Talk:Resurrection of Jesus/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

WP:LEAD

Airborne, I saw that you added some material to the lede. Per WP:LEAD the lede should summarize the article in a way that represents the contents, not the other way around. I did not do a knee jerk revert on your addition, but it certainly does not sit well there and needs to be modified. As is, you have modified the lede to be a debate about the historicity of the resurrection, while the article is about the explanation of the Christian belief, not a debate on its historicity.

You should move that down to a historicity section below and leave a sentence about it in the lede, not let the lede be dominated by a historicity debate - which is not the subject of the article. History2007 (talk) 01:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the benefit of the doubt. What you said is certainly true. I'm in the middle of developing a section that the lede paragraph you mention will be representative of. I probably should have done it the other way, but I figured if I captured the major arguments in a summary in the lede, it would serve as an outline of sorts to develop the section below.

I agree that the historicity of the event is not the main theme in the article. However, it is one aspect of the topic. Hopefully we can come to a reasonable consensus about what the right amount of weight is for this aspect. I certainly do not plan to try to overpower the article with skepticism. I'd just like to add another aspect of this topic which interests me and may interest some others.

It might well turn out that that lede paragraph is too long. Perhaps we could give it some time. I'll work for a bit on the section below and if it turns out it needs to be cut down, that's no problem at all. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I'd suggest that the rest of the lede is a bit sparse. If the article were to be nominated as a Featured Article, I think the reviewers might ask for a fuller summary of the article in the other lede paragraphs. In that light, the final paragraph might just be more fully developed right now. --Airborne84 (talk) 02:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

If the other editors are agreeable, I'd be happy to help develop the rest of the lede to better summarize the entire article. --Airborne84 (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I have been trying not to work on this article. But I guess it needs to get fixed anyway. The lede is not representative of the text as is, partly because there are so many small changes in "drive by edits". The section "resurrection skepticism" should probably be called Historicity and should include the scholarly "it is not true" arguments. Those arguments are generally flogging a dead horse anyway, because most scholars do not consider the resurrection as historically provable - but a subject of "Christian teachings". There is not a single non-Christian document that refers to the Resurrection. So again, I do not know what the big deal is. But EarlyChristianWritings.com etc. is not WP:RS. The serious non-believing scholars are people like Vermes, etc. Richard Carrier is a small time player and says nothing new compared to Vermes and Froedricksen who are also non-believers, but far more respected. They are the ones to get quoted, not the colloquial web sites. But they all say the same thing anyway: there is no historical record to prove it: it is a religious belief. But the scholars should be used rather than the others.

Let us do this: please develop that section with non-believing scholars such as Vermes, Sanders and Freidriksen and in a day or so I will think of what the rest of the lede should look like. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, until I get more sources, I have to bake the cake with what I have on hand, so to speak. In the case of the EarlyChristianWritings.com founder, his essay is in a work with editorial oversight by Robert M. Price, a noted scholar in this area, and it isn't self-published. In this case, the book it is in is a reliable source.

I have no issue with calling the section Historicity if you prefer though.

The rest of what you say is true. However, I can tell that you have a far greater grasp of the historicity discussions than the average Wikipedia reader will. Since most scholars don't consider the resurrection as historically provable, as you rightly note, that's a worthy addition to an encyclopedia article on the topic. Readers then will come to know what you already know by reading the article.

Thanks for the notes on the other scholarly sources though. I appreciate it. I'll hold off on making further additions until I get some of their works. It may take me some time. --Airborne84 (talk) 04:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let us do that. In parallel, I will think of how to make further fixes. The point is that the lack of historicity is a "generally accepted" scholarly element. However, the views of people like Richard Carrier are just not noteworthy. Price is slightly better than Carrier but generally a myth theory advocate not a top level biblical scholar like Fredriksen etc. who also doubt the resurrection. And Carrier has absolutely no sources to prove what he says. He just hypothesizes that somethings may have happened in a certain way, without any historical records to support his theory. So the two sides of that debate have exactly, exactly the same number of historical records: zero. That should be pointed out and is a simple issue that most readers can understand. History2007 (talk) 10:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Separate article on the long historicity discussion

As material started to get added to the historicity section, two things happened:

• It clearly overlapped with the origin of the narrative accounts text that was in the article already. These could not be in two separate sections because they discuss the same issues.

• The length of the historicity discussions overwhelmed the rest of the text, directly resulting in a WP:UNDUE issue, in that in an article that is about the "Christian beliefs and teachings" as its first sentence states historicity can not dominate the page.

I had to consolidate the related material and made a separate page with a Main. I kept the size of the summary of that here to the same size as the artistic depictions material that is about one screen worth of info.

Wikipedia policies permit the development of a dissertation on the "historicity of the resurrection" but WP:UNDUE does prohibit such a dissertation from overwhelming the main topic of the article. When I wrote the "Resurrection in art" article, I did not include all that material in this page, because it would run against WP:UNDUE. Just as the artistic issues about the Resurrection have a page of their own and a Main so should the historicity discussions. And the size of these Main summaries should be roughly the same, given that there is a separate article that includes the information. An article on a given topic can not include a separate dissertation on a peripheral issue, and a Main must be used.

As a general point, the discussion of any religious teaching (be it Christianity, Judaism or Islam) can not be overwhelmed by a separate discussion of its denial for that would effectively stop Wikipedia from providing an account of the the religious teachings. For instance, a discussion of many Old Testament accounts about angels passing over, etc. can not be overwhelmed by a long discussion on the existence of angels and their historicity. The Biblical accounts need to be presented in an encyclopedic form, as religious teachings, as this article states at the top. Then a pointer to a Main about the historicity issues needs to be there because those are also encyclopedic topics. However, the main focus of the article which is the "teachings" should remain as such.

In writing the summary of the historicity, I deliberately included Vermes, Sanders, Dunn and Koester and excluded Price, because Price is really a 3rd rate player at best, unlike Koester who also doubts the resurrection, but is a respected scholar. As stated above, material about those who doubt the Resurrection should come from the likes of Vermes and Koester who are serious scholars. I think in the Main page about the historicity of the Resurrection the material from Price should be replaced by material from the likes of Koester, to increase the quality of that page. History2007 (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I will say that just because the first sentence says this article is about the Christian teachings of the resurrection, does not mean that this article has to be defined in that way. It's also possible for editors here to decide that the article's topic will simply be about the "resurrection of Jesus", as broadly defined in the title. Modifying the first sentence is easy.

However, what you did seems reasonable to me at this time. --Airborne84 (talk) 11:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, fine. There is, however, a need for some article that presents and defines basic religious teachings in any religion, say Pratītyasamutpāda as a fundamental element in Buddhism, which is a WP:Notable topic. Given WP:RS sources, one can write an article on how Pratītyasamutpāda may or may not be invalidated by the principles of Causality (physics) or how it may interact with the Bose–Einstein correlations but those are discussions about the relationship between the religious teachings and other, in this case scientific, arguments. There may be a section in the Pratītyasamutpāda article about "Causality and Buddhism", with a Main link to the article that discusses scientific causality and Buddhist teachings. There is none there, however, and it is not up to me to write that. History2007 (talk) 12:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

this qoute

"The majority consensus among biblical scholars is that the genre of the Gospels is a kind of ancient biography and not myth" What does those sentence have to do with the resurrection? Its talking about the gosepls in general. 75.133.90.25 (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The section where that statement is found is not dealing with resurrection per se, but: "Historicity and origin of the narrative". The statement appears to be properly sourced and it fits that context. (Perhaps the editor who first added the statement would explain further?)
—Telpardec  TALK  03:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I did not add that, but I agree that it can fit, and maybe should be rworked a little to fit better. Perhaps you can just touch it up. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 05:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Reliable source for the permanence of death

History2000, can you tell me what you consider a "reliable source."? Also, what the book you used in place of my sources actually says? Strangesad (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS. Those websites are not WP:RS in general and also subject to WP:LINKROT, so books by good publishers are better. Your statement was, however, correct. But per WP:V correct means very little and sources rule. I added an RS source anyway, and made it 4 pagars per WP:LEDE. The book says that there are views that see Resurrection as impossible, not just incorrect but impossible. It does not mention loss of body function, so you really need another source for that part. But that part may not be crucial because most living scientists agree. I am not sure what the dead ones think. History2007 (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

As I said on my Talk page, the sources seem reliable to me. Can you explain what is wrong with them? The book you cited is about literary themes. Strangesad (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I responded on your talk. By the way, you can not say "R is impossible" but should use attribution to scientific views, for there are non scientific views etc. per WP:NPOV. And per WP:LEDE if it is to be in the lede needs explanation in the body - else can not be there. And please see WP:3RR so we do not inadvert step over it. History2007 (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

All the book needs to say is that there are views which say it is impossible. So we actually agree on what there is to say, the question is attribution. www.uniformlaws.org is not RS for sure, given n publisher. NHS.UK is a medical site and using it is WP:OR given no mention of resurrection, etc. And they are all LINKROT items that may change tomorrow. The book I used was about Resurection. You can ask for further views on WP:RSN if you like. That is the easiest way. And a better way is to look on Google books and you will find a few more sources for sure. History2007 (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me the book needs to say more than that, since there are books saying the opposite. The purpose of my sources is to document that the definition requires "irreversibility". Strangesad (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to restore my sources. Please give a better explanation, if you revert me. Strangesad (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, the depth of this conversation has left me breathless, so I will not say much. A "general statement" about resurrection needs to be in the page on Resurrection not just this specific page about one specific case. Why didn't you add it there instead of here? You know why. And per WP:LEDE and WP:Due, unless developed in the article does not belong at the top there like a neon sign. Is that clear? In any case, readers of an article who need to be told that dead people don't get up and walk in hospitals, deserve to read that type of article. But I will leave it at that and say no more. History2007 (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I strongly agree. You can make that statement in the apropriate section but not at the top. Moreover, I hope you are not planning to add a scientific denial in the lead section of every single religious concept. Are you, Strangesad? José Luiz ^talk 16:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. Unless someone says no, he can do that... Starting with the page God and saying God does not exist, then angels, then Heaven, Spirits, etc. maybe a suitable path for that line of editing... This article is about theology for Heaven's sake... sorry, sorry; Heaven is impossible because death is final. I take that back... I take that back... History2007 (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

This is largely unrelated to the topic of this article, which is "the Christian belief." It certainly doesn't belong in the lead. "Resurrection is impossible" might be used in resurrection, but another source would be needed - the source cited doesn't support the statement "resurrection is impossible." Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Right. I tried to say that at the top, but you actually said it better... History2007 (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

History2007 said nothing of the sort at the top. Rather, they provided a source for the text in question.. Please explain how the physical possibility of the subject of the article is off-topic. The sources provided clearly state that death is irreversible. Does it really even require a source. Strangesad (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That type of source is needed for dead readers I guess... if it is trivial and needs no source why put it there at all? And as he said the article is about theology and belief. So go and add to the lede of the God page that he does not exist, and see the reception you will get (not from God, but from the other users there). But as I said this discussion is too deep for me, I really need to stop. History2007 (talk) 02:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, you have been double reverted on it, so I do not see the consensus you mentioned in your revert of Tom Harrison. There are 3 editors vs yourself. Right? History2007 (talk) 03:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You added a source for the statement, and provided wording you thought appropriate. Thus, you were part of the consensus, except for whether the sources I mentioned belonged. You hadn't oppose the material, until (quite suddenly) now. It has become clear from your contribs and the ANI that you are an SPA promoting Xianity. I initially added the "denial" because the article contained material discussing whether Jesus really was resurrected (I deleted a lot of it). Strangesad (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I was not going to be bothered arguing about it with you. Regarding your comment about my being SPA that was funny. My record speaks for itself - 75,000 edits, block free. I will not even bother responding to that one further, but say that you have a lot to learn about policy here. Now, comment on content, not other editors. Ok? Discuss page content, not other editors. Anyway, there are editors who don't agree with it, so WP:MAAN applies now in any case. History2007 (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You forgot to beat your chest like Tarzan. Strangesad (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with History2007, Tom Harrison and José Luiz, that section has no place in the introduction. I don't challenge the content of the quote (that death is final) but certainly the relevance of placing it in the introduction of this article. This is the article to which people are likely to come to read about how Christian's view the Resurrection of Jesus, I doubt this is the article to which people come to learn what happens to the body after Death.Jeppiz (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with History2007, Tom Harrison, José Luiz and Jeppiz. The reason this is of any significance in any religion is because it defies common logic. It is the reason that it is considered a miracle and not a common occurrence. The majority of your audience coming to this page is probably going to understand that according to common logic it is impossible and they probably don't need a source for it. Dromidaon (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The subject of its historicity is in the lead. Strangesad (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Five different users have spoken out against including it in the lead, nobody except you wants it there. Still you continue to insert it. Would you care to explain why you ignore the consensus and edit war in this way?Jeppiz (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I am getting tired of this, will someone explain to Strangesad that this is not the way to do it. This is what Porter's book says on page 168:

"Some atheists have said not only that the resurrection did not happen but that it is impossible. One does not have to assume that it is impossible..."

Porter repeats the impossible argument, attributes it, but does not support it himself as a blanket statement. This fellow uses that, then adds the medical references again after their removal. Someone please explain it to him... Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

If you don't like being called dishonest, then stop being dishonest. YOU added the Porter reference [1], not me. You used it to support the text that you now suddenly oppose. Oh, and I am not a "fellow." Strangesad (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

No. My edit had an attribution "According to..." similar to Porter's, was not a blanket statement and had no other attachment. But on second thought it should all go away anyway. History2007 (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

. Your edit: "Scientific views hold resurrection to be impossible, given that death involves the irreversibile loss of key body functions." Strangesad (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

So, I did have attribution, but grave digging is beside the point here (pun intended) and will not affect page content in view of the user opinions expressed. History2007 (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

This entire discussion is ridiculous. One really does not need any source at all to say that you can't come back from the dead. The article explicitly addresses the "controversy" about whether the resurrection is historical. If that is going to be p[art of the article, and the lead, then it is fair to bring in the scientific facts. Strangesad (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

How about we put it like " according to medicine and biology, resurrections from the dead are considered impossible ? " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.120.228.234 (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the general agreement is to just drop it. History2007 (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Attributing it to medicine and biology might be a necessary diplomatic step, but there really shouldn't be such an attribution, in a secular encyclopedia. Strangesad (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this discussion is dead and is unlikely to resurrect. I will stop watching for a while now. I am not sure if my interest in watching this page will resurrect soon, or ever at all... History2007 (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Strangesad, we're talking about a Theology article, something taught in some of the most respected universities in the world. It's already stated in the lead that it is a christian belief. Are you really gonna keep this "secular" argument up? Are you going to argue that "according to science 'talking burning bushes' are impossible in Moses? Or, "according to DNA analysys, elephant people doesn't exist in Ganesha? Come on.... José Luiz ^talk 21:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

If those articles suggest otherwise, as this one does, then yes. Strangesad (talk) 04:

37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

All very well, in it's way, but

It is simply sufficient to state in the lead no more than that the resurrection is miraculous. Mangoe (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Would you accept stating in the lead of Unicorn that the existence of the unicorn is miraculous? This article suggests that the resurrection is factual. Strangesad (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It is factual. It's "the Christian belief that Jesus Christ miraculously returned to life." The existence of Christians and the nature of Christian beliefs are widely documented in reliable sources. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

True. So? Strangesad (talk) 05:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

So, the article is correct as written. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Please explain. Strangesad (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The burden to explain is on the person who wants to add the material. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I was asking you to explain what you meant. Since I am not trying add what you meant as "material", it's odd for you to tell me to explain what you meant. Christians think Jesus was resurrected. They also think the Earth was created in 7 days. In the Creationism article, we say that Creationism is pseudoscience. The same logic applies here. Please engage in open-minded intellectual discourse, rather than games. Strangesad (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I've misunderstood you. Is there some change you want to make to the article? Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I want to add the material I added, which you deleted. [2] You said it was not supported by the sources. My real opinion is that no source is necessary to state that it is impossible to come back from the dead. I provided a couple of sources anyway, and History2007 (despite his revisionist history) added the first, Porter ref.

