Talk:Resurrection of Jesus/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Recent events

Due to the recent discovery of the bones of Jesus, I am going to add a section about this tomb discovery [1][2]. The question is where in this article it belongs. Feel free to move it to a better spot, but don't remove it.--Sefringle 23:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed your section and replaced it with the text from the main article's lead. Your version was problematic because it announced, as if fact, that the bones ARE Jesus' bones (a highly disputed claim, plus the documentary hasn't even aired yet). Please read the two main articles and their talk pages for more info.-Andrew c 01:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It isn't highly disputed. Major news corperations have recognized it as fact and have presented it. Saying it is fake sounds like a conspiracy theory.--Sefringle 02:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You are reading your source wrong. No where does it say the DNA proves the bones are the authentic bones of Jesus. Just think about it for a second. How on earth would we even know if we had Jesus' DNA or not. Test it against the 'blood' on the Shroud of Turin? Seriously. Quote the text of the article that you believe proves this "authenticity". Did you miss the part in your cited source that says Jerusalem-based biblical expert Joe Zias called the documentary nonsense, saying those involved in the project have "no credibility whatsoever." and Rev. Canon William Cliff, rector and chaplain at Huron University College at the University of Western Ontario in London, Ont., said he's "doubtful" about the claims in the documentary. Seriously, read the other criticisms in the article. The text I used was from the LEAD section of the main article about the Tomb. Why not try to remove the text there before creating inconsistencies across wikipedia. If we say one thing here, and direct readers for more information at the main Tomb article and they read something completely different there, we aren't being consistent. I removed the discovery link because it was a glorified press release. They are promoting one of their own programs. Isn't exactly a WP:RS. We can't state things found from discovery as fact. However, we can use it as a source of information on the documentary's POV, if we qualify and substantiate their claims.-Andrew c 03:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Alas, one would not be sucessful in extracting intact DNA from the turin shroud. DNA degrades at room tempreture over time due to enzymes called DNAases, and due to chemical oxidation. Blood stains would have completly oxidized over such a long time! Any DNA from the lymphocytes in the blood would have also oxidized even without DNAases present, so no useful DNA will be found upon the shroud. Even if we agree that the shroud 14C dating experiments were scientific frauds (allowing for the possibility of the shroud being 1st century), enough intact DNA is unlikely to be found on the cloth. Also the Holy Sea are not going to allow anybody to take samples of the cloth for extracting the DNA. The Vatican policy on Jesus is that he ascended to heaven. They would discount Jesus' body ever being buried upon the earth, and call other theories heretical.86.4.59.203 01:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Pharisee

Andrew c, That comes from the other text[3], which you deleted.

It says:

"Jacobovici, director, producer and writer of "The Lost Tomb of Jesus," and his team obtained two sets of samples from the ossuaries for DNA and chemical analysis. The first set consisted of bits of matter taken from the "Jesus Son of Joseph" and "Mariamene e Mara" ossuaries. The second set consisted of patina — a chemical film encrustation on one of the limestone boxes.

The human remains were analyzed by Carney Matheson, a scientist at the Paleo-DNA Laboratory at Lakehead University in Ontario, Canada. Mitochondrial DNA examination determined the individual in the Jesus ossuary and the person in the ossuary linked to Mary Magdalene were not related.

Since tombs normally contain either blood relations or spouses, Jacobovici and his team suggest it is possible Jesus and Mary Magdalene were a couple. "Judah," whom they indicate may have been their son, could have been the "lad" described in the Gospel of John as sleeping in Jesus' lap at the Last Supper.

Robert Genna, director of the Suffolk County Crime Laboratory in New York, analyzed both the patina taken from the Talpiot Tomb and chemical residue obtained from the "James" ossuary, which was also found around 1980, but subsequently disappeared and resurfaced in the antiquities market. Although controversy surrounds this burial box, Genna found that the two patinas matched.

"The samples were consistent with each other," Genna told Discovery News.

Upon examining the tomb, the filmmakers determined a space exists that would have fit the "James" ossuary. Given the patina match and this observation, Jacobovici theorizes the lost burial box could, in fact, be the "James" ossuary."

And the other source says:

"Jacobovici sent samples from the Jesus and Mary Magdalene ossuaries to the paleo-DNA lab at Ontario's Lakehead University, one of five labs in the world that can extract DNA from ancient material.

The tests showed the remains in the Jesus ossuary were not linked to the remains in the Mary Magdalene ossuary through their maternal sides, he said.

Tombs from that time usually contained blood relatives and spouses, leading the filmmakers to believe Jesus and Mary Magdalene were a couple. The filmmakers said testing is continuing to determine whether the two were related through their paternal side."

So basicly the study is still ongoing. Second, only religous scholars are mentioned disputing this discovery; no archaelogists and theologians are mentioned, so that claim is WP:OR.--Sefringle 03:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

DNA, if it's to be believed, only demonstrates that the "Jesus son of Joseph" guy and the "Mary Magdelane" woman have different mitochondria (different maternal lines). Jonathan Tweet 03:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, your right, that is my mistake.--Sefringle 03:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

TheologyJohn, thanks for your addition of the counterpoint. That's how WP works best, not by deleting information but by adding more information. I wish more editors would take your approach of adding information to a section they don't like instead of deleting it. Jonathan Tweet 01:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the section. My view is this. The source is not scholarly, but a television documentary with obvious mercantile aims. The "announcement" was made in NY before the press, rather than in situ before scholars, and the opinion of the scholarly community is wholly against the claims of this "find". Personally, my interest is for the integrity of wikipedia. If wikipedia includes this sort of material, then it proves all the detractors right, that its just a place to pile inaccurate information, rather than a real encyclopedia. Including this section makes a mockery of this whole article and all our contributions. Lostcaesar 08:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The tomb discovery is very relevant to the article, and the majority of the scholarly community really hasn't really weighed in yet. If authentic, it changes the entire history of the death and reserection of Jesus. It is sponsored by the discovery channel, which is supposed to present factual scholarly information. But overall it is relevant. It is a notable recent event which made the news on multiple different networks, and definently worthy of inclusion in this article.--Sefringle 09:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Lostcaeser is completely right. This is a Hollywood stunt, it doesn't come close to the standards for scholarly research and shouldn't be presented as such. It doesn't rise to the standards of sources we should be drawing on. Entertainment is not sound scholarship. Cite an article from a peer-reviewed journal if you can, otherwise, I say keep this stuff out. Just because your a hot-shot Hollywood director does not mean ythat you have any credibility as a scientist or historian. And anyone who thinks that the Discovery chanel is a serious source of scholarly information is just dissing actual scholarship. It isn't even credible journalism. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hollywood is one thing, but it is a very notable discovery. If some scholars think it is fake, they can be mentioned, but outright removial is a POV pushing denial of the recent event, which has been recognized by numerous news networks. It is related to this topic, and diserves at a minimum some recognition.--Sefringle 20:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of interesting television shows about Jesus that play this time of year. Shall we add them all here? Why not. I've got a few in mind from my favourite channels. If this texts gets added back, I wont delete it straight off. Instead, I'll just put a nice little overview in about all the great shows comming on TV this Lenten Season. Lostcaesar 22:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT. Are any of them 1. relevant to the death and reserection of jesus, 2. notable, meaning recognized by some major news network as being factual and reliable 3. considered to be nonfiction (meaning not some propaganda , work of fiction, or conspiracy theory like the da Vinci Code) and 4. in accordance with wikipedia policies? Which shows are you talking about?--Sefringle 22:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

A notable publicity stunt is not the same thing as a notable scientific discovery. There has not even been time for scholarly articles to make it through peer review. Wikipedia will still exist a couple of years from now when scientists know the real meaning of this find. In the meantime, it is "notable" only for the James Cameron page. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I realized I was wrong after further review.--Sefringle 00:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Pericardium fluid

Part of this article was claiming that puncturing the pericardium (the membrance surrounding the heart) would be fatal. A watery substance can't be found in the pericardium. Indeed, the fluid within the pericardium is viscous and would not flow from a wound like water. The purpose of the fluid in between the inner and outer membranes of the pericardium is that of lubrication. Also the fluid helps absorb heat. Heart surgury (invasive) requires cutting the pericardium to get to the heart. Also, heart function does not require functioning pericardium although the pericardium helps protect the heart from bruising. Clearly the claim that blood and water gushed from the wound is scientifically spurious, as pericardial fluid is too viscous to gush. Also, the amount of fluid within the pericardium is about between 50-75ml. Thats about as much as a large mouthfull. Hardly enough to justify the terms gushing/flowing.86.4.59.203 01:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Pharisee

I thought I read somewhere that the blood and water were probably clotted blood and serum respectively. ^rossnixon 00:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure we are on the same track. I was refering to the passage in this article that quotes the gospel of John "The Gospel of John says that a soldier pierced Jesus' side, causing the flow of blood and water". The comment next to this quote claims that the soldier must have pierced the pericardium (to account for water flowing from the wound).86.4.59.203 00:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Pharisee

The Gospels don't say that water "gushed", merely flowed - the gush part is from the movies. Lostcaesar 07:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Ok dude, flowed it is then.86.4.59.203 01:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Pharisee.

Lance of Longinus Graphic

I'm going ahead and removing the image of a random spear with the caption that states it's the actual spear described as having pierced Jesus's side, as there's clearly no basis for it. If there's a reason for it being there, someone please say something. 68.187.225.59 07:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK with the lance it had been dated to the time of Charlemange - though I may be wrong here. Floorwalker 05:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

More-sources template disputed in this article

The following template:

has this recent Edit history in the article (including Edit summary where provided):

04:22, 7 March 2007 Thomasmeeks (Moving, redating, & changing nuclear More-sources template, which is obviously inaccurate as a generalization for the article as whole to the first section where it seems [as 7 March 2007] to apply seriously)

04:43, 15 March 2007 Sefringle

16:32, 15 March 2007 Thomasmeeks (More-sources template at top removed (see new sect 17 Talk:Death and resurrection of Jesus#More-sources template disputed in this article; sect. 3.4 (incl. ref.)}

The relevant (help) section from that template is a Wikipedia guideline (indented below and followed by a comment):

Templates

The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged by this or any other guideline. Templates may be used at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with the other editors on the article.

Some editors find them helpful, arguing that they maintain a consistent and accurate style across articles, while other editors find them annoying, particularly when used inline in the text, because they make the text harder to read in edit mode and therefore harder to edit. Some templates (such as {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}}) now also include machine-readable COinS tags.

Because they are optional, editors should not add templates without consensus.

There is no consensus on that template. That guideline should be observed. An objection to the template is stated above in the 04:22, 7 March 2007 Edit summary. Let me slightly elaborate on that. The template is unusually distracting in length. It insinuates plagiarism without substantiation. The word "may" in the template is the operative weasel word here. If lack of citations alone is the problem, there are better templates to address that. The article is replete with citations, reducing the plausibility of plagiarism. If there is plagiarism, please, let's fix it in every instance. The ampleness of citation for this article is high. Imputing or suggesting plagiarism seems gratuitous in the absence of detailed evidence. --Thomasmeeks 16:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The article has legnthy sections with about every sentence tagged for citation, I believe this template fits the article at its current state. All it means is that there is work to do, improvement needed. Lostcaesar 09:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal relationship

I have removed: "Today, there are over two billion Christians worldwide, many of whom openly claim to have a personal relationship with Jesus, and more who testify to the coming of the Holy Spirit; by Christian theology, these are made possible by the Resurrection." This assumes the resurrection as a fact and is both unsourced and fails NPOV. Whether there was a resurrection is for the reader to decide based on the facts and the concept of a 'personal relationship with Jesus' is simply unprovable. Also, this para has been inserted out of context with the thread of the rest of the section. BlueValour 23:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead para

