Talk:Resurrection of Jesus

message: — Assignment last updated by Ddarco (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Language in Advertising

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Post-resurrection appearances of Jesus 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bad grammar 

message: These edits diff copied a large chunk of text from :Vision theory of Jesus' appearances, with the argument
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:
That suffices; not everyone in this world is Christian. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[WP:UNDUE]] copying from [[Vision theory of Jesus' appearances]]