Talk:Resurrection of Jesus/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

This archive was created at the Merge of three Separate Articles, and all three talk pages are combined here.

WikiProject Jesus

In order to try to work out the relationship between all the various pages and hopefully get some consensus, I have opened a WikiProject to centralize discussion and debate. We've got several "conflicted" pages at the moment, and without centralizing discussion, it's going to get very confusing. Please join the project, if you're interested in the topic, and start discussions on the talk page. (We need to create a to-do list, but I think the current state is too conflicted to decide even that.) Mpolo 10:49, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Rebuttal by apologists

This is in regards to the section [1]

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)

A rebuttal bloats the article needlessly. Most of the points are pretty worthless -- and if the apologists get a rebuttal shouldn't the opposing side have one as well. yeah, and maybe closing statements and questions from the audience after that...

so, I'm deleting again. Starless and bible black 17:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

It's not presenting one side -- it's giving accurate information about the issues concerning the historicity of Jesus. See the new talk entry I started. Starless and bible black 18:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Arguments defending the resurrection's historicity

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)

additional skeptical arguments

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)

Significance of the resurrection

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)

How was Jesus resurrected?

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)

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)

Sabbath

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)

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)

Adding category "christian mythology"

mythology definition as per dictionary.com "A body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes" Since this is definatly an collection of stories about a diety/ancestor/hero, the categorization of "christian mythology" is appropriate. See Category talk:Christian mythology for further discussion. FestivalOfSouls 16:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

This matter is still under discussion. DJ Clayworth 16:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Huh? Dictionary.com defines a "myth" as a "myth"???

I suggest you get a real dictionary... Codex Sinaiticus 17:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Um... what? that made no sense.... dictionarys usually define a "word" as a "word".... Funny how that works... Dictionary.com just happens to be a convient site, with less annoying ads than m-w.com FestivalOfSouls 19:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Well, I haven't looked up the website, because I prefer to use hard back dictionaries, not website dictionaries... But I find it hard to believe that anything calling itself a dictionary would define a word like "myth" by using the same word in the definition. According to what you wrote above, it says a "myth" is "a body or collection of myths"... That logically leads to the question, "Okay, but what does "myths" mean?"... See what I mean, it's a circular definition... Codex Sinaiticus 21:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

He means "stories". It's a mis-quote. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I meant "mythology", in the word that was being defined and didn't catch that. Sorry. FestivalOfSouls 15:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Jesus didn't die on the cross?

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)

Ok it's Barbara Thiering. Thanks to all who helped ;P I started a page on the swoon hypothesis as it's already too crowded on this page to give it much attention here. ntennis 05:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Occams razor

The statement "Jesus's resurrection isn't neccessary to explain all subsquent history" is totally confused, what does the statement mean? Interpreted literally it is nonsensesical, no theory has to cover all subsquent history, also no theory is "needed" to explain anything as without parsimony, theories are underdetermined, that is an infinte number of theories can explain a body of empirical data. Better would be "the hypothesis "Jesus rose from the dead" isn't the most parsimonious theory which covers the facts it supposedly explains."

Alternative accounts

Alternative account 4 has nothing to do ( at least as outlined) with the death of ( and disputed resurrection) of christ.

Bibliography

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)

Gospel of Barnabas

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)

"Skeptical views"

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)

• Agree - I think I may have defied convention by just changing them... Let me know if I did the wrong thing. A J Hay

reverted edits

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)

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)

Well, it's a fact. Spin it whichever way you want but they are not part of critical historical inquiry. They only seek to defend Christian claims - standard historical methodology? I don't think so. And their arguments do depend on claims not held by critical historians.

As regards the extended apologetics section - it was a list of dubious claims that the article is better off without. The same goes for the list of points in reply. How about a new article for 'Apologetics concerning the Resurrection' Starless and bible black 19:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

Of course I didn't do it so that I could fill it with arguments against the Resurrection. And if explanation of the docrine is all that you think should be in this article why don't you delete the whole "historicity" section. It would certainly be an improvement on what we have now. Also, the other users who keep reverting it should make an appearance here.Starless and bible black 21:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Comparisons with other religions

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

Soldiers, and such

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)

Opening Paragraph

I changed the introduction in order to make it more inclusive. Trinitarians do not have an exclusive claim to belief in the resurrection. My changes were an attempt to make it a broader concept. There is not need to enter into a specific teaching like the hypostatic concept...being man and son of God is sufficient to understand that Jesus had the ability to take up his life again. IMHO, to focus on the belief that Jesus was both man and God himself in an article that is supposed to focus on the Resurrection of Jesus is unnecessary. If my changes are unacceptable I would appreciate hearing a counter proposal. Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'm fine with a link to the hypostatic concept so long as it's kept as "both man and God" in the opening paragraph. Remember that the introduction to an article is meant to be a simple explanation of the event, and the "man and God" is a very simple explanation of how Jesus was resurrected.