Tell me what source you would accept for the claim that coming back from the dead is impossible. Strangesad (talk) 04:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd have to see such a source. What's used to support that statement in Resurrection? But since this article is about Christian doctrine and belief, the problem of relevance remains, even if a good source is presented. That relevance is still unestablished. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

This is going in circles. My response to your comment about Xian belief is: True. So? Strangesad (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Christian belief is what the article is about. You admit the article's description of Christian beliefs is true. There seems to be no basis for adding what you want, even from your own point of view. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Christians believe Jesus was resurrected. Other beliefs about whether Jesus was resurrected are allowed. Compare to Creationism. Strangesad (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem if you agree to put the statement in the "Non-Christian views" section, something like the "Scientific criticism" section in Creationism. But I still think that saying simply "according to Science ressurection is impossible" is a bit silly because no one really needs that. Since believing in the Resurrection of Christ is the dividing line between "Christians" and "Non-Christians", an "impossible resurrection" sounds like "Christianity is impossible". José Luiz ^talk 20:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Policy isn't based on what anything "sounds like." Strangesad (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

"The unicorn is a legendary animal" Unicorn."The resurrection of Jesus is the Christian belief that Jesus Christ miraculously returned to life." A legend is not the same thing as a miracle. It does not need to be spelled out in the article that miracles are contrary to nature as that is the definition of the word. mir·a·cle Noun A surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is considered to be divine.Smeat75 (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

This article gives weight to the idea that Jesus was, in fact, resurrected. It cites a source saying that the Bible is biography not myth. If it is going to do that, it is censorship and a religious agenda to try to delete any mention of the fact that resurrection is impossible. I've said this about 10 times. Address it. Strangesad (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Some people believe that the resurrection of Christ is a fact. Some people also believe that the Bible is also a fact and not a myth. Wikipedia has to represent what these groups consider fact too and not just what is defined as fact in the specific facets of study that one individual agrees with. Wikipedia is not to define what is fact or not, but rather to represent what other sources have claimed as fact. I believe an honest effort was made by History2007 and others to meet your viewpoint using proper sources while maintaining NPOV on the subject. Your continued debate on what facts are appropriate to define as authoritative lends to the idea that you also have a specific agenda that you want represented. The point of the NPOV policy is to alleviate some of these issues. Dromidaon (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Not *all* other sources. WP:UNDO applies. We have no obligation or desire to represent crank minority views (except in articles about those views). Rklawton (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

And it is a secularist agenda to assert that he was not resurrected. Look, in religious topics there is no need to belabor the point that people outside the religion don't hold to the views of believers. To do so is to put WP:UNDUE weight on disbelief. Nobody needs to say that what Christianity holds miraculous, people outside the religion do not believe is so. Simply following the link to miracle will tell them that. Making a flat statement that resurrection is impossible is a plain violation of neutrality. Trying to treat Christianity as a fringe theory, a la creationism, is inaccurate, as a simple headcount of believers shows. It is time to give up on this crusade. Mangoe (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

No, neutrality doesn't mean all sides are given weight. It is not a "secularist agenda" to say the world wasn't created in a week, and it is not any agenda to say people don't come back from the dead. The issue is not treating Christianity as a fringe theory. Many Xians don't have a literal interpretation of the Bible. It is, however, pseudoscience to say that anyone can come back from the dead. Any article about somebody coming back from the dead can say as much--especially if the article does not limit itself to the story from a sacred text, but actually ventures into to the historicity of the resurrection. This one does that. Strangesad (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It is a Christian claim that people ordinarily don't come back from the dead. The question is whether this is an exception, and you are trying to say that there aren't cannot be any exceptions. That's not science; that's metaphysics. You are trying to emphasize a secularist viewpoint in which the miraculous does not occur; Christianity does not accept this viewpoint, and does not accept that the reality of the occasional miracle is any threat to the scientific study of the world. It is not pseudoscience to make a claim that this miracle occurs, because it is not a claim to science at all. Mangoe (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Whether Christians believe in miracles is beside the point. This article is not limited to what Christians believe. Likewise, the article on Creationsism doesn't only describe the Christian view; it also points out that Creationsim is pseudoscience. Strangesad (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Whether anyone else believes in the notion of miracles is beside the point, whereas the central Christian miracle is the point. This isn't an article about the beliefs of strict believers in naturalism and others who deny the possibility of miracles, and so there's no need to mention their/your beliefs. Mangoe (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The article is about the resurrection of Jesus. That is all. It is an event (mythical), not a belief. What you are describing is the section "Theological significance." Your position would be slightly more tenable if the article didn't already delve into the historicity of the resurrection. Strangesad (talk) 07:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the article is about the resurrection of Jesus. An event we cannot possibly claim to be a fact or say that it happened. Neither can we state with absolute certainty that it didn't. It's extremely likely that it didn't happen, of course. What we can say is that Christians believe it happened, that's a fact and that's what the article says. In the section about the historicity of the resurrection, several alternative explanations are given. It also says that the scolar quoted "dismisses" the resurrection as a fact. The article thus appears properly sourced and WP:NPOV.Jeppiz (talk) 11:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

What can we say with "absolutely certainty"? Maybe 2+2=4. By the usual standards of knowledge, we know that nobody has ever, will ever, or can, come back from the dead. It is as certain as evolution, which is, for all practical purposes, certain. Your comment about "properly sourced" is irrelevant. Nobody is trying to remove sources. Strangesad (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I looked on here to see what happened, and I must say I smiled as I read the above, for it reminded me of the confidence in the "we are absolutely, absolutely certain" statements made by analysts a few years ago about the bullet-poof nature of CDOs based on Gaussian copula computations... Then as the cracks began to appear.... many went back and bought copies of a book about a topic they should have studied somewhat sooner... Please feel free to ignore this passing comment, for I will now stop looking here for another week or two... But do have have fun in the meantime... History2007 (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

This is getting somewhat tedious, Strangesad. You have made that argument for weeks now. Most users don't agree with you, and have presented their arguments already. We don't need to repeat them daily and the fact that we don't entertain you does not mean that there is suddenly a consensus for your version. If you think that the way to winning is to repeat the same thing over and over again, refusing to WP:HEAR counterarguments, and waiting until everybody else but you stop posting, then you're mistaken. You present nothing new in your post above that you haven't said many times already.Jeppiz (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I admire your style. Direct critical, blaming comments at other editors, then criticize and blame them for responding. Virtually every comment I have made here has been a response to something said to me. As it happens, your complaining is doubly nonsensical, because the immediate topic of certainty/knowledge has not been discussed here before at all. Now quit shaking the trees when you don't like the peaches. Strangesad (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum, so please stop commenting unless with some new material related to a proposal to improve the article, and where the proposal is based on policies such as WP:V and WP:DUE. Repeatedly repeating some point is disruptive, and will achieve nothing. Johnuniq (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

If you want me to stop commenting, then stop talking to me. Strangesad (talk) 04:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Support adding information about the mythical, superstitious, and legndary nature of this subject, per Strangesad, Jose Luiz, the IP, and Humanpublic. Minorview (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that IP never said that, that Jose Luiz said the opposite and Humanpublic hasn't participated in the discussion, that's very interesting. Luckily enough, the article already makes is perfectly clear that this is not a factual event. Of course we could discuss if such a disclaimer should be added to all articles that deal with religious beliefs. Should the article about the early persons in the Bible say that nobody can become that old? Should all the different articles about Greek, Roman, Chinese, Indian and Celtic mythology include a scientific disclaimer? If that is what we want, then it should be discussed at the proper place, not at the talkpage of an article that sees quite little action. I am in no way against such a discussion, but this is not the place, and I see no reason why we should add it just here if it's not included in thousands of similar articles. It seemps a bit WP:POINTy.Jeppiz (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• "I don't have a problem if you agree to put the statement in the "Non-Christian views" section, something like the "Scientific criticism" section in Creationism" --Jose Luiz
• "How about we put it like " according to medicine and biology, resurrections from the dead are considered impossible ? "" --IP
• Humanpublic reverted. Minorview (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

As Jose Luiz said, we could put it in the section Non-Christian, it's not a problem although, as Jose Luiz also said "I still think that saying simply "according to Science ressurection is impossible" is a bit silly because no one really needs that." I agree with Joze Luiz on both accounts.Jeppiz (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

As I've pointed out many, many times, the article already raises the issue of the historicity of the resurrection of the Jesus. I am not introducing the question of whether it really happened into the article. I'm merely asking for balance. The article already has a section about historicity. It mentions the issue in the lat paragraph of the lead. The natural place for the fact that it is impossible the resurrection really happened is with the other parts of the article that discuss whether the resurrection really happened. Strangesad (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I respect that opinion, nothing wrong with it at all. As I said, it might be an idea to discuss the issue more generally as there are hundreds, if not thousands, of articles where similar scientific disclaimers could be inserted. However, (and as stupid as it sounds) we cannot say that it is impossible that the resurrection happened without a source, and then we should attribute it to that source. I don't think any Christian would disagree with the idea that death is the loss of key body functions. Christians also believe that death is final, which is why they believed the resurrection was a miracle. We already have statements about the unlikelihood that Jesus was resurrected. I can only speak for myself, but I would not mind adding other such statements to the relevant section.Jeppiz (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, user Strangesad certainly does say the same thing over and over again, and the worrying thing is that unless everyone else chips in and repeats the same thing they already said, Strangesad interprets it to mean that everyone changed their mind, or that no one cares any more. So to repeat what I already said above, and will continue to believe even if I do not come to this page every day and repeat it, the first sentence of the article says "The resurrection of Jesus is the Christian belief that Jesus Christ miraculously returned to life". A belief in a miracle. That is all that needs to be said on the question of "is it possible or not?" The sentence that Strangesad so objects to is "According to R. A. Burridge, the majority consensus among biblical scholars is that the genre of the Gospels is a kind of ancient biography and not myth." "Biography" does not mean "everything related here is absolutely true and every event happened exactly as narrated, 100% for sure." Does Strangesad propose to go to Ghosts, for instance, and write in the lead "There's no such thing as ghosts?"Smeat75 (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence of of the article is wrong. The resurrection of jesus is not a belief: it is an event. If you'd like to rename this article "Christian beliefs about the resurrection of Jesus" you are welcome to do so. I would then withdraw all objections. Saying Christians believe in it as a miracle suggests it is possible, and addresses none of my concerns. Obviously, if they believe it happened, miraculously or not, they believe it is possible. Strangesad (talk) 00:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The ghosts article does however have a section called "Scientific skepticism" maybe that is what is required here.Theroadislong (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Good point, although we already have a section that includes scientific skepticism. I have to say that I'd agree that the sentence "According to R. A. Burridge, the majority consensus among biblical scholars is that the genre of the Gospels is a kind of ancient biography and not myth." is not good. Yes, I know how biography is used in this scholarly sense but many readers might not know that and may interpret it as a statement about the factual accuracy. I would support rewriting that statement to make sure the reader understands it the way Burridge intends.Jeppiz (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Ghosts as a general rule are not considered miraculous, but rather are paranormal, to which some sort of science (however atypical) might be thought to apply. So they are not an analogous case. We keep coming around to the same issue because Strangesad refuses to acknowledge the obvious point that it is unnecessary to state, about every supposed miracle, that people who don't believe miracles ever happen therefore disbelieve in this particular case. We say (now) that the resurrection was miraculous, and the five people in the world who don't know what the word means click through and are told in the first few sentences that a miracle is in violation of the laws of nature. It is reasonable to have a section on Christian mythological interpretations of the resurrection as not having actually happened, but it's undue weight to harp on atheistic and secularist skepticism. It's obvious and does not need to be pointed out here, and they have their own articles describing their own perspective. We aren't here to present the appearance of endorsing them against Christianity or any other religion, and that's the effect you are trying to achieve, whether that is you specific intent or not. Mangoe (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The ghosts article begins: "In traditional belief and fiction...." I'm willing to begin this article that way. Strangesad (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

It already says "the Christian belief", which is as close as you're going to get to your prejudicial version. Mangoe (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

OK then Strangesad, how about "In Christian belief,the resurrection of Jesus is the event that occurred when Jesus Christ miraculously returned to life" etc.? I would agree to that (without any additions to the article along the lines of "resurrection is impossible").Smeat75 (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The fictional version is that there was a miracle returning Jesus to life, and the true version is that nobody has ever come back from the dead. We should make the true version very clear. Minorview (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the telling us the WP:TRUTH but we have already told you several times that Wikipedia is not about the truth. If something is true but not possible to source, while there are lots of good WP:RS for something that is false, then we will say what is false. That is not my opinion, that is one of the main principles of Wikipedia. So what you believe is true is utterly irrelevant even if you are right (and you most likely are). Apart from the matter of truth and WP:RS, every claim also needs to be relevant. It's both true and easily sourced that Medieval London was a disgustingly smelly place. Should we add that to the introduction of London. Of course not. It's true, it's easily sourced but it's completely WP:UNDUE.Jeppiz (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

You haven't "told" me that "several times." There's a source for the fact that people don't come back from the dead. You deleted that. The argument is idiotic in the extreme no matter what: common knowledge does not need to be sourced, and it is common knowledge that resurrection is a myth. Minorview (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

You're entirely entitled to that view. This article does not claim that people come back from the dead, it claims that it is a Christian belief that Jesus came back from the dead.Jeppiz (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The article suggests there is reasonable, intellectual scholarly dispute about it. There is no such dispute. People don't come back from the dead. Strangesad (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no such dispute indeed: worldwide, atheists and the irreligious are a small minority, and Christianity is by far the biggest religion. Look, you've been hammering away now at your religious view point for weeks. There is no way that you are going to get Wikipedia to endorse it. The article is up front about how this is about a Christian belief, and how it is a belief in a miraculous occurrence (not pseudoscience). More than that, you are not going to get; it's not going to be co-opted as the place to push atheistic naturalism. It's time to accept that, and move on. Mangoe (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

you guys are funny... almost every belief system has people rise from the dead, travel to space, walk on couds, talk to animals or something like that... yet this is the one you pick on... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Determining what content is appropriate for Wikipedia is supposed to be done by WP:CON, meaning that the major viewpoints are all addressed in a way that allows all concerned parties to meet in some sort of compromise, not necessarily by popular vote or repeating ones viewpoint to the point of exhaustion. I believe that this is done sufficiently in the article lead, which states "The resurrection of Jesus is the Christian belief that Jesus Christ miraculously returned to life ...". In my opinion your desire to emphatically state that the resurrection is not possible does not meet this policy.

I also believe that there are plenty of reasonable, intellectual scholars who have both argued for and against the possibility of resurrection. A search on Google Scholar produces a large collection of results. The first relevant result in my search was written by a physicist arguing for the possibility of resurrection.([3]) I also believe that the article is appropriately titled for its content, as some people believe it and some do not. Therefore the shorter title seems appropriate to me as the content of the article addresses the difference in viewpoints.

This continued debate on an explicit statement that is already implied in a NPOV seems foolhardy. Dromidaon (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

None of this has anything to do with the concerns that have been raised. This article is not about Christian belief. It is about something that Christians believe is true. They are different. Strangesad (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

"Things that Christians believe are true" is a proper subset of "things Christians believe"; if this is an objection, it isn't substantive. Mangoe (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

You missed the point. This is tedious. The article is not limited to what Christians believe. Strangesad (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Tedious? Well, nobody finds repetition very persuasive. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

So stop stonewalling. This article isn't exclusively about what Christians believe. Minorview (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. The article is about a Christian belief, and we already include non-Christian views on that belief. We also include experts who dismiss the resurrection. So what's the problem?Jeppiz (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is the deletion of source and referenced material that is relevant to the subject. Strangesad (talk) 03:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone have a proposal, or are we just exchanging views on the likelihood of resurrection? Wikipedia is not a forum, so please stop commenting unless with some new material related to a proposal to improve the article, and where the proposal is based on policies such as WP:V and WP:DUE. Article talk pages are not places for repeated and non-actionable commentary—continuing that line is disruption. It might be best to ignore the disruption for now (do not respond as we are just feeding it). Johnuniq (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The proposal is to cease the deletion of sourced and referenced material that is relevant to the subject.Strangesad (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's my counterproposal: to leave the lead alone and to leave out the obvious and undue statement about how some people think that miracles don't happen. Mangoe (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Well Strangesad, you've made that proposal for almost a month now. About ten users have commented on it, most of whom have opposed it and have provided their reasoning for doing so. You haven't accepted it, you got blocked edit warring over it. You do realize, don't you, that their opinions still stand, they don't need to come back here every other day to repeat it. So that's that, try to move on.Jeppiz (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The only reason given is that this article is exclusively about Christian belief, which is wrong. Strangesad (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Obviously you are refusing to WP:HEAR what others are saying. Plenty of reasons have been given, if you don't even bother read what others write, well, that says a lot about your attitude. I will follow Johnuniq's advice and stop feeding you now. You are clearly WP:NOTHERE to contribute to Wikipedia.Jeppiz (talk) 01:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Make a list of reasons, and I'll address each one. Strangesad (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

They don't have reasons. Minorview (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Waiting..... What reasons have been given, that don't amount to saying Christian belief about this topic is much more important than non-Christian belief? Strangesad (talk) 01:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

History2007, Tom Harrison, José Luiz, Mangoe, Smeat75, Dromidaon, Rklawton, Johnuniq and myself have all given our reasons in the preceding dicussions. You seem to be under the illusion that we have some obligation to entertain you. We don't. You've already been blocked for your disruptive behavior at this article, now you want to everybody to repeat themselves over and over again. That's not working either. During the past weeks the nine users above have given their reasons. If you don't WP:HEAR them, it's not our problem and no reason to keep repeating the same arguments. If you didn't get them the first ten times, it's unlikely you'll get them the 11th time either. This isn't a forum.Jeppiz (talk) 09:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You have an obligation to work toward consensus. Strangesad (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The reasons given all derive from the idea that this article is exclusively or primarily about the Christian view of the resurrection. Since that reason isn't based in any policy, it is invalid. Are there other reasons? Please give a reason that doesn't privilege Xianity. Strangesad (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Consensus have long ago been established. This is my last reply to you as long as you don't present anything new, one month of stating the same thing is enough. Wikipedia is not a forum. You have presented a suggestion, most other users have rejected it. You have ignored that, edit-warred over it, been blocked, and still you continue singing the same tune. In line with what other users have recommended, I now stop feeding. Further disruptive editing from you will be reported.Jeppiz (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

There is obviously no consensus. The disagreement doesn't involve only me. The request is simple. A summary of reasons, after a long and winding discussion. So far, you've responded with nothing but personal remarks. Strangesad (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You confuse consensus with unanimity. There is no unanimity, true. There is a consensus in that most users (History2007, Tom Harrison, José Luiz, Mangoe, Smeat75, Dromidaon, Rklawton, Johnuniq and myself) have spoken out against including your proposed change in the lead. That's that.Jeppiz (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't edited the lead in 4 weeks. Do you even know what edit is being discussed? Jose Luiz did not object to my most recent edit. Finally, you confuse consensus with majority vote. It is not a majority and it is not a vote. Strangesad (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

This is your most recent edit [4]. Personally I don't have any major problem with the edit, though I think part of it could be better worded. If you gain a consensus for a version of it, I won't object to including it in that section. The problem I have is the edit warring, not the rather obvious claim that death is final. As I said, this is my personal view, and the fact that I agree to a text based on your proposed sources does not of course mean that there is a consensus for it. If you present a good version here at the talk page, I'll gladly argue in favor of it.Jeppiz (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Creationism is also a Christian belief, but that article balances the belief with scientific knowledge, why shouldn't this article also present a scientific viewpoint? Theroadislong (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It should. This article should not be written from the perspective of a Christian belief, it should be written from a scientific perspective about a Christian belief. That is what we try to do, and that is why we have a section where various experts dismiss the resurrection. Nowhere does the article present the resurrection as a fact, nor should it.Jeppiz (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you point me to this section? thanksTheroadislong (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)]

There is no such section. There is a section on historicity. It's hard to tell what Jeppiz is saying. Now he's saying he doesn't even object to the edit in question. Strangesad (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd add it back, but some impatient, careless admin would probably block me. Minorview (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The basic technique is to give some reasons, and then shut down, regardless of the response to those reasons. If you have the majority, you can win any edit war and don't need to put effort into working toward consensus. The principle that the better reasoning will win consensus doesn't work with religious articles. Strangesad (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Well Jeppiz, when are you going to point us to this: " we have a section where various experts dismiss the resurrection"? Strangesad (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

My apologies. First, for the very minor offence of not checking back more regularly. Second, for the more serious reason of appearing to be wrong. I referred to this section [5] but I stand corrected. At the moment, it reads more as a Christian effort to claim that the resurrection is historical. I definitely support adding sections from experts expressing the opposite view.Jeppiz (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

That's funny, because when I added something like that, you deleted it. Strangesad (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

sigh You really seem to have problems understanding what consensus means. Yes, I personally agree with the content you wanted to add but there was no consensus for it, quite the contrary. Responsible editors may revert changes against a consensus even if they personally agree with the change.Jeppiz (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Got it. You are now on the record as supporting the edit. Strangesad (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course. I'd want some minor changes to the wording, but I do not oppose the content of that in the least. Quite the contrary, I think it could make a relevant addition to the historicity section. Not only that, I'll gladly go further and support additional critical comments about the historicity of the resurrection if they build on WP:RS, and it should not be hard to find such sources.Jeppiz (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Greenleaf?

