Talk:Stolen body hypothesis

message: The Resurrection of Jesus can be controversial to some non-Christians. Therefore, this article has suffered several revisions of abuse. I want to remind the Wiki Community to reference your material. Opinions need to be sourced by recognized material (Scripture or otherwise).   —Preceding unsigned comment added by HBCALI (talk • contribs) 13:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Abuse 

message: All Good points about the article. However, I have one issue about the "Scriptural Sources" comment. Many manuscripts of the Gospels (in existence) have been historically dated within the lifetime of the original authors. The oldest date to 40-70 C.E. (portions of John & Luke). While most others date to around 200 - 300 years after the Apostles. That's about the same distance in time between Present Day and the Revolutionary War. We don't doubt the major events that took place during the war, even though we record them in modern history books almost 300 years later. What's my point? A span of 200+ years (of itself) has not proven to pose a problem with "factual integrity" or reliable record keeping. 
Let's be open and honest. The "Integrity of Scripture" aurgument is based largely on personal opinion. There is no concrete evidence that the Biblical text has been "degraded" or "altered" from it's original form. We simply have no proof of that. In contrast, an honest, academic and unbiased investigation will show that the Biblical text has been very well preserved throughout the centuries. Even many non-Christians can agree on this point.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.242.1.50 (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  RELIABILITY OF THE TEXT 

message: I've added the above tag due to a general lack of neutrality, despite the edit that someone used to try and remove some of the bias. This article could also be classified as being very controversial, however I lack the specialist knowledge to update and resolve the potential issues in this entry. --82.152.4.187 16:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV check and unreferenced tags

message: The last paragraph is totally unnecessary and irrelevant, and the one before that needs to be better written and more clear, descriptive, and detailed. I'm sure there are more things wrong with this section. I may try to clean it up in the near future. -EdGl 04:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup Section 

message: :This article fails NPOV horribly; all of the evidence supposedly levelled against this hypothesis relies on using the Bible as fact. Titanium Dragon 00:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've added a POV-warning for the reasons you already described. The article is terribly biased and needs balancing. 62.1.168.3 (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not NPOV 

message: The first question arising here is: until when were the guards told to deny entry to the tomb to anybody? 
Till the Sabbath ends?
If so, anybody (or some people who were authorized to enter the tomb, eg. Joseph of Arimathea, Disciples of Jesus,
women as Mary Magdalene, etc) could come after it's finished and legally take a body.
Therefore there was no need to "steal the body", neither for the "swoon hypothesis", etc.
The body could have just been legally and/or openly (or not) moved to another tomb after the guards were called off 
their duty (as it simply finished).
Also, what would happen to the guards -- considering the threat of death penalty that threatened them would the 
break their orders -- if Jesus really resurrected, moved the boulder away and quit the tomb? Would anybody among their
commanders believe in such an explanation? Would it excuse their incompetence on they duty?
Also, how on the Earth could women ever plan to go to ANOINT THE BODY of Jesus Christ (dead body, as no one plans to
anoint a living person, as I am aware), if the tomb was guarded AND SEALED by the 2-tonne boulder?
Could they have any plan to trick/bribe/etc the guards to help them to open the tomb (it seems unlikely that two
fragile women could move a 2-tonne boulder; a strong group of men could cope with this task). 
Also, does it matter what happened to the guards? Would their fate be recorded anywhere, or were soldiers in such cases
(of disobedience) just executed "at the spot", without any "paperwork"? 
No side of the debate -- either apologist or critical -- seems to try to resolve this question.
 Critto (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anointing the body and some chronological questions of death and "resurrection" 

message: There is not enough on this. Also, has anyone considered that the gospel writers might just have (writing many decades after the events) made up the claim soldiers were on guard so as to counter the  long-standing rumour that Christians stole the body? 
Also , I looked at the death of Jesus article and did not see any link to this topic, which is supposedly a sub-page of it?Orlando098 (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good point. However, many manuscripts of the Gospels (in existence) have been historically dated within the lifetime of the original authors. The oldest date to 40-70 C.E. (portions of John & Luke). While most others date to around 200 - 300 years after the Apostles. That's about the same distance in time between Present Day and the Revolutionary War. We don't doubt the major events that took place during the war, even though we record them in modern history books almost 300 years later. What's my point? A span of 200+ years (of itself) has not proven to pose a problem with "factual integrity" or reliable record keeping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.242.1.50 (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: I want to read more about the reasons why the theory is considered likely by some people 

message: This article is somewhat dismissive of the idea that the disciples could have afforded to bribe the guards, but later on, under the linen clothes, it states that Joseph of Arimathea was a man of means. I think that it should be revised to show that it's not entirely unlikely that the followers of jesus had the means to do so.
Also, I would like to point out this, which I would usually just keep to myself, but since the last section on ritual cleanliness is entirely unsourced, I think it's worth mentioning in the discussion that I doubt that, assuming that there are conspirators, they probably wouldn't think touching the dead body of the son of god is unclean.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.6.84.236 (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bribery and ritual cleanliness 

message: Two other obvious suspects are (i) the guards and (ii) Pilate. The Bible says or implies that the guards worked for the Jewish authorities, but they may well have been Romans working for Pilate, who had perhaps himself decided that the body should be made to disappear - as per Bin Laden's remains. As for what Mary Magdelene did or did not see - doesn't the Bible say that Jesus had earlier removed seven demons from her, which rather suggests she had some serious psychiatric problems.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.12.43 (talk) 12:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Guards and Pilate as Suspects 

message: We've disputed before, but...  please make an affirmative case for why all these extra Wikiprojects are being added.  A Wikiproject should not be added to every vaguely related thing.  In particular, I've said before that you are using Wikiproject Death differently than Wikiproject Death uses it.  It is not for every topic vaguely involving mortality - it would be on half the articles on Wikipedia if so, this article is about something alleged to have happened after a death.  And as discussed, "Ancient Near East" is generally for pre-Roman era, not the 1st century AD.  I don't see the point of the other broader Wikiprojects either - this is a Christianity-specific topic.  The closest I can see maybe being relevant is Classical Greek and Rome, but that's marginal at best too.  I've left it in as a matter of compromise, but can you explain why the other Wikiprojects are within scope here?  Also, I don't get the "image requested in Israel."  What are you looking for, Israelis to take a photograph of people dressed as the disciples robbing an empty tomb?  What's the request here?  I highly doubt there is medieval public-domain art of something that early Church would have considered sacreligious and heresy.  Checking your recent contributions, I see something similar for :Category talk:Paintings of the Ascension of Christ - everything added there is definitely wrong.  The paintings are not about death, it's not a Bible-specific topic, it's clearly Christianity rather than generic Folklore or Mythology, and Ancient Near East definitely has nothing to do with it.  Please, please stop adding in such loosely related Wikiprojects everywhere.  If you need to hear it from someone other than me, that's fine, I'm happy to get a third opinion, but this is just wrong.  (It's also "mostly harmless" which is why I seem to be the main person to give pushback, it's certainly not that important either way, but these are such loose connections that it's really not defensible in my opinion.  But maybe I'm missing something here.)  SnowFire (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You are missing the WikiProjects' scope. WikiProject Death is not about mortality. It specifically covers religious aspects of death ("Afterlife, reincarnation, resurrection"), paranormal aspects of death (" Near-death experience, deathbed phenomena, after-death communication, reincarnation"), and Folklore about death ("Vampires, zombies, ghosts, revenant (folklore)). WikiProject Ancient Near East never had an artificial time limit, and most of the religious cults it covers lasted well into the Early Middle Ages. And why would anyone want a photograph of people in costume? This is an article of grave robbery in Jesus' tomb. We have an entire category of :Category:Alleged tombs of Jesus, accompanied by photographs and maps of their locations. Dimadick (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Dimadick: The whole point of Wikiprojects is to gather up a limited, relevant slice.  You could add every single article to every single WikiProject and the result would be that the list of articles for each Wikiproject would be worthless.  There's some inherent picking-and-choosing.  For example, the Bible is a topic in Christianity, yet we have a separate Wikiproject Bible.  Why?  It's for interested users on specifically core Biblical topics, like books or chapters of the Bible.  If "everything mentioned in the Bible" was added, you'd just have something very similar to Wikiproject Christianity or Judaism again.  There is a mention of a Biblical passage here, that's not strange, same as the Ascension of Jesus being mentioned in the Bible.  But if "everything mentioned in the Bible" is added to Wikiproject Bible, it's not Wikiproject Bible anymore!  It's just a clone of Wikiproject Christianity.  I'll give another example, you added the Paintings category to various demonination-specific task forces.  But the whole point of these denomination-specific taskforces is stuff that is specifically of interest to one branch: Anglican dioceses, Eastern Orthodox festivals, etc.  If all the "common Christianity" stuff was stuffed in these task forces, it'd make it harder to find the Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant/etc.-specific articles that are the raison d'etre of such groups.  I get that there will be borderline cases that could go either way, but you are consistently adding projects and task forces that are way outside even borderline cases.  Since you clearly aren't convinced by me, if you're really set on this, is there a place where you'd be willing to accept community feedback?  I'd be happy to accept it myself if it turns out I'm the one out of line here.  Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous), perhaps?  Or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council?  SnowFire (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

text: "It's for interested users on specifically core Biblical topics, like books or chapters of the Bible. " Nothing is about core topics.That defeats the purpose of WikiProjects, to locate and rate new articles. Dimadick (talk) 03:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

text: "Since you clearly aren't convinced by me" To put it mildly, you seem like you have never worked on any WikiProject page. Dimadick (talk) 04:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiprojects

message: 'corpse' would seem more-accurate than "body," however, I suppose, the element of the super-natural, in this gospel-story, confounds the acceptance of that term, as the more-accurate choice Eel Notluad (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  lexical/vocab.: corpse vs. "body"