Talk:Christianity/Archive 37

This is an archive of past discussions about Christianity. 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 30

←

Archive 35

The "Poison" Theory

I was wanting to know what other people's opinion on the "Poison" theory.

Around the time of Yeshua's (Jesus in Hebrew) life, there was a lethal poison that made a person's heart beat so slow that it appeared to stop beating, muscles go limp, and breathing so shallow it wasn't detectable. If this poison was left to manifest itself, it killed the person after a few days, but if the antidote was introduced before the poison took effect, then the person would not die, but rather come out of the induced coma-like state as if out of a deep sleep.

There have been those who have proposed that Yeshua took the poison and the antidote when Mary gave him some water as he carried his cross, and when it took effect, the guards thought him dead.

Beleivers of this theory also think that the head gaurd who was in charge of his cross was in league with Mary, because instead of breaking Yeshua's kneecaps, as was customary to finish killing the infidels, he stuck a spear into his side and pronounced him dead.

Supporters of this theory also propose how he got out of the tomb.They then took him to a tomb that was donated by one of Yeshua's followers and sealed it after they put his body in there. When the antidote kicked in and Yeshua woke up, he was in an escapable tomb. Supporters propose that there was a secret tunnel in the tomb the led out of the back of it and to a nearby hillock that was condensed in forest.

There are more points that I could make on this subject, but I need to varify them. I would like to know your opinions on what I've put so farSolon Olrek 19:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of this theory, just the swoon one, though both sound like they suffer from the same problems, namely, that somebody who's been scourged as heavily as Jesus was isn't going to survive up on a cross whether they swooned, were poisoned and then de-poisoned, or really much of anything else. The way crucifixion works is that breaking the kneecaps only makes the death quicker, because now there's no support at all in your legs, and you can't inhale much anymore. But spending too much time up there is going to result in someone getting too exausted anyway to keep breathing, and being poisoned certainly isn't going to help increase your survivability. Homestarmy 19:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I have heard this theory before; but I quickly dismissed it for Homestarmy's reasons and because it sounds exactly like the poison Juliett took near the end of Romeo and Juliett. I didn't even think a poison like that really existed. Does anyone know if it did? Christknight 20:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The Romans maintained a specific taskforce whose only purpose was to perform crucifixions, and to get it right. They were, in short, experts. One of their practices (among others) was to pierce the side of the crucified person, as they did in the case of Jesus, to check whether the individual was dead. Lostcaesar 20:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I have heard of this "theory" as well, but not by any credible, scholarly authors. It originated, if I remember correctly, in the 18th century and presupposes Essene super-doctors that know about medications that we don't have a clue of. And Homes (or is it Holmes :-) ) is right: whether you are intoxicated or not, you will suffocate on a cross. And of course, it would be a very special poison that influence both the appearance of breathing and moving and also bodily fluids like blood and water. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I also have not found any credible sources, but I thought that the theory needed credit. Anyway, Lostceaser, is there a certain place where I can find that they peirced the side of the crucifixee to pronounce death on a regular basis, because I have yet to run upon such information. I'm not trying to discredit you by any means, I'm just curious that way I can use the point in a future discussion.Solon Olrek 18:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is covered in Frederick T. Zugibe, The Crucifixion of Jesus; Lostcaesar 20:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Oh, and on another note, Christknight, I got the information from someone who studies stuff about the Bible as a hobby. I am not 100% sure that he could actually count as a "source", but I know that he is reliable for being able to verify his facts. Next time I talk to him, I'll ask him the name of the poison so you can look it up.Solon Olrek 18:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I was just under the impression that such a poison never existed at all because I'd only ever heard of it in Shakespeare's play. But I'd be happy to look it up if you can give me the name of it. Christknight 19:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, it should be pointed out that according to the eyewitness accounts, the "very large" stone was rolled away from the tomb. Someone strong would've had to roll it away from the outside, but we also know (from the same accounts) that Pilate "secured" the tomb by sealing it and posting a Roman guard, all for the purpose of preventing hoaxes such as this. LotR 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's nonsense. To maintain that there was some sort of conspiracy between Jesus, Mary and the Roman guards is just insane. If all the guard had to do was pronounce him dead, then Jesus would not have needed to take any poison nor any antidote. Do we really have to entertain the conspiracy theorists???Culmo80 20:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)culmo80

This is a discussion page; therefor, anything that is related to the article is allowed. If you don't like to talk about theories that down your religion, then don't read them. And it is not nonsense, as a matter of fact. You say "If all the guard had to do was prounounce him dead, the Jesus would not have needed to take the poison not any antidote", when in reality, the poison was a key factor. There were regular onlookers and preist from the tample watching the crucifixion and it would take a little more than just a guard pronouncing him to be dead than to have a guard say he was. He had to LOOK dead. Before you go around calling everything "nonsense" use what brains you have (if any) and think about it first.Solon Olrek 18:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want to offer an alternative explanation for the Resurrection, it needs to be evidence-based if you expect anyone to take it seriously, otherwise it is just another unsubstantiated conspiracy theory of which there is already no shortage.

