Talk:Resurrection of Jesus - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 04:28, 6 January 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 8 WikiProject template(s). Merge {{VA}} into {{WPBS}}. Keep the rating of {{VA}} "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove the same ratings as {{WPBS}} and keep different ratings in {{WikiProject Christianity}}, {{WikiProject Death}}, {{WikiProject Religion}}, {{WikiProject Judaism}}, {{WikiProject Islam}}, {{WikiProject Ancient Near East}}, {{WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome}}, {{Wikiproject mythology}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:28, 6 January 2024 by Cewbot (talk | contribs) (Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 8 WikiProject template(s). Merge {{VA}} into {{WPBS}}. Keep the rating of {{VA}} "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove the same ratings as {{WPBS}} and keep different ratings in {{WikiProject Christianity}}, {{WikiProject Death}}, {{WikiProject Religion}}, {{WikiProject Judaism}}, {{WikiProject Islam}}, {{WikiProject Ancient Near East}}, {{WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome}}, {{Wikiproject mythology}}.)(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

level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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

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.

Associated task forces:
/
	Bible portal This article is supported by WikiProject Bible (assessed as High-importance).
	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.
	Latter Day Saints portal This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (assessed as High-importance).

Death High‑importance

	This 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion: Interfaith Top‑importance

	Religion portal This 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Judaism Top‑importance

	Judaism portal This 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Islam Top‑importance

	Islam portal This 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ancient Near East Top‑importance

	This 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Top‑importance

	This 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mythology Top‑importance

	Mythology portal This 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
Top	This 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: