Talk:Resurrection of Jesus/Archive 4

message: I noticed the use of the fleur-de-lys symbol here. The caption mentions a peculiar "Trinity" which makes little sense.  I couldn't think of a good caption; I would suggest a different image be used. A fleur-de-lys is established in regard to Gabriel at the annunciation, but that's not what this article seems to be about. Something like this or this or this would seem a more relevant image. Also, footnotes go immediately after punctuation like this,after never before like thisbefore. Gimmetrow 04:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers... I'd been wondering what the appropriate way to cite was. As for the images you suggested, I like them. The article currently has: 5 medieval paintings, 2 photos, 1 negative and one symbol (the Fleur-de-lys) I added the four non-painting images recently. I worded the Fleur-de-lys caption in a subtle way, I mean it more in the sense of "the resurrection has in important place in culture". If you do feel that the article is better without it, then WP:BB. Personally, I would like to see either of the Bramberg images in the article (it's better to not have two by the same artist).A J Hay 09:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fleur-de-lys and footnotes 

message: This has gotten ridiculous. It is extremely POV to say a word that has multiple translations is mistranslated if we have verifiable sources that translate it in this way. The best thing we can do is say "X says B, while Z says Z." This is the essence of the NPOV policy. We don't make unqualified, unsources statements as if they are facts if they are disputed. Even if we personally know The True meaning behind these words, because there are so many prevelent POVs that dispute this claim ( in addition to all those cited bibles) , wikipedia MUST acknowledge both sides. NPOV 101. On top of that, I think this debate doesn't belong in the caption of an image. Is there anything we can do to work this out?--Andrew c 05:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Andrew about the ridiculousness of the matter. The image should simply be removed, since it represents an episode that never occurred, and yet has been presented in the article as "one of the most striking accounts of the Gospel of John."  It is not in the Gospel of John.  What Jesus said, according to , was:  (Do not keep touching/holding/clinging to me").  Greek distinguishes between a continuous and a momentary action.  To illustrate the distinction, grammars of ancient Greek often give two Greek phrases that differ only in the form of the verb "to steal", but one "Do not steal" means merely "Don't steal this", while the other "Do not steal" (continuous) means "Don't be a thief."  The distinction is very much alive also in modern Greek.  Latin does not make this distinction, and so the old Vulgate version translated the phrase in John 20:17 as "Noli me tangere."  The translators of the King James Version did not advert to the Greek distinction and, perhaps influenced by the familiar Latin translation, put "Touch me not."  No serious scholar denies that this was a mistake.  All new English translations have corrected the mistake.  Even some that are based on the KJB, such as the New King James Version.  Even the Latin text has been corrected.  Just look up the text of the revised Vulgate on the Vatican website, and you will find that "Noli me tangere" has been replaced by "Iam noli me tenere."  What is truly ridiculous is to have an anonymous editor (with a very familiar ISP number) saying that to point this out constitutes "original research".  Indeed, Andrew too seems to say the same thing.  Aren't the modern translations that I have quoted "reliable sources"?  Who now disputes that the Greek does not refer to a mere touch?  Apart, that is, from people who seem to think the King James Version is the inspired word of God, and from some other people who have obviously never really studied the matter.  Lima 07:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The reference that Andrew gave says nothing whatever of the meaning of the present/imperfect imperative (keep touching), as distinct from the aorist imperative (touch momentarily), and so is not at all à propos.  What is POV is to say either explicitly or implicitly that  can be (rather than just "has been") translated as "Don't touch me", especially if no indication is given that the correctness of that translation is nowadays generally denied.  Lima 08:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Touch me not

message: :Some scholars, such as Ken Olson speculate that Eusebius of Caesarea was the author of the alleged forgery
Just wondering who the other scholars are;  Lostcaesar 10:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am the one who reverted to the previous version. My edit summary was v, this theory has been aroudn[sic] since at least 1842, while a terrible online source by itself, there are some sources that meet RS and V mentioned http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm. I'm not saying their arguments are good, or that they are top not scholars or anything like that. Just that Ken Olson didn't event this idea. I think Meiers put it best, when commenting on the claim that Origen might have been the forger, that it is nearly impossible to find the culprit, when most likely each interpolation was added, possibly as a marginal note or gloss, by different Christian scribes over quite a bit of time.--Andrew c 15:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what makes me uncomfortable is that this looks like a cheap shot at Eusebius by a bunchof crackpots.  It is mildly troublesome to me that an article here would so hastily jump from the legitimate and respectiable discussion of the interpolation to suddenly grasping onto this kind of theory.  To me its like a discussion of the pyrmaids that talks about their massive size and skill in construction for the age, then says "some scholars, like soandso, argue that aliens built the pyramids".  I won't lose any sleep over it, but I think it just makes the article poorer.  Lostcaesar 16:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the discussion of the authorship of the TF is not really appropriate for this article. I also think we may be giving too much weight to the Eusebius view. I, however, disagree that simply crackpots hold this view. I would not be opposed to removing the sentence completely. The previous sentence says as much as the reader really needs to know for this particular discussion for this article.--Andrew c 00:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: sounds like a fine idea; Lostcaesar 00:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eusebius and Josephus 