Untenable

The following repeated addition is untenable

"Initially an underground, persecuted religion, Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire through evangelism and the social opportunities it offered to disenfranchised classes, until its legalization ..."

1. It is needlessly wordy. 2. It did not spread by "social opportunities", which an underground movement is hardly in the position to offer. 3. "disenfranchised classes" is anachronistic, as these classes never had the franchise, or the misuse of a word that has a clear meaning in antiquity. 4. What remains is that Christianity was persecuted (which is already mentioned) and that it spread through evangelism (which is a banality).

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is wordy, but I don't think that just saying "they were persecuted and the religion was spread through evangelism" is enough to describe it. The book of Revelation was given to John by God while he was in a camp that was meant for the Christians. If you are serious about the Bible and Christianity, then you should go into detail on these matters to help people better understand where it came from and what the early Christians had to go through to get their freedom.Solon Olrek 18:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well first of all, this article cannot cover everything in detail.

Secondly, what you write about John being in a camp is conjecture (yes, I have seen this in a film a few years ago) - book and tradition merely talk about his being exiled to Patmos.

And it has nothing to do with "social opportunities".

I have voiced my reasons for opposing this above. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The meaning of the title "Messiah"/"Christ"

according to Str1977: The Quran also uses the title "Messiah", though with a different meaning and he goes on to say that: the meaning in Islam, if there is one, is different. May I ask what is the meaning of messiah in christianity? User:Illerate11

The meaning of the title, not of the word Messiah!

In Christianity (and Judaism), the Messiah (Greek: Christ) is the saviour who comes to save Israel, restoring David's Kingdom in new and ultimate glory. Christianity and Judaism differ on the extent of this, on the details and on whether the Messiah is divine, but not on this basis, because this is what the Prophets say.

Islam however in fact doesn't attach any significance to that title. It retains it, just as the title "Word of God" (which, if taken seriously, would conflict with the importance of the Quran) bare of meaning, unless as a additional title of a prophet.

Hence, it would be best not to mention this at all, but since another editor insisted on including a reference, we must clearly state this. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The anointed one of God who, in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, was sent by God to establish his Kingdom forever. The seed of the Kingdom is the Church, established by Christ upon his first coming. Lostcaesar 14:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Judaism recognizes many possible messiahs. The Hebrew term for Messiah is mashiach, which simply means "anointed one". The Tanakh (Old Testament) describes a great many mashiachs including priests (Lev 4:3), prophets (Isa 61:1), and kings (1 Kings 1:39). Even Cyprus of Persia (a non-Jewish king) was described as a mashiach. In fact The Messiah as a specific personage does not appear at all in the Tanakh, though there is a great deal of Jewish Tradition addressing it and it is discussed in the Midrash and Talmud. --Reaper Man 00:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

We are talking about The Messiah expected by the ancient Jews. That it doesn't appear in the Tanakh is completely irrelevant (as Judaism doesn't subscribe to any notion of sola scriptura). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 01:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, the idea of a messiah personage as consistently part of ancient Jewish tradition is not well supported. I would have to see sources for you to support this particular claim. --Reaper Man 02:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, first of all this is irrelevant to the issue above or to any part of the article. Secondly, to address the matter nonetheless: the Jewish religion was very pluralistic in the 1st century: the Saducees did not care about prophets, angels, resurrection and the Messiah in the above, eschatological sense. The only Messiah they cared about was the High Priest (but, as indicated, this is a different sense of the term). The Essenes believed in some kind of Messiah or even in two, one kingly, one priestly. The Pharisees (and with them, the Zealots) did expect a Messiah. The Christians believed the had found that Messiah. The Pharisees later downplayed the Messiah figure a bit after the disappointment of Bar Kochba and also because of the conflict with the Christians (these two were the only survivors of the Jewish religion after 70 AD) while retaining the expectation of a Messiah. Only in the last two centuries did some Jews dispense with that expectation, giving it a narcisstic twist into a Messianic age. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Salvation section has a Protestant bias?

The section opens by telling us that "most Christians" believe that salvation comes from "faith in Jesus as savior" and is "usually understood as an act of unmerited Divine grace." While I am no expert on Christian theology, this reads to me like a statement of the Protestant doctrine of salvation by faith alone. The beliefs of denominations that definitely don't believe in salvation by faith alone are described as variants on the "salvation by faith" framework. This strikes me as a Protestant bias. Can someone who knows more about Christian theology comment on whether Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Christians would agree to the description of salvation in the first paragraph?

I also note that no citation is given for the claim that this is what most Christians believe. Elliotreed 06:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

In 1999 the Lutherans and Catholics came up with a joint declaration which states "Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ's saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works." http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9912/articles/dulles.html That is the closest compromise you are likely to find that is acceptable to most Protestants and Catholics. In conclusion, the article does not seem to be biased in this regard. ^ross ^nixon 10:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The current text is perfectly accurate from a Catholic standpoint (and I would guess from an Eastern Orthodox standpoint as well). Catholics do believe in salvation through faith (as the text says) though not by faith alone. A text stating what Catholics and Protestants have in common is necessarily in danger of sounding Protestant, but one has to read carefully. As for "most Christians" - if Protestants, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe this this makes up a pretty large chunk of Christians, to say the least. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I withdraw my complaint. Elliotreed 22:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Christians?

Ok, sorry if I caused any problems. I deleted the space so we would have more room. Bye! DebateKid 18:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Modern growth

Is it just me or is the appearence of a separate section on "modern growth" a ridiculous development, especially when place right at the top of the article (before Groups, Beliefs, Practices). I have addressed in my edits the worst problems but would all in all advocate the restriction to the bare essential claim. Finally, since when is the website that calls itself "religioustolerance" fitting for such prominence. Didn't we have discussions about this before? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is the little history of that section. At some point, someone added a section on growth, and it took about 4 sentences and 4 references to the very same article to say that, worldwide, Christianity was growing at about 2.5% and thus was probably the fastest growing major religion. It sat for a while, and then when the issue of length came up, I condensed the section to that one sentence, since that constituted its whole content, and moved it to the intro, since the intro had a little blurb about the worldwide presence of Christianity, and one sentence did not warrant a whole section. Then, some other fellow came along, and added a little part about the specific situation in two countries: the US and Canada. I took that out because the intro is not the place for such a discussion; its one thing to mention the worldwide situation, but a specific country-by-country analysis is unnecessary. So then someone placed this passage in its own section, at the lead of the article no less, returning us to our original position, except that there was now an extra couple sentences about the situation particular to just certain parts of North America. This dangling little section looks bad to me. It is also not clear why we would mention the world, and then the US, and then Canada, and nothing more. I could understand mentioning just the world, since it maintains a worldwide perspective and presents the matter in a general sense. I could understand a section that describes every country, or at least every continent. But why one would single out just two countries, on just one continent, and especially why Canada would be so significant as to warrant mention, is something I don't understand. Lostcaesar 11:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

My view is that we should restore the worldwide situation to the intro and be done with it. Ou might have seen that the addition about the US was also overinterpreted, as minus 0.9% ist not a real decrease but mere stagnation (as would be plus 0.9%). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I already put it back to that state. Lostcaesar 13:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I obviously disagree (I made the new section). I placed it the top so that it would be noticed for a few hours before someone put it down near the bottom where it should be. I really think that the growth should be discussed more specifically (at the nation level, rather than the world level) - because the worldwide growth gives the idea that christianity is growing everywhere at the same rate. I agree that all the statistics shouldn't come from religioustollerance - but we need to find other (and hopfully better) sources for that information. Fresheneesz 22:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I really think that the growth should be discussed more specifically (at the nation level, rather than the world level) — but you didn't discuss it at a nation level in a systematic sense, instead you only mentioned two nations. If there were a detailed discussion on the national level, then that would have been different.

the worldwide growth gives the idea that christianity is growing everywhere at the same rate — I don't know why that would be the case. Lostcaesar 23:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you expect me to write the thing perfectly all by myself? Thats what a wiki is for - so many many people can work together to make something good. I wrote a stub section, expecting other people to build on it - not delete it. Fresheneesz 03:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh and since this is the English wikipedia, the Canadian and US statistics are the most relevant - don't you think? Not to say we should exclude others. Fresheneesz 03:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Fresheneesz. English is spoken in many other countries as well (including Britain). Also, the position that these figures are important because of the language this encycopledia is written in is problematic and at least debatable.

"Did you expect me to write the thing perfectly all by myself?" - Certainly not, but you are still responsible for your edits. To place such a section (not that I think it necessary at all) at the top of the article is indeed wrong, especially if done "so that it would be noticed". 10:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Then you should have moved it down. And *yes* I realize people in Britain speak English.... thank you very much. The US and canada contains most of the worlds english speakers - and thus they *are* the most relevant. Fresheneesz 00:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe citing the 2.3% figure in the lead is misleading. That number is almost 10 years old, analyized roughly 25 years of 'growth' is is roughly equal to the increase in world population over the same period. Trying to qualify the figure seems too indepth for the lead, so I think the sentence would work fine with no %. I am also a little uncomfortable with "remains one of the fastest growing major religions". What exactly does that mean? What is a major religion? How many major religions are there? Is it really saying something if Christianity is in the top 3 out of 4? I almost want that sentence to say "some people consider it to be one of the fastest growing major religions", but of course that is weasely. I say cut off the sentence after "North Africa" and leave it at that. More can be said about this outside of the lead. Compare the leads for the articles on Buddhism and Islam.--Andrew c 23:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a notable claim. Of course, we should look for more recent figures. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a controversial claim, as our more indepth article (and our sources) describe. Again, it is misleading to state these things in an undisputed, matter-of-fact manner. Maybe we can say more about this outside of the lead, but out of every single thing having to do with Christianity that we should state in a 3-5 paragraph summary, I do not think this one 'claim' tops the list. Additionally, I couldn't find any other reference work that even mentioned this claim [1] [2] [3] and a number of sources from www.oxfordreference.com. I stand by my proposal to cut the 2nd half of that sentence.-Andrew c 16:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have cut it accordingly - but still think a section should appear about it the growth of christianity. Fresheneesz 00:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Why? How? Where? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 01:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Why? because I find it interesting - and I would assume that others would as well. How? Write about it, find sources... Where? How bout at the bottom of the page for now? Fresheneesz 20:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Still too much vandalism

I hate having to bring this back up, but I think this article should be blocked. I brought this up before, but it was archived away (to Archive 32) before anything was done. Christianity is a topic that will always be a target for vandalism by disrespecting non-users. If this article gets blocked, users will still be able to edit - and we're usually the only ones who add real information anyway. --Christknight 22:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur that there should be semiprotection. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone could request page protection, but we try to lock pages only as a last resort. The page is closely watched, and we seem to be reverting quickly. If it starts to interfere with editing, it can be protected for a day or so. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be permanently S protected, much like the mainpage is, because it sufferes 3-4 acts of vandalism every day, sometimes more. Its just a farse to leave it unprotected. Lostcaesar 18:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Lostcaesar. The article should maintain a S-protect permanently. What do we lose by maintaining a permanent block? Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Corrections from anonymous editors, who often spot mistakes that editors don't, and contributions of references from any scholarly type people who might read the article but don't want to sign up for wikipedia. I'm sure there's more too, but articles are pretty much never S-protected permanently, i'm fairly certainly that's very frowned upon, its a principle of open source communities sort of thing. Homestarmy 18:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Then at what point do we say "enough is enough"? It's great that Wikipedia is open to everyone, but I see so many more anons adding vandalism than helpful edits. Even though vandalism is always fixed, thousands of people read Wikipedia every minute - so think about how many people might come to this article looking for info, and find (often offensive) vandalism. You have a good point, Homestarmy, but I still agree that this article should be S-protected. --Christknight 20:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Those last edits explain my point. This article should be protected. --Christknight 23:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You can certainly ask for page protection. See WP:RFPP. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have requested S-protection for this article. --Christknight 00:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean that it should never be S-protected, especially because I myself had to just fix something the vandalbot accidently covered up, but that it shouldn't be permanently S-protected :/. Homestarmy 01:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't mention "permanently" in my request. So I guess that's up to Steel359 and the other admins. --Christknight 01:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Christknight is right; this article needs to be protected. However, I think it should be blocked permanently. Homestarmy says "...contributions of references from any scholarly type people who might read the article but don't want to sign up for wikipedia." I feel that if someone was that intent on making positive edits to pages such as the Christianity page, they could easily sign up for a wikipedia account. In most cases, non-users perusing these articles are there to vandalize, not make positive edits.User:Butters1 21:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Butters1

Bibliography Section

Is this section necessary? I think it adds a lot of bloat to this article, and although much of the books mentioned may be excellent reading material, I don't feel this section is crucial for an understanding of Christianity. Tidaress 01:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be sad to get rid of that section, but it does make nearly 1/4 of the article. It might be a good idea sinse the article got that "very long" warning. But I agree that the section is unneeded to get an understanding of Christianity. --Christknight 01:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not create a new article for it? SparrowsWing 01:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that new article would turn into some sort of indiscriminate collection of information unfortunately. Tidaress 01:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Err, the Bibliography is supposed to represent works that are actually used to support some part of the article, its not like a "Further Reading" section, if you remove it, we may just have to re-cite it all over again. True, there are times when people add things into it mistakenly, but that needs to be worked out by moving said books or other kind of works into a "Further reading" section, not just deleting the whole bibliography :/. Homestarmy 01:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Much of this article seems to be general knowledge. Most of the specific details are further supported by the nearly 80 citations in the article. Regardless of whether or not the Bibliography section is a "Further Reading" section, it seems to have turned into one judging by its content and length. Tidaress 01:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunently, you might be surprised how much of this "general knowladge" has been the topic of heated disputes :/. For one thing, several of those references are intended to help reference the very first cite, namely, the idea that Christianity is monotheistic, as opposed to "considered monotheistic by its adherants, but not by some critics and Muslims". While it is extensive, removing it will probably create a whole lot of arguments down the line about what is verified and what isn't. Homestarmy 01:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I see. Well I'm absolutely sure there has to be a more efficient way to do this. The current bibliography section takes up 16KB, and this is detrimental to the rest of the article because editors are being forced to cut down on information presented in other sections. Tidaress 04:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we need a little bit of common sense about the legnth issue. A bibliography is an essential part of a work that cites its sources. This article has much material, and so it will have a legnthy bibliography. I see that as a positive. Perhaps it is my background in history, but a bibliography that is clear and properly done is a wonderful tool. This is an article about Christianity, it will be longer than usual. That is not a problem. 16kb is nothing really, I don't see why it should bother us. If we must I suppose we could do something like "for the bibliography, see X" and link to it - but really why? Lets just have a nice, thorough, well referenced article that is a few K longer than others. Lostcaesar 08:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Historical Impact Section

This section was added earlier by an editor that claimed to have grand designs, but he seems to have lost interest after adding a mere 2 paragraphs with a legnthy quote. I think we could remove this unless or until others gain interest in it, since as now it just hangs there without focus. Thoughts? Lostcaesar 15:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we can remove the first section (paganism to ...) or rather move it to the talk page, in case someone will build on it, but currently it is just a quote, something that editor is very fond of doing. The bit however can be included in the article somewhere, though I am not sure where. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I managed to work in the bit about paganism in another place. Here is the removed text, for conservation purposes:

Christianity has influence the idea of science. Considering the world as distinct from its divine creator, it considered natural phenomena open for research (though such sometimes research of the temporal was disparaged in favour of the eternal) and throughout history supported literacy, scholarship and universities. The idea that God could be known through studying nature (which Christian philosophers, such as Thomas Aquinas, deemed a second book given by God alongside the revelation contained in the Bible) strongly encouraged scientific research, which began as a branch of philosophy. However, scientific discoveries contradicting common interpretation of scripture or previous scientific explanations have resulted in Christians disputing these discoveries.

Lostcaesar 16:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Seminar reload

Whoever wrote:

"... also reject the existance of testimony regarding the empty tomb, and thus, reject the existance of the resurrection as well"

has not properly thougt this through.

Now, given that my respect for the JS is very limited I could be brought to believe that the JS really rejects that there is testimony about the empty tomb. However, I think it unlikely that even they would go that far. That there is testimony about the empty is a fact and one cannot deny it anymore than one can deny that walls are made of stone. What is contentious is the classification and interpretation of that testimony.

