Talk:Ascension of Jesus

message: 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)
thread_title:  Location of Heaven 

message: The Muslim view is not expounded at length, but at least deserves a mention. tgeorgescu (talk)  20:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing this article is about Jesus Christ and the Christian religion it seems the mention of the islam view is rather irrelevant. There is no inclusion in the muhammad article lead that Christians claim muhammad is a false prophet and it would appear correct in there not being one. NPOV is an important aspect to wikipedia articles. Anyone with half a brain can realize that religions often contradict one another's beliefs. Why not just allow the reader to form their own viewpoints without bogging each article down with minutia and countless opposing viewpoints. Should the republican article contain the fact that democrats oppose many of the ideas and viewpoints held by republicans? Besides wikipedia does not allow for original research with the inclusion of commentary and opinions in secondary sources. Furthermore, the priimary sources capitalize "Son of Man" which you also reverted while blantantly reverting my edits. Have a blessed day and God bless you.2600:1700:7610:41E0:8C11:5768:A157:AB5E (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unwarranted deletions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Christ fuhr gen Himmel