It seems to me that the fact that it is disputed that the resurrection occurred needs to be included in the lead para. The lead para should summarise the article hence this balancing POV should be included there. I have moved the balancing para up to make it clear at the outset that there are two points of view. BlueValour 23:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I understand the desire, I only took out the section because of problems particular to it, not in regards to the desire to say that some people doubt the resurrection (true enough). I don’t like the idea of backing up a sentence that says “Jews, Muslims, and Atheists” doubt the resurrection with a quote from a debate where one side characterizes the other (unarticulated side) as wrong. In other words, I think we just need to be a little less loose with the sources. I think that source is fine, by the way, but I think its being pushed into saying something that, though true enough in its own right, isn’t precisely what it aims to say, or at least in that context. Lostcaesar 00:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Overall, the lead does a poor job of summarizing the article. If I find the time, I'll give the lead and this article some attention. If anyone else wants to pitch in an help make the lead summarize the article, I'd be grateful. Jonathan Tweet 01:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I beefed up the lead. Sefringle deleted my work, and I restored it. If I got something wrong, correct it. If you doubt something, ask for a cite. If I missed something, add it. But don't put the lead back to a sorry state, in which it fails to explain what's the big deal out this very big deal. The lead should summarize the article and it should make the reader know why they care. Saying that these events are central to Christianity is OK. Explaining why they're central, that's even better. Also, reverting plain facts (such as that Muslims believe Jesus wasn't crucified) is bad form. Finally, just plain reverting a good faith edit is not polite. See help:revert. Jonathan Tweet 14:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC) Oh, yes, and if you do revert the material, at least put it in the talk page so that other editors have a chance to see whether there's something valuable to be salvaged from it. Jonathan Tweet 15:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted 3rd para. & 4th para., 1st 2 sentences

The deleted material is:

A disproportionate attention was given the Resurrection by comparison with the consideration given to the cross. About one-fourth of the material in the four Gospels deals with the cross.(fn.: Filson, Jesus Christ the Risen Lord. NY: Abingdon Press, 1956, p. 111) The cross never was considered more important than the Resurrection, but the significance of the cross was more difficult to explain. The death of Christ came as a shock even to his closest followers. To them it was a major problem to faith that Jesus be the Messiah. Paul spoke of the "scandal" of the cross (1Corinthians 1:23).

However, the Resurrection only had to be announced by those who saw the risen Lord. No elaborate resurrection narrative or defense was required.

The 1st sentence of the deleted 3rd para. violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view & Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable sources. It is unsubstantiated by the cites of Filson, p. 111 (at questia) & Paul. The 3rd sentence is plain POV, hatched as obscurity. The rest of the paragraph is provides neither WP:LEAD#context nor accessibility for the article that follows. Charitably interpreted, the deleted 1st 2 sentences of the 4th para. seem to refer the end of the previous para. and do not fit the rest of the paragraph either in substance or implicature. --Thomasmeeks 14:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC) (proofreading deletions) Thomasmeeks 15:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Liturgy

I can understand wanting to make the LEAD more concise, and to combine the information on holidays/liturgical days into one sentence. However, the sentence in the article now is problematic: These two events are essential doctrines of the Christian faith, and are commemorated by Christians during the liturgical times of Passiontide and Eastertide, particularly during Holy Week. This sentence has a very strong Catholic slant to it. "Passiontide" and "Eastertide" are not the most notable terms for this 'season', and these articles deal with that Catholic/Orthodox position. I think the links to Good Friday and Easter are a lot better. Also, mentioning that every Sunday worship is related to the resurrection is also important. Maybe we could make two sentences. One about Good Friday and easter, and one about the Catholic/Orthodox liturgical seasons. This way, we aren't excluding protestants and other Christian celebrations.-Andrew c 15:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I was just trying to make it a shorter lead. I didn't really think passiontide and eastertide would slant the lead, but that's just because it seemed the naturally way to talk about it. If its a problem then please correct it. Lostcaesar 20:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I was coming here to see if anyone agreed with me, and if someone could propose something. I'm familiar enough with Christianity in the US to know that Passiontide and Eastertide are almost never heard, and I hear stuff like Good Friday, Easter, and Lent. And judging by the articles wikilinked, at least the articles are from a Catholic/Orthodox POV where I think we should at least link to some that include protestant POV. But besides that, I'm unsure of a better wording. I'll give it some more thought, and hopefully someone else will comment (or you can take my concerns under consideration and try something yourself.) Thanks for your comment.-Andrew c 21:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we could say something like, "Christian groups that do not employ a liturgical calendar often still celebrate Easter, and Christians consider all Sunday (what's the word... services?) to be a commemoration of the resurrection." It'd be best if another editor could change the text. I'm not well versed enough with how non-liturgical Christians would talk about their - eh, liturgies? - so if I reworte it then it would just have the same unintentional slant, if you see what I mean. Lostcaesar 22:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Even Christian groups who employ a liturgical calendar don't all use the terms "passiontide" and "eastertide." The lead should at least refer to Good Friday and Easter. Jonathan Tweet 01:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

unreferenced material

Before the following is re- added, it needs citations to secondary sources:

According to the New Testament, Jesus was crucified and resurrected three days later (John 19:30–31, Mark 16:1, Mark 16:6). - Since Jesus is God, he served as the perfect sacrifice, who would take away the sins of the world.

