Talk:Resurrection of Jesus/Archive 3

message: This is in regards to the section 
The above link is an old version of the page which was deleted recently by Starless and Bible Black, his/her deletion reasoning was that it wasn't necessary. I don't necessarily disagree, I'd just like people's opinions. A month or so ago, the 'arguments defending' section was just one huge clump, probably in need of a cleanup tag, and the 'rebuttal' section was meshed in. I split it all into 8 subsections for clarity, transposing the 'rebuttal' so the article would read more easily. 
The 'rebuttal' points are valid and NPOV(ish). I fear that if they are just removed people are going to re-add them, and probably nowhere near as concise nor appropriately cited.
I suggest 3 options:
1 - Restore the 'rebuttal' section
2 - Mesh the 'rebuttal' section into 'arguments for'
3 - Create a separate "debate about the resurrection" article; leaving 'central tenets' and 'major points (against)'. 
I'd like to know what people think A J Hay 22:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly, there is no consensus to simply cut out one side and present only the other side.  You've been reverted by 3 different editors (and have already made 3 reverts on your own this hour).  The days when only one side of the story could be presented are gone thanks to the internet - welcome to the 21st century! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rebuttal by apologists 

message: For many of the given arguments it is impossible for the reader to figure out if the reasoning is based on facts for which there is historical evidence or if the reasoning is based on articles of faith.  For example, the claim that there are witnesses that died for their testimony, is this an article of faith or is there independent historical evidence for this claim? Whichever of these two cases is true, in either case a footnote and reliable reference should be added by which the reader can check this. Remember that verifiability is the number one criterion for inclusion in wikipedia.
As the page is right now, it does not read like an article in an encyclopedia. More than half of the article is advocacy and not encyclopedic work. You should not put your own POV in here since that's against wikipedia's rules. You may, however, point out someone elses POV in which case that POV must have been published elsewhere and you include a reference to that work. I propose that the arguments for/against the resurrection's historicity go into a separate page, if they belong in wikipedia at all. As the text is right now, I think this article deserves a "article needs cleaning" tag. (Jan 12, 2005).
* I agree with the second paragraph in principle... I spent about an hour trying (if badly) to subdivide so that it reads more easily... there was a lot of (and still is) unnecessary quoting of scholars. It currently still goes for 4 pages, which is too long, and may be worthy of its own article. I do remember reading this article a year or two ago, when it was much more condense, at around a page and it was quite enjoyable. I'll do some more now, but it probably needs a lot more cleaning. A J Hay 05:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments defending the resurrection's historicity 

message: is there a reason the skeptical arguments i have added are being reversed?
Why are there no skeptical arguments? I am doing research about why peoeple believe in God and it quite important to hear both sides!!! Add some!!!
Wendy
This was written long, long ago (not that long, maybe 6 months)... anyway, the article you're probably looking for is Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus, but that's not really at a good level yet. The two articles split because they were too long. Try going through the history of this page to about 2/3 months ago, you should find most of the skeptical arguments written in point form.A J Hay 08:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  additional skeptical arguments 

message: I've rewritten this section, mostly by merging it with Significance of Jesus' resurrection. I hope that this is an improvement. --G Rutter 16:01, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Significance of the resurrection

message: According to Christian belief, God didn't raise Jesus up. This is in a way redundant. Jesus resurrected Himself, being that he is God. I have placed a "Neutrality Dispute" accordingly.
:The fact that you have a theological dispute with the resurrection itself does not justify the tag.  please articulate some segment of the article which violates an articulated npov policy to justify the tag, or it will be removed accordingly.  Ungtss 17:07, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The correct way to deal with an issue like this is not to add a 'disputed' tag, which inplies that the contents of the article is disputed, but to correctly report the disagreement. I'm going to remove the NPOV tag therefore. Feel free to add something about this disagreement. However I should tell you that most Christians, including theologians, are not really bothered about the distinction between "Jesus raised himself" and "God raised Jesus". For example Paul states "God raised him [Jesus] on the third day". It is considered normal in Christianity that the three persons of the Trinity have different functions. While all being God, and all One, they are not identical. DJ Clayworth 17:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: How was Jesus resurrected?

