This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Conversely, Helmut Koester writes that the stories of the resurrection were originally epiphanies in which the disciples are called to a ministry by the risen Jesus and were interpreted as physical proof of the event at a secondary stage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.119.6 ( talk) 19:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Just made some additions from article Post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. That article and this cover much the same ground, and this one seems to represent a pov fork - the only new thing it covers is historicity.reliability of the sources. I suggest the two articles be merged and a new section added to the Post-resurection article (which doesn't cover reliability of sources) PiCo ( talk) 10:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Lalvia added some material from N.T. Wright's book which I reverted, so I'll just explain here:
The section headed Cultural Background is about, well, the cultural background - what ancient Jews, Greeks and Romans believed about resurrection. In the first para is points out that few Jews at the time of Jesus conceived of resurrection in terms of a resurrection of the body - a resurrection of the soul, yes, but not the flesh. This was Jesus' own belief, as the last line of that para says. (Note that it's sourced, not something I made up).
The next para talks about the Greeks and Romans. They believed in a combined physical/spiritual ascension to heaven, at least for great men. The Roman Imperial ideology is especially important: emperors were the Son of God (not the Jewish God of course), and God (Venus or whoever) would signal approval of their life by taking them into heaven in a transformed physical form. From there they might visit Earth again to deliver messages to their followers, in person as Romulus was said to have done, but more often in dreams and visions.
The last para talks about the nature of the various resurrection experiences described in the NT. They come in two types, spiritual (the traditional Jewish type) and mixed physical/spiritual (the Roman Imperial type). The very earliest experiences are those of the Jewish Christian community described in Paul. They're completely spiritual, not physical. The Creed doesn't actually say what type the experience was, but Paul clearly believes his own experience was identical (he bases his apostleship on it) and it was totally spiritual. He saw Christ enthroned in Heaven, entering Heaven himself to do so. (The vision in Acts is also visionary, but bear in mind that it wasn't written by Paul and we don't know how authentic it is - but as I said, it's visionary, not physical).
Then you have Mark the first gospel. No appearances at all, although clearly he'd heard of a resurrection appearance in Galilee.
Then Mathew, Luke and John, with for the most part quite physical appearances, plus some that seem visionary (the Ascension described in Acts, for example). So you have a progression, from Jewish-style visions of the risen Christ in Heaven, to non-visionary experiences of a physical risen Jesus. Now to N.T. Wright.
Lalvia added three quotes from his "The Resurrection of the Son of God". I'll paste each and make some comments.
Anyway, there's why I reverted Lalvia's edits, which were certainly made in good faith and Wright is certainly a good source to quote. It's just that he's not touching on the subject of this section of our article. PiCo ( talk) 01:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I can see this headed for dispute resolution, but just to clarify why the edit keeps getting reverted:
I suppose we could use Wright instead of Cotter if you really are so fixated on Wright, but Cotter says it better. PiCo ( talk) 23:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
[Comment by probable sockpuppet evading block removed]
Lalvia, you quoted a book by three scholars with three different viewpoints, so I find it suspect to attribute a claim to all of them. Also, as Bart Ehrman argued in How Jesus became God, Jewish monotheism wasn't that strict as you suggest. Both for Pagans and for Jews, being lifted to heavens meant being made divine, although for most Jews it did not mean being made God, they believed in varying degrees of being divine (e.g. angels were divine, but they were not God). Also, for beginning researchers (I don't know if this is the case here), peddling highly original, eccentric views is a shortcut to academic affirmation. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
The article says "Evidence of this can be seen in the conflicts between them: to take a few examples, according to the synoptic gospels Jesus' mission took one year, was spent primarily in Galilee, and climaxed with a single visit to Jerusalem" Whoever wrote this has never read the synoptic gospels ! The temple is in Jerusalem !
Luke 19:47 "Every day he was teaching at the temple"
Luke 21:37 "Each day Jesus was teaching at the temple, and each evening he went out to spend the night on the hill called the Mount of Olives"
Matthew 26:55 "Every day I sat in the temple courts teaching, and you did not arrest me"
Mark 14:49 "Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me"
-- Brkic ( talk) 11:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Is a capital R required in Resurrection? Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
@ Potatín5: you twide added the following sentence:
According to James Dunn, most biblical scholars believe the weight of historical evidence points in favor of the historicity of the resurrection. [1]
References
I asked you for a pagenumber and a direcr quote, as it seems highly unlikely to me that Dunn wpuld have stated this in this way; in response, you reinserted this text with the comment He already indicates that in the front cover of his book.
The title of Dunn's book is "Why believe in Jesus' Resurrection?: A Little Book Of Guidance"; the blurb says "James D. G. Dunn sets out clearly and fairly the arguments for and against Jesus' resurrection, and explains why most biblical scholars believe the weight of historical evidence points in its favor." That does not suffice;
Glenn B. Siniscalchi in his review states a wide consensus of biblical scholars still stand in support of the honorable burial, the empty tomb, and the series of postmortem appearances of Jesus to friend and foe alike.
Appearances, not resurrection. I want a pagenumber and an exact quote from Dunn himself from the book. Did you even read that book?
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk! 19:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Conversely, Helmut Koester writes that the stories of the resurrection were originally epiphanies in which the disciples are called to a ministry by the risen Jesus and were interpreted as physical proof of the event at a secondary stage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.119.6 ( talk) 19:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Just made some additions from article Post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. That article and this cover much the same ground, and this one seems to represent a pov fork - the only new thing it covers is historicity.reliability of the sources. I suggest the two articles be merged and a new section added to the Post-resurection article (which doesn't cover reliability of sources) PiCo ( talk) 10:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Lalvia added some material from N.T. Wright's book which I reverted, so I'll just explain here:
The section headed Cultural Background is about, well, the cultural background - what ancient Jews, Greeks and Romans believed about resurrection. In the first para is points out that few Jews at the time of Jesus conceived of resurrection in terms of a resurrection of the body - a resurrection of the soul, yes, but not the flesh. This was Jesus' own belief, as the last line of that para says. (Note that it's sourced, not something I made up).
The next para talks about the Greeks and Romans. They believed in a combined physical/spiritual ascension to heaven, at least for great men. The Roman Imperial ideology is especially important: emperors were the Son of God (not the Jewish God of course), and God (Venus or whoever) would signal approval of their life by taking them into heaven in a transformed physical form. From there they might visit Earth again to deliver messages to their followers, in person as Romulus was said to have done, but more often in dreams and visions.
The last para talks about the nature of the various resurrection experiences described in the NT. They come in two types, spiritual (the traditional Jewish type) and mixed physical/spiritual (the Roman Imperial type). The very earliest experiences are those of the Jewish Christian community described in Paul. They're completely spiritual, not physical. The Creed doesn't actually say what type the experience was, but Paul clearly believes his own experience was identical (he bases his apostleship on it) and it was totally spiritual. He saw Christ enthroned in Heaven, entering Heaven himself to do so. (The vision in Acts is also visionary, but bear in mind that it wasn't written by Paul and we don't know how authentic it is - but as I said, it's visionary, not physical).
Then you have Mark the first gospel. No appearances at all, although clearly he'd heard of a resurrection appearance in Galilee.
Then Mathew, Luke and John, with for the most part quite physical appearances, plus some that seem visionary (the Ascension described in Acts, for example). So you have a progression, from Jewish-style visions of the risen Christ in Heaven, to non-visionary experiences of a physical risen Jesus. Now to N.T. Wright.
Lalvia added three quotes from his "The Resurrection of the Son of God". I'll paste each and make some comments.
Anyway, there's why I reverted Lalvia's edits, which were certainly made in good faith and Wright is certainly a good source to quote. It's just that he's not touching on the subject of this section of our article. PiCo ( talk) 01:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I can see this headed for dispute resolution, but just to clarify why the edit keeps getting reverted:
I suppose we could use Wright instead of Cotter if you really are so fixated on Wright, but Cotter says it better. PiCo ( talk) 23:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
[Comment by probable sockpuppet evading block removed]
Lalvia, you quoted a book by three scholars with three different viewpoints, so I find it suspect to attribute a claim to all of them. Also, as Bart Ehrman argued in How Jesus became God, Jewish monotheism wasn't that strict as you suggest. Both for Pagans and for Jews, being lifted to heavens meant being made divine, although for most Jews it did not mean being made God, they believed in varying degrees of being divine (e.g. angels were divine, but they were not God). Also, for beginning researchers (I don't know if this is the case here), peddling highly original, eccentric views is a shortcut to academic affirmation. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
The article says "Evidence of this can be seen in the conflicts between them: to take a few examples, according to the synoptic gospels Jesus' mission took one year, was spent primarily in Galilee, and climaxed with a single visit to Jerusalem" Whoever wrote this has never read the synoptic gospels ! The temple is in Jerusalem !
Luke 19:47 "Every day he was teaching at the temple"
Luke 21:37 "Each day Jesus was teaching at the temple, and each evening he went out to spend the night on the hill called the Mount of Olives"
Matthew 26:55 "Every day I sat in the temple courts teaching, and you did not arrest me"
Mark 14:49 "Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me"
-- Brkic ( talk) 11:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Is a capital R required in Resurrection? Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
@ Potatín5: you twide added the following sentence:
According to James Dunn, most biblical scholars believe the weight of historical evidence points in favor of the historicity of the resurrection. [1]
References
I asked you for a pagenumber and a direcr quote, as it seems highly unlikely to me that Dunn wpuld have stated this in this way; in response, you reinserted this text with the comment He already indicates that in the front cover of his book.
The title of Dunn's book is "Why believe in Jesus' Resurrection?: A Little Book Of Guidance"; the blurb says "James D. G. Dunn sets out clearly and fairly the arguments for and against Jesus' resurrection, and explains why most biblical scholars believe the weight of historical evidence points in its favor." That does not suffice;
Glenn B. Siniscalchi in his review states a wide consensus of biblical scholars still stand in support of the honorable burial, the empty tomb, and the series of postmortem appearances of Jesus to friend and foe alike.
Appearances, not resurrection. I want a pagenumber and an exact quote from Dunn himself from the book. Did you even read that book?
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk! 19:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)