Talk:Post-resurrection appearances of Jesus

Visionary appearances in the Gospels?
could you elaborate on what you mean with {{tq|Not accurate - the earliest appearances (Paul) are visionary, the gospel ones are not]] diff? I think that the line {{talkquote|The appearances of Jesus are often explained as visionary experiences, in which the presence of Jesus was felt.}} is perfectly fine. This is what those sources do: explain Jesus' post-mortem apprearances as visionary experiences. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  09:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The word 'visionary' is falsely imported into the material. Paul says Jesus rose from the dead and was then seen by various people.  Of course this might be a metaphorical or extended use of the passive of a verb for seeing, nothing is more common in human languages than use of 'see' for everything cognitive but also for e.g. dream contents.  But to render Paul as affirming something called visions and the gospels as affirming what we all understand as outright vision is pure subjective self-assertion passing itself off as secular consensus. The confusion that permeates the whole Background section between What Really Happened to Them and What They Were Saying Happened is here again plain. Chief sequoya (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Joshua Jonathan : Paul reports his personal experience of Christ a vision - he's taken up to the third heaven and sees Christ in glory, an event which cannot be described as physical. Leave Acts aside because it's not actually by Paul. In the gospels Jesus is very physical - Thomas is invited to touch him, he eats and drinks, and so on. His body has non-physical properties (he can appear suddenly in rooms, he walks on water), but he's also very real. The difference was because the resurrection was in two stages, first a physical resurrection in the world (but in an altered body), then in heaven.
 * Actually this outline is of the developed belief - the very earliest belief had him ascending ("raptured"") direct to heaven from the cross, with nothing in between - hence his words to the penitent thief to the effect that they would be together in paradise that night. Then came the more developed belief in a two-stage resurrection. Achar Sva (talk) 10:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

More sources
Appears to be a well referenced source for explaining the view the first believers who considered the resurrection as an actual physical event. Devotion to Jesus in earliest Christianity University of Edinburgh’s Larry Hurtado In this 500+ page plus book the author discusses with generous amount of references that Christ’s exalted status is neither a later development nor a borrowing from other cults around the Mediterranean. Included are extensive references indicating the earliest church and their followers in Jerusalem (where many the witnesses mentioned in first Corinthians 15 were active), did actually believe that Jesus's resurrection  from the dead was indeed a physical one. The belief that Jesus' resurrection was only a spiritual resurrection was instead a later development.

Among the other things that he makes note of is Council of Jerusalem in c. 49AD, the matter of dispute between Paul, Peter and James was not Jesus' divinity or the connection between Jesus' life and scriptural prophesy, nor  the bodily resurrection. These things were apparently argued much later and not by those that were part of the initial group. Instead the Council revolved around the question of Gentile participation in the sect, and whether or not they should be "Torah compliant."

(Larry Weir Hurtado FRSE (December 29, 1943 – November 25, 2019) was an American New Testament scholar, historian of early Christianity, and Emeritus Professor of New Testament Language, Literature and Theology at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland (Professor 1996–2011)) SteamWiki (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Interpretations - nature of the appearances
no need to repeat the descriptions of his appearances in a new section diff; the short summaries suffice, and an extended overview can be found at Overview of resurrection appearances in the Gospels and Paul (table). Your section on interpretations has the nature of the appearances as it's topic; that belongs to Resurrection of Jesus, and is WP:UNDUE here. Note that that section is well-sourced, in contrast to references like -from where did you copy it? Things in Which it is Impossible for God to Lie is a aprimary source. Who is R. C. Symes? And who is the author of gospel-mysteries.net? See WP:RS and WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  08:09, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

You re-inserted the Blueprint Bible Church "reference" twice now, without changing it into a real reference. Nor did you address the concerns about the other sources. See WP:DISRUPTIVE. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  17:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)


 * It's all documented and sourced. And arguably the section (or at least some statement) was needed in this article, as it was completely sorely lacking, regarding the various interpretations of the nature and form of the appearances.   There was no "original research" by me. You seem to have a bias against the sources, (maybe against the WT or Blueprint Church etc??)   Yes, primary sources, but that's not summarily disallowed by Wikipedia...  And some with "original research".  Again, if you don't like the sources, MODIFY, is the WP policy and recommendation, not wholesale rude disrespectful and arrogant removal...  This article SAYS NOTHING about actual "nature and form" interpretations.


 * You say that this information belongs only to the OTHER article.  Why is that exactly?   This article here can't contain even an element of that matter?   Why?  When the very name of this article is "Post-resurrection APPEARANCES of Jesus".   Hence obviously I disagree.  This information belongs on various articles (related) if that's the case.  Maybe some more elaborated and explained more than in others.  That other article section that you reference makes no mention about the interpretation of "was flesh and bone in the resurrection but shed the flesh and bones in the ascension and is now spirit" by groups such as the "Blueprint Church" etc.  Yes, I agree that that stuff could go there.  But it arguably (and logically and contextually) belongs in here.  "Appearances"?   The very word indicates the pertinence (and importance.)