This paragraph has just been added [6] to the historicity section. I propose it be deleted as per WP:UNDUE. The fact that Greenleaf, a lawyer living long before modern scholarship, thought the resurrection was real is perhaps relevant for the article about Greenleaf, but why would it be relevant here? Greenleaf was not an academic in any field even remotely linked to theology or history and he wrote more than 150 years ago. The section about historicity gives the views of several contemporary specialists, and the views of a non-specialist from the early 19th century does not seem relevant.Jeppiz (talk) 09:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It's interesting how these issues arise in different contexts because I have seen something quite similar at Shakespeare authorship question where UNDUE attempts have been made to list opinions from various "authorities" regarding who wrote Shakespeare's works. A favorite is to quote a couple of justices of the US Supreme Court who conclude that the author was not Shakespeare. However, being an expert in a certain area of law gives no authority regarding matters of history. In particular, the phrase "one of the principal founders of the Harvard Law School", while useful as an indicator of who Greenleaf was, unfortunately could be interpreted as promoting the conclusion by an appeal to authority. Johnuniq (talk) 10:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree that's too much space to give one man in this article. It would be a good addition to Greenleaf's article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 10:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Glad to see there's agreement, so I removed the recent addition of Greenleaf.Jeppiz (talk) 11:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It's extremely widely referred to, and has a significant footprint in JSTOR. I suggest it is better reserved for the "historicity" subarticle, though. Mangoe (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Possibly. Personally, I don't really see it relevant for any article other than the article about Greenleaf, but that can of course be discussed at the talk pages of the relevant articles.Jeppiz (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Secondary sources needed

The following section is problematic with regards to WP:Verifiability:

In Christian theology, the resurrection of Jesus is a foundation of the Christian faith.1 Cor 15:12–20 1 Pet 1:3 Christians, through faith in the working of GodCol 2:12 are spiritually resurrected with Jesus, and are redeemed so that they may walk in a new way of life.Rom 6:4 As Paul the Apostle stated: "If Christ was not raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your trust in God is useless."1 Cor 15:14 The death and resurrection of Jesus are the most important events in Christian Theology. They form the point in scripture where Jesus gives his ultimate demonstration that he has power over life and death, thus he has the ability to give people eternal life.

All the provided citations are from the New Testament, and are thus primary sources. Since various denominations interpret the Bible in different ways, we need secondary reliable sources to support general statements like "the resurrection of Jesus is a foundation of the Christian faith" and the following generalised statements. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Good point, I fully agree. I guess finding sources for that claim shouldn't be too difficult, but you are definitely right that other sources than the Bible is needed to define what Christian faith is.Jeppiz (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The resurrection of Jesus is the Christian belief that Jesus Christ miraculously returned to life on the Sunday following the Friday on which he was executed by crucifixion. It is the central tenet of Christian faith and theology and part of the Nicene Creed: "On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures".[1][2]

this is your beginning statement and i hope you notice the discrepancy with scripture clearly stating the resurrection would take place after 3 days, 72 hours to be excat just as jonah was in the belly of the whale. Jesus Christ said, "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:40)." So how do you figure Jesus died on the cross 3:00 p.m. being buried before sundown and thus the jewish passover seder on friday and rose sunday morning at sunrise? if you follow scirpure, you will find the women also went to buy ointments in between sabbaths, ergo a friday, and before vresting on the regular sabbath. Following the hebrew calender the crucifixion took place on a wednesday, it being the preparation day before the annual Sabbath, Passover, with Jesus the offering. Three days (72 hours) later would be the normal sabbath or our saturday and Jesus rose at the end of it in fulfillment of the real scripture defeating all sin aka death. Give or take between 5-7 o'clock, and i am sure not shortly after his dramatic death at midafternoon and organizing his rushed burial before the passover meal at sundown, beginning of thursday,but enough time for people honoring Jesus also having the time to return home, clean up and rush to the festivities. All christianity wrongly celebrates is the appearance to the woman at the tomb, Luke 24, to fit it together nicely with the pagan spring festival to appease the pagan masses of ancient Rome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.205.88 (talk) 02:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Removed unsourced material

I removed the below material from the article. Someone can readd it when it is clarified and sourced. I considered adding some tags, but it would have required too many , , , and tags.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Airborne84 (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2014‎ (UTC)

Some atheists and skeptics, as well as scholars of the history of Judeo-Christian religions, have posited that the events portrayed in the Bible did in fact take place; it is theoretically possible that the Romans who executed Christ deliberately inserted the nails into Christ's body at certain points where the wounds would have been less likely to be fatal in a plot to convince the Roman rulers that he had been executed, and then secretly move him out of Judea so that he could continue to preach. Some people have suggested that Jesus was in fact "laid to rest" in a cave, and its entrance was then covered with a large stone by Roman authorities to guard against any possible escape; however, they may have neglected to check the cave for any other tunnels small enough for a medium-sized man to fit through, and so Jesus was able to make a clean getaway after he woke up. Some proponents of the "escape from Judea" theory also believe that Pontius Pilate, Judas Iscariot and Jesus Christ plotted the entire "execution" together as a cover story that Pilate could use to effectively allow Christ to continue his work without putting himself at risk for arrest and execution for betraying the Roman empire, and to turn Jesus into a spiritual being to be worshipped instead of a simple man who was, apart from his preaching and social activism, quite nondescript.

Why don't we have a ^{[Balderdash!]} tag? —Telpardec  TALK  10:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Forty hours in the tomb

The Lent article says "tradition" says Jesus spent forty hours in the tomb, and gives a source. While there is no proof of that, if the statement is accepted there it should be accepted here.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

faith or belief

the lede currently says... "The resurrection of Jesus refers to the Christian faith that after being put to death to take the punishment for sins Jesus rose again from the dead." Faith seems to make no sense here? It should be "belief" Theroadislong (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds right to me.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I edited it before I realized we had a discussion going on the talk page, but it seems to me that most editors, with the exception of one, have changed it back to the word belief. It seems to me that this seems to be the predominant consensus. Dromidaon (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Belief is the more accurate word and grammatically correct... user:sopher99 is edit warring against consensus without explanation. Theroadislong (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Belief sounds like it is making it out to be doubtful or trivial, when it is in fact central. Sopher99 (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

This was from before "faith" was changed back to "belief":

(edit conflict)If we're really going to be silly about what is other wise clear cut consensus and have to pull sources:

• Greek Resurrection Beliefs and the Success of Christianity By Dag Øistein Endsjø, Palgrave Macmillan, "the Christian Resurrection belief"
• Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life By Jon Douglas Levenson, Yale UP, "a belief in the resurrection of Jesus"
• Resurrection and Parousia: A Tradition-historical Study of Paul's Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15 By Joost Holleman, Brill "belief in Jesus' resurrection"
• The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N.T. Wright in Dialogue, edited by Robert B. Stewart, Fortress Press, "Christian resurrection belief"
• Incarnation and Resurrection: Toward a Contemporary Understanding By Paul D. Molnar, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, "belief in Jesus' resurrection
• The Resurrection of the Son of God By Nicholas Thomas Wright, Fortress Press, "belief in Jesus' resurrection"
• Christian Belief and Practice: The Roman Catholic Tradition By Gordon Geddes and Jane Griffiths, Heinemann, "belief in the resurrection"
• The Resurrection of Jesus By James Orr, Hodder and Stoughton, "belief in the resurrection of Jesus"
• The Historical Jesus: An Essential Guide By James H. Charlesworth, Abingdon Press, "Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection"
• Christian Beliefs and Teachings By John C. Meyer, University Press of America, "belief in the resurrection of Jesus"
• Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus, edited by Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland, Zondervan, "belief in the resurrection"
• Kierkegaard on Faith and the Self: Collected Essays, edited by C. Stephen Evans, Baylor UP, "belief in Jesus' resurrection"
• The Resurrection of Jesus: New Considerations for Its Theological Interpretation By Kenan Osborne, Wipf and Stock Publishers, "belief in the resurrection"
• Mirfield Essays in Christian Belief By Community of the Resurrection, Wipf and Stock Publishers, "Belief in the Resurrection is thus central to the Christian faith" (here used to refer collectively to the whole religion, as "the Christian faith" always did before the nigh-universally contested edit).

Ian.thomson (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Sources for Christian Faith

http://www.catholictreasury.info/lord2.php

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/joeljmiller/2014/04/is-the-resurrection-essential-to-christian-belief/

http://www.guelphmercury.com/living-story/4472490-why-is-the-resurrection-so-important-to-christians-/

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/43551-5-life-changing-truths-you-should-know-about-the-resurrection

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=10&article=951

http://www.compellingtruth.org/bodily-resurrection.html

http://www.jesus.org/death-and-resurrection/resurrection/other-christian-truths-depend-on-the-resurrection.html

http://www.phpc.org/images/images_A7994/Christian%20Faith%20and%20Cremation.pdf

http://carm.org/bahai-and-the-resurrection-of-christ

http://www.christianity.co.nz/res-2.htm

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/resurrection-of-the-body

http://www.luc.edu/faculty/pmoser/idolanon/Resurrectionnotice.html

http://www.gospelway.com/god/resurrection-significance.php

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a11.htm

http://www.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=266211

http://www.allaboutreligion.org/christian-faith.htm

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/20/did-christians-really-steal-the-idea-of-easter-and-jesus-resurrection-from-pagans/

http://www.thenazareneway.com/resurrection_of_jesus.htm

http://www.disciplemagazine.com/www/articles/206.1268

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/jesus-resurrection

http://www.gci.org/jesus/risen5

Sopher99 (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You're joking, right? With a couple of exceptions, I cited academic sources. When I cited sources that weren't academic works, they were by major theologians or published by major theological publishing houses.

The majority of your sources (with the exception of Patheos and the Loyola University of Chicago) appear to be church websites, which would only be accurate for statements about themselves, not for the whole religion. CARM comes a little closer, but academically, they're a joke.

Then there's the issue that none of your sources, so far as I can find, seem to use "the Christian faith" the way you used it in the article. They refer to the whole religion as the Christian faith, but not a specific doctrine as "(a) Christian faith." They refer to the resurrection as the most important belief (even if some of them missed that word for "cornerstone," "centre" "bedrock," "foundation," "basis," "proof", "teaching," "fact," "reality," or something else along those lines) within the faith. That's how English works, especially when discussing theology. Many of those phrasings need little if modification to change into "cornerstone belief," "central belief," "foundational belief," "basic belief."

Heck, one of your sources calls it a belief: "The Gospels contain reliable eyewitness accounts of Jesus, His life and His resurrection. This was the general belief for 1,700 years in the Western world..."

The most academic source you cited also calls it a belief: "the defining belief of the earliest Jesus movement"

this source you cited also goes with "belief in the historical resurrection"

The Catechism of the Catholic Church that you cited (by the way, you can find the official one here) says "Belief in the resurrection of the dead has been an essential element of the Christian faith from its beginnings." -- It defines the idea of the resurrection as a belief, which is an essential unit of the whole religion/faith.

It's obvious that all you did was google some combination of the words Christian, faith, and resurrection and pulled whatever sources used the word "belief" the least often.

Ian.thomson (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Sopher99 has tried once again to change "belief" to "faith", without addressing the above correction of his failure to understand how English handles theology. He is engaging in a slow edit war against almost unilateral consensus to give an inaccurately used phrasing undue weight due to his misunderstanding of sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Calling it a belief is undue weight, it is a central to faith in Christianity. Sopher99 (talk) 08:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not doubt that it's central to the Christian faith but it is still a belief and you are edit warring to insert your preferred version without consensus having just come out of a block for edit warring here. Theroadislong (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why you are so adamant at preventing a change in syntax. Why can't we just re-arrange the sentence? Sopher99 (talk) 08:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

For example, the German version of the article reads "The resurrection of Jesus Christ is a central article of faith in Christianity. After the proclamation of the New Testament (NT) arose Jesus Christ , Son of God , on the third day after his crucifixion from the dead to a new, indestructible life and appeared to His disciples in bodily form." Sopher99 (talk) 08:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Sopher99, your total inability to grasp English is nothing but frustrating. It is not undue to say belief, as all the sources presented (even the ones you presented, when read in actual English instead of blind POV pushing) either use the word belief or a synonym thereof. I'd be fine with changing "belief" to "central belief," but this superstitious opposition to the word "belief" you have leaves me with the impression you should not be editing religion articles.

The German Wikipedia (which has no authority over us) doesn't say "the central faith." It says "central ARTICLE of faith," article of faith being a synonym for belief and vice versa. How does belief translate? Glauben. One could just as easily translate the words you (or rather Google translate) chose to translate as "article of faith" as "held belief."

Why are you so adamant about inserting the word "faith" in there, even when doing so is just plain bad English that doesn't read right? Why are you so intent on having Wikipedia written in bad English just to put an incorrectly used word in there? It's hypocritical for you to say that other people are being adamant about this, everyone else is just trying to keep the article readable, you're the fanatic here.

This is getting ridiculous. The next revert by you, I will report you to the admins and advocate both a block for edit warring and a topic ban from this article. If I see this sort of behavior elsewhere, I will push a topic ban from all Christianity related articles. You are being nothing but tendentious. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Ian - although not quite so vociferously - belief and faith are synonyms so what's the hubbub, bub...? Ckruschke (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

I Can't Make Sense of the Counting

The third day after Good Friday is the following Monday, unless you count both days, Friday and Sunday. The same goes with the ascension. If Jesus first appeared on Easter Sunday, then forty days later (i.e after Easter Sunday) would be a Friday - unless of course, one counts both Easter Sunday and the Ascension of Jesus. The wording "...celebrated on the 40th day of Easter (always a Thursday)" doesn't make sense either, unless Easter starts on a Saturday. Could anyone explain? All the best 85.220.22.139 (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I seem to recall Sundays are not counted.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Hebrew works a bit differently from English. Past tense and present tense were sort of mashed together, as I recall, resulting in a worldview were if a day wasn't finished yet, you'd count that day as well. Friday, Saturday, and Sunday thus becomes three days. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

(After edit conflict) I looked at Lent and can't find what I said--except when the number of days of Lent is calculated for Catholics.Since they end Lent on Maundy Thursday, the article says their Lent is thirty-eight days, with Sundays not included. But nowhere in that article does it say where the forty days comes from. It simply says that if you start with Ash Wednesday and end with Easter, that is forty days. Which it isn't.

If you want to get really confused, I once heard a radio preacher say Jesus rose on Saturday and, therefore, we should be worshipping on Saturday. This man preached the message that nearly every church was wrong (worshipping on Sunday) on Sunday after Sunday (at least that's when he was in the radio studio, or when he was broadcast; I once heard him say he was being told his time was up so that was it for today). Which doesn't work because the Sabbath in the Bible starts at sunset. So it's already the next day, what we call Sunday, even if that is true.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I also used to be confused by this. But my understanding is that the NT usually talks about Jesus being raised "on the third day" and only rarely "after three days". So if he died on Friday, the "first day", Saturday is the second day and Sunday is the third day. I'll have to check the original Greek... As for the Ascension, 40 days after Easter Sunday is a Thursday, presumably based on the reference in Acts where it says "after his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God." So AFAICS the arithmetic works. HTH. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Historicity and NPOV

This article seems to be devoted not only to describing the belief in the resurrection, but to arguing for the resurrection as an actual event. For the record, the majority view among scholars of the field is that there is no factual reason to believe the resurrection occurred, and several leading scholars have made it quite clear they do not believe in it, and even scholars who believe in it accept that it's a matter of belief, not anything that can be factually proven. Reading the section on the historicity of the resurrection, there is no mention of this. Through a quite extreme use of WP:CHERRY, the section manages to give the reader the image that most scholars accept the resurrection as something that happened. This is quite misleading, and violates WP:POV.Jeppiz (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

There are also leading scholars who argue for the resurrection as an event. So opinion is divided; and neither side can "prove" their position because history, unlike science is not repeatable. In fact those arguing against the event, have genuine difficulties because there is no real "counter-evidence" to draw on, and so there are lots of theories, but no consensus. Leaving that aside, the article is clearly prefaced "The resurrection of Jesus is the Christian religious belief that..." which makes it clear from the outset that it is a belief and then goes on to explain what that belief is. Later sections are entitled "New Testament events" and "Christian tradition"; again making it clear what the text is describing. That seems not unreasonable. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Having re-read the section being questioned; it does not appear POV at all. The first paragraph simply summarises what early Christians said and wrote (that's straight history). The second describes Vermes' 8 theories about the resurrection from total denial to absolute belief. The third also discusses different scholarly views finishing with a skeptical quotation. The fourth tries to summarise (not very comprehensively) what the biblical scholarship consensus is. The whole section is liberally sprinkled with references to back it up and mentions views right across the spectrum. I therefore propose to remove the hatnote and suggest we discuss any specific issues here about how to improve the article. --Bermicourt (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is in line with NPOV! I suggest we remove the tag...--Jaaron95 (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. I was the one who placed the tag last year, but the article now satisfies NPOV and I have removed the tag. Thanks for reminding me.Jeppiz (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

There are also leading scholars who argue for the resurrection as an event.

Who just happen by pure chance to also be deeply religious Christians. And more importantly, they do not publish their views in peer reviewed high quality historical journals. Scholarship, and history specifically are inherently secular activities, and supernatural magical events have no place in them. The resurrection, from a historical stance remains unproven. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Harizotoh9, that's the reason I think the first line of the article adds three words Christian religious belief instead of Resurrection of Jesus is the event of Christ rising from dead! I think it perfectly meets WP:NPOV. As you said that this event 'cannot be proven', I say, it 'cannot be unproven'! Even it cannot be proven, as 7 billion of the world's population believe in the resurrection, and believe it as fact, due respect must be given to their view. As to meet NPOV, other religious views are mention at the end of the article! Regards --†ããrøn95^® 17:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE additions

An IP keep adding text and erroneous links. While the text is probably accurate, how is it WP:DUE here to give a background of Carrier's different hobbies (activist, blogger etc.). This is the article about the (alleged) resurrection of Jesus, not an article about Carrier. Carrier is only one of thousands people with an opinion on the subject (and a fringe opinion at that). Why would Carrier's different hobbies or biography be due here? Jeppiz (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Ehrman

Ehrman I think changed his view. He no longer believes in the empty tomb theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:203:4101:F770:F5CE:E1CD:E8B9:D968 (talk) 07:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Jesus himself

Is it DEFINITELY true that Jesus was resurrected? 2602:306:3644:7240:70FF:41B:CF6D:E7C6 (talk) 02:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

That's something you'll have to decide for yourself. This article can be a starting point, but read more widely. PiCo (talk) 05:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Resurrection 1st Day of Week Wednesday Essenes

This information needs to be added and has been confirmed as fact by the Essene calendar translated from the Dead Sea Scrolls by Eisenman and Wise. The scrolls reveal the 1st day of week for the month of Nisan which was the Passover month as a Wednesday of the Gregorian Calendar. Page 107. Gospels were written by Jews and when they wrote Jesus rose 1st day of week they were referring to our Wednesday as correlated onto the book by Eisenman and Wise by the data of the Nasa Astronomical Space Department. Gospel of John further states Christ was crucified on the day of preparation before the Passover according to the scrolls of the Dead Sea the 13th of Nisan with the Passover that evening on the 14th also a Sabbath, the following day the 15th of Nisan a Wednesday and 1st day feast of unleavened bread (Leviticus) this information needs to be included in article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:2E29:3100:C4D:A1A5:7F47:927E (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Resurrection of Jesus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/strongs.pl?strongs=3952
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091112105429/http://raisedwithchrist.net/ to http://raisedwithchrist.net/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Jesus in Hades/Sheol

There is not a word about it in the article. A whole theology has been built around it, with Orthodox and Catholic variations. Jesus dies as a human being and his soul descends into [different parts of] the afterworld; preaching of salvation to the souls of the dead in Hades and/or to the spirits (the fallen angels) in the Abyss; salvation of the generations from Adam till his coming only possible now, after the descent of the Holy Spirit onto humanity; Jesus as both the creator and son of Adam; Adam's tomb under the rock of Golgotha and the blood of Jesus washing away the original sin; etc. Who can do it? Arminden (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

There's not a word about it in the Bible, either. Surely there's a separate article for this - Harrowing of Hell perhaps?PiCo (talk) 11:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

William Lane Craig

This new material may possibly be undue, I have the impression that his apologetics on the resurrection are controversial (so is the Kalam cosmological argument). I'd appreciate PiCo's input. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 22:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

User Rizzo004's new material is interesting, but belongs to apologetics rather than biblical scholarship. (Apologetics is a branch of theology, biblical studies is oriented towards literary and historical issues). I'll leave it for now to give him a chance to respond, but here's my own comments (going through his edits one by one):

• "The Jews had no belief in a bodily resurrection." True - and neither did the first Christians. The earliest accounts of the resurrection in Paul and his report of the earlier "primitive credal statement", are of visionary experiences. Only in the gospels do we get a bodily resurrection. I think the article says this.
• Invoking William Lane Craig, "in Jewish tradition the resurrection of the dead came at/after the end of the world." Not quite: it came at the end of history. The idea, based on Daniel 7 and later apocalypses/eschatologies, was that one day God would intervene in history and send a quasi-divine but still human figure to reign over his kingdom on Earth (the Kingdom of God). If the gospels are to be believed, Jesus believed that he was that figure, and his followers also believed it. His suffering was pre-ordained (see the Suffering Servant of Isaiah, which Jesus quotes in, I think, Matthew), but his death would be followed by his glorification/exultation to sit at the right hand of God, who would send him back to Earth to rule the kingdom (more of that in Isaiah - which is according to Matthew was Jesus's favourite book). So, the resurrection of Jesus did come at the end of the world.
• "being contrived...is a matter of how many new suppositions a hypothesis must make that are not implied by existing knowledge." Not surprisingly, William Lane Craig doesn't have a very high reputation among biblical scholars. In the pargraphh this forms party of, he fails to examine the text - are these stories true at all, are there historically contingent explanations for them? In the case of the story of Doubting Thomas, for example (which is mentioned by WLC here) I doubt that any biblical scholar would accept it as an actual incident - it's seen as a fiction composed for the generation of converts who had never seen Jesus but were being encouraged, by Thomas's example, to believe without tangible proof.

Anyway, I welcome comments from Rizzo004, because all this is very interesting.PiCo (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Lead section wording

@Johnbod: how exactly is this wrong? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying the wording couldn't be improved, but your edit summary "Christianity is a belief, resurrection is an element/motif of that belief" shows the problem. The Resurrection is a core doctrine of Christianty, & very appropriately described as a belief by itself, rather than very fuzzily as an "element/motif". Many other doctrines are held by some churches but not others, & it is better to be precise. Your language, with "wherein" and "said to have", doesn't help. Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for the vague edit summary. I was in fact trying to convey that the resurrection is a core doctrine, which "belief" by itself doesn't really do. "Belief" is often used for statement of belief (a.k.a. doctrine), but it most often refers to just a state of mind. For comparison, we probably wouldn't say, "Alien abduction is a belief of self-described abductees". It's just awkward syntax. Anyway, I've given the text another go – see what you think. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Somewhat better but the first para now says the same things twice over. All the many refs are primary, and many are covered more fully lower in the text. What do others think? Johnbod (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I tried to address the repetitive text and primary sources with this edit. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Temporarily archived para

I'm removing this para from where it was (Gospel harmony section) becuase it doesn't really fit there, but as it contains useful information I'll put it here for re-use.PiCo (talk) 10:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC) After his crucifixion Jesus was placed in a new tomb which was discovered early Sunday morning to be empty. The New Testament does not include an account of the "moment of resurrection". In the Eastern Church icons do not depict that moment, but show the myrrhbearers and depict scenes of salvation.

• Stagg, Evelyn and Frank. Woman in the World of Jesus. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978, pp. 144–150.
• Vladimir Lossky, 1982 The Meaning of Icons p. 185

Mary Magdalene

Remarkable, how consistently Mary Magdalene was not mentioned in the section on the Gospel-accounts. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Re-ordered info

@PiCo: I've re-ordered the info again; what do you think of this version? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

My first impression is that it's very, very long - over 100k bytes. There's a guideline somewhere on how long articles should be, and I'm pretty sure this exceeds it. My second impression is that all the "according to"s are distracting - if anyone wants to find out who your source is they can click on the source-footnote. Personally, I'd recommend using "according to" only when identifying a direct quote or when there are two differing academic viewpoints, both pretty much equally widely held - "according to X, this, but according to Y, that". And watch out for things like this: "According to Thomas Sheehan, stories of a bodily resurrection did not appear until as much as half a century following the crucifixion." That's not "according to Sheehan", it's an objective fact - the bodily resurrection stories first appear in Matthew and Luke, both dating from around 80AD or a bit later. PiCo (talk) 06:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@PiCo: okay, thanks; I'll try to work your comments into the article: see where it can be shortened, reduce the number of "according to." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Done for Sheehan. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the size, see Wikipedia:Article size. The article is now nearly 100,000 kb, but that's including appendixes etc. According to Wikipedia:Article size, "30 kB to 50 kB of readable prose [...] roughly corresponds to 4,000 to 10,000 words." The main text is nearly 7,000 words now; that seems to be acceptable. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Sheehan

I've removed Sheehan, Thomas (1986). The First Coming: How the Kingdom of God Became Christianity. Random House. ISBN 978-0394511986.; the information seems WP:UNDUE to me, and may even be WP:FRINGE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Why?PiCo (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

At second thought, I'm not sure. But it's a relatively long text, for a scholar whoe publication seems to have been called controversial. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!•

The second half looks unnecessary to me, but the first half looks pretty standard. See if you can find it backed up by others.PiCo (talk) 10:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually it's just the first sentence that looks standard - Paul's resurrection appearances are visions of Christ enthroned in heaven, not of a physical Jesus moving among his disciples on Earth. But his experiences were real, not allegorical. PiCo (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if you want to mention it, but regarding the 3rd day for the resurrection (mentioned in that para), the usual explanation is that comes from Jonah's time in the whale. WHich raises the question of where the author of Jonah got that from, but let's not go there.PiCo (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

That's sure worth mentioning. Funny, I was already considering to search a Bible-datebase for "third day"; had forgotten about Noah. But we were on the same track. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh my, you should read Why was Resurrection on “the Third Day”? Two Insights, and then try a Bible-search yourself. It's fascinating! Hosea 6:1–2:

Come, let us return to the Lord;
for he has torn us, that he may heal us;
he has struck us down, and he will bind us up.
After two days he will revive us;
on the third day he will raise us up,
that we may live before him.

2 Kings 20:8:

Hezekiah said to Isaiah, “What shall be the sign that the Lord will heal me, and that I shall go up to the house of the Lord on the third day?”

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Wow! I think you've cracked it :). PiCo (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

@PiCo and Wallingfordtoday: from the deleted text on Sheehan (emphasis mine):

According to Sheehan, Paul's account of the resurrection is not meant to be taken as referring to a literal, physical rising from the grave. Paul's understanding of the resurrection, and perhaps Peter's as well, is a metaphysical one, with the stories of Jesus's (figurative) resurrection reflecting his triumphant "entry into God's eschatological presence."

References

From The Gospel According to Thomas Sheehan:

TS: The word "resurrection" is a metaphor that unfortunately has been taken literally. That's where the confusion begins. In the New Testament the word for "resurrection" means literally "awakening," like waking up your kids in the morning. The New Testament says not that God "resurrected" Jesus from the dead, but that he "awoke" him. Using metaphoric language, the New Testament says God awoke Jesus from the sleep of death and brought him into God's heavenly presence. There's nothing here about an event in space and time. Resurrection doesn't mean coming back to life.

Sheen (1986) quotes Koester (p.261):

Helmut Koester: "Resurrection is thus a mythological metaphor for God's victory over the powers of unrighteousness. ... The preaching of Jesus' resurrection was thus the proclamation that the new age had been ushered in": "The Structure and Criteria of Early Christian Beliefs" in Robinson and Koester, Trajectories, 223, 224.

Quite a difference, isn't it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Visions of Christ enthroned in heaven

@PiCo: regarding

Paul's resurrection appearances are visions of Christ enthroned in heaven, not of a physical Jesus moving among his disciples on Earth.

Ehrman? Would you have sources for this statement? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Call to missionary activity

Arbitrary break #1

@AgeOfPlantagenet: thanks for your edits. I've been pondering myself where to put the vision theory, and the appearances themself (I've re-ordered the info maybe close to ten times). I think that the "Call to missionary activity" belongs at the "First ekklēsia" section, together with the "Leadership of Peter" and the "Exaltation of Jesus," because they're all about the effects of those appearances; while the "Visionary experiences"-section gives some background on this theory, just like the other subsections in "Explanantions" give further background on info presented before. Any further thoughts? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

At Resurrection of Jesus#First ekklēsia, I've yesterday (with some copy-editing this morning) changed, after writing the above,

The resurrection appearances gave the impetus to the exaltation of Jesus. They gave Peter the first leader-role in the first ekklēsia, forming the basis for the Apostolic succession, and also stimulated the resumation of the missionary activity of Jesus' followers.

into

In mainstream scholarship, the appearances are mostly explained as visionary experiences, which gave the impetus to the resumation of the missionary activity of Jesus' followers, and gave Peter the first leader-role in the first ekklēsia, forming the basis for the Apostolic succession. The appearances also changed the understanding of Jesus' life and death, giving way to the belief in the exaltation of Jesus.

References

to reflect the order of info I'd in mind, and to provide a very short introduction, c.q. bare mentioning, of the vision-explanation, in line with my idea that this theory (itself) is further explained in the "Further explanations" section. After sleeping a night on it, I've moved the info on the resumation of the missionary acticity back to it's original position, and I've moved the info on "Adoptionism and High Christology" downwards, to the "Further explanations" section, following the same logic of providing further information in this section. I hope I've explained my rationales good enough, and that the changes are acceptable to you. Again, I appreciate your edits. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@AgeOfPlantagenet: you removed info sourced with multiple WP:RS with quotes from WP:PRIMARY sources, edit-summary

I think the "Call to missionary activity" section should deal with the subject itself rather than a couple authors' theories about it. There's already a section below dealing with individual theories.

Bible-quotes can serve as illustrations, but not replace secondary sources. Those "couple of authors" do deal with the topic. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:59, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Those authors are giving their personal interpretation rather than a plain description of the topic, which is why I added the same type of quotes from the Bible that many of the other sections already have throughout the article. There are lots of direct references to the Bible already, so I was baffled when you said it was unacceptable. If this article is going to have a section on the "Great Commission" then that section needs to at least give a plain description of what that means, rather than just several people giving their opinions on it, otherwise let's just remove that section since it deals with something after the resurrection anyway and there's an entire article on the subject. I moved these authors' interpretations to the appropriate section which has similar quotes from other authors on the same issue, which is standard practice. I would think that's a reasonable compromise. AgeOfPlantagenet (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

What's unacceptable is replacing seconday sources with primay sources. I think you don't get it: those "personal interpretations" and "just several people giving their opinions" are called WP:RS. See also WP:OR and WP:CENSOR.

The section on "First ekklēsia" explains what the impact of the appearances was on the fist followers; the "call to missionary activity" is the most important one, that's where the Church started. It does not belong at the "Visionary experiences"-section, but at the section on the impact of those appearances. By moving that info downwards, you're still replacing WP:RS with WP:PRIMARY sourced info. See also WP:NPOV.

Furthermore, those Bible-quotes belong at "Gospel and Acts," where Matthew 28:16–20 already is quoted, and the parallel Bible-verses are also mentioned.

I've moved the info on Bauer into a note, and shortened it; that seems like a better compromise to me. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Right now, the section "First ekklēsia" already says "the appearances are mostly explained as visionary experiences" with an extensive note giving the details; but then the next section ("Call to missionary activity") basically repeats the "visionary experiences" idea with some examples of opinions on that subject. This seems rather redundant. Before I modified that section, it didn't even describe the "call to missionary activity" issue itself, instead just giving the "visionary experiences" interpretation. That's a case of giving interpretations without even describing what they're interpreting. That's not how we're supposed to do things. Now that you've moved the other "visionary experiences" opinions into one of the notes under "First ekklēsia", why not move these other three there as well?

The reason I added direct quotes from the Bible under the "Call to missionary activity" section is because that's how the other sections describe the topic. But if you really think that this section is the only one which can't have direct quotes (why?) then we'd still need to provide statements from experts describing the basic issues rather than their subjective interpretation. E.g. the description of Jesus appearing to the disciples and eating a fish in front of them (Luke 24:42) is the issue itself, about which various people have different interpretations; but those interpretations would be subjective opinions. AgeOfPlantagenet (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

This

Since you didn't reply to my talk page note when you edited the article, I'm going to go ahead and move these items in with the rest of the similar ones.

is WP:DISRUPTIVE. See WP:DEADLINE and WP:CONSENSUS. You've moved that info downward, replaced it with quotes from primary sources, moved it downward again, and now moved it into a note, without giving time for further discussion or reaching consensus. It's clear you don't like it, and are doing your utmost best to get it out of sight.

I've explained extensively to you what the problem is with where to place the origins of the visions-theory, and the effect those visions had on Jesus' followers. It seems to me you don't want to understand; see WP:DONTGETIT. But I'll explain it again:

• "Gospels and Acts" gives an overview of what the primary sources say; the Bible-references you added are already given there;
• "First ekklēsia" does indeed mention that "the appearances are mostly explained as visionary experiences"; that's an introductory remark on a broad scholarly consensus, followed by a short summary of the information that follows;
• the note gives some background-information on the origins of this notion;
• the next three subsections explain the effects and interpretations of those appearances on and by the first followers of Jesus, based on WP:RS (what you persistently call "subjective opinions," showing contempt for scholarship and the foundations of Wikipedia); that's not redundant, that's logically coherent.

So, that's why we don't move that info into that note, and why those Bible-references are out of place there. And I'm not saying that that section shouldn't contain Bible-quotes or references; I'm saying that they're already in te article, and that you rushed to remove info from WP:RS out of sight again. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

PS: Castleman does not say that the Great Commission is the call to spread Christianity around the world, but the call "to let the world know the good news of a victorious Saviour and the very presence of God in the world by the spirit," which is actually a very nice, and faithfull, statement, worthy of inclusion. Castleman further writes that the phrase was coined by Dutch missionary Justinian von Welz (1621-1688), and popularised by Hudson Taylor (1832-1905), a British Protestant Christian missionary to China and founder of the China Inland Mission (CIM, now OMF International). According to Castleman, "for the first 1600 years of the greatest exponential mission-driven expansion of the Church, this passage was read and understood as the trinitarian foundation of ecclesiology, not as fanfare for missiology." It would help if you paid better attention to both the structure of the article, and to the sources you're using.

And as you may understand, there was no "Christianity" at the time of those appearances, or at the time the Gospels were written. You're presenting your own, anachronistic understanding of the Great Commission. That's why we stick to WP:RS, instead of interpreting primary sources ourselves. Take care. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I have:

• added info by Hurtado diff diff, who states that the impact of Jesus' ministry was the first factor in the subsequent Christ-devotion; religious experience was the second, which gave the devotion to Jesus the drive it needed to make it into something unique, eventually growing into a world-religion. It may be that that piece of info was missing for you: those appearances were not 'just visions', some weird hallucinations, but powerful religious experiences, which profoundly changed the mindset of the early followers after the untimely dead of Jesus. Please read Hurtado (2005), Lord Jesus Christ. Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, p.53-55 (Jesus) and p.64-74 (Religious Experience); it's very good, and informative; a copy can be found at the web. I hope that the addition of this material helps for you;
• given exact quotes for the Bible-references you provided, to make the selection a little bit less arbitrary (why these quotes?) diff;
• corrected the info sourced by Castleman diff, as explained before ;
• moved those quotes to where they belong, at the "Gospels and Acts"-section diff, as explained before. They are at the beginning of that section, that is, at a prominent place, and surely will receive more attention there then at the "Call to missionary activity"-section;
• moved the info on the call to missionary activity out of the note again diff, as explained before; I did some copy-editing, and I strongly urge you to respect WP:CONSENSUS before making any further moves on this. Believe me, just giving it a couple of days to think about it helps;
• moved the "Exaltation of Jesus and Christ-devotion"-subsection to the top of those three subsections again; accoridng to Hurtado, this Christ-devotion is most significant characteristic of the early Christian movement:
• removed both the introductory-comment "In mainstream scholarship, the appearances are mostly explained as visionary experiences" and the Strauss-note; this way, you're rid of the explicit mentioning, in the introduction, of the vision-explanation (and the article-size is under 100,000 bytes again). I hope that helps too.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

So now you're accusing me of everything under the sun while paying no attention to context. Let's try to sort this out.

The reason I had put my suggested changes into the article "before" you responded on the talk page is because you had already made edits to the article but didn't respond on the talk page, meaning you had clearly already been online but didn't bother to respond, so I thought you either agreed with my position or were possibly trying to evade the discussion entirely. What was I supposed to do if you didn't reply when you were online? I don't see how I'm being "disruptive" here.

You claimed I have "contempt for scholarship" (what?!) just because I thought this material should logically go in a different section, so you're making an insulting accusation for no reason. Here's why I think leaving this material in the "Call to missionary activity" section is problematic: it's partly because this material is basically a repetition of information already covered ad infinitum in other sections which also mention the "visionary experiences" idea at length; and partly because this material doesn't present the type of essential information about the stated topic ("missionary activity") which an encyclopedia would normally present. It just gives the subjective view that the text is "really" describing visions or similar personal interpretations rather than information about how the apostles were called to missionary activity in the Roman Empire or the effect this had on subsequent history or anything else that might make sense in a "missionary activity" section. Your new version of that section that you edited today doesn't even mention this subject at all. The fact that the cited authors are RSs doesn't change any of this, because those RSs are not covering the stated topic of that section. Maybe you can explain how many different sections need to cover the "visionary experience" idea over and over (I think there are something like four or five sections mentioning that theory now), and also explain what possible point there would be to have a "missionary activity" section that doesn't even mention missionary activity?

You claimed I violated policy by moving some of the material into a note; but it was you who moved an entire section of similar material into that same note whereas I was just following your lead by moving related material into it. Why is it ok for you to move so much material into the note but when I do it, I'm guilty of violating policy and trying to "bury" material ?

In fact a large percentage of this entire article is just personal interpretation from a small number of authors over and over, with relatively little historical context (except extended discussion of Greco-Roman pagan views) and very little mention of important related issues : even the obvious related subject of Easter was largely absent until I added a brief mention of Easter in the lede. There's probably more info about Greco-Roman paganism than there is about Easter. How does that make any logical sense?

Rather than heaping accusations against me, just reply to my arguments. This discussion had once been polite until you began resorting to ad hominem rhetoric. See WP:Civil and WP:GOODFAITH. AgeOfPlantagenet (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break #2

The "Call to missionary activity" is not about missionary activity, but about the call to missionary activity; the material that's there is what notable scholars have to say about the topic. Again, you call this scholarly research "subjective view" and "personal interpretations." As I said before, here at Wikipedia we call that reliable sources; the aim of Wikipedia is to present an overview of the relevant scholarly views. See WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:DUE.
You further state that there is no information about "how the apostles were called to missionary activity in the Roman Empire or the effect this had on subsequent history or anything else," which would be appropriate for a "missionary activity" section. Well, actually, the section does explain how the first Apostles were called to missionary activity. Or better said, "Gospels and Acts" tells what the New Testament has to say about this, and the "Call to missionary activity"-section tells what scholars have to say about these texts. Just what we're supposed to do here at Wikipedia. Regarding "the effect this had on subsequent history or anything else," that's not the topic of the section. There are separate articles on Christian mission, Apostles, Jewish Christian, Paul and Judaism, and Early Christianity, among others, which may treat that topic.
There's a section on the significance of the resurrection, c.q. Jeus' appearances, for the first ekklesia, and a similar section for Paul. Mainstream scholars, including notable scholars such as Dunn, Hurtado, Vermes, and Ehrman, try to explain in their publications what the primary sources say about these appearances; and they all take religious experiences and visions as explanatory factors into account. That's what WP:RS have to say about the topic.
Nevertheless, if you think that "important related issues" are missing, then you should add that info, based on WP:RS, and with references, so we can WP:VERIFY what you write. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

But an encyclopedia normally cites what RSs say about objectively provable issues, not someone's speculation about "visions". I'm not objecting to using RSs, I'm objecting to the content of these specific citations because they deal with someone's speculation about what the text "really" means (i.e. something different than what the text explicitly and objectively says based on how dictionaries define those words, which becomes personal speculation rather than something objective). The text only says that Paul experienced a vision, but the other cases are described using language that normally means physical activity (e.g. Jesus eating a physical fish in front of the disciples), so any other interpretation becomes a subjective personal opinion even if it's from an RS. Here's an illustration of the difference: if these authors were stating that the original language has the accepted definition of X based on what respected dictionaries say, that would be objective; but if they're giving a personal opinion which cannot be proven then that's subjective. An RS can present either objective or subjective information but encyclopedias usually provide objective, provable information. It can be proven that the text says X, but cannot be proven that it "really means" something else.

It's also a problem to repeat the same speculation over and over in section after section. I think the process of piecemeal editing has led to unintended repetition that usually escapes notice when you're just editing one small section, but if you read through the entire article you'll notice how repetitive it sounds as it constantly belabors the "visionary experiences" idea so often. It also often "puts the cart before the horse" by mainly giving paragraph after paragraph of speculation while largely glossing over the thing that's being interpreted, except for a few quotes from the actual text here and there. Imagine if an article about a battle (for example) just gave speculation about what each commander "might" have been thinking while mostly ignoring the battle itself. Even if the speculation was drawn from RSs it would still be unbalanced and in fact wouldn't provide very much essential information for the reader. AgeOfPlantagenet (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@AgeOfPlantagenet: thanks for your reply; it's interesting. I have to think about what you just wrote; it deserves a good reply. Maybe just a few thoughts: there is indeed a difference between what the primary source says sec, and how we intepret that text. The point is, we cannot read the texts as if we know what the authors intended. We need hermeneutical tools to interpret those texts. More than a century of critical Bible-scholarship has been devotes to this. What we do here at Wikipedia, in general, is to give an overview of what relevant scholarship has to say about a topic; what you call "subjective interpretations." In this specific case, we present an overview of what the primary sources say, preferably based on what secondary sources say about it; then we give an overview of what those texts mean for Christians, the prime group of interest for this topic. And then we provide an overview of what modern scholarship has to say about the topic. That may be "subjective" to you, but it's an objective presentation of what scholarship has to say. That's how Wikipedia works. We're an encyclopedia, not a faith-manual. It's not up to us to "prove[] that it "really means" something else"; we give an exposition of what the relevant scholarship says about the topic. See also WP:TRUTH.

And I understand what you mean with 'repetition', but that's inherent to this topic: almost all scholars include this explanation in their treatment of this topic. That may be speculation to you, but it's what the relevant scholarly studies say. And personally I do think that this is essential information; it explains the origins of Christianity in a way that's compatible with our modern, naturalistic worldview. And mind you, Dunn and Hurtado are both Christians!

PS: did you ever read anything by Sanders, Dunn, Hurtado or Wright? I just bought Dunn's Beginning from Jerusalem, 1300 pages; looking forward to read it! Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Elaine Pagels

@Dr. Ryan E.: Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels - please explain how this is not WP:RS diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Opener

It's great to source Ehrman (an atheist skeptic) and Vermes (a liberal Jew), but to leave out any Christian sources? NT Wright and Bloomberg come to mind. It was originally implied that all scholars believe in the "vision" hypothesis. That isn't true. Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dr. Ryan E.: ehm, no. That's your reading. The lead said:

While for the majority of Christians the resurrection is taken to have been a physical resurrection, the appearances of Jesus are often explained as visionary experiences, which gave the impetus to the belief in the exaltation of Jesus and the resumption of the missionary activity of Jesus' followers.

You changed it into:

The Apostle Paul explained the theological significance of the resurrection as God's revelation of his purpose, which is the redemption of the world. For the majority of Christians and some scholars the resurrection is taken to have been a literal, physical resurrection. For other scholars, the appearances of Jesus are often explained in various hypotheses such as the visionary experiences theory. Nonetheless, scholars agree there was an impetus to the belief in the exaltation of Jesus and a resumption of the missionary activity of Jesus' followers.

References

• WP:LEAD says that the lead summarizes the article; an unattributed opinion from one scholar (Newbigin) is not an accurate summary of the section Resurrection of Jesus#Paul – participation in Christ. You used Newbigin as a reference for

The Apostle Paul explained the theological significance of the resurrection as God's revelation of his purpose, which is the redemption of the world.

What he actually writes, as mentioned in Resurrection of Jesus#Paul – participation in Christ is

Paul presents himself not as the teacher of a new theology but as the messenger commissioned by the authority of the Lord himself to announce a new fact - namely that in the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus God has acted decisively to reveal and effect his purpose of redemption for the whole world."

That's slightly different; and the opposite of "the theology of Paul";

• I can't verify what Blomberg actually writes; the book is not accessible at Google Books. Can you provide a quote from p.253? Does he state that 'some scholars believe in a literal resurrection', or is that his personal opinion? N. T. Wright argues the same, as mentioned at Resurrection of Jesus#Foundation of Christian faith; you should have added Blomberg there;
• Koester, Vermes, and Ehrman do not entertain "various hypotheses such as the visionary experiences theory"; that's the only theory they use. Nor do they postulate an antithesis between visions and the impetus to the belief in the the exaltation of Jesus and the resumption of the missionary activity; the latter follows from the first.
• Regarding Habermas diff: that info already is in the article, in the before-mentioned section Resurrection of Jesus#Foundation of Christian faith. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

the appearances of Jesus are often explained as visionary experiences,[3][4][5] which gave the impetus to the belief... absolutely is taken as the visionary experience (mentioned in the middle of the sentence) gave the impetus to the belief... Regarding Habermas, you removed sourced information and added back Pagels, who adds speculation. The original NT Greek actually in Mark/Luke can be translated as a different form or appearance, not a shapeDr. Ryan E. (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

AFAIK, swoon theory, twin brother theory are WP:FRINGE. So the only secular mainstream theory is that of visions (secular does not mean atheist). Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dr. Ryan E.: that's indeed what those sources say. The sentence you've constructed now,

other scholars believe the appearances of Jesus are explained as visionary experiences.

References

is non-sensical: Wright, Blomberg, and Habermas believe that the appearances of Jesus are explained as visionary experiences by Koester, Vermes, and Ehrman? You're not improving this article...
Habermas was added by you while it was already in the article - and you used a dead link. He has the same stance as Ware and Hurtado, but those authors give a solid explanation; if we are to provide additional arguments, it would be theirs. Pagels is WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the removal diff of "often" from "the appearances of Jesus are often explained as visionary experiences," edit-summary

Removed exaggeration "often", there are many other theories including the swoon theory, twin brother theory

the Stolen body hypothesis, Swoon hypothesis, Lost body hypothesis, and Substitution hypothesis are indeed ;fringe theories, which are not put forward by serious scholarship. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

N.T. Wright

Respectfully, Wright's scholarship and conclusions are given short shrift in this article, especially compared with Ehrman and, to a lesser degree, Vermes. Scribley (talk) 02:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Additions are welcome, of course. I'm learning while I'm reading, and finding new sources on the way. Nevertheless, it's clear that most scholars, including Christian scholars like Dunn and Hurtado, don't take the resurrection of Jesus to be a literal, or bodily, phenomenon. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Resurrection-of Jesus listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Resurrection-of Jesus. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Adding "myth" to lead

do you really need a source for a supernatural story being considered a myth? @Epinoia:

- yes, everything needs a source - see WP:VERIFY - "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." - the last line of the lead says that for scholars "the appearances of Jesus are explained as visionary experiences" with three citations - the resurrection of Jesus does not fall under WP:BLUESKY, sources are needed to back up any claims - Epinoia (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

wp:bluesky says you do not need to cite common knowledge. Its pretty clearly common knowledge that supernatural events are myths. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

- in this case there are millions of Christians who believe the resurrection of Jesus was an actual event - there is no definitive proof one way or the other - Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view, see WP:NPOV - Epinoia (talk) 00:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

people believe in all sorts of myths. Myths are not necessarily false, everything is literally possible, including myths. A myth is a myth regardless of how many believe. Clearly supernatural events live up to the wp:bluesky of being a myth. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

- myth can mean a "traditional story of ostensibly historical events", but it also means, "a widely held but false belief or idea" - because of the pejorative connotation of "false," it's best not to use it to refer to things people believe are true, unless you have definitive proof that they are not true - also, describing the resurrection of Jesus as mythical associates it with the Christ myth theory, which holds that "the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology", but the Christ myth theory is regarded as a WP:FRINGE and has not gained wide acceptance among scholars - Epinoia (talk) 01:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

that is just strawman. I know Jesus is considered to have been an actual human by scholars. However, the concept that a human had the supernatural power to rise from the dead is clearly accepted as myth among scholars.

No one can definitively prove or disprove any event, let alone a supposed supernatural event. That is not a reasonable standard.

This is why I did not say the supernatural resurrection was false. I said it was myth. Which is clear common sense wp:bluesky. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 01:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

- "Wikipedia's content policies require inline citations...for any material that has been challenged, or is likely to be challenged." WP:LIKELY - Epinoia (talk) 03:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

See "citing eveything" section at WP:BLUESKY

Also, you're the only one here challenging a supernatural event being labeled a myth. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 03:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

- WP:BLUESKY is for stating obvious facts - whether or not the resurrection of Jesus is a myth or not is up for debate, and therefore not an obvious fact, so Bluesky does not apply - you may believe it is a myth, but many believe it was an actual event, and actual events are not myths - and as the labeling of the resurrection as a myth has been challenged, it falls under WP:LIKELY as noted above - if you want to push this you can go through the dispute resolution process (WP:DISPUTE) or post a request for comment (WP:RFC) to invite other editors to join the discussion - Epinoia (talk) 04:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Clearly people have faith in supernatural events. Ghosts, psychics, all sorts of gods, devils, etc.

