Misplaced Pages

Talk:Resurrection of Jesus: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:56, 1 March 2013 editMangoe (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users34,835 edits →All very well, in it's way, but: I don't know why we have to go over these very basic metaphysical points, but...← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:26, 4 April 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,815,464 editsm Remove unknown param from WP Religion: InterfaithImpTag: AWB 
(673 intermediate revisions by 91 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}} {{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Top|theology-work-group=yes|theology-importance=Top|jesus-work-group=yes|eastern-orthodoxy=yes|eastern-orthodoxy-importance=|catholicism=yes|catholicism-importance=Top|bible=yes|bible-importance=high|latter-day-saint-movement= yes |latter-day-saint-movement-importance= High}}
{{WikiProject Christianity
|class=B|importance=Top {{WikiProject Death|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=top|Interfaith=yes}}
|theology-work-group=yes|theology-importance=Top
{{WikiProject Judaism|importance=top}}
|core-topics-work-group=yes|core-topics-importance=high
|jesus-work-group=yes|jesus-importance=Top {{WikiProject Islam|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Ancient Near East|importance=top}}
|eastern-orthodoxy=yes|eastern-orthodoxy-importance
{{WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome|importance=top}}
|catholicism=yes|catholicism-importance=Top
|bible=yes|bible-importance= {{WikiProject Mythology|importance=top}}
|core-topics-work-group = yes|core-topics-importance=low
}}
}} }}
{{User:WildBot/m04|sect={{User:WildBot/m03|1|Nashim#Ketubot .28.22Prenuptial agreements.22.29|Ketubot}}, {{User:WildBot/m03|1|Nashim#Yevamot .28.22Brothers-in-law.22.29|Yebamoth}}|m04}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 5 |counter = 9
|minthreadsleft = 3 |minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(30d) |algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Resurrection of Jesus/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Resurrection of Jesus/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Archives |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=1 |units=month |index= }}


==Wiki Education assignment: Language in Advertising==
== Untitled ==
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/University_of_New_Mexico/Language_in_Advertising_(Spring_2023) | assignments = ] | start_date = 2023-01-17 | end_date = 2023-05-11 }}


<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 18:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)</span>
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.


== Post-resurrection appearances of Jesus ==
== Archives ==
{{archive top}}
A few months ago one user deleted the content of the article ''']''' and replaced it with a redirect to ], without any previous discussion, claiming in the edit summary that it was "same topic, same coverage". This is unacceptable and it should never happen again. ] (]) 21:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


:What exactly is "unacceptable"? To cover the same topic on two separate pages, and force editor's to do the same edit twice? ] -] 04:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
For earlier discussion, see:
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


:As in: having the same discussion at two places: ]. Please stick to one thread}}. ] -] 04:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
== Reliable source for the permanence of death ==
{{archive bottom}}


== First to see resurrected Jesus ==
History2000, can you tell me what you consider a "reliable source."? Also, what the book you used in place of my sources actually says? ] (]) 00:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


The first to see Jesus after his resurrection was Mary of Magadala. ] (]) 03:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
:Please see ]. Those websites are not ] in general and also subject to ], so books by good publishers are better. Your statement was, however, correct. But per ] correct means very little and sources rule. I added an RS source anyway, and made it 4 pagars per ]. 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. ] (]) 00:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


== Bad grammar ==
::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. ] (]) 00:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


Does anybody else realize that this sentence lacks a ]?
:::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 ]. 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 ] so we do not inadvert step over it. ] (]) 00:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
<blockquote>In secular and liberal Christian scholarship asserts that religious experiences, such as the visionary appearances of Jesus and an inspired reading of the Biblical texts, gave the impetus to the belief in the exaltation of Jesus as a "fulfillment of the scriptures," and a resumption of the missionary activity of Jesus's followers.</blockquote>


I think the word "Christian" could be changed to "Christianity", and then "scholarship" would become the subject of the sentence. But as it stands, "In secular and liberal Christian scholarship" is a prepositional phrase, and the sentence has a predicate but no subject. ] (]) 17:48, 7 August 2023 (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 ] 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 ] 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. ] (]) 00:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


== ] copying from ] ==
:::::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". ] (]) 13:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


These edits copied a large chunk of text from ], with the argument
I'm going to restore my sources. Please give a better explanation, if you revert me. ] (]) 05:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
{{talkquote| The previous layout seemed very unbalanced with two blocks of arguments on why the resurrection was just down to visions without much relation to the topic of Christology. I pasted sections from the Vision theory of Jesus' appearances page to balance out the points from both sides of the debate.}}
This is ]. The section ] explains that the devotion of Jesus as Christ was a most significance change in the attitude of the disciples, and it explains that religious experiencez played a significant role in this change. Singling-out the notion of visionary experiences bypasses this change, and the relevance of religious experience; instead, the focus is shifted to an apology of Christian beliefs.<br>
The article already refers extensively to a limited number of Christian apologists; in the lead, the orthodox view is stated first, where-after the liberal and secular view is stated; the section ] states:
{{talkquote|For orthodox Christians, including some scholars, the resurrection is taken to have been a concrete, material resurrection of a transformed body. Craig L. Blomberg argues there are sufficient arguments for the historicity of the resurrection.<br>
In secular and liberal Christian scholarship, the post-resurrection appearances are often explained as subjective visionary experiences in which Jesus's presence was felt, as articulated in the vision theory of Jesus's appearances. In the twenty-first century, modern scholars such as Gerd Lüdemann have proposed that Peter had a vision of Jesus, due to severe grief and mourning. Ehrman notes that "Christian apologists sometimes claim that the most sensible historical explanation for these visions is that Jesus appeared to the disciples."}}
That suffices; not everyone in this world is Christian. ] - ] 07:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


