Talk:Resurrection of Jesus/Archive 4

Fleur-de-lys and footnotes
I noticed the use of the fleur-de-lys symbol here. The caption mentions a peculiar "Trinity" which makes little sense. I couldn't think of a good caption; I would suggest a different image be used. A fleur-de-lys is established in regard to Gabriel at the annunciation, but that's not what this article seems to be about. Something like this or this or this would seem a more relevant image. Also, footnotes go immediately after punctuation like this, never before like this. Gimmetrow 04:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Cheers... I'd been wondering what the appropriate way to cite was. As for the images you suggested, I like them. The article currently has: 5 medieval paintings, 2 photos, 1 negative and one symbol (the Fleur-de-lys) I added the four non-painting images recently. I worded the Fleur-de-lys caption in a subtle way, I mean it more in the sense of "the resurrection has in important place in culture". If you do feel that the article is better without it, then WP:BB. Personally, I would like to see either of the Bramberg images in the article (it's better to not have two by the same artist).A J Hay 09:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Touch me not
This has gotten ridiculous. It is extremely POV to say a word that has multiple translations is mistranslated if we have verifiable sources that translate it in this way. The best thing we can do is say "X says B, while Z says Z." This is the essence of the NPOV policy. We don't make unqualified, unsources statements as if they are facts if they are disputed. Even if we personally know The True meaning behind these words, because there are so many prevelent POVs that dispute this claim ( in addition to all those cited bibles), wikipedia MUST acknowledge both sides. NPOV 101. On top of that, I think this debate doesn't belong in the caption of an image. Is there anything we can do to work this out?--Andrew c 05:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Andrew about the ridiculousness of the matter. The image should simply be removed, since it represents an episode that never occurred, and yet has been presented in the article as "one of the most striking accounts of the Gospel of John." It is not in the Gospel of John.  What Jesus said, according to, was: Μή μου ἅπτου (Do not keep touching/holding/clinging to me").  Greek distinguishes between a continuous and a momentary action.  To illustrate the distinction, grammars of ancient Greek often give two Greek phrases that differ only in the form of the verb "to steal", but one "Do not steal" means merely "Don't steal this", while the other "Do not steal" (continuous) means "Don't be a thief."  The distinction is very much alive also in modern Greek.  Latin does not make this distinction, and so the old Vulgate version translated the phrase in John 20:17 as "Noli me tangere."  The translators of the King James Version did not advert to the Greek distinction and, perhaps influenced by the familiar Latin translation, put "Touch me not."  No serious scholar denies that this was a mistake.  All new English translations have corrected the mistake.  Even some that are based on the KJB, such as the New King James Version.  Even the Latin text has been corrected.  Just look up the text of the revised Vulgate on the Vatican website, and you will find that "Noli me tangere" has been replaced by "Iam noli me tenere."  What is truly ridiculous is to have an anonymous editor (with a very familiar ISP number) saying that to point this out constitutes "original research".  Indeed, Andrew too seems to say the same thing.  Aren't the modern translations that I have quoted "reliable sources"?  Who now disputes that the Greek does not refer to a mere touch?  Apart, that is, from people who seem to think the King James Version is the inspired word of God, and from some other people who have obviously never really studied the matter.  Lima 07:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The reference that Andrew gave says nothing whatever of the meaning of the present/imperfect imperative (keep touching), as distinct from the aorist imperative (touch momentarily), and so is not at all à propos. What is POV is to say either explicitly or implicitly that Μή μου ἅπτου can be (rather than just "has been") translated as "Don't touch me", especially if no indication is given that the correctness of that translation is nowadays generally denied.  Lima 08:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Identical twin theory
I noticed that the "identical twin theory" was deleted and labelled as vandalism. Perhaps you folks are unaware that this was a serious theory proposed by Robert Greg Cavin of Cypress College (formerly of University of California, Irvine). It was covered in his paper, "Is There Sufficient Historical Evidence to Establish the Resurrection of Jesus?" in Faith & Philosophy (July 1995). This theory was also defended in a formal 1995 debate with Dr. William Lane Craig at UC Irvine (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/product_listing.htm).

It's certainly a lesser known theory, and I personally think it's rather silly. It's a serious hypothesis though, not merely a hoax or vandalism. I don't think we should label content as "vandalism" simply because we think the ideas are silly. 70.39.192.191
 * It sounds silly to me. Besides, Robert Greg Cavin is a philosopher and debater, not a historian or scholar (except for science). It sounds like "original research" which is against Wikipedia policy. rossnixon 00:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier, I agree that it's silly. That doesn't make it vandalism though, nor does it warrant exclusion from a list of resurrection theories.  Besides, other competing theories (e.g. the swoon theory) are likewise proposed by philosophers and debaters (e.g. Gede Ludemann).  Also, philosophy plays a huge role when it comes to evaluating historical claims; in fact, one of the classic texts on the historical method was written by C. Began McCullagh--a philosopher (see Historical method). 70.39.192.191