- Jesus' rise from the tomb demonstrates his triumph over death.

- Christians believe Jewish scripture to foretell this sacrifice and resurrection.

- The resurrected Jesus appeared to his twelve apostles and disciples, including "more than five hundred brethren at once," (1Corinthians 15:6).

- Forty days after his resurrection, Jesus ascended bodily to heaven, from which he will return at the Second Coming.

- - These two events are essential doctrines of the Christian faith.

- Christians commemorate them on Good Friday (Jesus' death) and Easter (his resurrection).

and

Muslims even deny that Jesus was crucified. The Muslin religion emerged in the 7th century, like 600 years later. What they Muslims believe therefore shouldn't have any bearing on this historical fact. --Don1962

- Historians generally regard the crucifixion as historical.

--Sefringle 22:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for using the talk page. Let's imagine for the moment that everything I wrote is wrong. Please give us your version of this content: why Christ's death and resurrection are such a big deal, how His death and resurrection fit into His life (from the beginning of the world to its conclusion), how these events relate to modernday religious observances, how these events fit into the Bible as a whole, what critical scholars (e.g., the infamous Jesus Seminar!) say about it. Maybe you can explain this information better than I, but in any event it belongs in the lead. See WP:Lead. Other editors, of course, are welcome to jump in. How would you summarize this information?

As a parallel issue, you say these claims require backing up by secondary sources. Why can't I use primary sources? If you say it's because of NOR, then we might have an instructive debate on our hands. Jonathan Tweet 22:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the bible as a primary source is that it is an interpritation. The "Jesus is god" part has to go, as it is just POV, and any non-christian will disagree with that statement. The other parts are views and needs secondary sources to verify that this is a scholarly interpritation. It presents one view, Secondly, just because the bible says so, that doesn't prove that historians reguard the cricifixion as historical. While I agree with most of your opinion here, I don't think it should be included without secondary reliable sources.--Sefringle 22:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my second question. Would you be so kind as to address my first request, that you provide your version of the content that should go in the lead? Jonathan Tweet 23:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

And let me add one thing, if we're going to explain what the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is about, we're going to have to mention that (according to virtually all Christians) Jesus is God. Jonathan Tweet 23:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That needs citation too, and that is disputed. Christians have said Jesus is god, son of god, and then there is the whole trinity concept. So the accuracy of that statement is questionable.--Sefringle 23:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Only after you provide citations where I put fact tags, you can re-insurt the following parts.

-According to the New Testament, Jesus was crucified and resurrected three days later (John 19:30–31, Mark 16:1, Mark 16:6).

-To Christians, Jesus' rise from the tomb demonstrates his triumph over death. Christians believe Jewish scripture to foretell this sacrifice and resurrection.

-Christians beleive the resurrected Jesus appeared to his twelve apostles and disciples, including "more than five hundred brethren at once," (1Corinthians 15:6). Forty days after his resurrection, Jesus ascended bodily to heaven, from which he will return at the Second Coming.

-These two events are essential doctrines of the Christian faith.

-Christians commemorate them on Good Friday (Jesus' death) and Easter (his resurrection).

and

-Historians generally regard the crucifixion as historical. Sefringle 23:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The Bible is warrant enough for the claims in question