:The section goes out of its way to argue for the vision hypothesis. While I'm all for it being put forward, there should at least be some comment by critics of the said hypothesis to make the section more inclusive. ] (]) 13:25, 22 November 2023 (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 ] not just this specific page about one specific case. Why didn't you add it there instead of here? You know why. And per ] and ], 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. ] (]) 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? ] <sup> ]</sup> 16:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC) ::For example, it cites Craig Blomberg as saying there are sufficient arguments, but it doesn't cite any, meanwhile the article cares to go out of its way to argue for the vision hypothesis. That's WP:UNDUE. ] (]) 13:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

:::This is Misplaced Pages. 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... ] (]) 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 ], but another source would be needed - the source cited doesn't support the statement "resurrection is impossible." ] <sup>]</sup> 17:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

:Right. I tried to say that at the top, but you actually said it better... ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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). ] (]) 03:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

::::: I was not going to be bothered arguing about it with you. Regarding 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 ] applies now in any case. ] (]) 04:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

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


::::That orthodox/conservative Christians believe in a bodily resurrection is made overly clear in the article; the liberal point of view, let alone the non-Christian (atheist) view is largely neglected. Copying the whole Criticism-section of the Vision-article is undue apologetics. ] - ] 15:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::You miss my point. I'm all for representing non-Christian views, but that section was just a constructed argument on why Ehrman thinks it was down to purely visions, and as I pointed out about Blomberg, there is no balance. There should either be separate arguments representing both sides of the debate, a paragraph noting scholars sceptical of Ehmrman under his argument (such as Wright), or simply remove the debate altogether and simply state that some scholars argue for the vision hypothesis or bodily resurrection. If any point of view is neglected it is in fact the Christian one, since you're not allowing points in favor of it. ] (]) 19:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::This isn't any attempt at any pushy apologetics, you just can't have one case put forward without any other competing ones, or at the very least criticism of the said case. If this were the other way around and the section was only a case for a bodily resurrection I would be citing arguments for the vision hypothesis instead. Its all about balance. ] (]) 19:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
{{od}} {{od}}
I think you miss a point here. The section is about the origins of Christ devotion; none of your scholars has anything to say about that, in contrast to Hurtado. And, as I noted before, this article is already dominated by 'conservative' views. ] - ] 20:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree with ], ] and ], 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 ], I doubt this is the article to which people come to learn what happens to the body after ].] (]) 15:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

:Agreed with ], ], ] and ]. 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. ] (]) 16:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

::The subject of its historicity is in the lead. ] (]) 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?] (]) 15:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

{{od}}
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. ] (]) 15:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

::If you don't like being called dishonest, then stop being dishonest. YOU added the Porter reference , not me. You used it to support the text that you now suddenly oppose. Oh, and I am not a "fellow." ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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." ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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] (]) 16:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

How about we put it like " according to medicine and biology, resurrections from the dead are considered impossible ? " <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:I think the general agreement is to just drop it. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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... ] (]) 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 ]? Or, "according to DNA analysys, elephant people doesn't exist in ]? Come on.... ] <sup> ]</sup> 21:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

::::If those articles suggest otherwise, as this one does, then yes. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 13:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

:Would you accept stating in the lead of ] that the existence of the unicorn is miraculous? This article suggests that the resurrection is factual. ] (]) 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. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

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

So, the article is correct as written. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

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

The burden to explain is on the person who wants to add the material. ] <sup>]</sup> 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. ] (]) 23:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
:::Maybe I've misunderstood you. Is there some change you want to make to the article? ] <sup>]</sup> 03:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

::::I want to add the material I added, which you deleted. 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. ] (]) 04:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

:::::I'd have to see such a source. What's used to support that statement in ]? 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. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

::::::This is going in circles. My response to your comment about Xian belief is: True. So? ] (]) 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. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

::::::::Christians believe Jesus was resurrected. Other beliefs about whether Jesus was resurrected are allowed. Compare to ]. ] (]) 18:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
I don't have a problem if you agree to put the statement in the "" 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". ] <sup> ]</sup> 20:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

