destination, but still...
I am not trying to be an obstructionist here, but these are real issues. We are not writing an article for any smaller subset than humanity, it should be just as NPOV viewed by Christian, Muslim, Taoist or Atheist, or those in the embrace of the Noodly Appendages of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. killing sparrows 03:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Strike my St John refs, I think that was all 'in a vision,' not corporeally. --killing sparrows 05:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are enough significant similarities to justify an article on what is obviously the subject of religious beliefs about people who go to heaven alive. To point out that there are different conceptions of a reward in the afterlife is not to prove that there are no significant similarities in these descriptions. I've said elsewhere that I think there should be separate articles involving the beliefs of each of the religions on this subject, but that doesn't mean those beliefs should not be compared and contrasted here, in this article. Noroton 16:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on the Judaism section, from the deletion discussion

message: An editor makes some interesting points regarding the Christian section:
:(a) the article states "Belief in the ascension of Christ is part of the Reformed churches tradition" but it is actually part of all orthodox tradition 
:(b) ascension is after death (ie with dying), assumption is before death (ie without dying) 
My response: (a) isn't technically wrong and is easily fixed to avoid confusion with rewriting; (b) bears further investigation. My initial search on the Web indicates the distinction is that Christ rose to heaven by his own power, whereas the others were not under their own power. If it can be referenced, any distinction between the terms should be noted in the article. Noroton 00:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on the Christian section, from the deletion discussion

message: As Xian belief accepts Enoch, Elijah and Sirach (Is Sirach only in RC, not Protestant?) arriving by alternate means but makes no claim of sinlessness for these people, I think some rewording needs to be done here. Any thoughts? Also see Elijah and Bosom of Abraham for alternate positions on final destination of Elijah.  
The entry in WP, Translation, says nothing about 'translated' persons going to heaven. Perhaps there are sources that make this claim but they should be found before placing that concept in this article.
Again, I think addressing persons/faiths outside J/C/M hopelessly muddies the waters.
killing sparrows 15:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevant article on Translation as a religious concept is at Translation (Mormon), but it applies to more faiths than just theirs. (Try Googling "translation of Elijah" for some additional online discussions and sources.) Seventh-Day Adventism uses the term to refer both to what happened during Elijah's journey to heaven and the "taking up" of the believers at the second advent of Christ. (Prophets and Kings page 227, near the bottom of the web document) --tjstrf talk 20:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that whether or not she died is irrelevant to the idea that she entered into heaven alive. The point is whether or not her entering into heaven alive is a religious belief. If it is, then whether or not she died is a detail in connection with the subject of this article (she either didn't die first or was resurrected, either way she would have been alive at assumption), and not a criterion. Noroton 16:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Without sin..., and other points. 