I agree that statements about what secular scholars believe about Jesus warrants citations. For example, do secular scholars believe there was a Jesus and that he was crucified? HOWEVER, if I understand Sefringle correctly, what he or she means by "secondary sources" is unwarranted and impossible. There are no authoritative "secondary, non-faith related sources" of information about Jesus. Yes, modern archeology has provided us with some insight into the 1st century: about historical events and how some people lived. However, EVERYTHING we know specifically about "the historical Jesus", his meaning, and mission _ultimately_ comes ONLY through the Catholic Church--a faith-based organization. The Canon of the Bible itself was decided upon by Catholic Bishops and the communities that preserved the writings that compose the Canon were also self-identified as Catholic--under the guidance and jurisdiction of a hierarchy Bishops and a Pope who were also all self-identified as "Catholic." Other ideas about Jesus, such as popular opinions about the "historical Jesus," an idea with roots ONLY in 19th century German philology, are pure fiction, fabrication, and nonsense. The ONLY resource from which one can legitimately gain any information about "the historical Jesus" is the Bible. And the only legitimate "secondary sources" to be had are commentaries about the Bible--of which only those written by Christians hold any water even in the secular academic community (e.g., Raymond E. Brown).

I would agree that different Christian sects hold varying opinions about various aspects of the Christian faith, but that does not appear to be the issue that Sefringle is raising. Regarding the particular statements Sefringle flagged, as the statements are clearly of a literal nature and DIRECTLY supported by Biblical passages (which are cited), the Bible itself provides more than enough warrant for their inclusion. Regarding the accusation that the statements are POV, since the statements are supported directly by Bible passages that are clearly intended to be taken literally and, furthermore, which are accepted by all mainstream Christian denominations, the POV claim is without warrant. To suggest otherwise betrays a naïve and sophomoric understanding of Jesus studies and the current state of mainstream Biblical scholarship. I would strongly recommend Joseph Ratzinger's recent work, "Jesus of Nazareth," as well as the academic debate it has launched.LCP 16:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Religous scholars can be used to for religous statements. People interprit religous texts, accept parts, and reject other parts, and take parts out of context. They do not make explicit statements. That is why some scholar on Christianity needs to be quoted with the religous statements.--Sefringle 05:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I would totaly agree with that. As I had read what you wrote, it sounded like you were looking for secular scholars. That is what I was arguing against.LCP 15:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I assume that when you say "religious statements," you are differentiating between what appear in texts to clearly be statements of fact upon which all Christians agree, such as a physical death and resurrection, and doctrinal or speculative statements, such as what Jesus intended when he tells Peter, "feed my sheep."LCP 23:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct.--Sefringle 01:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to comment on the following passage:

"Some skeptics claim that the corpse of Jesus was either reburied or stolen. A number of instances of argument from silence arise here. No ancient sources argue against the tomb being empty. No ancient sources claim that the Jewish and Roman authorities disproved the belief by publicly presenting the corpse of Jesus. There is no record of soldiers being punished for any reason relating to the resurrection.[citation needed]"

I don't think we're ever going get the citation that is needed here. How will we cite "[n]o ancient sources" or "no record of soldiers being punished..."? What do ancient sources say? A hostile witness is still a witness. Some examples:

• The Talmud, I believe, states that Jesus was the product of an illicit relationship with a Roman soldier. So, while not corroborating the virgin birth, the claim that Joseph was not the father is supported.

• The Talmud further states that Jesus deceived the people with sorcery. This statement is entirely in line with the Gospel record of the response that some had to Jesus' miracles.

• Finally, and most relevant to the subject here, there is a story in the Talmud (I think) about the body of Jesus being found in a well. Not a friendly witness, but further support for the account of the empty tomb.

Thoughts?

--Hrankowski 06:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Jesus in the Talmud

Interesting comments from Hrankowski.

First, I think it may be possible to find scholarly sources to comment on the fact that there is no record of a corpse or of soldiers being punished. However, I think the “Ressurection of Jesus” section needs to be broken into two parts, one for “Proofs of the resurrection” and another “Arguments against the resurrection.” The statement in question would go into the proofs section.

Second, before including statements from the Talmud, I think you'd have to demonstrate why its testimony, as a CE 200-500 document, is credible and accepted by scholars as providing at least some legitimate testimony about Jesus (as opposed to being merely polemical).

Third, I just Googled “Jesus in the Talmud,” and I came up with the following pages that strongly refute that Jesus of Nazareth is even mentioned in the Talmud: [4], [5].

If you could overcome these issues, perhaps you could add a section (or new page) titled "Jesus and the ressurection in the Talmud." Such a section might be warranted in any case if there are many who believe that Jesus of Nazareth is spoken of in the Talmud. Such an article could go a long way toward dispelling ignorance about what claims the Talmud makes about Jesus of Nazareth.