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

::"The unicorn is a legendary animal" ."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.''] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 18:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::Not *all* other sources. ] applies. We have no obligation or desire to represent crank minority views (except in articles about those views). ] (]) 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 ] 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 ] 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. ] (]) 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, ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 14:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:26, 4 April 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Resurrection of Jesus article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconChristianity: Bible / Jesus / Theology / Catholicism / Eastern O. / Latter Day Saints Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Bible (assessed as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconDeath High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconReligion: Interfaith Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.
WikiProject iconJudaism Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIslam Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAncient Near East Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ancient Near East–related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconClassical Greece and Rome Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Misplaced Pages's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMythology Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education assignment: Language in Advertising

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 11 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ddarco (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ddarco (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Post-resurrection appearances of Jesus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A few months ago one user deleted the content of the article Post-resurrection appearances of Jesus and replaced it with a redirect to Resurrection of Jesus#Biblical accounts, without any previous discussion, claiming in the edit summary that it was "same topic, same coverage". This is unacceptable and it should never happen again. SanctumRosarium (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

What exactly is "unacceptable"? To cover the same topic on two separate pages, and force editor's to do the same edit twice? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
As in: having the same discussion at two places: Talk:Post-resurrection appearances of Jesus#Redirect. Please stick to one thread}}. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

First to see resurrected Jesus

The first to see Jesus after his resurrection was Mary of Magadala. 65.186.177.151 (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Bad grammar

Does anybody else realize that this sentence lacks a subject?

In secular and liberal Christian scholarship asserts that religious experiences, such as the visionary appearances of Jesus and an inspired reading of the Biblical texts, gave the impetus to the belief in the exaltation of Jesus as a "fulfillment of the scriptures," and a resumption of the missionary activity of Jesus's followers.

I think the word "Christian" could be changed to "Christianity", and then "scholarship" would become the subject of the sentence. But as it stands, "In secular and liberal Christian scholarship" is a prepositional phrase, and the sentence has a predicate but no subject. Kk.urban (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE copying from Vision theory of Jesus' appearances

These edits diff copied a large chunk of text from Vision theory of Jesus' appearances, with the argument

The previous layout seemed very unbalanced with two blocks of arguments on why the resurrection was just down to visions without much relation to the topic of Christology. I pasted sections from the Vision theory of Jesus' appearances page to balance out the points from both sides of the debate.

This is WP:UNDUE. The section Resurrection of Jesus#Christ-devotion explains that the devotion of Jesus as Christ was a most significance change in the attitude of the disciples, and it explains that religious experiencez played a significant role in this change. Singling-out the notion of visionary experiences bypasses this change, and the relevance of religious experience; instead, the focus is shifted to an apology of Christian beliefs.
The article already refers extensively to a limited number of Christian apologists; in the lead, the orthodox view is stated first, where-after the liberal and secular view is stated; the section Resurrection of Jesus#Foundation of faith states:

For orthodox Christians, including some scholars, the resurrection is taken to have been a concrete, material resurrection of a transformed body. Craig L. Blomberg argues there are sufficient arguments for the historicity of the resurrection.
In secular and liberal Christian scholarship, the post-resurrection appearances are often explained as subjective visionary experiences in which Jesus's presence was felt, as articulated in the vision theory of Jesus's appearances. In the twenty-first century, modern scholars such as Gerd Lüdemann have proposed that Peter had a vision of Jesus, due to severe grief and mourning. Ehrman notes that "Christian apologists sometimes claim that the most sensible historical explanation for these visions is that Jesus appeared to the disciples."

That suffices; not everyone in this world is Christian. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The section goes out of its way to argue for the vision hypothesis. While I'm all for it being put forward, there should at least be some comment by critics of the said hypothesis to make the section more inclusive. Divus303 (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
For example, it cites Craig Blomberg as saying there are sufficient arguments, but it doesn't cite any, meanwhile the article cares to go out of its way to argue for the vision hypothesis. That's WP:UNDUE. Divus303 (talk) 13:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
That orthodox/conservative Christians believe in a bodily resurrection is made overly clear in the article; the liberal point of view, let alone the non-Christian (atheist) view is largely neglected. Copying the whole Criticism-section of the Vision-article is undue apologetics. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
You miss my point. I'm all for representing non-Christian views, but that section was just a constructed argument on why Ehrman thinks it was down to purely visions, and as I pointed out about Blomberg, there is no balance. There should either be separate arguments representing both sides of the debate, a paragraph noting scholars sceptical of Ehmrman under his argument (such as Wright), or simply remove the debate altogether and simply state that some scholars argue for the vision hypothesis or bodily resurrection. If any point of view is neglected it is in fact the Christian one, since you're not allowing points in favor of it. Divus303 (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
This isn't any attempt at any pushy apologetics, you just can't have one case put forward without any other competing ones, or at the very least criticism of the said case. If this were the other way around and the section was only a case for a bodily resurrection I would be citing arguments for the vision hypothesis instead. Its all about balance. Divus303 (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I think you miss a point here. The section is about the origins of Christ devotion; none of your scholars has anything to say about that, in contrast to Hurtado. And, as I noted before, this article is already dominated by 'conservative' views. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Categories: