Talk:Empty tomb

message: There is no question that the use of "mythology" to describe these accounts, very strongly implies that historicity is not relevant to them.  This is clear where the single most decisive criterion for determining what constitutes a "myth" is the presence of some "supernatural" element in the story.  The "truth" of a "Myth" is regardless of factuality.  This is not the case, for history.  
These accounts are received as history by most Christians - the meaningfulness of the events is tied specifically to their factuality.  The explanatory power of these stories is specifically in the claim that they actually happened.  This is why the term "Mythology" will always meet with objection.  The use of the term suggests the point of view that the "truth" of the empty tomb does not rest in its factuality - which most Christians do not believe.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Regrettably, it appears that some believe that their point of view is so obviously right that it requires no discussion, and that Wikipedia will be closer to the ideal world when their crusade is accomplished.  As someone has already said, burying Christian historical belief under the extremely derogatory label of 'Mythology' is "not POV pushing".  I'm sure that there are other atheists, agnostics and anti-supernaturalist religionists who feel just the same.  That's all FOS means by "other users agree".  If this opinion prevails, it gives permission to presumptively shout down the opposing perspective.  And why not?  It's all part of moving toward the "ideal world". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

text: But FestivalOfSouls, the problem is that this sub-category does not reflect consent.  It represents your point of view, to which I for one cannot consent.  I appreciate the effort to find appropriate categories, but can you not see that your project is doomed to fail in the long run?  Wikipedia works because it takes seriously the idea of working together.  Your edit history shows what happens when this idea is not given its due weight.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I am so sorry, I was not aware that wikipedia did not attempt to be an academic endevour. I guess I was wrong to assume that wikipedia was a play on encyclopedia, and that it was trying to be an encyclopedia, not a biased website. Look through the histories of the articles I have edited. Other users have returned the categorization, as well as I have. Feel free to discuss on my talk page, as well. Their has been no real discussion, as no real oposition has come forth. I have yet to see a single valid arument against the categorization. Even here, you fail to do so. I maintain that since the article is about a myth, as defined in dictionary.com and on the good ol' wikipedia article that defines the category (mythology, the categorization is appropriate. FestivalOfSouls 18:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  How do I "fail to do so"? Your use of "mythology" as though it were neutral in this context is disingenuous. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

text: A user saying " I don't like you pointing out that my religion is based on myths" is not, in my eyes, a valid argument against doing so. I did not intend to say their was no opposition, just that their was no valid opposition, meaning those that oppose this do so for trivial, unimportant, and often irrelevent reasons. It is like me opposing a change YOU make because I have a cat. Irrelevent. FestivalOfSouls 18:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

text: In violation of what I just said, I would like to point out that I never said that, only that people are using that as the argument against correctly classifying articles. I am making no remarks about the religion, only that particular articles meet the requirements of being labeled as about myths. FestivalOfSouls 18:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

text: See my talk page. Already answered that question. FestivalOfSouls 18:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: History v story

message: I thought it was more "ideal" when people could co-exist with their differences without deliberately seeking to offend, and find a neutral path.  I am sorry to see that this individual may think this is a tool to start provocations, because he received an absolutely terrible introduction to wikipedia.  Particularly the way "Do not bite the newcomers" was cleverly altered to read "Don't let the grumpy users scare you off" (not at all the same thing!), and placed directly between "Be bold!" and "Play nice with others", "Contribute, contribute, contribute!"...etc.   My gosh, if I had got that as my official introduction on day one, I might possibly be a little less diplomatic myself...!  So perhaps we may be a little more understanding, considering that that practically looks like an official invitation for a new user to "act up", stir up controversy, and get directly "in your face" of other users... the precise opposite of what is desireable for an encyclopedia project!
:I hadn't noticed that. Who placed the notice? Maybe we should ensure that "Co-operate, don't confront" and "Reach consensus" are given as much emphasis. DJ Clayworth 17:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Root of the problem? 

message: Here's what might be a stupid question, but the article doesn't answer it: William Lane Craig is famous for using the supposed historical accuracy of the resurrection of Jesus as a point in his debates. He frequently claims that the consensus among "new testament scholars" (by which I assume he must mean professional historians) is that the the early Christians' account of the empty tomb is a) truthfully reproduced through history and b) best explained by the actual ascension of Jesus. Now I find it exceedingly hard to believe that a majority of scientists would be so trusting of a story that wasn't even written down until decades later 'and' then make the completely wild leap to ascribe a figure in the story magical properties. Is there actually such a consensus, and if there is, is it among historians or among theologians? — Mütze (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't get the relevance of "scientist"s opinion, historians and theologians are the ones that matter here, specially those that study early Christianity, or are you implying that non-Christians are impartial when arguing against Chrsitianity but Christians are partial and unreliable when arguing for Christianity. If that is it, your argument is self-defeating.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.162.176.151 (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historicity and scholarly consensus 

message: The article asserts  "Most Christians and scholars before the discovery of the Secret Gospel of Mark tend to the view that the figure was an angel. It is not possible to tell whether the "angels" supposedly were in the form of men."
Am I missing something?  What does "Secret Mark" have to do with what Most Christians and scholars think about the identity of the "angels"
Did  most Christians and scholars change their minds due to some evidence in secret Mark or is the editor trying to insinuate this along with 
the idea that secret Mark is authentic or that it contains any reference to Jesus tomb.  Their is absolutely no way this expansion can be authenticated and it certainly does not contain anything that would change the mind of "Most Christians and scholars'. I would suggest this
statement, which relies entirely on insinuation, should be removed from the article.
Spiker 22 (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Secret Mark?