Hence, I am reverting to Gio's version with one tweak: I take out the word "claims", as actually it introduces the same fallacy as the wording above, though not as clearly. The JS clearly do reject the historicity of the empty tomb itself, not the historicity of the claims. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to that because I didn't understand what was being written before, you could of just checked the history and talked to me about it :(. Since it was written that they rejected the historicity "of the claims" I assumed Geo meant the existance of the testimony. Homestarmy 20:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I checked the history after I wrote the above and found out about it and that you truthfully reworded Gio's addition. I don't think that Gio has thought his edit through this time but just automatically preceded a Christian thing with "claims" (see the age-long debate about the intro). But since he edited after this, he accepts it now. No harm done by you. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

People have still been adding that the JS reject the resurrection. I have never seen them do this. If someone here has seen them do this, please provide a quote. It is not adequate to say:

A)The JS reject the historicity of the empty tomb.

B)I think the historicity of the empty tomb equates to the resurrection.

C)Therefore the JS reject the (historicity of the) resurrection.

The reason this is not adequate is becasue line "B" is a personal POV and not the JS POV. The fact that many Christians equate the historicity of the empty tomb to the resurrection is beside the point. People who believe this are able to form their own conclussions about the JS having received the NPOV information about what the JS does say (line "A"). This is a common mistake and specifically spelt out ont he wiki page WP:NPOV.--Just nigel 00:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what the problem is here, but the Jesus Seminar is fairly specific, from Acts of Jesus, front flap:

According to The Jesus Seminar:

Jesus of Nazareth was born during the reign of Herod the Great.
His mother's name was Mary, and he had a human father whose name may not have been Joseph. (WRONG)
Jesus was born in Nazareth, not in Bethlehem. (WRONG)
Jesus was an itinerant sage who shared meals with social outcasts.
Jesus practiced healing without the use of ancient medicine or magic, relieving afflictions we now consider psychosomatic.
He did not walk on water, feed the multitude with loaves and fishes, change water into wine or raise Lazarus from the dead. (WRONG)
Jesus was arrested in Jerusalem and crucified by the Romans.
He was executed as a public nuisance, not for claiming to be the Son of God. WRONG)
The empty tomb is a fiction -- Jesus did not raise bodily from the dead. (WRONG)
Belief in the resurrection is based on the visionary experiences of Paul, Peter and Mary. (WRONG)

WHOA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ok. I was browsing this page and saw the bulleted list. I have no clue what it is but some of the info is WAY OFF! If you don't believe me check out the Bible, (I like NIV). I would like it if someone would respond to this.24.62.93.176 18:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above presentation of the JS view (not that I agree with this view, dubbed scholarship). And among the items we find:

The empty tomb is a fiction -- Jesus did not raise bodily from the dead.

Hence, they clearly reject the resurrection when they are saying "Jesus did not rise (I take this for a typo - the JS are weird but they are able to speak English) bodily from the dead".

Now, expecting someone will reply "they are saying bodily" - yes, they are saying bodily. But the belief in the resurrection talks about a bodily resurrection and not about visions (Paul's experience might be termed a vision, but all the other did not report them as visions). A non-bodily resurrection is no resurrection. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for requested quote Str1977. We can use that info to edit the article to more accuratly reflect what the JS think of ressurection. Since you already bring your firm opinions about resurrection, you will then have all the information you need form your judgment about the JS controversy.--Just nigel 16:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The section was recently changed from ...the empty tomb and thus the resurrection, to ...the empty tomb and thus a bodily resurrection. What is the difference between a resurrection and a "bodily" resurrection? A non-bodily resurrection is an oxymoron, no? Lostcaesar 00:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess that depends what one beleives about resurrection. Me? I beleive in the bodily resurrection of Jesus - but I'm not sure that is relevant to what the JS beleive about historicity of the New Testament. We should always be careful in sections like "controversies" to not exagerate or charicature what minority groups believe and thus make it easier for those in the controversy to dismiss them without accurately hearing waht they do believe first.

PS My undserstanding is that one of the reasons to doubt the empty tomb is not based on whether or not a body could leave a tomb but because of doubts Jesus had a tomb (empty or otherwise) in the first place.--Just nigel 00:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

But what does the JS say the difference is? Lostcaesar 01:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect the JS don't say anything about this but if you can find anything about them discussing it, great. Bring it on. From the quote provided though we do know that they qualify or describe their rejection of the historicity the resurrection with the words "Jesus did not raise bodily from the dead". While the JS is not set up to debate the structure of resurrection faith, I suspect members of the JS would be well aware of debate and controversies about various orthodoxies, heresies or other metaphors for resurrection and therfore have chosen their words carefully.--Just nigel 01:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)