LCP 23:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Jesus died at 33 years old or 33 A.D.?

Why is there nothing about the age of Jesus when he died? I wanted to look up whether Jesus died in 33 A.D. or when he was actually 33 years old. I was reading recently that most biblical scholars now believe that he was actually born in 7 B.C.

Anyway, that was my question. I expected Wikipedia to have an answer for it (as I always do) :). Esptoronto 16:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit (Oops): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_Jesus%27_Birth_and_Death

"Other groups such as Jews, Muslims and Irreligionists, have disputed the historical occurrence of the resurrection"

The phrasing of this sentence seems a little weasely to me. I've never heard the word Irreligionists used before, and "have disputed the historical occurrence" seems like a rather weak way of saying "question whether Jesus was actually resurrected". johnpseudo 19:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC). Muslims believe He never died.

The Story

This article doesn't actually tell the story of Jesus' crucifixion or resurrection. Wouldn't it be a good idea to include it?--Jcvamp 01:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I imported the text from the main Jesus article that covers this section of the narrative. Feel free to expand it, or expand any of the on-Gospel accounts. -Andrew c 02:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of silliness Unwaranted/unimportant claims

I am removing the sentence below. Apart from being of very little or no importance, there is no citation, Nicolai Notovitch is not a respected historian in this field, and the dogmatic beliefs of "the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement," founded in the 20th century, cannot possibly be of interest to history or archeology.

"Documents found by Russian historian Nicolai Notovitch claim that Jesus was resuscitated and lived the remainder of his life in Kashmir, where there exists a possible tomb for Jesus, under the name Yuz Asaf. This is also the belief of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement." LCP 22:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether something is personally silly to us or not is not a valid wikipedia criteria for inclusion. We have the NPOV policy. Since the Ahmadiyya Movement is mentioned in the top tier article, Jesus, it only makes sense to mention them in the spin out articles. In fact, more trivial (but still notable) topics usually are pushed out of the main article into more appropriate spinout articles, per the NPOV guidelines. I believe that this POV, regardless how silly it is, is notable enough to be mentioned in brief, as it was, and I would urge placing it back into the article. I will do the legwork in making sure the sentence is sourced, if that will satisfy the concerns of LCP. -Andrew c 23:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That it is personally silly to me is NOT why I removed it. I removed it for the reasons I listed. I am sorry my header confused you. To avoid future problems, I've changed the header to clarify my meaning--that I mistakenly assumed other editors would gather from the reasons I listed. Regardless, I was not aware that the Ahmadiyya Movement was listed in the Jesus article. Granted that, I would support Alexander c's Andrew c's reintroduction of the text if he can find the references, and I would also like to see this and the Jesus article expanded to include the opinions of every other group or source that claims to have knowledge of Jesus: Hindu, Buddhist, Bahai, Branch Dividian, Dan Brown, Peoples Temple, Talmud, Communist, Nietzschian. While these movements are not all of equal stature or importance, historical or otherwise, they, and probably many others that don’t come to mind, all deserve a voice.LCP 23:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you altered my username. That said, I am also not sure if your request is serious or not. On the main Jesus article, we already cover the Hindu, Buddhist, and Bahai views, and we cover the Dan Brown/Holy Blood view and the Talmud view in other spinout articles related to Jesus. Communism, being a political/economic ideology seems completely irrelevant here, as does Nietzschian. The Peoples Temple and Branch Davidians seems to be such small sects that their views should be discussed only on articles about those movements, but not on articles further up the tier, per NPOV undue weight guidelines. So if you were being serious, I am going to disagree that every single view needs to be presented here. I also do not believe that groups listed have unique views on Jesus' death and resurrection that are not already covered in the article. If you were being sarcastic, please don't make unserious suggestions to make a WP:POINT. I'll try and source the removed text and edit the article accordingly in a few days.-Andrew c 23:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Along the lines of the “NPOV undue weight guidelines” that you suggest, Nicolai Notovitch has no place in this article. While I can agree with you about the Ahmadiyya Movement, if you insist on including Notovitch, it follows, contrary to your unwarranted assertions to the contrary, that every other imaginable character and sect should also be included.LCP 00:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)