message: Someone has recreated the Death of Jesus article. Should we re-merge the articles, or spinout content from this article and create two seperate articles (one on death, one on resurrection)? or what. I really wish users would look at past conversation, and talk things out before rehashing disputes from 3 months ago.--Andrew c 01:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you will read below, I have NPOV concerns over the present article. My view is that we should go with two articles. They deal with different, albeit linked, events, and it will be easier to achieve NPOV. Also the new Death article does seem to put the various scenarios in a clearer fashion than is done here. BlueValour 01:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have concerns over the article as well, notably that it includes the religous POV's, but not the historical and archaeological POV. But as for the merge, I support it, because the other article has no citations.--Sefringle 22:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death of Jesus 

message: I am concerned that what seems to me to be a wholly factual sentence "It is important to note that no historical account of the resurrection exists outside of religious texts." has been removed without comment on here.
Further, the accurate statement "Almost all non-Christians do not accept the bodily resurrection of Jesus. They therefore deny the resurrection as a form of myth." Goes on to say "People can, however, still find a meaning in the text, for instance Carl Jung suggests that the crucifixion-resurrection story was the forceful spiritual symbol of, literally, God-as-Yahweh becoming God-as-Job." which is watering down another factual statement with a POV. In my view "People can, however, still find a meaning in the text, for instance" is a non sequitur with the reference and should come out.
I should welcome comments since I see no reason why both these changes should not be made. BlueValour 01:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the light of comment by another editor I am amending the statement I should like to see included to "No historical account of the resurrection exists outside of religious texts." dropping "It is important to note that". BlueValour 02:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the phrasing is still problematic, because it confuses the concepts of "historical accounts" and "religious texts". I think phrasing this in a positive manner might be better, such as "Accounts of the resurrection are only found in religious texts". We aren't making a negative claim, and we aren't saying whether or not these accounts are historical. But I still feel it would help to contextualize this claim. I'd suggest finding a scholar who states this 'fact', and briefly explain why this scholar feels it is important. Why should it matter if this account is only found in religious texts? 99% of the information dealing with Jesus is found solely in religious texts. I'm not sure how important this information is, and what exactly it is trying to accomplish. Filtering it through a scholarly interpretation, and adding a citation might help. --Andrew c 02:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: As I commented above, I have taken the well made point that "It is important to note that" was an inappropriate construction for the reasons you state. BlueValour 03:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The statement seems pointless to me.  If you think that the resurrection is a religious event, then any text mentioning it would therefore be a religious text.  So all we have here is a circular statement.  And we haven't asked whether such a religious text could also be historical, so unless we answer that question, the real one, then we have said nothing. Its like saying "Christian scholars think Jesus rose from the dead..." - well yeah, if you think he rose from the dead, you're likely to convert; that says nothing about why you think he did, which is the real matter.  Lostcaesar 08:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I wonder, what is the source of the statement "The Roman Catholic view is that Jesus willingly sacrificed himself as an act of perfect obedience as a Substitutionary atonement, a sacrifice of love which pleased God. This pleased God more than the disobedience of Adam, and thus cleansing Mankind of the stain of original sin."  I think that many people see Jesus' sacrifice of his life as a model of love for the world to follow, not as a sacrifice to appease God.  In this sense, it seems as though Jesus is just a medium for salvation, and although this may be symbolic in the Jewish tradition, it doesn't seem like the true point of the crucifixion.  This idea of Jesus as a sacrifice to appease God for Adam's sin makes God seem like a dictator of humanity, having complete control over our lives and fate, which seems to contradict the Church's teachings of God as a forgiving being whom humans can "take or leave."  I don't wish for this to be a philosophical discussion, I'm just concerned with the validity of the statement that the Church teaches what I have quoted from the article, but since I don't have access to Church documents that would clear this up, so could this please be investigated?The Edit0r 03:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its off as well.  Lostcaesar 03:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to rephrase it in a reliable way source it from here, the Vatican's own website. BlueValour 04:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Through Jesus' teachings, one can find the path to salvation. Jesus came to reestablish correct religion. As a result of upsetting the Jewish orthodoxy, Jesus gets cruxified. Jesus knew that coming to Jerusalem was risky for him, ergo by going to Jerusalem Jesus shows willingness to risk his own neck to preach his Gospel. The cruxifiction and resulting suffering means Jesus factually sacrificed his body to bring his teachings to the people. Whether Jesus died on the cross or not, he put his own safety at risk for God (pleasing God). A sacrifice he had made because of the sins of others who distorted the scriputres. Ergo if anyone wishes to be saved, they must put themselves on the line for God also (just as James the Just did). One can be saved only if you follow the example of Jesus. After all, each human is free thinking (self reasoning), and therefore responsible for their own sins. Every human must assert full rational control over their own base desires for power and ego, and instead accept willingly subserviance/obedience to God. It is Eve and Adams desire to know all God knows and have Gods power which constitutes the original sin. God is not a dictator in the sense of a human dictator. If Hitler truely did know everything, and could see and know every thought in every heart, we may have accepted him as a legitamate leader! God does not make one accept his authority (although factually one has no choice as we live in a world under his direct and indirect control). God does have complete control over individual fate, its just that he chooses not exercise it because he wishes all souls to accept him willingly. Its all down to interpretation of the scriptures. If you wish to believe that God is a callous omnipotent being, then you would naturally agree with Eve about eating the apple, and you would be against the teachings of Jesus. You can take or leave the teachings of God (as you put it), but if you leave them, you put yourself at the mercy of both natures rules/regulations that control our environments and the rules of society (which come from religion). There is always consequences for the values one adopts, hence there is always suffering when one's actions cause the consternation of others. A Christian must be able to willingly accept suffering from others who hate their ethos and wish it to be extinguished.86.4.59.203 02:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus as a sacrifice to pacify God? 