message: The first paragraph simply asserts that (1) tending to Jesus's body is something his disciples, not his female followers, "should have done," and (2) women are portrayed more favorably in Mark than men are. Both of these need citations, particularly the first one: I don't know what the custom of preparing a dead body for burial involved in early 1st-century Judea, but if the article is going to assert such knowledge, it should provide a citation.
--Tbanderson (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations please? 

message: I'm surprised that the discussion of the importance of apotheosis doesn't mention its relevance in Jewish tradition. One authority, IIRC Raymond Brown, points out that at the time was an empty tomb was believed to be a sign the individual was a holy man because he was taken up to Heaven by God. Or an angel. He also mentions two relevant & well-known examples of this phenomena: Enoch, & Elijah. If I could remember the authority who wrote this, I'd add it to the article. -- llywrch (talk) 06:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apotheosis & Jewish tradition 

message: The "Historicity" section only presents arguments in favour of the historicity of the empty tomb, and only one scholar (William Lane Craig)'s views at that. He is not the only scholar to have made contributions to this question, and as well as those who argue in favour of its historicity, there are those who argue against it. The section should spend less time going into detail of Craig's arguments; rather, it should give a survey of the breadth of scholarly opinion on both sides of the issue. SJK (talk) 07:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV of Historicity section 

message: That article was formed by splitting off contents of appearances of Jesus&oldid=751089681 Post-Resurrection appearances of Jesus. I have redirected it here since it significantly overlapped this article and Noli me tangere, and was without references (and much appeared as WP:OR). Previous version is Appearances of Jesus to Mary Magdalene if there's something to save (and reference!). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 13:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect from [[Appearances of Jesus to Mary Magdalene]] 

message: Opinions please on whether Peter Carnley is a reliable source. I've just added his book "Resurrection in Retrospect". Then the publisher looked a bit odd - claims to be an academic outlet, but....? Carnely himself is a retired bishop (Archbishop of Perth). I'd be pretty dubious. I can look up the sources he quotes, notably Adela Yarbro Collins (rock solid credentials), but that would be a really arduous job. Achar Sva (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather have a citation of the original quotes from Adela Yarbro Collins. I'm not saying Peter Carnley is unreliable, but I agree with you. The publisher makes me cringe a little bit. Rusdo (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter Carnley - reliable source? 

message: This article seems to double as a resurrection article. The two concepts are certainly intertwined, but I think it would be better to shorten this article a bit more and focus it on the empty tomb specifically. What are the thoughts of others? For example, comparisons between resurrection narratives are more appropriate for an article on the resurrection. We should just have texts that mention the empty tomb narrative. Rusdo (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think we need to discuss the origins of the texts in terms of the cultural context of resurrection-beliefs in the ancient world. And we also need to discuss the integrity of the texts - I was surprised, for example, to learn that there are two traditions within the four gospels. Achar Sva (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  A brief discussion is appropriate, but I wouldn't want to get too into the weeds as the differences between Jewish and non-Jewish understandings of resurrection and especially bodily resurrection would take up an entire article in and of their own. Rusdo (talk) 00:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   I've added some edits that I think you may find controversial. However, if you look at the sources they are well cited. I know you've put a lot of work into this article. I just wanted to give you a heads up that I'm not attempting to undo what you've worked on and I do believe that a proper context within cultures is appropriate and germane to the article. Rusdo (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   The gospels differ on more than just what happened after the women left the tomb. Your statement that John is inventing is an assumption, certainly accepted by some scholars but not by all. But that doesn't matter. The source incorporates this viewpoint as well. Please don't remove reliable and credible sources. Rusdo (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Mainstream Bible scholars, comparing the Gospels, speak of their authors playing fast and loose with the facts, while Licona is speaking about their motivation (authorial intent), which eventually determined them to play fast and loose with the facts. MBS claim the Gospels are historically unreliable because these have differences, while Licona claims these have differences because of literary customs. MBS take those differences seriously, while Licona tries to explain them away. tgeorgescu (talk)  23:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus the article on the Empty Tomb 

message: To modern readers, these seem synonymous, but these are two different concepts. Resurrection (coming back to life after death) and an after-life (an immaterial soul or something like that living on after death) are not the same. Jewish concepts of resurrection included dying again after rising from the dead (like some of the stories in the Old Testament.) This is not an after-life which often meant going up to a heaven-like place and living with deities. As Tom Wright says, resurrection is life after life, not life after death. Both sources from Wright and Moss discuss this further. Rusdo (talk) 06:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afterlife vs resurrection