 * As to your problem with the sources, and "primary sources" issue, etc...then the WP drift is modify...don't remove.... And not edit-war....because it becomes kind of  obvious that you just don't like ....  Valid points and material that is sourced, and you're violating "no own" .  Ignoring that this is a WIKI.   Again...if you have an issue with the sources, then modify and get better (and additional) sources maybe, but the information was totally "due" in that this article (sighs) contained nothing about interpretations by some other theologians and churches regarding the nature and form of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances.  Whether flesh, spirit, later on spirit, etc.  Materialization, etc etc. Leaving readers and researchers without important or pertinent or interesting or relevant (and sourced) information and matters.  No valid need to suppress that.  It exists.  It's relevant.  And is due.  And is very sourced.  Modify.   71.190.0.236 (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Instead of edit-warring, and removing maintenance-tags, you should solve the problems outlined above. The WP:BURDEN is on you. And learn to count; WP:COMPETENCE is required. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Responding to IP's request to improve, instead of remove, I've done the following:
 * moved their text to the 'Theological implications' section, where it belongs;
 * added a "failed verification" tag to "Blueprint Bible Church - Does Jesus have a human body right now?", which is not a proper reference, as noticed three or four times before;
 * added a "better source needed" tag to gospel_mysteries.net, an anonymous site which is definitely not WP:RS. The source says (emphasis mine):
 * Which scholars say so? Unverifiable... Precisely this topic is dealt with better, with good WP:RS, at Resurrection of Jesus. As noted before, we don't have to repeat the article on the "Resurrection of Jesus" wholesale here; it's already questionable to have two articles on the same topic.
 * moved R.C. Symes to the section on Paul; the source does not support IP's statement in the Wiki-article. NB: it's unclear what authority Symes has.
 * added a "better source needed" tag to Things in Which it is Impossible for God to Lie, pages 332, 354, which is a primary source.
 * When these problems are not resolved, I'll remove them again. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * When these problems are not resolved, I'll remove them again. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

unclear statement about 1 Thessalonians
The article currently has this: '...in which the young man discovered in the tomb instructs the women to tell "the disciples and Peter" that Jesus will see them again in Galilee, hints that the author may have known of the tradition of 1 Thessalonians.' Could somebody clarify what this is about? Browsing through 1 Thessalonians, I don't see any obvious connection, reference to Galilee, etc.--2603:8000:8900:6E00:4072:6456:BCCC:89BF (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Intro
I've redirected this page to Resurrection of Jesus; same topic, same coverage. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  07:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * You can't eliminate an article like that without previous discussion. SanctumRosarium (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * They can, they did. After a bit of to-and-fro, two editors came to the same conclusion, and then cleaned up after themselves.  Simple reversal of this one edit at this point would be unhelpful and leave a bit of a mess, not to mention an orphan.  Lithopsian (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There has been absolutely no discussion and no cleaning. There are still many links directing here, so it's not orphan. There are rules to follow before eliminating an article. The user said the content would recycled on the main article Resurrection of Jesus and nothing has been done. The redirection to Resurrection of Jesus has absolutely no reason to exist. Different topic, different coverage. Have you read the articles? SanctumRosarium (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * "Different topic, different coverage"? Please explain. Is there a resurrection apart from the stories? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Resurrection of Jesus is about the resurrection of Jesus, while Post-resurrection appearances of Jesus is about the appearances of Jesus after his resurrection. The fact that these events both originate from the New Testament doesn't change the fact that these are two different topics. SanctumRosarium (talk) 11:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