There is no debate in academic circles about whether or not supernatural events are myths - like when Jesus (a human according to academic consensus) can rise from the dead - a myth (could not be more WP:BLUESKY )

I'm not talking about who believes what. People can and do believe in myths, but they are still myths. People believe in many different creation myths from many different religions, but they are still clearly myths by academic standards because they are supernatural events, just like a human rising from the dead. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 04:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Mainstream biblical scholars and historians like Ludemann and Ehrman view Jesus has a likely historical character, with the tradition development around it including miracles such as the resurection which are not historically plausible. It would not be difficult to find citations for this, but saying that it is historically improbable is probably better than using the term myth which is less widely used in relation to this topic. —PaleoNeonate – 04:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

okay thanks. I think myth works because its supernatural. But historically improbable could work too. Do you think historically improbable is better than not historically plausible? Fajkfnjsak (talk) 04:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fajkfnjsak: As with the other pages you attempting to change, you are ignoring how these topics are discussed by the actual sources. The resurrection of Jesus should only be described as a myth if that is how reliable sources describe it (and you can go to Historicity and origin of the resurrection of Jesus for how the word "myth" is used in the sources). The fact that it is untrue or a myth should only be in the lead if that is summarizing significant information in the main body of the article. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I have undone Fajkfnjsak's edit because it makes a statement in Wikipedia's voice that actually is what some group of scholars say. So it would need to say who considers that to be true, and have a reference to support it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the revert but mostly because it's not really covered in the body yet. As for attribution, I don't disagree and it's subject to consensus, but in general if it's the mainstream scholarly view WP:YESPOV may apply. There's no rush Fajkfnjsak, since you were reverted a few times it's best to make clear proposals here before restoring edits (edit warring should be avoided even when we're right, too). —PaleoNeonate – 23:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually, attribution like "historians" or "historians such as ... and ..." is fine, I think... —PaleoNeonate – 23:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: what is YESPOV? the link just goes to NPOV. Also, why would we say historically improbable for a supernatural event? Isn't the supernatural status what makes it a myth? Also, do you have a source? Fajkfnjsak (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The full link to YESPOV is at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Explanation of the neutral point of view (I specifically meant: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice."). I mentioned a few scholars above, but I have not looked for sources yet (this is your homework too per WP:ONUS, of course). But I know they exist and could try to help when I have more time. —PaleoNeonate – 02:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Empty tomb

@Harmoonie: the explanantion of this addition of the NPOV-tag to the "Empty tomb" section makes no sense to me:

Paragraphs and sources quoted only dispute the empty tomb. It needs sources that support the empty tomb as well

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

We need to mention that the "empty tomb" scenario is late, first mentioned in Mark c.70 CE, not in Paul or the early creedal statement. Also the significance of the tomb changes from its appearance in Mark to Matthew/Luke, hence Mark's omission of any post tomb appearances.Achar Sva (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Jesus vision

I noticed some recent related changes that were disputed an am not sure if my compromise addresses Editor2020's concerns, but it seemed to me that the source was saying that Paul claimed his authority by reporting his experience, rather than simply "establishing his authority". Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 01:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I read the source as saying that Paul was struggling to establish his position in the Church and used the resurrection appearances "primarily to support his own apostolic authority." I re-wrote closer to the wording in the source.Achar Sva (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 07:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Achar, I suggest you add back the part you conveniently left out about the commentary regarding the *nature* of Paul's appearance. He never claimed his experience was of the exact type as the previous, and the source clearly states it's impossible to know, but quoting the earlier sentence you have left the reader with the impression that Paul claims all of the previous are visionary, this is against scholarly consensus that a bodily resurrection was the earliest belief Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 08:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Fringe

The claim that there could be historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is WP:FRINGE (post-Enlightenment historians do not work with supernatural claims). Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Where is the claim? The article makes it quite clear that the scholarly consensus is that the followers of Jesus had a subjective experience of a risen Jesus. --Hazhk (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Mass revert

Mass reverts, edit-summary

How dare you unilaterally insert your own preference for the lead which is in fact detrimental to the article - which goes against the MOS's advice to "summarise the content" - and ignores the talk page. Revert arrogant behaviour.

are not really helpfull. If you object to changes in the lead, copy-edit the lead, but do not revert a series of edits to the whole article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Please refer to the revision history. It is in fact User:Achar Sva who mass-reverted several additions to the lead over the past couple of months. Compare selected revisions before and after Anchar Sva's mass removal of content. That change should have been discussed. That said, I apologise for the tone of my edit summary. In light of my inappropriate comemnt, I won't engage any further with this article. I don't wish to be disruptive. However I encourage editors to restore the previous text of the lead. Hazhk (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Achar Sva is an old, trusted editor. He just lost the password for the previous account. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

First sentence

The opening sentence of this article is problematic.

"The resurrection of Jesus, or anastasis, is the Christian belief that God raised Jesus on the third day after his crucifixion at Calvary as first of the dead, starting his exalted life as Christ and Lord."

1. the sentence is repeated in the Resurrection of Jesus#Christ–devotion section — not needed twice — it is better placed in the "Christ–devotion" section where the theology is more fully explained — the lead should be a summary, not a repetition.
2. “first of the dead” – the wikilink is to Firstborn (Judaism) which says, in the reference note, Jesus was firstborn from the dead, not of the dead – is this description of first from the dead common to all Christians or only certain denominations? – needs looking at.
3. surely “exalted” falls under WP:PUFFERY and should be removed, unless in a direct quote from Paul.
4. “his exalted life” – the survival of Jesus after the crucifixion is disputable and falls under WP:NPOV
5. “starting his exalted life as Christ and Lord” – did Jesus become Christ and Lord only after the crucifixion, or at his baptism, or at his birth, or has he always existed as Christ and Lord as part of the Trinity? (see the section Resurrection of Jesus#Low and High Christology, "the earliest Christians believed that Jesus was a human who was exalted, c.q. adopted as God's Son, when he was resurrected, signaling the nearness of the Kingdom of God, when all dead would be resurrected and the righteous exalted. Later beliefs shifted the exaltation to his baptism, birth, and subsequently to the idea of his eternal existence")

I think, as the article is titled "Resurrection of Jesus", we should stick to that description and remove all the theology from the opening sentence for a neutral point of view per MOS:LEADSENTENCE. “Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.” The sentence could be shortened to,

"The resurrection of Jesus, or anastasis, is the Christian belief that God raised Jesus from the dead on the third day after his crucifixion at Calvary."

which is a concise, neutral description of the subject and leaves all the theology to be addressed in the body of the article. — Epinoia (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, but just putting "raised" is much too weaselly, and per MOS:GOD and common usage we need the capital "R". Have another go; you need both "dead" and "alive" or similar in there. Johnbod (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree to replace "raised" with "brought back from the dead" or perhaps a more formal alternative. 'Raised' is doctrinal jargon. --Hazhk (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• We currently have "The Resurrection of Jesus is the Christian belief that Jesus Christ came back to life on the third day after his crucifixion by the Romans in approximately AD 30–33" (after various changes by the other two). While the gospels may not say that God did this (as Epinoia objects), many bits of the Acts & Epistles do (indeed rather harping on the point) - they are listed in note 1. It's certainly better but I will relocate the first ref to after punctuation per MOS. The lead is waaay too short for an article this long. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Acts & Epistles were probably written before the doctrine of the trinity was formalized – as I recall, the trinitarian Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed say, "rose again" to avoid implying that God had supremacy over Jesus and could raise him, or to imply that, as a person of the trinitarian God, Jesus raised himself and thus has supremacy over God. So the writers used the neutral, "rose again" to avoid conflict. Theologians wriggled out of this power struggle by saying the resurrection was an act of the Holy Spirit (I can't remember where I read this and don't have a source handy). As the creeds form the basis of Christian doctrine, when describing Christian belief we should refer to the creeds as statements of belief and not to Acts or the Epistles and simply say that Jesus rose – cheers, Epinoia (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The article currently already says 'According to the New Testament, "God raised him from the dead", he ascended to heaven, to the "right hand of God', (see Resurrection of Jesus § Biblical accounts) so why do we treat the introduction differently? Why are we adverse to repeating what the Bible describes? This is what Christians believe. I have expanded the introduction because it was far too short. It wouldn't stand alone as a satisfactory description of the resurrection and beliefs about the resurrection. We didn't have any context or description of post-resurrection experiences. There was nothing about the ascension forty days later. 86.159.77.196 (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Some comments:

1. WP:LEAD summarizes the article, and that's exactly what the first sentence does.

2. "First of the dead" is an essential theological conept; the raising of the dead marks the start of the apocalyptic age, and Jesus was regarded as the first who was raised, showing that the Kingdom of God was coming.

3. I really don't understand the linking of the exaltation with WP:PUFFERY.

4. The exaltation has nothing to do with a (supposedly disputable) survival, even less with WP:NPOV; Christian says that Jesus died on the cross and was raised on the third day.

5. This is what Novakovic and Hurtado say. Please rely on WP:RS.

It is a theological topic, not a natural event. "Came back to life" is not what the Christian tradition says; it says that he was raised from the death ones, as first of the deceased, marking the beginning of the Kingdom of Heaven, etc, etc. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

With respect just to your fifth point there, that definitely is what Novakovik and Hurtado say about certain of the earliest formulations of Christian theology, however I think we all can recognize that it's not super congruent with the dogmatic belief in the preexistent son consubstantial with the father, which defines the overwhelming majority of Christianity, both historically and presently. So it's probably not appropriate to put it in the lead as a description about "The Christian belief" about the resurrection, although it should be covered wherever we handle the ins and outs of diachronic theology.

Also, it' a dangling participle. My grammar teacher would paraphrase it as "God raised Jesus from the dead and then God started his exalted life as Christ and Lord" and then politely ask me if that's what I really was trying to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.209.79 (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Your grammar teacher is not a theologian, as he (or you) would paraphrase it incorrect: Jesus was exalted with his resurrection, not after his resurrection. And no, it may not be congruent with other theological developments within Christianity; but still, this is what these sources say, and it summarizes the article. I can't recall how pre-existence and High Christology'fit together, c.q. how the resurrection is interpreted within 'incarnation theology'; I'd have to go through the sources again. Maybe you know more? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I did, a little bit; we're talking about the exaltation here, 'sitting at the right hand of God', not his pre-existence. See Session of Christ. I've added a nuance to the ;ead diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm puzzled as to why the reference to the third day was removed from the first sentence. I can't immediately see an explanation for that. gilgongo (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

[WT:INDIA Here], in response to this; before, somewhere in these edits. I've re-inserted it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Physical body vs Spiritual body in Pauline thought.

I'm not personally comfortable cleaning this up, but when I jumped over to this page to try to recall a detail, and in passing I noticed some text about Paul's view of the resurrection which feels like an editor on this page wants to participate in a debate rather than summarize one. Specifically,

"For many Christians, including some scholars, it is particularly important to hold that Paul, too, believed in a concrete, material resurrection, although Paul insisted on a spiritual or pneumatic body, denying any future for the flesh,[1 Cor. 1.29, 1 Cor. 15.50, Col. 2.11.] thus reflecting his Pharisaic background, where the present physical body was looked upon negatively.[Mason 2001, p. 169.]"

Here we have direct criticism of primary sources given as a reference, and a further citation of a critical edition of Josephus, which I just have a hard time imagining would have a section discussing Paul's use of Pharisaic thought in his theology, even in passing. It seems more likely that the author is personally interpreting Paul and backing it up with a statement about general Pharisaic thought. That sounds like a great topic for an academic article, but (and it's been a while since my wikipedia days) isn't that still considered OR and SYNTH? (It also contradicts the generally received "fact" that Pharisees believed in a physical resurrection, so if that idea is undergoing valid historical revision, that seems like it ought to be something which needs to be fleshed out in the article, because you have a lengthy note [7] describing Habermas's argument for a physical resurrection specifically on the basis of Paul's Pharisaic theology.) Since I found the same line "Paul repeatedly insisted that the future resurrection would only include a spiritual or pneumatic body, denying any future for the flesh" in another paragraph, it looks like this is more widespread than a single paragraph, so I wanted to raise the issue here.

Indeed, you're absolutely right. I'll wait for others to comment, but that does seem to be original research. Jeppiz (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem goes even deeper: [diff https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Resurrection_of_Jesus&diff=prev&oldid=974156764 diff]. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 23:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted that edit diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

PS: I asked a pastor about pre-existence and exaltation; she looked at me with a blank gaze, explaining she'd faithfully written down notes when studying theology, wherafter she had forgotten the subtle nuances, instead attending the sick and needy. I'm not a theologian, but I don't think we should simplify the message to suit the readers who don't grap the nuances either; after all, we Wiki-editors are not the ones who created these complexities. For the shortest, though not necessarily more comprehensible summary: 'love thy neighbor'. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

he or He?

Do we use capitals when referring to Jesus as he/He? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

"Pronouns for deities and figures of veneration are not capitalized, even if capitalized in a religion's scriptures: Jesus addressed his followers, not Jesus addressed His followers (except in a direct quotation)." MOS:ISMCAPS. Editor2020 (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Historical fact

Claiming that it were historical fact is a joke. The epistemology of history (historical method) does not allow it being a historical fact. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggested reworking of lead citations into article

In its present state, the article's lead contains what I think are an excessive number and variety of citations, to the point that they distract from actually reading the thing. So, I've added an excessive citations "complaint tag", and I would recommend moving specific claim citations below, into the body of the article as appropriate. I will try to think of constructive ways to help with this, so as not to "drive-by tag", but I would also like to encourage others more familiar with the article, to consider the point as well. I get that the article's subject is Quite Important, but details can be handled in the article's body.

WP:CITELEAD has carefully phrased, diplomatic language which doesn't require a lead to have no cites (indeed, some leads should have citations where appropriate, and I agree that this lead should retain some). I just think that we can and should move 10+ of these notes and cites south, to improve the readability of the lead. MinnesotanUser (talk) 04:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. When removing those cites, we can wait for the "citation needed" tags to appear. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Exalted after his death?

Christ myth theory says

"According to mainstream scholarship, Jesus was an eschatological preacher or teacher, who was exalted after his death."

This appears to contradict Resurrection of Jesus, which says

"The post-resurrection appearances of Jesus are explained as visionary experiences that gave the impetus to the belief in the exaltation of Jesus"

Do we really want Wikipedia to present the Exaltation of Christ (which redirects to Session of Christ) as a fact that is supported by mainstream scholarship? --Dalek Supreme X (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Corrected diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Improvement

I don't think this statement "The New Testament writings do not contain any descriptions of the moment of resurrection, but rather accounts of the empty tomb and of post-resurrection appearances of Jesus." is relevant because it confusingly makes it seem like the New Testament accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John do not cover resurrection Sunday in detail.

I propose to remove this sentence because it does not add something to the article that is worth keeping and actually confuses. ScientistBuilder (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi ScientistBuilder, I reckon that it's adequately clear. I think the Wikipedia article is referring to the absence of mention of - for lack of better theological vocabulary - the (re)assembly of organs and anatomical restoration to Christ. (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Removed citation from Sheehan

The references to Thomas Sheehan appears to be solidly in the realm of the Jesus myth theory, which is not only alien to the tone of this article but also considered pseudohistory by the consensus of scholars. The post-Ascension appearance of Jesus to Paul was more visionary than the physical appearances to the Apostles (which is adequately explored by Dunn and other sources already in the article). However, the consensus opinion is clearly that Paul believed in the physical resurrection of Jesus, both from internal and external evidence, and in accordance with the existing Jerusalem tradition that Paul cites in 1 Corinthians 15. The random insertion of Sheehan's notes, stating that Paul believed Jesus to be metaphorical or mythical, simply doesn't jive with the modern scholarship.

It seems that the original people to add Sheehan into the article recognized his opinion was controversial, but never got around to establishing why. If the majority feels I've acted out of turn, it can always be reverted, but I'd want to discuss it first. LutherVinci (talk) 07:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

FYI, also seems odd that Bart Ehrman is also cited heavily in both this article and other articles related to the Resurrection, despite him being the foremost authority on the Jesus myth theory. However, I did not find any statements from him that are distinctively mythist so I've left them be for now. LutherVinci (talk) 08:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi LutherVinci, this site on HuffingtonPost seems to suggest that Ehrman is actually an opponent of the Jesus Ahistoricity theory. You can check out the Ehrman Wikipedia page for more info. Ehrman defends the historicity of Jesus of Nazereth. https://web.archive.org/web/20160703220723/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/did-jesus-exist_b_1349544.html FatalSubjectivities (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Editor2020 I'm not saying Sheehan is an unreliable source, but his unorthodox views on Jesus derive from the myth theory which is largely considered fringe, and is therefore WP:UNDUE. Also the citation I removed was inserted in the middle of the quotation of Dunn, which is tangentially addressing the same thing as Sheehan but is definitely not sharing the same opinion, so putting the two citations together doesn't seem to make sense LutherVinci (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Merged

This article has been merged from Resurrection of Jesus, Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus and Death of Jesus in September 2006, those pages now redirect here.

Add ancient external sources

Add citations/quotations from sources not deemed external by Christians. Actual external sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎2a02:587:411b:7500:f106:f554:e8d1:7bf7 (talk • contribs) 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Out of place passage?; Historicity and origin of the resurrection of Jesus

Question: does the following passage seem random/selective at the end of the Historicity and origin of the resurrection (prior version) section:

E. P. Sanders argues that a plot to foster belief in the Resurrection would probably have resulted in a more consistent story.Taken from britannica.com

1) yes

2) no

Background: See the linked section and the source for the context of its inclusion within both.

OP's comments in favour of option 1 (yes): Firstly, I feel like when you read the full source that the aforementioned quote is taken from, it is selective to say "EPS argues..." when the central message is more that the historicity is unclear (and the quote is really just EPS saying "[but that doesn't mean I] accuse these sources, or the first believers, of deliberate fraud"). Finally, its inclusion in that section is the only^{one of two} sentence^s that isn't taken from the lead of the main article splitting that it links. It seems shoehorned in there at the end for the sake of providing a counterargument.

Edit: taken option 1 prior to discussion as per Special:diff/1116194836 by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit II: second to last sentence also not from lead section (see supscript) by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 09:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

OP by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 09:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Founding Myth/Origin Myth

Upon a recent reversion, my accepted suggested edit that the resurrection of Jesus is a founding myth or origin myth was removed, reverting the page to the way it existed prior to my accepted change.

Here is the definition of a founding myth (Wiki redirects to Origin myth): An origin myth is a myth that describes the origin of some feature of the natural or social world. One type of origin myth is the creation or cosmogonic myth, a story that describes the creation of the world. However, many cultures have stories set in a time after a first origin - such stories aim to account for the beginnings of natural phenomena or of human institutions within a preexisting universe. See Origin myth.

For an example of another founding myth, see The Exodus. See note 1, which defines a myth as: "The term myth is used here in its academic sense, meaning "a traditional story consisting of events that are ostensibly historical, though often supernatural, explaining the origins of a cultural practice or natcinci ani de închisoareural phenomenon." It is not being used to mean "something that is false"."

Also the Chrisian Mythology page also describes the resurrection of Jesus as a myth.

Both of these instances present conflicting and inconsistent definitions.

Yet, both instances have no archeological proof and are only referenced in the religious books to which the adherents subscribe.

May I make the edit, restoring to the previously accepted version, without violating any rules? That is my intention, nothing else.

75.99.91.246 (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

No. WP:BRD. If no one comes for a while you can request at third opinion since I Do not wish to get involved any further. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Wonderful, I have bolded the edit. 75.99.91.246 (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The edit by Drmies should stay. That is the stable version. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't mind calling this a "founding myth", fits well enough, but the term "founding myth" is currently WP:LEAD-only, that's not ideal writing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The 19:47, 11 November 2022‎ edit by The Night Watch removes this language that we had a consensus on. It again refers to this a belief rather than a founding myth. The editor's reasonsing is that he/she believes that myth implies that we are casting doubt. That edit is biased. Belief speaks to an indiviual. A myth is beyond the individual and is societal in nature. And for all the reasons above, this page should be consistent with all other pages referring to this story and others, like the Exodus, as a founding myth. 75.99.91.246 (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Jesus in the Grave

Jesus in the Grave during the period, not simply to mention that he was interred. Make that page, we have it, but redirect to help readers. Add citations/quotations from sources not deemed external by Christians. Actual external sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎2a02:587:411b:7500:f106:f554:e8d1:7bf7 (talk • contribs) 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2022

Please remove the word "myth". It is inaccurate and highly offensive and could lead to greater bias against the Christian faith. For most people myth is synonymous with fiction. Christianity is based on verifiable historical fact.

Thanks 208.101.94.85 (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

•  Not done Please start a discussion to establish a consensus for this change; an edit request is for uncontroversial changes. Please use arguments based in Wikipedia policy with any independent reliable sources to support your position that this actually happened and is not a myth. Articles are not based on faith, but on what can be verified. I suggest that you review the myth article for more information. 331dot (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

."Christianity is based on verifiable historical fact." Christianity is based on 4 fairy tale books (gospels) about a miracle worker. Dimadick (talk) 02:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far as to say they're straight up fairy tales... ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 03:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

"Founding myth", revisited

Relatively recently, this article was changed to claim the resurrection is the "foundation myth" of Christianity. A lot of users I hold in the highest esteem, such as as tgeorgescu, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, and Drmies were involved in the discussion. Even so, I am not convinced by this terminology. Of course we should in no way claim it's a "fact", like the IP above proposes, but the term "foundation myth" also seems to have been introduced by an IP to make a WP:POINT about the Exodus being described as a foundation myth. If I may, that does not seem to a strong reason. My main concern is that the terminology is at odds with most sources, and even with scholarship. While the resurrection is a central belief in Christianity, it is much less clear it is a "foundation myth". I struggle to find this terminology in reliable sources. I hope we all can agree that the current sources (a 1985 book about Christianity as the way to salvation) hardly is a good source. If I am wrong and the term foundation myth is in common use in scholarship, I have no problems with it. Otherwise, I don't think inventing new terminology to please an IP is the right course of action. Let's use the terminology of most sources (which would appear to be "belief" rather than "foundation myth"). Jeppiz (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly worth discussing. And if this is the founding myth of C, what is the Nativity of Jesus and the Crucifixion of Jesus? I don't have a well-founded opinion atm. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Yup, I told the IP that there are abundant WP:RS for the Exodus being a myth, but we cannot say the same about the resurrection being a myth (although it is technically indisputable that most theological claims are simply myths for people belonging to other religions than Christianity, and that for them the Bible is mostly mythology). tgeorgescu (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

"Foundation myth" was in at least a few of the sources, and "myth" is likely much more popular than that, "foundation myth" being a bit more technical than just "myth". The last editor completely misunderstood the term "myth" and thought of it like some sort of cussword, and never even got to "foundation". Their edit summary, "Of course no one can verify it, but to call it a myth in the first sentence seems extreme", indicates to which extent they failed to get two important points: verification, and the meaning of the word "myth". There's a ton of sourcing for the resurrection as a myth, just look at Google Books (sorry tgeorgescu), which is what one would expect--"belief" is really misleading in ways, and it seems to disavow the very idea of storytelling, which is such an important aspect of belief systems. Whether enough scholars call it "the" foundation myth, the only one, is another matter, and it seems pretty clear to me that saying "this is THE foundation myth of Christianity" suggests that all Christianities are the same, which they are not--the resurrection might be in competition with Abraham's covenant, etc. Anyway, this needs serious sourcing; what it does not need is knee-jerk drive-by responses. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Here is a source that mentions "foundation myth" in relation to Christianity. One quote "In the Gospel of Matthew the story of Jesus becomes the basis for a foundation myth of Christian origins." More by Perrin:[7]. And one more, Perrin-related: [8] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I cannot find the term "foundation myth" in Perrin's book, but perhaps that is my search engine again. The second book, Eastman, summarizes what he says as Perrin tells us that Luke, like Matthew, transforms the story of Jesus into a Christian foundation myth: “For Luke the essence of the myth is the fate-laden progress of Jesus to Jerusalem, and of the gospel from Jerusalem to Rome.’’. To me that means the entire story and not just the resurrection. Perrin's POV is entirely about the theological development of Both the gospel of Mark and the Acts of the Apostles are didactic history, a history of the past told to instruct the reader in the present. That's Perrin, page 428. These show the term myth being used, which we have all agreed is done, but do not say resurrection is the founding myth. At least that I can find.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777 By Perrin's book, do you mean [9]? At that link, don't you see "Search inside" results on the left side? Odd (I'm logged in at archive.org though, does that matter?). Anyway, it's on pages 68, 74 and 75. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes it matters, but I was able to follow your link, so thank you. I looked at those page numbers, and if I read correctly, he says the stories of Jesus comprise the foundation myth, not that the resurrection alone does. The resurrection is just one aspect of the Jesus story. I found Drmies comment the most on point here: Whether enough scholars call it "the" foundation myth, the only one, is another matter, and it seems pretty clear to me that saying "this is THE foundation myth of Christianity" suggests that all Christianities are the same, which they are not--the resurrection might be in competition with Abraham's covenant, etc. Anyway, this needs serious sourcing Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

That's how I understood Perrin too, he says that the life of Jesus (per NT) is the CFM. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh and btw: article at Norman Perrin. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Another quote from another source: "Sts. Gregory the Illuminator and Nino were the evangelists of Armenia and Georgia respectively in the fourth century and so were intimately tied to each territory's Christian foundation myth. St. Simeon Nemanja was instrumental in the foundation of a structured and eventually autonomous religious hierarchy in Serbia." Goes more off our topic but an interesting use of the term. Btw, "Christian foundation myth" 5 hits on JSTOR. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I got none of this! Really good. Do any say the resurrection is the founding myth? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Not to my limited knowledge. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Some of the hits on gbooks [10] (not that many) may be of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång Whatever search engine you are using it is apparently superior to the three I use. I went back and tried again and none of this came up. Not these books or a single JSTOR article. Could you give the JSTOR titles of what you found so I can go look for them that way? I am reading reading the others. Thank you for this! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I see 22 hits at [11], what do you see? Do you get a different result if you do the same search yourself? I know google shows different stuff depending on geography.

If you log in to JSTOR via WP library, don't you get 5 hits when you search "christian foundation myth"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Whether enough scholars call it "the" foundation myth, the only one, is another matter, and it seems pretty clear to me that saying "this is THE foundation myth of Christianity" suggests that all Christianities are the same, which they are not--the resurrection might be in competition with Abraham's covenant, etc. Anyway, this needs serious sourcing; excellent. Completely agree. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Drmies, tgeorgescu, Gråbergs Gråa Sång,Jeppiz I spent a few hours tonight hunting every way I could think of (on Google scholar) to find any scholarly usage of the term 'myth' as applied to Christianity: myth in Christianity, Christianity's foundation myth, origin myth in Christianity, myth and ritual in Christianity, history and myth in Christianity - well, you get the idea. I found one that actually used the term "Christian foundation myth". This is it: "Where do we meet God? Christianity's foundation myth suggests that we meet God with the poor, the outcast, and the homeless on the edge of civilization, where non-human animals are more at home than human ones". The one source I found for "Christian foundation myth" not only has nothing to do with the resurrection, it describes that myth as something altogether different from this article's claims.

For scholars, myth is generally a synonym for "stories". That isn't what's in this article. The term myth is generally understood differently by ordinary people who assume the term myth means fairy tale, make believe, factually false, something without foundation. I suggest that in this sentence According to R. A. Burridge, the majority consensus among biblical scholars is that the genre of the Gospels is a kind of ancient biography and not myth.[77] the writer of this article uses 'myth' in exactly that manner: biography vs. untrue myth. In the very next sentence, the writer immediately reuses the term saying It is the founding myth of Christianity. Do they now use the term as scholars do, as Frankiel the author of the book cited does? How can an ordinary reader tell what is intended? But worse is the fact that it misrepresents what the source says, which is not that the resurrection is the founding myth, but that the gospels are: The writings that describe Jesus’ life and death, his acts and words, thus provide the founding myths of Christianity. These documents are structurally equivalent to the creation myths of other traditions, for they are the pivot around which the religion turns and to which it returns. This myth or set of myths is the fundamental story, containing the meaning of the religion. The stories of Jesus encapsulate the spiritual truth of Christianity. That is what Frankiel actually says on page 57. She doesn't mention the resurrection. That makes their sentence unverified.

Myth has power and value, and myth as a term is also easily misunderstood, so if we are going to use the term, its particular usage would need to be defined and explained - or it just muddies the waters - and worse, conveys a POV. There is really no good reason to advocate for an unverified claim beyond the desire to convey that POV - which should be avoided. Why not just say story? It is a non-controversial word, npov, needs no defining, and has the benefit of being easily and commonly sourced. Even the source referenced uses it.

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

We all know that from an outside (emic and etic) perspective, it is a myth. But here at Wikipedia we have to WP:CITE WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

What is it exactly that we all know? Which meaning? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

To put it bluntly, myths are someone else's religion. Christians believe that Muhammad ascending to heavens on a flying donkey is a myth and Muslims believe that Jesus's resurrection is a myth. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so you are using it to mean something untrue, but that's a personal judgment call. You have every right to think whatever you please, of course, but it's a personal POV, and that has no place on WP. It doesn't matter how much you agree or disagree, the best we can do is offer the differing views in a neutral encyclopedic manner. Let's work towards that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: I'm not saying to mean something untrue:

Marcus Borg has suggested that "the details of Strauss's argument, his use of Hegelian philosophy, and even his definition of myth, have not had a lasting impact. Yet his basic claims—that many of the gospel narratives are mythical in character, and that 'myth' is not simply to be equated with 'falsehood'—have become part of mainstream scholarship. What was wildly controversial in Strauss's time has now become one of the standard tools of biblical scholars."

— from David Strauss

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 05:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I am familiar with Strauss, and I am familiar with Borg. And I am familiar with double-talk. I have not objected to the use of the term myth, as story, nor have I objected to the idea of a foundation myth. I have objected to them being used incorrectly according to the source they cite. That's all that matters here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Nice to see so many good comments. As said, my intent is not to dispute that the resurrection could be described as myth, but rather to question whether it is accurate (in line with scholarship) to describe it as Christianity's foundation myth. That would seem to apply as much to various other events, such as the crucifixion, or Pentecost; of course it's not for us to say. Overall, foundation myth is rarely applied to religion. The use for the Exodus, that the IP objected to, refers to it's role for the foundation of the Jewish nation, not to the religion of Judaism. Another common examples of foundation myth would include Romulus and Remus, also referring to a people, the Romans, and not to a religion. This is not say it's not possible to find any references to foundation myths of Christianity, but I do not see it being the common terminology, nor any clear case of the resurrection being that foundation myth, if indeed there is one. Jeppiz (talk) 13:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I can't see any room for not concluding you are 100% correct to question whether it is accurate (in line with scholarship) to describe it as Christianity's foundation myth. In my search, The one source I found for "Christian foundation myth" not only has nothing to do with the resurrection, it describes that myth as something altogether different... The source used does not say that resurrection is the foundation myth. That is sufficient all by itself to remove and replace without concern over other issues. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

DefThree I can't say I like dogma much better, but it is better than what was there. Do you have a source that says that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure there are many sources for that, but I don't know whether any would be considered reliable here. DefThree (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

We generally like university press, scholarly journals and similar for stuff like this. Mostly not blogs and wikis. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

DefThree I agree, I am also sure there are many sources, but if we are going to say something that makes a claim about a group - especially in wiki-voice - we have to be careful to have a source that accurately conveys that claim.

When I started here at WP, I was hounded and harassed and stalked by an editor who has since been banned from WP. He required me to source every statement, no matter how accepted or obvious or established it was, to vet who was saying it to show that their opinions mattered, that their scholarship was worthy of being on WP, that their publishers were among the best academic publishers, and if they didn't measure up - which since I was brand new here, they sometimes didn't - he would call what I had written "garbage" and delete it all. He once blanked an entire article that he didn't like after it had it had been put up for deletion and multiple editors said keep it.

But I learned from him. I learned the highest WP standards. He was abusive, and that's why he's gone, but he sure did teach me to cite everything to good sources. Articles I work on now have every sentence I write sourced, to the best sources. And if I forget to attribute, Gråbergs Gråa Sång will come along and hold my feet to the fire. The standards for writing on religion have become more rigorous as time has passed. That's as it should be. It's a controversial topic here on WP, people have strong opinions, and everyone needs to be respected - our readers and those editors here on WP that disagree.

So, the moral of my long-winded story is: source what you say, no matter that it may be obvious to you or even generally accepted. Source everything you say, and make sure to do so accurately. If you can't find a source that says dogma, it can't stay. I'm sorry if that seems unreasonable or harsh, but my old nemesis still sits - in spirit - on my shoulder and harasses me if I fail at upholding this standard.

So far multiple sources saying "The Jesus story is the Christian foundation myth" have been found. None saying the resurrection is have been found, as it is only one aspect of the Jesus story. There is no way to support keeping it, but we must replace it with a seriously sourced statement. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

, me!? Name one time I... Nevermind. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

LOL!!! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Historicity and origin of the resurrection of Jesus

This section is an entirely inadequate discussion imo. I am replacing it with what I hope is a more neutral and more thorough sourced discussion of the current state of scholarship. If anyone objects to anything, please come here, with sources, and we will add whatever you have. Please do not start an edit war over this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I have added the dominant paradigm, according to N.T. Wright. He has an axe to grind against the dominant paradigm, but we are after WP:RS/AC claims. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Does Wright say what he means by "subjective experience"? (According to a very popular school of thought, all experience is subjective). And whose experience, anyway? Achar Sva (talk) 09:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The book describes in another section what that means. Briefly, it is opposed to conceiving the resurrection of Jesus as objective historical fact. But, anyway, I was only interested to know that the "dominant paradigm" rejects the resurrection as historical fact. I will let others fill in the details. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about a "paradigm", but who the heck actually believes that the gospels contain information about historical facts? Dimadick (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

There are nuggets of historical facts, but these need to be examined critically. Anyway, some Christians are still puzzled by the centuries-old fact that post-Enlightenment historians work with methodological naturalism. I mean: the historical method leaves no other option. So, that's Wright's only option: dodge the historical method as far as he can. Proclaiming miracles as real historical facts is not within the purview of historical scholarship. It might well be theological exegesis, but not history. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm puzzled. The sentence you add at the end is essentially the same sentence already in the second paragraph: The predominant natural explanation in secular and some liberal Christian scholarship, is that the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus are explained as visionary experiences, which gave the impetus to the belief in the exaltation of Jesus, and a resumption of the missionary activity of Jesus' followers. Since your addition is a repetition, perhaps you would consider leaving what's there, or maybe combining your phrasing with what's there - or something that isn't repetition.

I would advise removing Wright. This makes it sound as though Wright agrees with this "dominant paradigm", and that's wrong. Wright unequivocally advocates for the historical reality of the resurrection. I'm afraid you - or perhaps the guy you quote - have misunderstood him.Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

As stated above, Wright has an axe to grind against the dominant paradigm. This wasn't misunderstood. But he nevertheless renders the weight of scholarly opinion as in real academia. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: According to James D.G. Dunn, "most biblical scholars believe the weight of historical evidence points in its favor" [points in favor of its historicity]; you can check HERE for information. Potatín5 (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu is quoting Wright as a RS for the current dominant opinion of scholarship, and the quote should definitely stay. It should in fact be the first sentence in the section. Achar Sva (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I'll leave it and move it so it is up front with the rest, and I will add to it, in a scholarly encyclopedic manner. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

tgeorgescu Aside from being wrong, the paragraph on methodological naturalism has been present in this article with no one doing anything about it long before I came along. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

tgeorgescu I'm sorry, my comment here was unclear. It sounds like I am saying methodological naturalism is wrong and I am not. What I do see you as wrong about is Christians not understanding it, and Wright ignoring historical method. Wright is a master historian, philologist and researcher. No review of any of Wright's prolific writings have ever claimed he did poor research. In the book Karkkainen references, Wright spends about 200 pages on the origins and use of a single Greek phrase. That's the kind of work he does. Twenty years teaching at Oxford certainly lend support to his respected status as a scholar.

But I have to say, I did find the sentence on methodological naturalism to be a bit odd and out of place. I left it alone simply because it was already there, but a single sentence on one philosophical approach seems off topic to me. I would be happy to remove it - or you could and I would support that. It isn't really an aspect of historicity - imo.Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind. I removed it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Answer from Dr. Ehrman: I think the theological modes of knowledge are perfectly acceptable and legitimate as theological modes of knowledge. But I think theological claims have to be evaluated on a theological basis. For example, you know the idea that these four facts that Bill keeps referring to showed that God raised Jesus from the dead. You could come up with a different theological view of it. Suppose, for example, to explain those four facts that the God Zulu sent Jesus into the 12th dimension, and in that 12th dimension he was periodically released for return to Earth for a brief respite from his eternal tormentors. But he can't tell his followers about this because Zulu told him that if he does, he'll increase his eternal agonies. So that's another theological explanation for what happened. It would explain the empty tomb, it would explain Jesus appearances.