message: First of all, my thanks to all who have worked on this article, the 
AfD has generated so much positive effort and collaboration and this is what is great about Wikipedia. I thought I would summarize what I see as the many problems we have with the current state of the article.
This started out as a list of people who went to heaven alive, a very muddy title for anything but a list, and even as a list there were obvious problems that did justify a deletion nomination.
1 Jesus. Ascended to heaven. This is a theological term with a precise meaning in the Christian faith. It's reality (in the faith, not 'truth,') is accepted by Christians only. He was not a person, but a deity. His situation could be compared to Jupiter et. al. travelling back and forth to Olympus while chasing nymphs and such in human form, but not to any other person. His ascension is a unique and unrepeatable event in that faith, not comparable to others on the list. Sourced ultimately by one faith's Scripture.
2 Mary. She was Assumed. Again, a theological term with a precise meaning, not analogous to Ascension, and not repeatable or comparative to others as this is by fiat of the Roman Catholic church. Not sourced by any Scripture. Dying first is relevant as others on the list all went to heaven while alive, the original title of the article. If anyone who died first is included, then why not all the Saints in RC faith and others? They all died first and are certainly considered alive in heaven.
3 Enoch. God took him. He walked with God and he was not. No Scriptural source that he went to Heaven, especially as the Jewish faith is very ambiguous on Heaven. Much conflicting non-Scriptural writing on exactly what happened to him. See Enoch, there may be majority views in each of the Abrahamic faiths but they do not agree and there are also several minority views.
4 Elijah. Taken to heaven in a whirlwind. This is not accepted by all Christians, or even Jews, see Elijah and Bosom of Abraham.
5 Serah. Sourced not by Scripture but by other commentaries. I haven't seen them so I can't really comment, but falls under the heaven ambiguities noted here.
6 Six others in Jewish tradition. I haven't seen names or references on any of these.
7 Mohamed. Probably the most clear-cut for inclusion as the claim is for a mortal who went to heaven alive and returned. But he differs from all the others as having taken a round trip rather than a one way journey.
8 Translation (Mormonism). Removed from the article. A yet smaller subset of the Christian group. No mention of Heaven in the WP article. I know that WP is not a source, but the fact that it is not mentioned here means it would have to be sourced before inclusion.
9 Apollonius. Forget it. Different faith tradition, no way to send him to Heaven. Afterlife maybe, but if we include him we have not even the Abrahamic commonality (thin as it is in light of the disagreements noted above) to hang this all on.
10 Not included. a) LDS belief that a whole city of people went. b) St John whom I removed from my comments but I believe the verse reads something like 'whether in the body or in a dream I know not,' so he could be included. c) The thief on the cross. Died first, but alive in heaven. d) I thought of some others but can't recall them right now.
The commonality we have, excluding Appolonius certainly, and Jesus (not a person), is persons who in different Abrahamic faiths have gone to a non-earthly state by different means, before or after physical death, and returned or not returned to earth. I can't think of any term to use to title this thing. Ascension, Assumption, Heaven, Translation, these are all specific terms with specific meanings, they are not interchangable, nor can they, in my opinion, be used to tie all these persons together, other than all being alternate pathways to afterlife. Non-ordinary and mutually disagreed upon pathways to afterlife in the Abrahamic faiths?  
I agree that there is a common thread, but I cannot see any way to tie them together in one enclyclopedic article.
For the record, and totally irrelevant to the discussion, I use Chrisian/Jewish terminolgy to explore my own beliefs, such as they are. I think there is Something. Maybe. killing sparrows 18:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because there are specific terms, beliefs etc. out there, it doesn't mean that strong, obvious similarities between these different things don't exist and shouldn't be the focus of an encyclopedic article. If we're going to talk about the Catholic and Christian beliefs about old testament figures, we can then logically include whatever Jewish traditions are out there in interpreting those same Bible passages. Clearly some Muslims believe this happened to Muhammad. If Polynesians or people in the Classical world believed something similar, then that is worthy of inclusion as well. You say "I agree that there is a common thread, but I cannot see any way to tie them together in one encyclopedic article." The common thread does it quite well, in my opinion. Noroton 01:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree the thread is there, the biggest problem will be with naming because the terms have specific and different meanings, and criteria for inclusion, especially outside Abrahamic tradition. Lets see how it evolves (assuming it survives AfD), and go from there. We have no deadline. Again, I appreciate your work on this. --killing sparrows 03:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The name has proved to be a much, much knottier problem than I ever thought possible. I need to get to a library to research the name. And I wish I had a university library to go to. The Internet isn't big enough yet to give us the information we need to sort out the name. Ugh! Noroton 04:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *comment (moved from AfD debate) Thanks killing sparrows - this sums up the problems for me.  The article covers many, possibly important, but very different concepts - and imo they do not belong together, except in some form of Original Research to produce a synchretistic position.  Springnuts 08:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Uh, as a confirmed Docetist, I'll stand by my statement :)--killing sparrows 00:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Person" is still a precise theological term that doesn't mean what you seem to think it means: the Father and the Spirit are both persons. As a Docetist you have worse problems than anything that might go on here, but in this context please refrain from describing your own views as the Christian ones, because it's misleading to anyone who doesn't already know Docetism is a long-rejected deviation.  A.J.A. 18:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The problems I see here... 

message: This is just the result of a quick tour of several dictionaries...
Translation is the direct transfer of a living person to heaven. e.g. Elijah.  Assumption is the transfer of a dead person to heaven.  e.g. Virgin Mary and Jesus.  Ascension is the transfer of a person to heaven. e.g. all three.
It seems to me that what you are interested in are "People who were translated to heaven."  That is, people who did not experience death.  
This should be a short list (but, I haven't looked into this).  Speaking for myself (who is old and trying to get into heaven) I would like to know how they did it.ThomasHartman 01:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A small suggestion