message: Whats your problem man its the way the Bible tells us not no twins Jesus was ressurected so stop trying to ruin something perfect with all your weird theories.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.110.167.93 (talk • contribs).
::The Roman bible is like a cake reciepe that only derives from an original cake reciepe taught by one man (Jesus), but alas Jesus never wrote it down himself. Jesus showed some of his friends (discipes and roadies) how to make the cake, but each one remembered only some of the reciepe. These diciples then taught their friends whom told their friends etc till one day some of the literate students wrote down what they were told was the correct reciepe. So the perfect cake reciepe passed down firstly by word of mouth, and then only later written down by many people in many different ways. Then disputes arise amoung the many friends as which written accounts of the reciepe's were correct and which were mistakes. Disputes even arose as to the interpretation of the same passages. So the perfect reciepe has been lost/buried in a giant game of Chinese whispers. That means the reciepe in the Roman bible is likely no more or less perfect than the Gnostic, or Ebonite, or Manichean, or the Islamic views concerning Jesus. The roman bible is one book, supporting one view point. Even the 4 gospels in it don't reach agreements on all the details hence how can it be viewed as perfect? Also, the English version of the bible derives from Aramaic/Greek/Hebrew scriptures translated into Latin and then into English. Transiliteration disputes were rife, making it difficult to know the precise meaning of words like Resurection, Nazarene/Nazareth etc. The bible is one of the most contentious books ever compiled as even experts can't agree with each other. It is perfect, like a smashed mirror!86.4.59.203 23:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anon's comment

message: I removed things that have been tagged for a long time. Please do not restore this content without providing a citation:
*This pleased God more than the disobedience of Adam, and thus cleansing Mankind of the stain of original sin.
* The largest obstacle this theory faces is that Roman soldiers could be punished by death if ever they allow a crucified man to live, and were thus likely to ensure that Jesus really was dead.
* though apologists claim that a highly disputed passage claiming to be by Tacitus alludes to this.
*Saint James the Just is often considered the eldest half brother of Jesus,, also . and according to some traditions did not believe that Jesus was the Son of God until the resurrection. He later became the first Bishop of Jerusalem, and is the most likely author a small part of the bible, the Epistle of James.
*Some scholars have even argued that Mark never originally contained a resurrection narrative at all, and that the original ending was one which came to embarrass the Church when the theology of a resurrection began to circulate, hence the text was altered to suit. Those scholars who argue that the resurrection was not mentioned in Mark, also argue that the variation is due to the resurrection accounts in the other Gospels also being later, artificial, additions. 
Thanks-Andrew c 18:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  fact tagged content