Talk:Session of Christ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Session of Christ has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 20, 2011 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 13, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that although the Apostles' Creed states that Jesus (pictured) is sitting at the right hand of God the Father, the New Testament also depicts him as standing and walking?

"in heaven"[edit]

The article's intro says the New Testament describes "Jesus as standing and walking in Heaven", but it's my understanding that Jesus never actually says he's going to "heaven" (even if others might), but uses other terms, such as "my father's house" and "paradise". Should another term be substituted? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, "heaven" is certainly mentioned in Acts 7:55, the verse in which Jesus is described as "standing". But since the article is about the Christian doctrine (as in the Apostles' Creed), "heaven" is quite appropriate. StAnselm (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Use in hymnody[edit]

Just listing the hymns that mention the concept is WP:Trivia, and does not add encyclopaedic value to the article. If the concept really is notably used in hymnody, there should be sources that discuss this, and they can be used instead. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 22:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:TRIVIA applies here - in any case, WP:TRIVIA does not advocate the deletion of the section, but only presenting it in a different way. StAnselm (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
WP:TRIVIA in a nutshell is "Sections with lists of miscellaneous information (such as "trivia" sections) should be avoided as an article develops. Such information is better presented in an organized way." That indeed does not apply, since "use in hymnody" is a specific relevant subtopic. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Session of Christ/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lord Roem (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This has been at the back of the pile for a few months now - I will gladly review it to get it out :) -- Lord Roem (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Section by section review[edit]

Please look over the suggested changes below, which need to be done in order for the article to be promoted.


  • These are nice images, which are good in brigtening up the article :) Face-smile.svg Thank you
  • The placement of the 'Jesus series' box should be moved higher up I think. Not done Do you mean above the first picture? I would have thought that would imbalance things...
  • Hmm. On second thought, you can keep where it is.


  • Maybe use a more neutral word than "teaches". Alternates: 'says', 'is the idea that says', etc.  Done
  • The in-line cites here are not required if this same information is stated later on in the article. (See here).  Done

Biblican references

  • Replace 'his' with 'Jesus'. And subsequently do the opposite with the later mention of 'Jesus'. So..make it read something like "...after Jesus' ressurection and ascension, he was 'exalted to the right hand of God'".  Done
  • You link in this section to the Right Hand of God article. I think it would be prudent to merge the two articles: Not done There is overlap between these two articles, but they don't cover the same ground - as well as talking about the place at God's right hand, the Bible also uses "God's right hand" to indicate his power - e.g. Exodus 15:6 and Psalm 18:35. Hence, it wouldn't be appropriate to merge.
    • firstly, the content is very similar and
    • secondly, you need more explaination here about why the right hand is symbolic/significant.
  • Second paragraph a bit confusing - maybe change 'instrumental' to a more layman term.  Done I linked to Instrumental case, not sure how else to explain it
  • Put a topic sentence for the second and third paragraphs in this section.  Done I'm not totally sure what you mean by "topic sentence", but I put the two paragraphs together with an introductory sentence.
  • Remove 'evident' (see WP:OPED and WP:WEASEL)  Done
  • The third paragraph mentions more examples in an off-hand tone. It makes the section read like a general listing of examples without real connection to a single idea. Therefore, rework organization for this section.  Done


  • Put the definition of 'session' in the lead. The definition shouldn't be all the way down in the 2nd paragraph.  Done It actually was in the lead, but I've copied the Grudem quote there.
  • Need a cite for "This language is used in Psalm 110 and Hebrews 10."  Done I added links to the verses
  • This is a very interesting subject. Please put more details here about the meaning of a "session" in this usage. Maybe you can find that in the Grudem source.

In the creeds

  • Incorporate this into another paragraph. The sole paragraph here is just another example of where the Session of Christ is represented. Beyond that, its fine. Not done I appreciate your point, but I can't really think of where to put it. With the theological significance? With the hymns?

Theological significance

  • In-line cite for the first sentence. I didn't put in an inline citation, but I modified the statement from "usually" to "often", so that it's not claiming too much, and added a quote from the Catholic Catechism, which seems to clearly state this
  • Who is Berkhof? Maybe say "Professor/Pastor/Cardinal Berkhof, a researcher of the Session, notes that..."  Done I put in a wikilink - it wasn't there because he was linked in the Biblical references section
  • Ooh. I wanna know more about this God-man thing. Please put more details on that in the first paragraph. Not done I don't think it's really relevant to this article. Berkhof uses the phrase in passing, and this is exactly why we have wikilinks - an interested person can follow the link to find out more.
  • More analysis here that is not just quoting other people. I estimate 80% of all words in this section are quotes. Not done Fair enough, but I'm scared of putting my own synthesis or analysis here. I don't see any way around this, to be honest.
  • Why 'right'? Any source explaining why the right side is significant?  Done Yes, I found an appropriate quote

Use in hymnody

  • Ok.

Concluding thoughts

  • This article is interesting for me, probably because I had never heard about this before. But there is sooo much that I want to know after reading this that is simply not answered. Try expanding the article more, with greater details and more information on the significance of the subject.
  • Alot of this seems to be Jesus sitting on the right side of God. Consider merging it with Right Hand of God. That may give you a broader field to work with.
  • I wish you luck in making these changes and improving the article! You have a week's time before I will come back to consider the next step in this review. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for a very careful and helpful review! StAnselm (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 Done Well, I think this is about as much as I'll be able to do. It's your call. Either way, thank you very much for the feedback. Even if the article is not promoted, it's still been improved. StAnselm (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I will look the article over in conjunction with the checklist for GA promotion. I'm leaning towards promoting it, but I just want to check the list first. - Lord Roem (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
After going over the criteria, I feel the article can be passed. I was at first shaky on this due to the shortness of the article, but I have seen other GAs that are just as long. I feel your improvements have greatly increased the quality of the article, so promotion is the best way to go. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of Daniel 7[edit]

I skimmed through this article and did not see any references to Daniel 7, for which the theology of God the Son's session beside God the Father is foundational in the context of the Christian doctrine of the Messiah. Maybe we could include some references to the Book of Daniel's presentation of the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man? Daniel's vision is, essentially, the earliest depiction of the session of the Messiah, from the Christian viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hierosolimitanum (talkcontribs) 23:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This is an excellent point, and it should indeed be added in. Many of the NT passages that quote Daniel 7 pick up the "coming" idea rather than the "sitting" idea, but Matthew 26:64 and Mark 14:62 have "you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power". I will put this into the article. StAnselm (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)