Talk:Resurrection

message: Is there any way someone could add a listing of other people who have supposedly resurrected from the dead? Outside of Judeo-Christian beliefs? I love coming to wikipedia and reading about other religions and this page would provide a good jumping point to other pages... I wish I could do so myself but am not an expert even in my own religion! JoeHenzi 12:03, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Duh, upon further inspection there are in fact others... can we make a better listing and seperate it out (like "Resurrection in Eastern Religions" or something?). Basically, to me this is stubby due to the fact it only talks about things people basically know  like Jesus (and pals). Sakya Buddha could be a good start. (Sorry to request, if nothing is done I'll come back and see what I can do).JoeHenzi 12:08, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other stories? (request) 

message: People, I may be off base, but I have never thought the concept of raising someone from the dead and the resurrection as equivalent.  I think the article does differentiate different types of resurrection, but I believe that is the problem.  They are not different aspects of the same thing.  One is eternal without the possibility of a future death.  The other is a recovery of the same body with the path of death to be fully experienced.  There is very little that is similar.  
With such a drastic differnce I think this article does an injustice to the concept of the resurrection.  It becomes weak milk, to the point of becoming water. Storm Rider 01:38, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raising from the dead and resurrection are different 

message: I've just been reading NT Wright's "Resurrection of the Son of God" and he makes a number of points that may be useful here:
1. Resurrection is a very Jewish word, referring to being given a new bodily existence in a renewed world after the Day of Judgement.  It does not refer to becoming like an angel, to a spiritual existence or just coming back to life for a short while.
2. For the moment, as far as Christians are concerned, Jesus is the only one who is resurrected.  Everyone else is waiting for the day of final judgement.
3. Resurrection is thus about life after "life after death", and not just about "going to heaven".  It is part of a totally renewed universe.
What I'm suggesting, I suppose, is clarifying the Judeo-christian meaning of resurrection and separating this from it's more vague meaning of "coming back to life".  I understand the connection between the two, but "resurrection" is a much more precise term than that.
--Pagaboy 00:04, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resurrection is not the same as coming back to life 

message: The resurection is a term usually used to describe Jesus's supposed resurection from the dead. The term the resurection of the dead used in the various creeds and in catholicism and orthodoxy is refering to the distinct concept that, while souls will live forever and go to heaven or hell after they die, they will be rejoined with their physical bodies at the end of the world.
-I Concur. In christian theology, the ressurection of christ was the means and forshadow of the general resurection of the dead, so they are related, not the same Thanatosimii 17:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: These articles should NOT be merged

message: I think there is NOT enough variety of defining resurrection here. Divide them into OTHER articles and they will never get read. Perhaps the answer is to categorize sections as resurrection in spirit, resurrection in soul, resurrection with body, without body, in flesh, and even cases of people who woke up in coffins because they do get claimed by these south american countries as being resurrections.75.86.64.46 (talk) 00:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Join them 

message: Please use the book by Mick Brown "The spiritual Tourist as a source" ch. "In the house of God". See also Sathya Sai Baba and talk:Sathya Sai Baba. I will try to correct it here later. Andries 18:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section neutrality warning: [[Sathya Sai Baba]] did not re-surrect Walter Cowan

message: Surely Mohammed's tomb is in Medina, not Mecca?
:Why is this section even in this article? Disappearing and resurrection from the dead are not the same thing. 65.95.115.169 (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bodily Disappearances 

message: Moved this content to Talk page:
:Interestingly Judaism followed a similar path in reaction to the enlightenment and deism. Although Judaism had formally accepted the resurrection of the dead since the Mishnah (Sanh. 10.1) and in the liturgy (“Elohai Neshamah” and “Shemoneh ‘Esreh’”), the deistic school had affected some in that religion as well. The Encyclopedia of Judaism, Vol. 6, “Immortality of the Soul” (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1906), 567. The well-known Jewish philosopher Moses Mendelssohn had essentially revived the Platonic-friendly belief in the immortality of the soul as the goal of man in his work Phaedon. The Jewish Encyclopedia concludes “Thenceforth Judaism emphasized the doctrine of immortality, in both its religious instruction and its liturgy, while the dogma of resurrection was gradually discarded and in the Reform rituals, eliminated from the prayer-books.”Ibid., 566.
Note that all the sources here are at least a hundred years old. I challenge editors to come up with a (significant/influential) Jewish thinker within the last 30 years who uses this approach. --Shirahadasha 05:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved "Modern Jewish" beliefs to talk page 

message: :Despite the Mesopotamian concept of resurrection, belief in personal resurrection (before the Common Era) was known among only one culture: the Hebrews.
:From the time of its development from within Judaism during the second-Temple period to the incipient decades of Christianity, the meaning of the word acquired sharper edges and mutations, to include differentiating the common quality of the premortem body from the new glorious quality of the postmortem body (cf. 1 Cor. 15:35-54 and the Gospel accounts of Easter). It held to a permanent unification of physical body and soul.
:Resurrection was used figuratively as a metaphor both for the national restoration of Israel (Ezek. 37) in Judaism, and for the regenerate life (the Apostle Paul) in Christianity. 
This content is unsourced, and is very POV. It claims the concept was developed in the 2nd-temple period, although there are arguably prior biblical references and mixes Jewish and Christian beliefs whose compatibility(at least from some points of view) may be more subject to question.
Plus it's a waste of headers. Am separating Judaism and Christianity sections. --Shirahadasha 06:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved Judeo-Christian content to Talk page 

message: Removed this language to Talk page:
:The majority point of view is that Rebirth is a different but analogous religious concept; but there is a minority point of view among Jewish mystics, Gnostics, Sufis and Albigensians that resurrection is more or less identical to Rebirth.
What's the basis for claiming that there is a majority point of view about "rebirth"? This concept doesn't exist in anything like the Christian sense in most of Judaism or, for that matter, in many other religions. Intro to a Wikipedia article should not be pushing Christian concepts as if they had something to do with other religions or claiming the Christian POV has majority status in the world. Majority of what? --Shirahadasha 04:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking that sentence out of the intro. The information in this sentence is "Some Jewish mystics, Gnostics, Sufis, and Albigensians have interpreted the prophecied resurrection as rebirth, rather than as its original meaning of being brought back to life 'in the flesh.'" Unfortunately, I have no idea what's meant by "rebirth." Jonathan Tweet 05:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree I don't think the intro should discuss all these other concepts like "rebirth", "resussitation", etc. The intro should focus on what ressurrection is, not what it's not. --Shirahadasha 08:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro POV 

message: I did some reorg. Subheaders prove to be helpful in organizing information that's been accumulated piecemeal.
This page has an in-depth treatment of the resurrection of the dead in Christianity. It's more substantial than the main page. I'd like to move this material to the main page: resurrection of the dead. Then summarize it here. It's important that the "resurrection of the dead" page be substantial. It's more specific than "resurrection" and so should be more detailed. Jonathan Tweet 15:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  reorg 

message: BrotherE,
on 8 March 2007 (06:44) you have removed completely (from position 3.2.1) the sub-section “Modern de-emphasis in Christianity” of the main article, with the following “motivation”:
* “Removed NPOV material which presents one side of the debate about what happens between death and resurrection - such material belongs in the main article, not here”
As you have not moved the a.m. subsection anywhere lese, but, in fact, removed/erased it, unless you explain the motive of your drastic edit, I am going to restore the previous situation.
--Miguel de Servet 14:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern de-emphasis in Christianity  

message: Given that the idea of resurrection has appeared in most religions since the dawn of humanity, isn’t it a little one sided for the article to focus almost entirely on the Abraham religions? Dionysian Assassin 03:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Resurrection is more central to Christianity than most other religions. Feel free to add more well-referenced things about other religions. However I would warn you that there are a lot of badly-supported internet memes around at the moment claiming that every religious figure under the sun was 'resurrected' in some way. They have had to be removed from Wikipedia a few times. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Bias? 

message: User:Michael J. Cecil: Please do not make such unsubstantiated edits without discussion at a contentious article. What you are proposing is a fringe theory, and to claim that this is "the doctrine that Jesus taught" is not neutral, unless that view has the consensus of all scholars. It may be the view of Mr Robinson of the Hag Hammadi library, but that does not make it generally accepted. Feel free to discuss the matter on this page. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Michael
Thanks for taking the time to contribute to Wikipedia. You are welcome.
Please have a look at the links I left on your talk page describing how Wikipedia works. In particular have a look at Wikipedia:Undue weight, which deals with how we consider minority views. In essence Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so it's purpose is to summarise the current state of human knowledge. It doesn't promote one view over another, but describes what is currently believed to be the case. 
It is actually irrelevant whether your views turn out to be right in the end. Until they are shown to be right, and agreed with by most scholars, they don't get coverage here. Especially you can't write about them as if they were 'the truth', when most scholars don't agree. It's true that Copernican Theory was once considered a fringe theory - but so were a million theories that we have never heard of because they turned out to be wrong.
Writing on Wikipedia about theories that you have proposed is very, very strongly discouraged. It comes under Wikipedia:Original research, even if you have also published the theory elsewhere.
If you want more help on how to edit Wikipedia feel free to ask at my talk page. Thank you, and happy editing. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rebirth

message: >Please have a look at the links I left on your talk page describing how Wikipedia works. In particular have a look at Wikipedia:Undue weight,
Look. There are hundreds if not thousands of words that convey the understanding of the "resurrection" as a physical raising of a dead body from the grave. But I add a few dozen words to complete the picture and they are removed. That is censorship for the purpose of preserving only one interpretation.
> which deals with how we consider minority views. In essence Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so it's purpose is to summarise the current state of human knowledge.
Precisely my point. The current writing does not summarize the current state of human knowledge at all. It conveys only one perspective: that the "resurrection" is the physical raising of a dead body from the grave. That is the Pharisee position, which is the majority position. But you have deleted the Sadducee's position, which is one minority position, as well as the position taken by Jesus which explains the opposition to his Teaching by the entire Jewish priesthood, which is another minority position.
>It doesn't promote one view over another,
You have no way of understanding precisely how utterly nonsensical and cynical this sounds to me. It sort of reminds me of the theory in physics referred to as "counter factual definiteness". This is precisely what you are doing. This is something that you are doing. You are insisting upon only one perspective concerning the "resurrection".
>but describes what is currently believed to be the case.
>It is actually irrelevant whether your views turn out to be right in the end.
This is your opinion.
> Until they are shown to be right, and agreed with by most scholars, they don't get coverage here.
What is the definition of a "minority point of view"?
Such are never agreed to by "most scholars" in the first place.
What you are saying is that only majority points of view are allowed. If so, how in the world would that be considered "a summary of human knowledge"?
>Especially you can't write about them as if they were 'the truth',
Those who assert that the "resurrection" is a physical raising of a dead body from the grave are asserting that that is the truth--the only truth.
Clearly, you are not being either objective or neutral here.
> when most scholars don't agree. It's true that Copernican Theory was once considered a fringe theory - but so were a million theories that we have never heard of because they turned out to be wrong.
>The assumption that Jesus had a different view of Resurection than the pharasees is a little flawed
I understand that this is your interpretation, but it is not the only interpretation. There is a minority interpretation.
> if you consider Mark 12:24-27 - "He is the God of the living, not of the dead."
Strange that you would choose this particular passage. I have already performed a reverse speech analysis of this (link upon request)which is "And then when I die, see what"; which suggests that Jesus was *taunting* the Jewish priesthood to murder him.
> Which echoes Daniel 12:2 about a physical resurection
This is your INTERPRETATION. That is what it is, even if you don't 'think' so.
But this is merely the majority interpretation. It is not the only interpretation.
> of the dead into life. I'll try and scout out an accepted reference to the opinion.
Don't bother yourself for my sake. In my 30 some years of research, I have probably read dozens if not hundreds of examples of such nonsense.
>That doesn't mean to say that Michael's view can't be added as long as the two opinions are properly sourced.
SURE it does.
You don't understand what is involved here.
I explain the reasons for this elsewhere (links upon request).
>The saducean opinion is traditionally ascribed to a misreading of Antigonus of Socho who said "Don't be like a servant who only work for a wage, but be like one who works with no reward in mind. and let the fear of the heavens be upon you." (ABOTH 1:3)  It is definately not certain how much of Mishna they rejected, if at all.
According to Luke 20:27, the Sadducees "say there is no resurrection". What has been deleted is an explanation of what this phrase means. Why did they say there was no resurrection? This is what is being deleted.
I have little patience in pursuing this much further, by the way.
There are other ways of approaching this problem.
Michael J. Cecil (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Michael J. Cecil's position in this debate; however DJ Clayworth is correct about the "majority view".  Nevertheless the other interprestation of resurection should be explained somewhere in Wikipedia.  Many Gnostics and followers of the Thomasian tradition of Christianity did believe in rebirth (reencarnation), which they did trace to Jesus' sayings.  Wikipedia has many pages on now defuct/unpractised religions and beliefs and there is no reason why a page entitles Gnostic resurection, or Thomasian resurection could not be added.68.148.123.76 (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Resurrection and the Neutral Point of View

message: The article says: "The Torah addresses the issue of bodily resurrection, but for the most part only in an indirect way.. When Jacob dies, he says "I am about to be gathered to my kin. Bury me with my forefathers in the cave which is in the field of Ephron the Hittite"
I just can't see how Jacob's words can be interpreted as being about resurrection - he's just talking about being buried with his ancestors, surely?PiCo (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be a reasonable interpretation that "gathered to my kin" means more than just buried together. Not conclusive I know, but the article does say "indirect". DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone explain this for me? 

message: When I read this article I find that it is trying to cover two subjects: namely "bringing back to life" of people who have died and the "final fate of mankind", eternal life at the end times. My personal view is that these should be covered in two separate articles.
There are of course troubles with this approach. In Christianity the same word "resurrection" is frequently used for both. Moreover the Resurrection of Jesus overlaps both categories. Theologically it is an example of the second kind (a point that frequently has to be cleared up by theologians) but it also appears to be an example of the first kind, since it happened in past history rather than at the end of history.
Despite this I think separation is the way to go. Otherwise differences that should be brought out are obscured. The first kind of "resurrection" is not (from my reading) an important part of Islam, although the second is. The first kind is more important in Judaism, and even more important in Christianity. The second kind is important to all three. However without the division we have to say that "resurrection" is important in all three, blurring the differences.
Any thoughts? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Division of subject

message: Just a notice to anyone watching this article: User:Born Immortal tried to add a couple of paragraphs on obscure Russian mystic and convicted fraudster Grigory Grabovoi, and when reverted threated a "wave" of vandalism against Wikipedia. Nothing significant so far, but please keep an eye on this article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Warning

message: User:Kazuba made some recent additions and I undid them. The reasons for my removal were: a) the additions were an unstructured list of events without any context b) some of the events, such as the resurrection of Jesus, are dealt with elsewhere c) some of them are not really resurrections, such as Elijah ascending to heaven (the point being that Elijah did not die, not that he was resurrected). I have no objection to these being added in another form. Or feel free to persuade us about their addtion. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Kazuba additions

message: Looking at this section, it is entirely about people who have disappeared. None of them have come back, and so the section is not about resurrection at all. Unless someone has an objection I will remove it entirely. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Resurrection or Bodily Disappearance in Other Traditions

message: So all this obscure researched information goes in the trash can? And the Great Library of Alexandria has a small fire? I think an alternative home for this material should be given before it is removed as Bodily Disappearnaces. Empty Tomb? Kazuba (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bodily disappearances has been here at Resurrection for a period of about 4 years. And during that time the information has become mildly distored. It is my fault because I do not like deleting the material of others unless I am convinced it is wrong. I prefer to edit. I think B.D. it is better now and back to its correct form. I apologize for not taking action earlier. Kazuba (talk) 00:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

text: OK, I'm not going to insist on it's removal since it's been here so long. But I've moved some of the contents to more appropriate places. The transfiguration appearances I've moved to the Christianity section. Jesus ascension should also be covered in the Christianity section. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I do not agree with that. If anything I think there should be a doublet here about the these "disappearances". Disappearances are disappearances, and they should be treated as such. I do not believe Biblical data should be omitted from B.D. I do not think that is being fair. Treating Biblical data as being something special has hampered Biblical Studies for too long a time. Kazuba (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: And so?

message: This keeps being removed, presumably because it deals with Biblical characters who must be treated differently. So perhaps I can preserve this information here. For a bodily disappearance is a bodily disappearance, whether it is in or out of the Bible.
Deuteronomy (34:6) Moses is secretly buried. Elijah vanishes in a whirlwind 2 Kings (2:11).
After hundreds of years these two earlier Biblical heroes suddenly reappear, and are seen walking with Jesus. Then again they vanish. Mark (9:2-8), Matthew (17:1-8) and Luke (9:28-33). Only The Gospel of Luke (24:51) tells of Jesus leaving his disciples for the last time by ascending into the sky and leaving the Earth. Kazuba (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: This keeps being removed

message: I attempted to improve the neutrality of the article by chopping a bunch of stuff that reads like a christian promotional pamphlet and has no references and shows incredible bias.
Stuff like this is complete garbage: 
* "Though a few other religions have teachings concerning resurrection, it features most prominently in Jewish and Christian scripture. Since the first century CE, most of the world associates resurrection with the resurrection of Jesus--for which there are numerous, elaborate attestations throughout the books of the New Testament of the Bible."
* " No other resurrection event enjoys more historical record: there are numerous, elaborate attestations throughout the books of the New Testament of the Bible."
There are many examples of religions with resurrection.  And the bible is not a historical account by any means.
This article also has an incredible bias towards being essentially "Resurrection of Jesus" which is covered in an article of the same name. This article needs to be about resurrection in general. Not just jewish and christian resurrection. I'll work to improve this and widen the scope beyond the Christian perspective. NathanLee (talk) 02:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, have tried to make the lead more about general resurrection, linked in with the birth-death-rebirth deity stuff and talked about other resurrection stories. Still think there's a lot duplicated on the christian viewpoints which is probably already in Resurrection of Jesus. Still, a bit of coverage doesn't hurt as "resurrection" is pretty commonly linked to "christian resurrection stories" (at least in the "west"). NathanLee (talk) 05:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of POV unsourced religious stuff 

message: It might be good to add a section on native american resurrection beliefs. Quetzalcoatl, for instance, was a symbol of death and resurrection. --RhoOphuichi (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Native American Resurrection? 

message: Some bloody odd stuff going on in the intro, what with that last paragraph being what seems like a sort of circular argument proving God, or something, with source links going directly to an online Bible.  Not a Wikipedia user myself, so I've not edited it out (being afraid I'll end up deleting half the article by mistake), but somebody might wanna look into that. -Mr. Anonymous, May 11 2009  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.28.255.201 (talk) 03:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro Religious Shenanigans? 

message: //Many scholars, preachers and laypeople do not believe that the resurrection of Jesus was a physical historical event, since it is not scientifically "falsifiable". Instead, say it is to be understood metaphorically to affirm the living reality of Jesus after death in a way beyond complete understanding, that nevertheless draws believers together in a hopeful new political and social order.//
Considering that the historicity and physical actuality and every reality is accepted by the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Miaphysites, the Assyrians and the vast majority of Protestants, I am removing this nonsense source which states that lay people and preachers deny any reality of the resurrection. Gabr-el 05:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal crap 

message: Another source which confirms the apocryphal character of the resurrection of Jesus is http://www.v3.co.uk/vnunet/news/2222246/world-oldest-bible-goes-online Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Apocryphal event

message: All of the sources regarding Achilles death all have him wandering around as a spirit on his island. Go look for yourself on his page. If it matters to anyone, all but one of those postdate the gospels, and the one that doesn't specifically mentions Achilles being a "spirit". The page said Alcmene was taken up to heaven but her page says there are two accounts of her death. One she is buried, and the other, she is turned into a rock. Asclepius was killed but never brought back from the dead. I'm pretty sure he was made into a constellation. theoi.com has all the sources mentioning him on there. Techincally, he did resurrect people, but it should be noted that he used a special herb to do it. 69.254.76.77 (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm not sure if Achilles and Alcmene were ever "resurrected" 

message: > The vast majority of Christians; Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants and adherents of the Assyrian Church of the East accept the resurrection of Jesus as a real historical event
ALL Christians accept it, because if you do not, you are NOT a Christian! (If Christ did not resurrect in body, he was not God and therefore couldn't redeem mankind with his death on the Cross.) 82.131.210.163 (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps there are Christians that believe that Christ redeemed mankind solely with his death, and not with resurrection? I'm unfamiliar with any Christian faith that doesn't believe in Jesus' resurrection, but it seems quite feasible that such denominations exist. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 01:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whitewashing complaint 

message: Large portions of this article are off-topic, and should be moved to the Resurrection of the dead article. Editor2020 (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving content to [[Resurrection of the dead]] 

message: The article says:
"Most also teach that it is only as a result of the atoning work of Christ, by grace through faith, that people are spared eternal punishment as judgment for their sins."
Most whom? Since the majority of those who profess to be Christian are Catholic (look it up, its true), I would say most do not say that. Furthermore, it is irrelevant to the topic of resurrection. I suggest we delete this, because its off-topic. As a matter of fact, I will.Glorthac (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: By grace through faith is an important concept. -Stevertigo (t | c) 00:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: By grace through faith?

message: The term "resurrection of the dead" has been capitalized with an edit summary asserting it is a proper name. However, highly reliable sources (including the Vatican web site catechism) do not capitalize it and even if they did, this article is not discussing a single eschatological perspective but approaches the topic from a general view. We should only capitalize the term where we refer to a specific eschatology and have sources to support that usage. Jojalozzo 01:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Resurrection of the Dead is a proper noun, thus in English one capitalizes the nouns. This is done to distinguish this specific topic from general resurrections of the dead. The article on Resurrection of the Dead is on that specific topic, not general resurrections of the dead which instead is covered at Resurrection. For example, the Resurrection of Lazarus is a resurrection of the dead, but it is not the Resurrection of the Dead. 75.14.220.130 (talk) 05:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization of "resurrection of the dead"  

message: "The soul is the divine and immortal part of the human mind"
This is currently marked as "citation needed", but it goes far beyond that - it makes unsupported (and ultimately unsupportable) implications about divinity and immortality.(Unless this is intended as a theoretical definition, in which case it should probably clearly state that.) The referenced pages (such as Soul or immortal) are much more careful about qualifying the truth of such statements - X believes Y, not just Y is true. A simple qualifier (and eventually a citation, please) is probably enough: "The soul is believed to be ...". I will be bold and add the qualifier - although far from perfect, I think it is better than the current wording, which is much too strong.
(I see a lot of unqualified, unsupportable statements in articles relating to mysticism, religion, and superstition, so this is not unique. Every little fix helps. ;) 173.172.95.186 (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Soul 

message: I doubt this, and it is unsourced: "Nearly all Christians – Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant and adherents of the Assyrian Church of the East – accept the resurrection of Jesus as a real historical event, and condemn the denial of the physical reality of the resurrection as a heresy."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strangesad (talk • contribs) 20:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it. No need even asking for a source, as such a claim by definition is not possible to source unless one does an opinion poll of all Christians asking them if they condemn as a heresy the denial of the resurrection as a historical event. If someone wants to add it again, please provide a source and a wording that matches the source. I also removed the following sentence as it had been tagged since 2010 and no source had been added.Jeppiz (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't follow me to articles. Strangesad (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ?? To the best of me knowledge, we've come across each other at only one other article, and that article is highly related to this one.Jeppiz (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't say we came across each other there. You went to that article from the ANI just to revert me. If you got to this article some way other than checking my contribs, then fine, but that's highly coincidental. Strangesad (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nearly all Xians 

message: I am staring this discussion to talk about the references added by Corn Cheese. I have agreed with the other editor who reverted his edits. When he continued to add the blog as a reference, I reported him as being in violation of the 3 revert rule. But then I got a note on my talk page from another user who agrees with Corn Cheese. So I wanted to post here and discuss his edits and give them a fair chance for possible inclusion. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 04:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the issue arises because the revert does not actually remove the reference. It only removes information that was added to the ref. I went ahead and removed it completely as per WP:SELFPUBLISH. Dromidaon (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  References added by [[User:Corn Cheese]]. 

message: Earlier today, an editor added a major new section 'Resurrection#Transhumanism and technology', even though the matter of resurrection is not discussed AT ALL at the current article 'Transhumanism'. Let's wait for edits AT THAT ARTICLE, and likely a discussion at that article's Talk, before such a section is added here. Another editor already reverted the addition. Thanks!--→gab 24dot grab← 02:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The major problem with transhumanism is its assumption that a computer simulated human would be as conscious and alive as a real human. Maybe this is WP:OR for now, but surely some reliable source must have made this point before. Another problem with mind uploading: suppose you upload your mind, it is copied in 100 copies, 50 copies are sentenced to eternal torments, and 50 copies to eternal bliss, and you continue to live: have you been punished or rewarded in this way? Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transhumanism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Resurrection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140310040156/http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/stewart.cfm?id=136 to http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/stewart.cfm?id=136
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There are some odd sentences in the Resurrection_Miracles section - for example "This resurrection is singular, because there is not Jesus or an apostle in resurrecting some other people died." Read the rest of the paragraph too. It looks either like vandalism or maybe a non-native English speaker.
188.2.21.236 (talk) 10:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I’ll fix this when I have time. Based on a preliminary reading, it seems to be people mixing the KJV terminology with modern English. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd English in some sections 

message: The introductory paragraph of this article states: 
"Resurrection is the concept of coming back to life after death. In a number of ancient religions, a dying-and-rising god is a deity which dies and resurrects."
Yet there is no reference given to support this claim (regardless of its accuracy) and no examples of said "ancient religions" or name of the "dying-and-rising god" is given.
In the sections which seek to lump other similar concepts in various religions to resurrection, either no references are given such as in the section about Hinduism or don't explain how the story is one of resurrection. For example from the section on Buddhism:
"One day at the street market Fuke was begging all and sundry to give him a robe. Everybody offered him one, but he did not want any of them. The master [Linji] made the superior buy a coffin, and when Fuke returned, said to him: "There, I had this robe made for you." Fuke shouldered the coffin, and went back to the street market, calling loudly: "Rinzai had this robe made for me! I am off to the East Gate to enter transformation" (to die)." The people of the market crowded after him, eager to look. Fuke said: "No, not today. Tomorrow, I shall go to the South Gate to enter transformation." And so for three days. Nobody believed it any longer. On the fourth day, and now without any spectators, Fuke went alone outside the city walls, and laid himself into the coffin. He asked a traveler who chanced by to nail down the lid.
The news spread at once, and the people of the market rushed there. On opening the coffin, they found that the body had vanished, but from high up in the sky they heard the ring of his hand bell."
Is this not a story of a ghost bell? There's no explanation as to how a disappearing body and the sound of a phantom bell ringing from the sky is comparable to resurrection of the physical body which is what the article is about. Correct me if I'm wrong but either an explanation with full references is required or this should be removed.
Likewise the section on Zombies has no references and no explanation as to how re-animation of a corpse and resurrection are the same. The word resurrection refers to the rising again of the same spirit into the same body as per all the examples found in Judeo-Christian beliefs. Re-animation on the other hand suggests a different spirit into the body which has been given animation for example the monster in Frankenstein. It isn't the same concept, isn't understood as such even colloquially and quite frankly the inclusion of such in this article is quite bizarre. Iynx (talk) 08:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, according to Bart Ehrman the concept of dying-and-rising gods fell out of favor in the academia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of References / Examples