Talk:Resurrection of Jesus - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mangoe (talk | contribs) at 14:56, 1 March 2013 (→All very well, in it's way, but: I don't know why we have to go over these very basic metaphysical points, but...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:56, 1 March 2013 by Mangoe (talk | contribs) (→All very well, in it's way, but: I don't know why we have to go over these very basic metaphysical points, but...)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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 article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Christianity: Bible / Jesus / Theology / Catholicism / Eastern O. Top‑importance

	Christianity portal This 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Bible portal This article is supported by WikiProject Bible.
	This article is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.
	This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as Top-importance).
	Catholic Church portal This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy.

Tip: #section links are case-sensitive on most browsers

Links from this article with broken #section links :
], ]

You can remove this template after fixing the problems | FAQ | Report a problem

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Untitled

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.

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 16:49, 19 February 2013 (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... 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 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 , 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

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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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. 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. 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)

Categories: