![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
I would have thought there should be some mention of the two men who were crucified with Jesus at some point in the article. Robski 04:33, 29 June 2007 (GMT)
I believe I have made edits which obviate the need for the 'treats in-universe events as real' tag... which I think should be reserved for actual works of fiction, and had no business here. Fiction is different from a widely-held belief which is a major component of a widespread major religion. However, I respect the intent of the tag, and made some changes. I'm not 'bold' enough to remove the tag unilaterally, would someone else look over the article and remove it if appropriate? Thanks everyone for your diligence and hard work on this difficult and controversial article!!! User:Pedant 19:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
According to the wikipedia articles on Jesus, and New Testament, and a couple websites I've found. I can only assume what this section is referring to by "Christian creeds" are the First Epistle to the Corinthians (53-57AD), where it is cryptically mentioned that "Jesus appeared" or the Gospel of Mark (70AD), which breaks off with the women finding an empty crypt, leaving whether he was alive an open question. Of course, later writings and additions, written as the Christian church began to flesh-out its dogma, contain many more references to post-resurrection Jesus. johnpseudo 00:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Latest possible date of Jesus's death | Earliest possible New Testament writing | |
---|---|---|
Columbia Encyclopedia | 36AD | 50AD |
World Encyclopedia | 29AD | 45AD |
Encarta Encyclopedia | 29AD | 50AD |
If you want to clarify the statement to suggest that, for instance, "modern scholarly support in the relevant fields is very limited", as Jesus myth hypothesis does, that's fine with me. Deleting it entirely is not offering a Neutral point-of-view. johnpseudo 23:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
It says in this article that no historian had ever recorded the darkness. If you read the Case for Christ it sights one. Sorry to bug everybody! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.225.39.176 ( talk) 13:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
"...the death and resurrection of Jesus are two core events on which much of Christian doctrine and theology depend..." This seems too strongly worded. "depend" seems to imply some sort of logical dependency, like much of the belief system would fall apart if the events were not true, or perhaps just were not emphasized. While people may make sourcable claims that this is true, I think it's hard to say that it is actually true. I recommend this phrase be removed as POV, or reworded and moved to a later place in the article. i.e. "Most theologians (or most Christians? many Christians?) claim (or believe) that the death and ressurrection of Jesus are two core events on which much...depend." There is also a problem with saying "The body of Christian belief". What is "Christian belief"? Which groups are you including and excluding? Based on my experience of Christianity, there are many, many groups within Christianity for whom the death and resurrection are important, but for which the rest of the faith does not "depend" on them. Cazort 22:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the following statements as they have been tagged "citation needed" for several months:
If anyone can find sources for any of these statements, feel free to re-add them. — An gr If you've written a quality article... 18:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
This article has been renamed from Death and resurrection of Jesus to Resurrection of Jesus as the result of a move request.
The result of the proposal was - Move to reflect article focus and enable new article creation. Keith D ( talk) 22:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
This article focuses repeatedly on the topic of the resurrection, and what there is on the crucifixion presumes prior knowledge by the reader. There are SO many separate articles on different parts of Jesus' life, yet these 2 are linked inseparably in this article - to the point that I question its neutrality. I think the crucifixion of Jesus could be quite a complete article in itself, and while still including mention of Xn belief that the story does not end there, would be more neutral article -- JimWae ( talk) 00:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
This article could be renamed Resurrection of Jesus and very little editing would need to be done. A separate article on the Crucifixion could begin with what content is here & at Crucifixion. There's an aticle on the supposed Sanhedrin Trial of Jesus but apparently NOT one on Jesus' trial before Pilate (only at Pilate#Pilate in the canonical Gospel accounts). There's an entire article on the Crucifixion eclipse but not one on the crucifixion of Jesus. This particular article, because of its focus on resurrection, does not treat the crucifixion in a clearly unbiased manner -- JimWae ( talk) 23:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
"The Gospel of John says that a soldier pierced Jesus' side, causing the flow of blood and water."
...
"This flow of water suggests fatal heart trauma required to release pericardial fluid. Without pericardial fluid, the heart may become bruised over time (due to friction between the heart and the pericardium). (The pericardial fluid is not required for the heart to function; it merely acts as a lubricant.) Roman soldiers were trained with such diligence that it is not logical to assume that someone could have survived a piercing in this region of the body."
With this information, is it possible to determine more specifically where Jesus was stabbed, rather than just 'His side'? --Is this fact... ? 17:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
There is an apparent non sequitur in the "Resurrection of Jesus" sub-section of the "Critical analysis" section:
Huh? As it's currently written, the second sentence looks like it is meant to argue against the first sentence, but really it argues against the resurrection itself. Also, the first sentence is a bit of a misstatement of the skeptics' position. This might be better:
This version also avoids the use of the word "claim", as recommended by Wikipedia:Words to avoid. Any objections to that version? -- Hi Ev 04:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I know that this may be original research and not a thing that should take place here, but... Look at the *anointment* element in the so-called "resurrection" puzzle. If women were actually to go to the tomb of Jesus to *ANOINT* his body, it means, that: 1. they would consider him dead (nobody anoints the body of a living human, at least as I know), 2. they would have planned to enter the tomb, 3. they would have to somehow open (or at least plan to open) the tomb and remove this horribly heavy, 2-ton weighing boulder, 4. they would have to either:
a. sneak at the guards, b. bribe the guards, c. kill the guards(???), d. have the guards' permission to enter, eg. on the account that their duty ended with the end of Sabbath and they would stop to denny entry to the tomb
to anybody (or even help him/her with openzing the tomb on a request)
Therefore, if women actually entered the tomb or planned it, it must have been open and unguarded (or guarded, but the guards would let them pass). And if it was opened or unguarded, body might have been easily stolen, or just legitimately moved to another grave (after all, the one of Joseph of Arimathea wasn't the proper one; it was just "temporary" place for the corpse of Jesus). There's no place for anything supernatural there. The body might have been just moved to another grave and the legend of resurrection might have arosen. Not the deliberate lie, but a legend, same like the Jewish legends of Honi the circle drawer, Babylonian legends of the miracles of Gods (see Gilgamesh), Roman legends about their ceasars, etc. The ancient world was full of legends and myths. Critto ( talk) 16:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Therefore, the question of the guards unfulfilling their duty must somehow be resolved. Also, what would happen to the guards if Jesus has actually resurrected? Would their commanders believe them that they were overpowered by a Deity, angels, deamons, spirits, etc? Would they avoild the punishment (death penalty) for breaking the orders? would there be any difference then if they just unfulfilled their duty, eg. by sleeping or being bribed? Critto ( talk) 16:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry man, you're wrong. A body resurrecting from the dead is not impossible, just improbable. There certainly is a probability amplitude for your atoms to move back to a configuration they were in when you were alive, since death is just the atoms moving to a configuration which no longer works they way it used to (i.e. a bullet pushing your atoms in your heart apart so they no longer function like a heart). This probability is of course very small, but it is not zero.
And them you beg the question by saying resurrection of the dead is impossible, why? The only scientific answer is that we've never seen it (confirmed it by an experiment).
But if Jesus did rise from the dead, then obviously its not impossible, as something that happens is possible by definition. So your argument now is I don't believe Paul and others' claim to have seen the resurrected Jesus. Fine, but don't pawn off your beliefs as science. Like when you say miracle explanations are out of bounds. Only if your religion is naturalism. Science itself does not favor naturalism over supernaturalism automatically. That's not science, that's naturalism.
Science is testing your ideas using experiments, that's all. If one were to experimentally prove the supernatural, then they would scientifically be real, so science is clearly capable of admitting supernatural things as long as there is experimental evidence for it. If you really hold supernatural explanations are out of bounds scientifically, they what would you say if someone say brought a ghost (really, a real ghost) down to the physics lab at Oxford or Stanford or wherever, and the scientists could check him out and confirm he is indeed a ghost, then wouldn't that scientifically prove the existence of ghosts, which you seem to label as supernatural, so obviously supernatural things are not out of scientific bounds.
You might then say that fine, supernatural things could be allowed by science, but there is no experimental evidence for them, so we don't admit them as real. That's true, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Otherwise we could conclude extraterrestrials are not real as there is no verifiable experimental evidence for them, but most scientists believe in aliens don't they? Roy Brumback ( talk) 16:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep your supernatural explanations if you want, I don't oppose. However it's totally UNACCEPTABLE that in this article there are NO skeptical and scientific views about the alleged event. Anyway, skeptics DO have their say, as they exist and write lots of material (eg. Jesus Seminar) and their opinion SHOULD be presented. Now the whole thing looks extremely stupid: all naturalistic theories are being challenged, while the supernaturalistic one is left unchallenged. Be it that denying resurrection offends someone here, I don't care. It's ENCYCLOPEDIA and it means that TRUTH should be presented here. If truth is unknown, at least ALL quests for truth should be presented. Presence of some skeptical views on other pages about resurrection doesn't change the fact that this article is terribly lacking them or they are misrepresented (one or two lines about what skeptics "claim", as if tales of resureection were more probable than scientific inquires). Therefore article should NOT be deemend as NPOV. It's biased towards supernaturalism. Critto ( talk) 16:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Please be civil, I'm not a Wikipedian, but I'm a wikiHowian, and even I know your behavior is unacceptable by the wiki standards. State your opinions if you want, but please state them civally. Thanks.
24.98.47.141 ( talk) 01:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
I would have thought there should be some mention of the two men who were crucified with Jesus at some point in the article. Robski 04:33, 29 June 2007 (GMT)
I believe I have made edits which obviate the need for the 'treats in-universe events as real' tag... which I think should be reserved for actual works of fiction, and had no business here. Fiction is different from a widely-held belief which is a major component of a widespread major religion. However, I respect the intent of the tag, and made some changes. I'm not 'bold' enough to remove the tag unilaterally, would someone else look over the article and remove it if appropriate? Thanks everyone for your diligence and hard work on this difficult and controversial article!!! User:Pedant 19:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
According to the wikipedia articles on Jesus, and New Testament, and a couple websites I've found. I can only assume what this section is referring to by "Christian creeds" are the First Epistle to the Corinthians (53-57AD), where it is cryptically mentioned that "Jesus appeared" or the Gospel of Mark (70AD), which breaks off with the women finding an empty crypt, leaving whether he was alive an open question. Of course, later writings and additions, written as the Christian church began to flesh-out its dogma, contain many more references to post-resurrection Jesus. johnpseudo 00:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Latest possible date of Jesus's death | Earliest possible New Testament writing | |
---|---|---|
Columbia Encyclopedia | 36AD | 50AD |
World Encyclopedia | 29AD | 45AD |
Encarta Encyclopedia | 29AD | 50AD |
If you want to clarify the statement to suggest that, for instance, "modern scholarly support in the relevant fields is very limited", as Jesus myth hypothesis does, that's fine with me. Deleting it entirely is not offering a Neutral point-of-view. johnpseudo 23:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
It says in this article that no historian had ever recorded the darkness. If you read the Case for Christ it sights one. Sorry to bug everybody! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.225.39.176 ( talk) 13:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
"...the death and resurrection of Jesus are two core events on which much of Christian doctrine and theology depend..." This seems too strongly worded. "depend" seems to imply some sort of logical dependency, like much of the belief system would fall apart if the events were not true, or perhaps just were not emphasized. While people may make sourcable claims that this is true, I think it's hard to say that it is actually true. I recommend this phrase be removed as POV, or reworded and moved to a later place in the article. i.e. "Most theologians (or most Christians? many Christians?) claim (or believe) that the death and ressurrection of Jesus are two core events on which much...depend." There is also a problem with saying "The body of Christian belief". What is "Christian belief"? Which groups are you including and excluding? Based on my experience of Christianity, there are many, many groups within Christianity for whom the death and resurrection are important, but for which the rest of the faith does not "depend" on them. Cazort 22:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the following statements as they have been tagged "citation needed" for several months:
If anyone can find sources for any of these statements, feel free to re-add them. — An gr If you've written a quality article... 18:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
This article has been renamed from Death and resurrection of Jesus to Resurrection of Jesus as the result of a move request.
The result of the proposal was - Move to reflect article focus and enable new article creation. Keith D ( talk) 22:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
This article focuses repeatedly on the topic of the resurrection, and what there is on the crucifixion presumes prior knowledge by the reader. There are SO many separate articles on different parts of Jesus' life, yet these 2 are linked inseparably in this article - to the point that I question its neutrality. I think the crucifixion of Jesus could be quite a complete article in itself, and while still including mention of Xn belief that the story does not end there, would be more neutral article -- JimWae ( talk) 00:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
This article could be renamed Resurrection of Jesus and very little editing would need to be done. A separate article on the Crucifixion could begin with what content is here & at Crucifixion. There's an aticle on the supposed Sanhedrin Trial of Jesus but apparently NOT one on Jesus' trial before Pilate (only at Pilate#Pilate in the canonical Gospel accounts). There's an entire article on the Crucifixion eclipse but not one on the crucifixion of Jesus. This particular article, because of its focus on resurrection, does not treat the crucifixion in a clearly unbiased manner -- JimWae ( talk) 23:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
"The Gospel of John says that a soldier pierced Jesus' side, causing the flow of blood and water."
...
"This flow of water suggests fatal heart trauma required to release pericardial fluid. Without pericardial fluid, the heart may become bruised over time (due to friction between the heart and the pericardium). (The pericardial fluid is not required for the heart to function; it merely acts as a lubricant.) Roman soldiers were trained with such diligence that it is not logical to assume that someone could have survived a piercing in this region of the body."
With this information, is it possible to determine more specifically where Jesus was stabbed, rather than just 'His side'? --Is this fact... ? 17:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
There is an apparent non sequitur in the "Resurrection of Jesus" sub-section of the "Critical analysis" section:
Huh? As it's currently written, the second sentence looks like it is meant to argue against the first sentence, but really it argues against the resurrection itself. Also, the first sentence is a bit of a misstatement of the skeptics' position. This might be better:
This version also avoids the use of the word "claim", as recommended by Wikipedia:Words to avoid. Any objections to that version? -- Hi Ev 04:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I know that this may be original research and not a thing that should take place here, but... Look at the *anointment* element in the so-called "resurrection" puzzle. If women were actually to go to the tomb of Jesus to *ANOINT* his body, it means, that: 1. they would consider him dead (nobody anoints the body of a living human, at least as I know), 2. they would have planned to enter the tomb, 3. they would have to somehow open (or at least plan to open) the tomb and remove this horribly heavy, 2-ton weighing boulder, 4. they would have to either:
a. sneak at the guards, b. bribe the guards, c. kill the guards(???), d. have the guards' permission to enter, eg. on the account that their duty ended with the end of Sabbath and they would stop to denny entry to the tomb
to anybody (or even help him/her with openzing the tomb on a request)
Therefore, if women actually entered the tomb or planned it, it must have been open and unguarded (or guarded, but the guards would let them pass). And if it was opened or unguarded, body might have been easily stolen, or just legitimately moved to another grave (after all, the one of Joseph of Arimathea wasn't the proper one; it was just "temporary" place for the corpse of Jesus). There's no place for anything supernatural there. The body might have been just moved to another grave and the legend of resurrection might have arosen. Not the deliberate lie, but a legend, same like the Jewish legends of Honi the circle drawer, Babylonian legends of the miracles of Gods (see Gilgamesh), Roman legends about their ceasars, etc. The ancient world was full of legends and myths. Critto ( talk) 16:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Therefore, the question of the guards unfulfilling their duty must somehow be resolved. Also, what would happen to the guards if Jesus has actually resurrected? Would their commanders believe them that they were overpowered by a Deity, angels, deamons, spirits, etc? Would they avoild the punishment (death penalty) for breaking the orders? would there be any difference then if they just unfulfilled their duty, eg. by sleeping or being bribed? Critto ( talk) 16:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry man, you're wrong. A body resurrecting from the dead is not impossible, just improbable. There certainly is a probability amplitude for your atoms to move back to a configuration they were in when you were alive, since death is just the atoms moving to a configuration which no longer works they way it used to (i.e. a bullet pushing your atoms in your heart apart so they no longer function like a heart). This probability is of course very small, but it is not zero.
And them you beg the question by saying resurrection of the dead is impossible, why? The only scientific answer is that we've never seen it (confirmed it by an experiment).
But if Jesus did rise from the dead, then obviously its not impossible, as something that happens is possible by definition. So your argument now is I don't believe Paul and others' claim to have seen the resurrected Jesus. Fine, but don't pawn off your beliefs as science. Like when you say miracle explanations are out of bounds. Only if your religion is naturalism. Science itself does not favor naturalism over supernaturalism automatically. That's not science, that's naturalism.
Science is testing your ideas using experiments, that's all. If one were to experimentally prove the supernatural, then they would scientifically be real, so science is clearly capable of admitting supernatural things as long as there is experimental evidence for it. If you really hold supernatural explanations are out of bounds scientifically, they what would you say if someone say brought a ghost (really, a real ghost) down to the physics lab at Oxford or Stanford or wherever, and the scientists could check him out and confirm he is indeed a ghost, then wouldn't that scientifically prove the existence of ghosts, which you seem to label as supernatural, so obviously supernatural things are not out of scientific bounds.
You might then say that fine, supernatural things could be allowed by science, but there is no experimental evidence for them, so we don't admit them as real. That's true, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Otherwise we could conclude extraterrestrials are not real as there is no verifiable experimental evidence for them, but most scientists believe in aliens don't they? Roy Brumback ( talk) 16:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep your supernatural explanations if you want, I don't oppose. However it's totally UNACCEPTABLE that in this article there are NO skeptical and scientific views about the alleged event. Anyway, skeptics DO have their say, as they exist and write lots of material (eg. Jesus Seminar) and their opinion SHOULD be presented. Now the whole thing looks extremely stupid: all naturalistic theories are being challenged, while the supernaturalistic one is left unchallenged. Be it that denying resurrection offends someone here, I don't care. It's ENCYCLOPEDIA and it means that TRUTH should be presented here. If truth is unknown, at least ALL quests for truth should be presented. Presence of some skeptical views on other pages about resurrection doesn't change the fact that this article is terribly lacking them or they are misrepresented (one or two lines about what skeptics "claim", as if tales of resureection were more probable than scientific inquires). Therefore article should NOT be deemend as NPOV. It's biased towards supernaturalism. Critto ( talk) 16:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Please be civil, I'm not a Wikipedian, but I'm a wikiHowian, and even I know your behavior is unacceptable by the wiki standards. State your opinions if you want, but please state them civally. Thanks.
24.98.47.141 ( talk) 01:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)