I would, however, like to see the word "Trinitarian" removed; far too many people wouldn't have a good understanding of what the word means. A J Hay 23:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I am reverting Clinkophonists edits after I finish this and request that he bring his many edits to the discussion page. I disagree with introducing the Trinitarian concept as I have stated before. I still would fall on the side of not stating hypostatic concept only because it is found in the introduction; I think it is more important to introduce in the body where it can be further explained. Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, after doing some research, there seem to be very few Christians who aren't Trinitarians, nor for that matter those that Gnostics or Docetists. I would've thought that their opinions were too minor, certainly too minor for the opening paragraph. In regards to the hypostatic concept, that seems like a good idea, just edit it into the body of the text first (does it fit?).A J Hay 03:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The are minor now, but Gnosticism was a very major sect in early Christianity (the Marcionism sub-sect threatened the very existence of the Christian orthodoxy), as was Arianism, and modern Unitarianism (which by definition is non-Trinitarian) seems to be quite a large group. Clinkophonist 21:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt that you're right, but to be honest, I like the opening paragraph now, though I think a date should be there (is 27-35AD right?). Basically, it's short, and I like opening paragraphs that primary school children can understand. An overview of opinions gets provided in the second paragraph; the Gnosticism and Docetism stuff crept into the opening paragraph because I thought it was a good idea some months ago to add in something like "Christians believe Jesus is the Son of God and he therefore has powers like that" leading to people wanting to clarify that statement; looking back, is it really necessary to explain how it happened? I have no idea. The article, so far, seems better without it. A J Hay 01:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Short is good, but for complicated subjects its more appropriate to go slightly more into detail (complicated due to variety of interpretations, and peripheral stuff like that, rather than difficulty of understanding), rather than cut things off. "Christians believe ...." unfortunately is worded in the same sense as "Anyone who doesnt believe .... isn't a Christian", which should make clearer why it is POV. Mormons, for example, run a whole state, but are non-Trinitarian, Arianism is common in certain middle-eastern/central-asian nations, the Assyrian Church of the East (still existing as a significant group in Syria and surrounding areas) is Nestorian - arguing that Jesus is two people not one. To take the view that because it isnt common where we are it isnt worth mentioning is the perfect example of systemic bias, which should be avoided. Clinkophonist 16:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Allright, in that case, is it ok if we choose the following format? If we write "Most Christians (footnote) say that......." and in the footnote, cite all of the exceptions. That way, we have the best of both worlds. The story is kept short and is explained easily (ie the way it is now), yet remains factually accurate, and represents minority groups. I really don't want to seem like I'm criticising small groups of people, but I do see clarity as more important than putting them in the body of the textA J Hay 04:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Clinkophonist edits and biblical narrative

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)

The recent edits are just merges from John 20:1, John 20:2, John 20:3, John 20:4, John 20:5, John 20:6, John 20:7, John 20:8, John 20:9, John 20:10, John 20:11, John 20:12, John 20:13, and John 20:14. The critique isn't mine, but whichever editors wrote those 14 or so articles. I've since moved some of the material from that merge to Empty tomb where it seems much more appropriate.

I would note that it is important to mention the biblical conflicts because to say "the bible says the resurrection was ....." requires there to be no conflict otherwise we have to say "part of the bible says the resurrection was .... but the other part says .... instead". Its probably also important to state that "Actually, the ancient manuscripts of Mark don't seem to mention an actual resurrected Jesus, and since Matthew and Luke are based on Mark, and John is an account written with knowledge of all three, then this probably means that an actual resurrected Jesus was never part of the original story", but obviously in more neutral, and carefully worded phrases.

The other recent edits were to move most of the historicity section to a new article - Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus - because it was a bit too big for the article; there is a small summary section in its place, mostly created just by moving the "alternative theories" section into it.

The last edit was to the "significant non-Christian references" - to remove all the references that were not about the resurrection; otherwise the section seems to be trying to duplicate Historicity of Jesus, which seems inappropriate. E.g. What exactly does "Jesus = brother of James" say about the resurrection?

I don't really see these as major edits.

Clinkophonist 20:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Significance of the Resurrection

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)

Hmmm.... no comments here after a few weeks. Did I ask a stupid question? I'll try again. Here is the entire section headed "Significance of the Resurrection - Roman Catholic View":

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)

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)

Suetonius and Tacitus

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)

I'm not convinced they have anything whatsoever to do with the resurrection. Clinkophonist 13:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The historical quotes don't really add anything to the article, they just add some historical verification to what happened, ie it's not just Christian Sources which claim the existence of Christianity. Also, these are points which are often discussed by various books and articles on the resurrection, particularly entry-level ones. If we delete them from the article, someone will simply add them in later. On top of that, once the Historicity article gets up to scratch, I'd like to see the two articles merged, so exactly which article the quotes are in shouldn't matter so much (should the merge happen).A J Hay 02:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Merge Proposal

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)

Two days and no comments? I checked the rules, and five days is enough to generate consensus or silence [2]. I'd rather have some support/opinions from various editors of the page, but if nobody replies soon I'll perform the merge.A J Hay 01:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• PARTIAL MERGE - Historicity and Resurrection might very well go together, but Death should definetly remain separate, as death and rising from the dead are definetly two different things. Roy Brumback 9:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

• MERGE - I would support such a merger. I see all three as integral to the other when speaking of Jesus the Christ. I suspect if you do not get more comments then once you merge them they will come out of the woodwork in droves. Having some experience with merging articles and not waiting for concensus, it can begin an ugly chapter. You might seek out interested parties and ask for their input to speed it along. Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm rather hesitant to say this, but I'm going to do the merge now. It's been over a week, and 2 for, one against. I don't really have time to merge everything properly in one sitting, so I'll do half of the work now, half later (weekend?)A J Hay 22:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Previously on Death of Jesus

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)

Rewording of claims

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)

It could be reworded, but the rewording misses the point - the point being that "an account of person A is written at around the time that person A is described by the account as having lived but that doesn't mean that person A is real", or to describe it less clinically, and more approachably "fictional person B is mentioned by novel A which says he lived at time T which is also when the novel was written. That doesn't mean that fictional person B is real, and it isn't even an argument that fictional person B is real.". I.e. the point is that the contemporarity of the accounts is a false argument - it proves nothing at all. This is demonstrated by an example - harry potter being the first one that comes to mind (mainly because I see it advertised every day at the supermarket) - we know for certain that harry potter is fictional, and yet it is still contemporary with its setting. Clinkophonist 19:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I just moved the content from Resurrection of Jesus, I didn't actually spend ages writing the variety of arguments etc. They were already there. Clinkophonist 19:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to edit that sentence, edit it if you find it wrong --Rory

Room for Rebuttal

Should this article include rebuttal? This is how it existed in a previous form: [3]

A J Hay 00:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It could certainly be rewritten to merge the pro and anti sections together; however, it seems that that lead to arguments over wording, and whether pro or anti should get the last word, and on such a volatile topic, I think that leaving them in separate sections for now is probably wise. Clinkophonist 19:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

In addition to this being more of a debate, there are a fair number of obviously biased statements in this article. 24.7.163.154 00:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific please? What do you think isn't neutral about the article? Could you give examples of some of these statements? Thanks.--Andrew c 01:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that half of the Arguments against the Resurrection have a biased POV. Most of the Arguments for are ok, because I edited them that way a few months ago. The apologist comments are slimmed down in length most of the time to fit into one line, leading to an imbalanced article. Consider this sentence:

According to several studies, Paul's Epistles may not speak about a historic Jesus at all; Gnostic interpretations of the Epistles were common in ancient times, and argue for a docetic or allegorical interpretation of the resurrection, not a literally factual one. Paul may have been a convert but that doesn't mean he had to be a convert believing in a historical resurrection

• This is listed as a central tenet, when it's a supporting theory
• The studies aren't cited
• The second sentence is functionally useless, and half of the first can be cut. The article is full of such sentences.

Rewritten: Paul may have been a Gnostic or Docetic Christian. If this is so, he would not have referred to a bodily resurrection.

Notice how good this point sounds now. The audience, whether Christian of not, is treated with intelligence and dignity, allowing them to make up their own mind. It is not encyclopedic in these matters to say "This is right or wrong", but to give people their freedom. Perhaps a link to an article which explains this is depth would be in order. A J Hay 06:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it appropriate to say that the arguments against the resurrection are biased but that those for it are not. Both sets of arguments are extremely biased. This is by definition, and not a problem. What is a problem is the fact that the article reads like a debate (for vs. against) rather than an article. Clinkophonist 20:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I edited this article from this: [4]. That's what I mean when I say I made the pro-resurrection arguments NPOV. In regards to this aricle being a debate; yeah, I'd like to see that changed somehow, but how? This is one of those topics where anyone who knows a lot about it has a vested interest, and so every claim made about it is heavily biased to begin with; ie there is no neutral source... indeed if we did change this into prose it would still read like a debate "Using Occam's Razor to prove the resurrection seems futile, because sides claim X and Y". If you like challenges, think of a way to get around this =DA J Hay 01:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, these recent changes are terrible. Not only do they present every point in an argument-better counterargument way, there are sentence relics that make no sense:

Jewish culture was unfamiliar with mythical stories of Gods and rebirths [9]. By the first century AD, Jewish culture was very familiar with mythical stories of Gods and rebirths,

What I would suggest is paragraphs explaining the issues in depth, and banning the use of the word 'however'. A J Hay 03:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I made those changes by simply cutting the associated statement from the Anti-historicity section and putting it next to the pro-historicity statement. I did it late at night (from my geographic point of view), so you can't really expect lovely flowing paragraphs and complete removal of debate-style. I'm sorry about the sentences that don't make sense any more, I did notice them but I couldn't remember what I did with the rest of the paragraph in question (some things appear to have gone into two places at once). It wasn't intended to be a be-all and end-all edit, but an I'll do this now, and then sort it out properly some other time edit. I'll maybe have a go trying to tidy it up later, if noone else manages to sort it out before I do. Clinkophonist 17:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Allright, I had enough of a study break editing the article (I have an exam tomorrow, I'm kinda snappy atm), it needs to be taken out of 'tenets' and 'support' if it's going to not look like a debate. Also the article should make clear what an 'appeal to silence' is. A J Hay 04:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

A link to Appeal to silence should be sufficient to make clear what an 'appeal to silence' is; if we start explaining it here as well we run the risk of Content forking 'appeal to silence'. Clinkophonist 11:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

just a little sidenote, in trying to make this into prose, I'd like editors to remember that the format "A says this, however B says this" is in itself POV if constantly repeated, because B keeps getting the last word in the argument, and so someone would assume that B is the winner.A J Hay 02:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Balance and references

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)

Honestly, I've thought the same. I've tried to keep that section small, but people, usually without accounts, just add books/links to the section. Shall we agree on an arbitrary number of links? like 'no more than 5'? Also, we should put in a note that says if someone wants to add a reference they need to delete another. By the way, I made the distinctions 'ancient text', 'modern apologist' and 'modern skeptic' because the sections were all long and confusing, and everything there was written either before 600 or after 1900, so it was the natural breakdown - I didn't put a huge amount of thought into exact definitions.A J Hay 02:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Arguments from silence.

I have removed the contentious section:

"No historian from the era seems to have become aware of the event, and according to the majority of scholars not a single one of these witnesses wrote any part of the Bible "

as it adds nothing to the argument one way or another.

--Springnuts 19:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, whilst I'm not doubting your interest in the article, I'm going to revert your edits.

Indeed, you are right, but this isn't how wikipedia works. have a look at what you deleted:

The Gospels give conflicting accounts as to the first witness at the empty tomb - although the Gospels appear at first glance to claim that it was Mary or Mary and the other Mary or Mary, the other Mary, and Sinope, or some women, Mark actually implies that it was none of these, but a male youth clad in white whom Mary later saw inside. It is speculated some scholars such as Morton Smith that the male youth character is the same man that ran away naked in Mark 11

Hm, I allways assumed that this male youth is a kind of angelic being, which would certainly not count as a witness. Also there are no explicit claims about who was the first witness, leaving no conflict of who was the first witnes :P

and

No historian from the era seems to have become aware of the event, and according to the majority of scholars not a single one of these witnesses wrote any part of the Bible.

The reference - (Luke admits to not being a witness, Mark is traditionally John Mark, an assistant to an apostle; the authorship of John is not genuine according to most scholars, and Matthew reports events such as the Massacre of the Innocents which most historians believe is unhistoric. Paul, the earliest writer, clearly admits to never having seen Jesus in the flesh).

Now, look at the first quote. You're right in claiming that it doesn't belong next to the text it was attached to, but you're wrong to simply delete it. "conflicting biblical accounts" is a major component of the argument against the resurrection of Jesus, and you've left the article in a state where that isn't mentioned. What you should do instead is separate the points and discuss them in an NPOV manner.A J Hay 07:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)