We speak of the resurrection of Jesus because there are stories of post-mortem appearances. "Resurrection" is not a fact, but a deduction; resurrection and post-mortem appearances cannot be separated. As illustrated by the contents of the articles; they contain the same info. Editing two articles to maintain the same info is unnecessary and unwarranted. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  12:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC) Correction: triplicate. There is also Overview of resurrection appearances in the Gospels and Paul. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  12:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The New Testament mentions both the "resurrection" and "appearances" of Jesus to disciples, they are not the same. Even if your personal interpretation is that they are the same thing, they are distinct topics. Also, you can't delete an article on the ground that it shares common information with another article. Many articles in this encyclopedia have information in common, because it is necessary to provide context. They usually use templates such as template:main and template:further so that readers can have more detailed information in another article (see also WP:SUMMARY). In addition, Post-resurrection appearances of Jesus contains valuable information that is not present in other articles. Many editors have spent hundreds of hours to write this article and find reliable sources throughout the years, and we should at least have a proper discussion with other involved editors before deleting a good article. SanctumRosarium (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are links. I don't know what I was looking at when I saw none.  Lithopsian (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * SanctumRosarium, can you show me where in the Bible "the" event of the resurrection of Jesus is described? It isn't. The article on the post-mortem appearances was an (unnecessary) elaboration of the resurrection-article. I've edited both articles, and that involved quite a number of duplicate edits, because of the duplication of info.
 * Regarding the "additional info" in PraoJ:
 * Background (PraoJ): Jewish-Hellenistic background (RoJ)
 * Biblical accounts: Biblical accounts
 * Theological implications: Significance in Christianity
 * Explanations: vision theory throughout the article; Evolution of resurrection beliefs - Resurrection of a transformed body; Exaltation of Jesus - Exaltation and Christology; Call to missionary activity - Call to missionary activity.
 * Regarding the links, I guess that's in one of the templates. "RoJ" links to the appearnces-article, yet there are no links in the text itself. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  14:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact that the resurrection is not described in the Bible doesn't change the fact that the resurrection and the later appearances are two distinct things. Do you intend to delete Road to Emmaus appearance, the Restoration of Peter and the Great Commission as well? These are three post resurrection appearances in the Gospels. Sorry, your personal view that the resurrection and the later appearances are the same thing is not convincing at all. Also, you shouldn't have deleted dozens of links to this article. You should have waited the outcome of this discussion, because if we keep the article we will have to restore every link, what a waste of time. This is not how things should be done, when a discussion is underway about keeping or deleting an article with many links links you should wait before eliminating them. SanctumRosarium (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I remembered yesterday that there is a tendency to multiplate the coverage of the NT; the articles you mentioned illustrate this. I didn't even know those articles existed, and I have no intention to work on them. But I did work on the resurrection and the appearances articles, and, as already explained, I niticed that I made the same edits twice: the info in the appearances-article is fully covered in the resurrection-article, and there's also the article with the overview of appearances. No need for dupli triplications. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  03:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * PS: "the" resurrection is not a "thing"; it's an assumption. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  03:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * NT episodes should have their own article when they meet the notability criteria. This is not up to you to delete articles without prior discussion. The resurrection is not an assumption, it is a religious belief which is based upon reports of an empty tomb and reported appearances of Jesus after his death. Claiming that the resurrection and later appearances are the same topic is nonsense. The resurrection and the later appearances of Jesus are different topics. They are related topics, which doesn't mean their articles should be merged. SanctumRosarium (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

It looks like you don't understand that this article is mere repetition. Regarding NT episodes should have their own article when they meet the notability criteria, "the" resurrection is not "an episode"; there is no description of any such event in the NT. What is described in the resurrection-article is the belief in a resurrection, based on appearances/visions as described in the NT. As such, the appearances/visions form an integral part of the resurrection-article; the appearances-article doesn't add anything extra to this info; it only adds extra work for editors. But that's a point you don't seem to be able to address. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  10:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC) PS: regarding The resurrection and the later appearances of Jesus: wrong order. It should be "The appearances/visions and the later belief in a resurrection." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  10:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)


 * It seems that your misunderstood my comment: "NT episodes" refer to the later appearances, not the resurrection. Please read again my comment more carefully, nowhere it claims that the resurrection is a episode. Again, the resurrection is a religious belief (first topic) based on reported appearance/visions (second topic). Is that really difficult to understand? You literally wrote it yourself: What is described in the resurrection-article is the belief in a resurrection (first topic), based on appearances/visions as described in the NT (second topic). Now draw yourself the unavoidable conclusion: these are different topics. SanctumRosarium (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you finally admitted that the resurrection is not a gospel account while the post-resurrection appearances are gospel accounts and therefore these are different topics? Your main argument for deleting the article was that the two are the same topics, so if you realize that's it's not true maybe it's time to restore the article. Please confirm. SanctumRosarium (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposal
The contents of the articles are the same, and require mirror edits to maintain. As stated several times now. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  01:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * So you abandoned your original argument that the topics were the same. Now regarding your argument "The contents of the articles are the same": when two articles on different topics have the same content, that may mean that they have to be reorganized. Maybe "Resurrection of Jesus" should focus on what the resurrection means for Christians, with a religious perspective, while "Post-resurrection appearances" should focus on the biblical accounts and how scholars interpret these texts. There is abundant literature and it can be a very good article. We can obviously discuss this further. What do you think? SanctumRosarium (talk) 09:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * It would mean that the description of the appearances in the resurrection-article would be very short; that's possible, but it would also mean that the 'interpretation' belongs to the resurrection-article. More apt would be to provide background-info on the presentation of the appearances in the NT. For example, Charles E. Neff, I A Different Form: The Unrecognizable Jesus of the Post-Resurrection Tradition argues that the description of Jesus first not being recognized fits in with a belief that the resurrected body will be a transformed body, 'lighting-up by the good character of the person'(paraphrase; I don't recall exactly what this author argues). It's interesting, given the connection with Paulus and his insistence on a transformed body: where the appearnces informed/prefigured by the beliefs/expecttaions these people had? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  10:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)