message: In this article it's stated (relating to Joseph of Aramethea picking him down from the cross) that Jesus didn't die on the sabbath since he died on a friday afternoon. But the jewish sabbath begins at 6 PM on friday and ends on 6 PM saturday, and Jesus died after 6 PM if I'm not mistaken, making his death on the Sabbath. I don't want to simply remove the sentence that this relates to, since someone perhaps could write something more to substantiate what the sentence means in case it's not just an error. --Spreetin 23:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Jesus died around 3 or 4pm. And it was more likely Wednesday or Thursday (there may have been 2 "sabbaths" that week). I've just had a quick look, and here are two websites that discuss this (there are more) http://www.gotquestions.org/three-days.html and http://www.lamblion.com/articles/prophecy/issues/PI-15.php  RossNixon 01:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sabbath 

message: I went to a fascinating public lecture a few years ago in Australia but unfortunately can't remember the name of the scholar now. Her basic argument regarding the resurrection was that Jesus wasn't dead when he was placed in the tomb (it's a version of the swoon hypothesis. If I remember correctly:
* He was too strong/healthy to die in a matter of hours; more likely it would have taken days.
* Jesus drank from the sponge of poisonous 'sour wine' to put him out of his misery (or to give that appearance)
* He was entombed with aloe, a well-known emetic, which he used to vomit the poison.
* He was rescued by disciples who would have had to move the stone. Some accounts have Jesus needing to lean on men for support, indicating his physical weakness.
* He was secreted away and accompanied a group of disciples towards Rome, occasionally making appearances before crowds that were written about as 'visions'.
Does anyone know who the scholar might have been? Cheers, ntennis 04:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus didn't die on the cross? 

message: I added a bibliography of recent works and moved the articles from Weblinks also there while skipping general sites on Jesus or apologetics and sites with no real additional value.  Irmgard 10:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bibliography 

message: I removed the Gospel of Barnabas section, as the oldest manuscript we have of it is 16th century, and it mentions Mohammad by name making it certainly after the inception of Islam in the 7th century. Its insertion appears to be unfounded apologetics. Wesley 05:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gospel of Barnabas 

message: Section 4.1 is titled "Arguments defending the resurrection's historicity", and the complementary section, 4.2 is titled "Skeptical views". The opposite of skeptical is credulous, so either 4.1 should be renamed "Credulous views" or both 4.1 and 4.2 should be renamed "Arguments for..." and "Arguments against..." (the opposite of "defending" is "attacking" — let's avoid these loaded terms). ntennis 02:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Skeptical views" 

message: I can't see any problems with my latest version; the ridiculous skeptics v Christians version is now gone, and the information provided is accurate and NPOV. Starless and bible black 18:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV??  You've cut out the entire "apologetics" section and replaced it with "However, apologists do not use proper historical methodology and rely on assumptions that are generally not shared by critical historian."   NPOV???  Whom are you kidding?   ፈቃደ (ውይይት)18:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: So that Resurrection of Jesus can be filled with only the arguments against the Resurrection?  I doubt if you'll find support for that proposal; if anything should be split off into a separate article, it should probably be the arguments -against- the doctrine.  The purpose of this article should be primarily to explain the doctrine. Not to militate against it.  Or indeed, for it.  Just to explain it neutrally and simply, and without pushing anything either way. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  reverted edits 

message: This section seems irrelevant and one-sided. I'm deleting it for now. Starless and bible black 18:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparisons with other religions 

message: Had a resurrection occurred, the corpse would be missing, and the executioner-soldiers would have been themselves killed for permitting it to be stolen. We have no record of their executions, nor do we have a record from Roman authorities exonerating the soldiers of corpse-theft on the grounds that the deceased had resumed living.
This doesn't seem like a very good argument to me.  What record would we expect to have of this?  We don't have any judicial records from Pontius Pilate's Judaea, do we?  Has anyone actually made such an absurd argument as this? The only source we have on the empty tomb is the Gospels.  It is true that the Gospels don't mention soldiers getting executed.  But, if the Gospels did mention it, that wouldn't prove anything anyway, since one could just say that the Evangelists made up the story of the guards being executed.  So I'm not sure how any of this gets us anywhere. john k 01:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soldiers, and such 

message: Clink, I am confused with where you are going with the article.  I thought this article was specifically focused on the resurrection of Christ.  Your recent edits are more a critique of biblical conflicts amongst the gospel accounts, which actually may be the way to go.  However, I would like to hear your thoughts on why that should be covered in this article and not in other more pertinent articles.  Storm Rider (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Clinkophonist]] edits and biblical narrative

message: This article describes the significance of the resurrection to Roman Catholics:
:Held by the majority of Christians, the Catholic view is that Jesus willingly sacrificed himself as an act of perfect obedience (the Gospels show him struggling with this in the Garden of Gethsemane), atoning for the disobedience of Adam, and thus cleansing Mankind of the stain of original sin.
I thought children were still born with original sin in Catholicism, hence the baptism of babies...? (See the original sin article).
Also, this section is supposed to be about the significance of the resurrection, but seems to describe the significance of the Death of Jesus instead. Should the section be moved to that article? ntennis 01:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Held by the majority of Christians, the Catholic view is that Jesus willingly sacrificed himself as an act of perfect obedience (the Gospels show him struggling with this in the Garden of Gethsemane), atoning for the disobedience of Adam, and thus cleansing Mankind of the stain of original sin. Jesus's sacrifice was an offering of love that pleased God more than man's sin offended God, so now all who believe in Jesus and keep his commandments may receive salvation in his name, see also Great Commission and Sermon on the Mount. Catholics believe one can fall from grace again if one continues to sin after being saved. One can be restored to grace through the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation (Confession).
Where is the significance of the resurrection? This is about the Death of Jesus. Similarly for the following paragraph, the "Judicial view". I'll go ahead and move the paragraphs to the Death of Jesus article if noone objects. ntennis 04:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The Catholic section has a lot more to do with the death of Jesus, but the other sections are about both. If they're going to be moved anywhere, I'd suggest moving the first four of the six subsections to Atonement. The various views should be kept together, and they have more to do with atonement than anything else.A J Hay 01:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significance of the Resurrection 

message: Can someone explain to me what these two quotes have to do with the Resurrection of Jesus? This information is already presented at Historicity of Jesus. It makes much more sense that it go there than here, but maybe I am missing something. --Andrew c 14:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The historicity of Jesus is another article, as is the history of Christianity and the early Church. I say those two quotes do not have anything to do with the Resurrection of Jesus. Am I missing something?--Andrew c 02:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suetonius and Tacitus 

message: As someone who has worked on this article for about 6 months, I've been thinking more and more about merging three articles into one; Resurrection of Jesus, Historicity of the resurrection of Jesus and Death of Jesus, the new title to be Death and Resurrection of Jesus.
I propose this because it seems that these articles belong together, because the theological impacts really do apply to both, as does the analysis for historicity (eg swoon hypothesis).
The new article would read something like:
* Introduction, including summary/precis of the event
* TOC
* Significance (may move some material to Atonement or Salvation).
* Overview of Sources
* Critical Analysis (merging of the bulk of material in all 3 articles)
* Footnotes
* Further Reading
There seems to be a lot of interesting material in the article, I have put the 'significance' section first, because 'compelling prose' is made by making someone interested in the subject before going into detail.
Finally, with these three articles together, it seems more likely to become featured, which would be a happy day.A J Hay 07:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the content in the death of jesus article is covered in either historicity of the resurrection of Jesus or Sayings of Jesus on the cross. That's simply becuase half of the arguments about the resurrection question whether or not Jesus died, and the historicity should, in my opinion, follow/include a lengthy discussion of the death of Jesus. Sure they are different, but are continually analysed together.A J Hay 04:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Some writings in the New Testament apocrypha state that angels avoided the guards and dragged Jesus' body from the tomb; ...
Can we provide a reference or citation for this, or at least the name of the apocryphal work(s) that say this? I have no problem with including apocryphal accounts, but they ought to be cited, just like everything else. I know it links to the NT apocrypha article, but that's a pretty broad collection. Wesley 16:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Proposal 

message: The article says,
: Some writings in the New Testament apocrypha state that angels avoided the guards and dragged Jesus' body from the tomb; ...
Can we provide a reference or citation for this, or at least the name of the apocryphal work(s) that say this? I have no problem with including apocryphal accounts, but they ought to be cited, just like everything else. I know it links to the NT apocrypha article, but that's a pretty broad collection. Wesley 16:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Previously on [[Death of Jesus]]

message: Before I begin, I would like to thank Clinkophonist for creating this article, and in five edits putting down a variety of arguments, and the multitude of work that must have gone into that much.
I do however think that the 'arguments' read like actual arguments, which should change. The points seem to be good, they just should be worded better, for example:
The recording of the life of Harry Potter nearly contemporary with the time in which he is supposed to have lived doesn't exactly prove it isn't fiction.
Could be reworded to be:
"Though the accounts of Jesus were created near the time of his existance, the accounts are plausibly fictional"
This just is a POV. for some they are fictional for some they are not. This is more a matter of faith than of actual proof.
Also, it is a bit simplistic to compare the literaric habits of our modern western culture to the habits of ancient judaic culture.
Perhaps changing the names of the section "arguments for..." can be changed to "claims for..." etc.
A J Hay 00:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewording of claims

message: Should this article include rebuttal? This is how it existed in a previous form: 
A J Hay 00:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Room for Rebuttal

message: The Modern Apologist section appears far far more numerous than the Modern Skeptics section; this seems unbalanced. It also seems a little unfair that multiple works by the same people are listed in the Modern Apologist section. Clinkophonist 18:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've edited the section; I chose books arbitrarily, based partially on whether or not the author had their own wikipedia article. I put in a maximum of 3 references for each of books and articles; if someone can recommend videos that would be nice; also, given that we have a footnotes section, I decided to rename the section "Further Reading", which is more what the section is about. Do you like these changes? Feel free to revert.A J Hay 07:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance and references