message: In my researches on Elijah, I came upon Howard Schwartz’s Tree of Souls: The Mythology of Judaism. Oxford University Press: Oxford. 2004.   
I think some what you are looking for can be found on pages 173, 206-207, and 261.
On page 207, I found this: ...nine who were said to have entered Paradise alive: 1 Enoch; 2 Elijah; 3 the Messiah; 4 Eliezer, the servant of Abraham; 5 Hiram, king of Tyre; 6 Ebed Melech, the Ethiopian; 7 Jaabez, the son of Rabbi Yehudah ha-Nagid; 8 Bitiah the daughter of Pharaoh; and 9 Serah bat Asher.
(Some of the people on this list can also be found in Louis Ginzberg’s Legends of the Jews. Jewish Publication Society of America: Philadelphia.  1956.)
The book also contains legends concerning 1 Moses; 2 Rabbi Joshua ben Levi; 3 Rabbi Akiba; 4 Shimon ben Azzai; 5 Shimon ben Zoma; and 6 Elisha ben Abuyah.
Except for Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, this group of six did not stay in heaven.  Moses went to heaven to receive the Torah and then returned.  Rabbi Akiba saw heaven and died!  Simon ben Azzai went insane and was returned to earth.  Rabbi Shimon ben Zoma saw an angel on a throne and assumed there were two rulers in heaven and gave up his faith as a result.  Only Elisha ben Abuyah survived his trip to heaven but then he had to die like every one else.
The case of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi is interesting.  While I have not looked into all the other nine, they appear to have gained heaven directly on the basis of merit.  Rabbi Joshua, on the other hand, gained heaven by tricking the Angel of Death.
God sent the Angel of Death to claim the rabbi when his time had come.  To honor the rabbi’s piety, God told the angel to grant any wish the rabbi might have.  Rabbi Joshua asked to see his future home in paradise.  The Angel of Death agreed to take him to the Garden of Eden.  But the rabbi expressed his fear of the sword the angel carried and of the angel’s true intentions.  Rabbi Joshua was allowed the carry the sword.  The angel carried the rabbi to the wall surrounding the Garden of Eden and as they sat there looking upon the rabbi’s future home, Rabbi Joshua leaped to the ground carrying the sword.  The Angel of Death demanded the sword back but Rabbi Joshua refused.  The voice of God was heard in the Garden telling the rabbi to return the sword so that the Angel of Death could do his job.  The Angel of Death regained his sword and the rabbi was allowed to remain in paradise.  
The story is about more than the rabbi’s childish attempt to avoid death, he was attempting the remove the terror of death from the earth.
So there you are.  Ten people who went to heaven without dying.  It’s a start.ThomasHartman 00:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A further suggestion

message: Wow, I've been abroad for a long time and haven't been logging in when viewing/editing Wikipedia. I made this page with my grandfather following a discussion on the very topic title. I'm thrilled to see it be written about so fervently! Just as a note as to the title of the page, when I first wrote it, it was a list. It's only due to further contributers' edits that it became a fact sheet on ascension in general. Anyway, I wish it luck and also kind of hope it stays online. If the title gets changed, does it keep the old history? I'd like to be the creator of a long-standing page --Gausie 22:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit summary, and page history, should remain in place if the title is changed correctly. John Carter 15:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A note from the creator of the page

message: The name of this article needs to be changed in order to bring the page into accordance with Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy.  As it now stands, the name "List of people who went to heaven alive" is in effect an assertion that all of the people listed on the page went to heaven alive.  That is one point of view, perhaps.  But people from some religions might believe that some but not others went to heaven alive, and atheists probably believe that none of them did.  The article needs to acknowledge the existence of these different points of view.  Names which could be considered neutral might include:  "Going to heaven alive", "The act of going to heaven alive", "The concept of going to heaven alive", "Ways people are believed by some to have gone to heaven alive", "Ascension", "Heaven without death", etc.  The idea is to have a name which does not state a claim that not everyone believes in.  --Coppertwig 00:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I argued at the AfD, what it needs renamed to is Translation (religion), with that page's current contents merged into Translation (disambiguation), since most of them are minor alternate names for other things and covered in other articles, and a hatnote of "for the specific application of this concept to Mormon doctrine, see Translation (Mormonism)" on the end version of this page. --tjstrf talk 01:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, though I would favor changing the title to something different, so as not to be confused with Bible Translation. Orville Eastland (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the name must be changed. 

message: How about renaming the article "Entering heaven alive"? That way we avoid technical terms that are specific to one religion. Pax:Vobiscum 10:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name proposal 

message: I'd like to move this page to "Legends about ascendance to heaven," or something like that. Are there any objections? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That depends, is this supposed to be a list or an article? If it's a list, then List of legends about ascendance to heaven might work, but if it's an article, then just calling it Ascent to heaven could be better. --tjstrf talk 01:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see it as a list, anymore. Wrad 01:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "Legends about ascendance to heaven" is an excellent name.  Many other names, including "Ascent to heaven", are also acceptable.  I encourage you to go ahead and move the page.  It's urgent to change away from the current name because it's violating the NPOV policy.  Anyway, no one seems to have objected.  ("could be better" doesn't sound like an objection to me.)  Later, if the ideal name is decided on after thorough discussion, the page can be moved again.  I tried to move the page just now but made a mistake (moved the talk page instead of the article page, and moved it back again) and now I think it will take an administrator to fix that if it's to be moved to "Legends about ascendance to heaven".  Sorry about that.  --Coppertwig 22:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Using "legends about" seems superfluous (and could be interpreted as POV).  I'd prefer "Entering heaven alive" or possibly "ascension into heaven". Pax:Vobiscum 06:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and moved the article since everyone agrees that the old one was bad. I'd like to avoid "ascension" in the article name since the word used for people like Mary is most often "assumption". But if the rest of you prefer "ascendance to heaven/ascending into heaven", go ahead and move it again, I won't revert. Pax:Vobiscum 07:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move proposal