Is it as likely as God raised Jesus from the dead and made him sit at his right hand; that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob has interceded in history and vindicated his name by raising his Messiah? Well, you might think no, that in fact the first explanation of the God Zulu is crazy. Well, yeah, O.K., it's crazy; but it's theologically crazy. It's not historically crazy. It's no less likely as an explanation for what happened than the explanation that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob raised Jesus from the dead because they're both theological explanations; they're not historical explanations. So within the realm of theology, I certainly think that theology is a legitimate mode of knowledge. But the criteria for evaluating theological knowledge are theological; they are not historical.

Quoted by tgeorgescu. Do you get the point? Jesus has really existed is a historical fact. Jesus was resurrected is a theological belief. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. I have no argument with that last statement, which is a good thing since this is no argument. Zulu is neither historical nor theological. That makes Zulu an Ad Hoc fallacy created through a straw man argument. It is a false dilemma fallacy to think one must choose between the historical and the theological. Take a logic class. At least read a book or two on logical reasoning and fallacies before coming back at me with any more of this kind of garbage. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Watch your mouth, since this kind of garbage comes from a Bible professor having a named chair at a state university from the US Bible Belt. I mean: it sounds like vexatious in fundie land, but not in mainstream academia.

Let me ask you: for whom the resurrection of Jesus holds true? Does it hold true for Jews? Does it hold true for Muslims? Does it hold true for atheists? Does it hold true for Buddhists? Does it hold true for Hindus? Does it hold true for Taoists? Does it hold true for Shintoists? As a rule of thumb, it only holds true for Christians. So it is not an objective historical fact, it is a subjective theological belief.

I'll give you an example of brilliant logic:

All cats are dogs.

All dogs are blue animals.

Therefore, all cats are blue animals.

Impeccable logically, it just does not say anything about reality.

"The resurrection of Jesus did happen" is the sales pitch of Christianity. But it is a fantasy that it would have been objectively shown to be true.

It is a fantasy of Christian apologetics that the resurrection has been shown to be a historical fact. It's an overblown claim of fideist scholars, but in mainstream history it isn't a fact that Jesus got resurrected, it is only a fact that he died (although Muslim fideists have an axe to grind against that).

The view of the resurrection as provable historical fact does not exist outside of a tiny intellectual ghetto, and our article dedicates a lot of space to defending it against the mainstream paradigm. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I haven't followed this discussion in detail, but I notice apologist tones in the section on "Historicity and origin of the resurrection of Jesus." Habermas is not paraphrased correctly when stating

it is also generally accepted that Jesus’ followers believed they had real experiences of the risen Jesus

whereas habermas states

"The vast majority of scholars agree that [Jesus' followers] certainly thought that they had visual experiences of the risen Jesus."

The "and" is WP:SYNTHESIS. The second line, "Almost a dozen different challenges to the historicity of the resurrection have emerged in current scholarship" is also misleading, implying that the resurrection was a historical fact, which is doubted only by recent scholarship (ignorant people of course, as they are not true believers). Note that Habermas is a Christian apologist, who believes in the historicity of the bodily resurrection; not the best source, I think. I'll go through the rest of the section. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: your edits have mostly replicated the info in the next section, on "Physical or spiritual resurrection." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan Hello, and of course you amust edit as you wish. I originally had a larger discussion of the sentence you reference here but that discussion was removed by another author. This sentence, with the "and", is what they left. I left it, because it is an acceptable summary of current scholarship. (Your quote of Habermas is not all he says on the subject, so it is not by itself, a fully accurate description of his views.) But I do not normally use him on ideological issues, and only used him here because his article is an over view of current scholarship. When I do feel compelled to use him, as others before me in this article have done, I shore him up with other authors.

I originally did so here, including statements by others such as E. P. Sanders E.P. Sanders writes, "That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgement, a fact".

Please note the reason the editor who wrote this sentence gives for removal of this content is "There's no need for EP Sanders' personal opinion when we have the general opinion of scholarship". This is the Diff at [12]. The other editor was right in saying that is the general opinion. The debate that follows is over what actually happened and not what they believed happened. The other editor's sentence is accurate as it is stated.

Please refrain from snark and personal commentary on what my personal views might or might not be. That reflects a bias on your part, and aids nothing here. My scholarship is neutral, dependable, accurate, broad and inclusive, and if it is changed, those changes need to be the same.

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

tgeorgescu Premise 1 is a false premise, therefore your conclusion is false. It is not impeccable logic, it is the kind of example of false reasoning that a freshman would get on the first day of logic class. Your Appeal to authority is yet another logical fallacy. Even professors are capable of errors. This is more garbage and an inappropriate discussion for a WP talk page. These are personal attacks. I am asking you politely to stop what should never have started. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Wikipedia is a big appeal to authority, see WP:VERECUNDIAM. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh dear. tgeorgescu Please try and understand that Wikipedia is a proper appeal to the authority of scholars in their fields of study. Wikipedia does not assume that they are never wrong about anything and everything. Recently, several scholars have been discovered to be neo-nazis. Does their authority prove they're right? No. Not all appeals to authority are legitimate nor are all of them fallacies.

You made an appeal to Ehrman's authority as if his position meant he could never have made the logic errors I claimed, and that is a fallacious appeal to authority because it's an authority no human being has, or ever has had, or ever will have. No one has so much authority they are never wrong.

I spent a year studying this in college [13] to get my degree in philosophy, and then more in grad school, and I can see you don't understand what I am talking about, and I'm sorry for that. It doesn't help that you won't let this go. If you want to talk more, email me, but stop posting this stuff here.

Reading this might help: [14]

This one would also help understand Ehrman's response. [15] Attacking me won't put you in the right here. What's right on WP is what's good for the article and this isn't it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

You beg the question that the real existence of Yahweh would be "more proven" than the real existence of Zulu. There is not a shred of evidence for the existence of any of these two gods. And of course, the Word of Allah says that Jesus was never resurrected, since Jesus never died. So, okay, Zulu is an ad hoc hypothesis, but Allah isn't.

Ehrman, Bart D. (1999). Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford University Press. pp. 196–197. ISBN 978-0-19-983943-8. Retrieved 7 December 2022. I should emphasize that historians do not have to deny the possibility of miracles or deny that miracles have actually happened in the past. Many historians, for example, committed Christians and observant Jews and practicing Muslims, believe that they have in fact happened. When they think or say this, however, they do so not in the capacity of the historian, but in the capacity of the believer.

See also https://www.quora.com/How-do-historians-evaluate-miracles-that-the-church-has-verified

Twelftree, Graham H. (2017). The Nature Miracles of Jesus: Problems, Perspectives, and Prospects. Cascade Books. p. 105. ISBN 978-1-4982-1828-3. Retrieved 7 December 2022. We have seen that in the game of the critical historian, proving the historicity of nature miracles might not be part of its rules and assumptions. The reasons are quite simple: the supernatural cannot be proven by the historian ...

Note: Twelftree is in the same camp with N.T. Wright. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Begging the question assumes the conclusion; it is a kind of circular reasoning. Since I have neither said nor implied, anywhere on this talk page, nor in this article, anything representing a conclusion about the real existence of Yaweh, I cannot be the one doing any such thing.

Yes, Zulu is an ad hoc fallacy. Thank you for acknowledging that. It is some small progress at any rate.

The Islamic view - which should be better discussed in this article than it is (I also have an undergraduate degree in world religion) - says Jesus didn't die, which is, as a hypothesis, one of the least probable of all the possible explanations - in the view of historical scholars.

I have made no arguments in favor of miracles, not here, or anywhere else. But if you're going to quote Twelftree, do so fully and fairly. He does say nature miracles are difficult to do anything with from a historical perspective, but the healing miracles he judges as about 40% historically provable. To quote Twelftree's conclusion from his very, very, long book: "From a historically critical examination of the gospels, there is good evidence and grounds for saying that the historical Jesus not only performed miracles, but that he was an extraordinarily powerful healer of unparalleled ability and reputation." pages 344-345. That's not me, that's Twelftree. You're the one who brought him up.

I am often unsure what I think about miracles. Though I did read an intriguing article recently: "Perception and Prosopagnosia in Mark 8:22-26" from Brian Glenney and John Noble. It is the only healing that Jesus did twice. By the standards of historical scholarship it is highly probable this event happened just as described. It's quite unsettling really.

There are no camps tgeorgescu. No one is camping, and if we were, we would just be enjoying nature and each other's company. I would offer you a beer by the fire. Perhaps we would discuss how much we don't know about the universe. We could agree that we don't have to agree on any of this, we just have to agree to treat each other with respect. I don't know everything. You don't know everything. We don't know what any of us might think in ten years. It is unnecessary for you to keep trying to win this argument while I just keep trying to avoid getting sucked into it. I am not doing a very good job of that, so I am going to stop participating altogether. It's the only way to end this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Ehrman never said "The explanation with the god Zulu is true". He just said that it is an example of a theological explanation. So, it is irrelevant that it is an ad hoc hypothesis, since Ehrman never claimed it would be the true explanation. It is just an example in order to learn the difference between a historical explanation and a theological explanation. Being a straw man argument is also irrelevant. It is just a pedagogical example meant to explain an abstract idea.

Further, if the resurrection was real, then Christianity is true. But the problem with that argument is that historians cannot show which is The True Religion™.

And this never was about my own ideas. It is about what the academic mainstream finds. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

"Further, if the resurrection was real, then Christianity is true. " That seems to be a non sequitur at best. Even if some guy was resurrected, that would provide no evidence in support of Christian ideology and superstition. Whether Jesus was resurrected has little relevance to the actual history of Christianity. Christian creeds developed independently from his sayings and may be completely different to whatever he believed in. Dimadick (talk) 10:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Subjective appearances

This is a garbled mess. They have sentences in the wrong places referring to things they don't discuss. There is no explanation of how subjective is used by the scholar referenced. They don't say who the scholars are but describe Habermas as a Christian apologist twice. This section now focuses on one interpretation, which is not even the majority held view right now - that would be grief - which is never mentioned at all. That would allow for a discussion of the medical literature which was also removed along with everything else that actually pertained to historicity. This is not an overview of the scholarship, does not represent the best of WP, and is not good for the encyclopedia. IMO, this is an attempt to present a personal point of view. It cherry picks. Please someone out there be reasonable, neutral and honest about what the scholarship says. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Any historian in the sane mind agrees that historians cannot prove miracles. There are no miracles in World War 2, there are no miracles in the Holocaust, there are no miracles in the British Empire, there are no miracles in the Roman Empire, and so on. To put it otherwise, there is no way to know if miracles ever happened.

And Bible scholars who claim that historians can prove miracles make the whole academic field of Bible scholarship look childish and ridiculous.

It's ridiculous because the same people who grant that there are objectively historical miracles in the Bible deny that there are genuine miracles in Islam, Hinduism, and Rabbinical Judaism. They say those are the work of demons. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

According to which source is 'grief the majority view', and on exactly what? Lüdemann mentions 'grief' as the cause of Peter's visionary experience of Jesus after his death. Which, by the way, is mentioned in the article:

In the twenty-first century, modern scholars such as Gerd Lüdemann have proposed that Peter had a visual hallucination of Jesus, due to severe grief and mourning

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm rather disturbed by Jenhawk's editing - she seems to me to be pushing her own interpretation and distorting what current scholars say. I think she should step back. Achar Sva (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Achar Sva, this is [16]ing and it too needs to stop. Joshua and I are the only ones actually discussing the article. Get back to what's appropriate. I am asking politely yet again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

"she seems to me to be pushing her own interpretation and distorting what current scholars say" This wouldn't be the first case where a Wikipedia editor's personal beliefs interfere with their objectivity. But I would wait for the sources which Jenhawk has in mind to support his/her proposed changes. Dimadick (talk) 10:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Joshua, thank you for actually discussing the article. I wish I had used the reference saying that grief hallucinations were the majority view as now I am having trouble finding it. But that's okay, I don't really care about it specifically, I just want this to represent the broad spectrum of the "dominant paradigm" and to make mention of minority views and the ongoing debate. Thank you for pointing me to Ludeman. I thought he'd been lost.

Your ref is a blog, of course you know that, so you know it's not usable. [Smith, Stephen Harry. "Assessing the Mode of Jesus’s Post-resurrection Appearances: Does Parapsychology Help?." Religion and Theology 26.3-4 (2019): 255-281.] says "the bereavement hallucination hypothesis shows more promise as a viable alternative to the traditional view." but it doesn't say it is the majority view.

This is a good article [Craffert, Pieter. "Jesus' Resurrection in a Social-Scientific Perspective: Is There Anything New to be Said?." Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 7.2 (2009): 126-151.] but it makes no claims concerning majority views either.

This is the best overview I have found so far [Fredriksen, P. (1995). What You See is What You Get: Context and Content in Current Research on the Historical Jesus. Theology Today, 52(1), 75–97. https://doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/004057369505200107]

I have looked at over two dozen sources, skipping over anything by Habermas, Craig, Licona and several others, and am having the devil of a time finding good sources that are not specifically religious. I will keep looking for surveys but for right now, please feel free to ignore that particular complaint. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

tgeorgescu Please stop or I will be forced to take this to Admin. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: About These are personal attacks. Nope, never said above anything about you. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: thank you for your efforts; highly appreciated. 'The majority view' probably is that the post-mortem appearances were visions, not actual, physical appearances; the Wiki-article more or less states this, but I don't recall exactly where or how, except for the lead. Ludemann's explanation is one of the explanations fof these visions. His blog is acceptable as a source, as he is a published and respected author. NB: those 'appearances' could also have been a 'felt presence' (compare Geschwind syndrome, and Ramana Maharshi who felt a 'current' when probably haing an epileptic seizure at age sixteen); a lot of people feel the presence of deceased loved ones, and even talk eith them. Add to this the religious expectations of the pending endtime, and indeed the sense of loss, and you've got a powerfull mix of emotions to induce some very powerfull religious experiences. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

This is plausible, and is indeed the most common current explanation imo, however, there is no corresponding description of a 'felt presence' in any of the Gospels. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

PS: two additional comments:

• To who appeared Jesus first? Peter, or Mary? I'd bet Mary, but Peter took the lead, being a male; Mary, being a woman, had a subordinate position, bout could not be removed from history. Compare Martin luther King's female black secretary, who said to the black gentlemen: 'I'm not going to get you coffee; you do it yourself';
• Paul's interpretations, with the spirit-powered body, and dying with Jesus and rising with Christ, is important for Christian sanctification/theosis and the inner life/contemplation/mysticism: to become like Christ, we have to die to our earthly passions (askese) and arise in/with pneuma, and do God's will on earth: love thy neighbor.

I'll take a look at the sources you found. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

PS2: the Wiki-article takes a nuanced look at the relevance of the resurrection (experiences); where for (a segment of) contemporary Christians the relevance is in literal bodily resurrection (departing from Paul, it seems), the relevance for Jesus' followers was in the continuation of Jesus' mission': the proclamation of the coming endtime and the Kingdom come, and the forgiving of sins. It's only with Paul that 'died for our sins' takes on a more central meaning, and then, still, Paul's stance was further interpreted - et cetera et cetera. 'Bodily resurrection yes or no' is a simplification, which misses the real relevance. But that's my opinion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

While I had not heard of Geschwind syndrome before, its description does not seem all that promising in explaining what Jesus' followers experienced. Feeling intense religious feelings and having ecstatic experiences would not explain an auditory-visual hallucination that is shared by an entire social group. The article on religious delusion suggests a large number of different causes, such as psychotic depression. Dimadick (talk) 11:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

"They have sentences in the wrong places" Who is "they"? Dimadick (talk) 10:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The editor who wrote the section. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Cor 15:3-11 interpolation?

Maybe for future usage: [17] [18] [19]. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan Yes, imo, this theory of interpolation should be mentioned. It is a minority view - Ehrman dates the text to within a couple years of Jesus' death - so it should be identified as such, but should be included. There are multiple arguments against this theory,[20] but none of them need to be mentioned in the article, imo. It is sufficient to mention the theory and say this is a minority view. It's kind of a personal policy of mine to mention everything the scholars do as much as possible.

Normally I would say that when dealing with things that are heavily debated by scholars, write pro/con, pro/con, from majority down to minority views, to be sure everyone is fairly and accurately represented. But in this case there is no heavy debate. The majority view is against a later interpolation, but should still be mentioned.

It isn't always necessary to include a full discussion. When there are simply too many issues, I pick what seems like a representative sample. For example, the "Jesus didn't die" scenario of the empty tomb was already in the historicity section, so I added the minority response, in my usual pro/con. I did not attempt to discuss all the theories and their responses.

I added Wright's summary of 6 challenges, but I did not attempt to include responses to each one there either, just writing one sentence that Wright asserts there are answers to each.

That's just how I go about attempting to ensure neutrality. I'm sure you have your own methods for keeping personal bias in check. But yes, I agree, these views should be included in order to insure a fair representation of what all the many scholars have to say on the entire subject. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I'm not even sure it should be mentioned, at least not here, since it is such a tiny minority view. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I guess that's a personal call based on how much detail you want to include. I tend toward more detail if I can summarize it without putting the reader to sleep. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

1 Corinthians 15#Origins of the creed would be the appropriate place; it even states even skeptical scholars agree that the creed in 1 Corinthians 15 is not an interpolation, without explaining why it could be an interpolation. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Sounds appropriate to me. The pro/con combination would make a nice short paragraph. Good research! Well done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)