Talk:Transfiguration of Jesus

message: All three people in the transfiguration (Jesus, Moses and Elijah) have fasted for 40 days. I added it 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transfiguration_of_Jesus&oldid=626446856
"Incidentally Jesus, Moses and Elijah have all done 40 day fasts." but it got removed for being "editorial". I thought it was interesting.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.168.127.244 (talk) 06:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Connection to fasting

message: :.... In the Orthodox Church, the Feast of the Transfiguration commemorates this event. It is one of the twelve Great Feasts in the liturgical year of the Orthodox Church and is observed by it on August 6.... 
Is this date Julian or Gregorian ? If it's Julian, the Gregorian date would be August 19, right ? Can someone confirm the dates, please ? Thanks. -- PFHLai 08:26, 2005 August 17 (UTC)
::The date of the Transfiguration on the Orthodox liturgical calendar is August 6. So, whether one is using the Julian or Gregorian calendar the date is always August 6. For those who use the Julian calendar (the majority of Orthodox) the day their calendar calls August 6 is the day that everyone else calls August 19. MishaPan 14:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, MishaPan.  This is now on MainPage, with other holidays on August 6. --PFHLai 19:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Orthodox

message: There were way too many POV boxes spread throughout the article so I removed them all and put it at the top of the page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.225.81.53 (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Boxes combined into one

message: The Transfiguration is a story that has been recorded for 1900 years. Are a couple media references to it in the last 5 years really significant enough to warrant mention?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joepinion (talk • contribs) 18:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop culture references necessary? 

message: Why August 6? I'd be curious to know that. MrArticleOne (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a good answer, but I have heard that some persons see in it a connection with Sukkoth; except that seems to be about a month after we celebrate the Transfiguration, but it's in the ballpark, I suppose. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you dig around on Google, you'll find references to it being connected with the Kingdom of Hungary successfully breaking the Ottoman Empire's Siege of Belgrade; Callixtus III declared that the phenomenon of the Transfiguration would be celebrated on August 6 in the whole church (it had apparently been celebrated locally prior to that, and had long been venerated in the Eastern churches) in celebration/honor of the Christian victory over the Muslims. The problem with that as the explanation is that the Siege of Belgrade ended on July 22. So, even given the above story, there's still some explaining needed for why this is celebrated 15 days after the breaking of the Siege of Belgrade. MrArticleOne (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I'm not much help. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to have found an answer. Apparently, August 6 was the day that the news of the Hungarian (or, perhaps more appropriate in this context, Christian) victory at the Siege of Belgrade reached Rome. It's at this website if you scroll down a ways: http://www.breviary.net/propsaints/propsaints03/propsaints03283.htm. MrArticleOne (talk) 06:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If so, a convenient coincidence presumably, as this had long been the Orthodox date. Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Alban Butler confirms what's been said above. The date 6 August was observed in the East before 1000 A.D. In the west, in those places where the Transfiguration was observed at all, its date varied, until Calistus III required it to be celebrated on 6 Aug everywhere. Rwflammang (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date 

message: Is it wikipedia policy to use a capital H in pronouns reffering to Jesus?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.191.59 (talk) 09:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe so, it would be a violation of NPOV. Feel free to decapitalize these instances under those grounds. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  He/His 