message: "Ascension into heaven" is the term that is currently used by believers in this concept (such as those who are in Ascended Master Activities). The term "ascendance to heaven" has never been used - to my knowlege - by anyone. So the article should be named "Legends about ascension into heaven" or "Ascension into heaven" - but certainly not a term that no one has used nor is using. Arion 22:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ascension into Heaven

message: Would it be appropriate for us to include certain fictional examples in a subsection? In C. S. Lewis's That Hideous Strength, those who ascended to heaven alive include Melchizedek, Frederick Barbarossa, King Arthur and Elwin Ransom. Madeline L'Engle's Many Waters also has a character who was translated to heaven. Orville Eastland (talk) 01:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Entering Heaven Alive in Fiction

message: There are two reasons I oppose this move: One, the word "allegations" is a word to avoid, because it introduces bias and implies that the author does not believe what is written.  Two, the word "transfiguration" does not mean "entering heaven".  There is already an article called Transfiguration (in religion) which indicates that transfiguration does not mean entering heaven without dying first, and that other article covers that separate topic. This article is about going to heaven without dying first. – jaksmata 14:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to "Allegations of live transfiguration" 

message: The The Apotheosis of Washington is the largest artwork in the U.S. Capitol building. While I doubt anyone has ever really believed that George Washington ascended to heaven in bodily form, I think it counts as a significant fictional portrayal and should be included in the "Ascension in popular culture" section. Any objections?   Will Beback  talk   11:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection, and in addition, I think the section could be renamed "Fictional portrayals" - the Capital dome isn't really "pop culture". – jaksmata 18:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. I've added the painting and changed the heading.   Will Beback  talk   19:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''The Apotheosis of Washington'' 

message: What's up with all the boldfacing?  Is MOS not applicable to this article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.219.134 (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  boldface 

message: Could somebody clean up bias in the Judaism section (e.g. dismissing "modern Jewish tradition" as being distinct from "true Judaism", etc.)? -- TruthOverload (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judaism 

message: After Herakles performed the 12 labors, which were to repent from the madness-induced murder of his wife and children, he went on to have more adventures.
Eventually, he had a wife named Deianira. While travelling to Tiryns, they encountered a centaur named Nassus.
Nassus tried to abduct Deianira and Herakles shot him with poison-tipped arrows.
Dying, he managed to manipulate Deianira into keeping his blood-soaked shirt as a potent love-elixir.
Putting it on, after some time, Herakles got poisoned by the venom in the blood and slowly dying he built his own funeral pyre and then his friend Philoctetes lit it.
In the end, his human side did die but his immortal essence remained and Zeus took him up on Mt. Olympus.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.198.116.156 (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  A correction about Herakles 

message: These two get very passing mention in the Catholic section about the assumption of Mary, but I think the article needs to give them a proper treatment (I'm not in a position to do this before anyone says ). I have put a  on the present mention because a distinction is made in the article between ascension and assumption, seeing them as a 'push' and a 'pull' respectively, with divinity required for the motive force. If this is a distinction made in theology or later critical scholarship's assessment of what the authors had in mind then that's fine, but at the moment it looks like whoever put the text in the article is just theorising. And the text talking about E and E being "assumed" according to scripture is not good enough, because clearly the scriptures were not originally in English, and even in the translations I have seen what precisely is supposed to have happened to Enoch and Elijah is considerably less clear cut than the present treatment suggests. Beorhtwulf (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enoch and Elijah 

message: Would it be appropriate to include a reference to the idea of astral projection in this article? Believers in the practice and the reality of its experience (i.e. that the environment perceived is objectively real) say that it's a means by which anyone can enter the "spirit world", as in the world of the afterlife, without dying first, no need for any kind of permission or special recognition from a higher being. Similar to a near-death experience (another thing that could be worth mentioning), only the body remains fully alive while the soul is said to leave the body and enter other planes. flarn2006 [u t c] time: 21:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astral projection? 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: not moved. Apparently the suggested title was discovered to have a different scope than just entering heaven alive, so it will not be used. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Entering heaven alive →  – In my experience, the wp:common name of this concept in the literature is 'heavenly ascent'. See, for example, Google Scholar. In the background section of our Ascension of Jesus article, which deals with the subject of our article here, we are citing  The expression ascension into heaven also does well on Google Scholar, but note how only two of the first ten hits contain the expression in the title (vs all ten in the GS results for 'heavenly ascent'), and note especially how the GS results show the expression 'ascension into heaven' to have very strong connotational links with the ascension of Jesus Christ, while 'heavenly ascent' is used generically for multiple traditions. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 26 August 2022