message: Please may someone find time to look through this article and then cite it if they like. I was simply trying to find something that actually shows this; I#m afraid that this is an area that scholars often don't pick up on, e.g. even the editors of the Orthodox Study Bible. 
"According to Saint Maximos and the whole patristic tradition, the face of Christ, radiating on Mount Tabor a dazzling, unendurable light, reveals Christ’s divinity, which both illumines, dazzles and blinds (Ambiguum 10). The garments of the Lord, which Saint Mark’s gospel says became “exceedingly white,” impossibly bright, reveal the transfiguration of the creation. Saint Maximos says the transfigured garments of the Lord are both the words of Scripture and the forms of creation (Ambiguum 10). The cosmos is a book of revelation and the Scripture is a revealed cosmos. Both consist of logoi, words, which reveal, when read with the Spirit, the will and mind of God. Both are transfigured through Christ. The disciples who witnessed the Transfiguration were also transfigured, not only in spirit and soul, but also in body. The uncreated light and grace of Christ, streaming from his transfigured face, body and garments, transfigured the very senses of the apostles, allowing them to behold his glory, as of the only begotten of the Father, “full of grace and truth.” Since the human nature shared by Christ with all humanity, according to the Fathers, is a microcosm of the whole created order, the fact that the transfigured body of Christ reveals His divinity in a flood of uncreated light, and that this same transfiguring uncreated energy streams from his face. body and clothing and illumines and transfigures the bodies of the apostles, means without doubt that the whole of creation is lifted up, and is meant to be lifted up, transformed and transfigured by the irresistible power of the grace of the Logos." This section is specially important
http://www.orth-transfiguration.org/library/orthodoxy/transfiguration/
Eugene-elgato (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL Mangoe, it's not polemics [history of the edit], I'm not saying the west rejects it per se, but it is in fact a crucial difference that is placed on emphasis. The entire difference between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox is precisely that; there is very little that these churches exactly disagree upon, however there are massive and fundamental differences in what is considered as salient. A more extreme example would be for instance, to illustrate this point, where you look at the difference between Islam and Orthodoxy; Islam has five prayers a day, and as it happens Orthodoxy has seven. However Islam places a huge emphasis on performing those five prayers as a pillar to the faith, whereas Orthodoxy doesn't. Eugene-elgato (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is "in fact". Indeed, the problem here is that what you originally wrote was your interpretation of one source, which may present a view not generally shared in the East, without any evidence at all for what those in the West think. I think Maximos's interpretation is interesting, but it isn't at all clear that it represents an East-West difference; and I think you overstated it as originally presented. If there is such a difference (and this isn't something I've studied-- I'm just hazarding a guess) it is more likely that in the West there's little concern about the mechanism of revelation. There is a tendency in these articles to enlarge the difference between East and West; to show such a difference, one must show both ends of it. Mangoe (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

text: You are absolutely right of course; I haven't used any western sources and yes my view had been filtered through what Orthodox themselves state to be the difference without being objective. Eugene-elgato (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orthodox understanding of the apostles having transfigured, NOT Christ 

message: The image placements are throwing the text off. As you edit, please move images to gallery. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 07:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that might be happening, unfortunately cannot fix that I think with this browser/firewall, images are not displaying. Can you help? Sorry. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries, I like fixing images. But I did not want to jump in the middle of your edits. Will do that in a little while if you have finished your changes. History2007 (talk) 10:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I cleaned up the images and made a gallery, and added churches etc. In the process I found a REALLY nice image of the Gospel of Mark with the transfiguration page. But the quote in the first section is from Matthew 17:5. If you change that quote to the suitable quote from Mark, then it will fit really well. History2007 (talk) 12:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I didn't put that quote there btw. might be better if you did it to avoid me throwing the images off In ictu oculi (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem, I already fixed it. History2007 (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Imgs and txt

message: I've removed the following text:
The citation is wrong (it's actually page 209 of "Dissertations upon the principles and arrangement of a harmony of the Gospels"). It's also taken out of context: Greswell is speculating on where the last temptation took place. Not where Moses viewed the promised land! The Cake 2 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 11:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated the article with Greswell's actual assessment. Mangoe (talk) 05:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edward Greswell 

message: Why is 'metamorphosed' put forward in the opening sentence of this article as an alternative to 'transfigured'? Metamorphosis is usually seen as a permanent change, such as from caterpillar to pupa to butterfly - the word is used in these articles. It is not correct to suggest that the change in appearance which Jesus is portrayed as undergoing in the transfiguration was a permanent change - quite the contrary.
BobKilcoyne (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metamorphosis 

message: So a whole bunch of references have been inserted (relatively) recently (yeah I dont get out much) directly into the text rather than as footnotes. Please correct these before I correct them in my rather chainsaw fashion. Thanks. Rwflammang (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  reference style 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: "the miracle happens to Jesus himself"
Are you nuts?
WHat about the alleged resurrection and the so called immaculate conception? With whom did that happen if not with Jesus? Ok, the second with Mary too, but with Jesus. Allegedly. 
Your fairy tales are already confused enough, dont make that bigger with idiotic statements!
2003:C1:B700:2D00:5912:C950:FB11:D3DB (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unique?