 * Ross: Original research is if a wikipedia editor was publishing something for the first time here. If Cavin has published in the scholarly journal Faith & Philosophy, then we'd just be citing sources like any other citation. The issue here is if we are giving undue weight to a minority view. I believe anon has made a good case here for the material's inclusion. We shouldn't give it as much space as we give more popular theories, but part of NPOV is including published views, even if we personally think they are silly.--Andrew c 00:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that Cavin's viewpoint, ridiculous though it may be, does not violate the "original research" policy.  His thesis constituted his doctoral dissertation, and was subsequenty published in a scholarly journal that routinely tackles issues of faith, Biblical history and philosophy.  Dismissing his inclusion as "vandalism" was a poor choice, and as Andrew said, it should be included -- though given limited space. 207.166.216.49

Non-bodily theories of resurrection not taken seriously
This article does not take seriously theories asserting that Jesus really rose spiritually, appearing "from heaven". This is not merely a "liberal" view.

It is in fact the view of the present Pope Benedict XVI, who, in Introduction to Christianity argues that Christ was immediately raised to definitive life (zoe), not governed by biological and chemical laws (bios). The first Christians knew that Jesus was risen when reflecting upon scripture and breaking bread: this was the resurrection, in the Pope's view: See Ratzinger, Joseph (1969) [1968] Introduction to Christianity, Burns & Oates Ltd, London, p. 235

Others who are agnostic or unbelieving of the phyiscal resurrection are Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury (for which see Resurrection), and Peter Carnley, the former Anglican Primate of Australia (see The Structure of Resurrection Belief.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.49.97.194 (talk • contribs) 09:29, 1 November 2006.


 * First of all, please sign all talk page comments by typing four tildes (~) . Next, please feel free to edit the article to include any relevent information (and make sure that the added information is verifiable, and that you cite reliable sources). --Andrew c 22:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Blake's Comments Start Here

I agree that the view of a non-bodily resurrection should, in fact, be taken more seriously. However, I think what would be more helpful is to give a good summary of the debate over a "physical" and a "spiritual" view of the resurrection. I have a few suggestions:

1) We must remember that if the event took place as scripture depicts, then Jesus' body would not be totally physical nor spiritual. The biblical writers in the gospels seem to be straining at something that is stretching their language. A good place to start would be N.T. Wright's ";The Resurrection of the Son of God. William Lane Craig and Gerd Ludemann also are in a book long debate titled "Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Fiction?". In the book there are good articles by Michael Goulder, Craig Blomberg and some others.

2) It would be good to give a thorough exegetical examination of the relevant biblical passages (Corinthians 15, Gospels...etc) Check out www.infidels.org and www.Christian-thinktank.com for discussions of the topic from two divergent viewpoints.

Blake


 * One key debate surrounding this is whether Jesus died upon the cross (immediatly rising as a spirit to heaven), or whether Jesus' survived the crucifixion and was recusitated. Proponents of the rususcitation view cite evidence that Jesus escaped the Roman empire to India (Hindustan) through Persia and Afganistan. In fact the idea of Jesus dying upon the cross is a very western idea, not shared widely in Asia (accept amoung minority Roman Catholics). However, this view is not ruling out that Jesus eventually rose to heaven and took a spirit body upon his death age 120. These are the two main opposing views regarding Jesus' fate. Both views find support in the Scripture. Its a case of picking quotes, and interpreting them to suit your preference. One of the difficulties in deciding which view one might believe is the language difficulties surrounding scriputures. The present accepted meaning of resurrection was defined in the 3rd century in light of the Roman viewpoints. Medically, 1st century physicians had knowledge pertaining to what we now call resucitation. Often herb combinations (such as Aloe and Myrr mentioned in the bible) were used to treat injury's. Greek writings have allowed modern medical historians a glimse of 1st century medical knowledge. Many have suggested that resurrection was simply an ancient term for what we call today resusitation. The other problem concerns the validity of direct source account. Those who saw Jesus pass out on the cross who had no knowledge of medicine might imagine ways of explaining Jesus reappearing in Galilee and else where.


 * It is well known that theories of spiritual and physical (divine and mortal) worlds originate from Hindu/Dravidian religion, and got into Judaism through the Zoroasterian religion (a divergent Hindu ofshoot). This explains why such events as 'the great flood', 'the tower of babel', 'Jonah and the whale' are mentioned in the Vedas (Hindu scripture predating the old testement writings). To this extent, mortals may ascend to a spiritual body upon serving penance for the original sin (adam and Eve). These ideas are shared accross both Abramaic and Asian religion showing a common root. The fact that ascension into spiritual form could happen, does not mean it did happen to Jesus during the crucifixion. Unfortunatly scriputure can't answer this question because it can be interpreted reasonably both ways.


 * The question one could ask is: Does it really matter which view is true? Factually, it makes no difference to Jesus' teachings how or when he passed on. The Bible and other non canonical scriptures are used as the basis for great speculative debate and argument. We have to ask who is it that really benifits from this speculative debate and whether or not it really makes alot of difference? Agnostics don't believe in God, so they are not going to be interested in Jesus' message until they have reason to change their minds on the God issue. For those who do aspire to follow Jesus' teachings, this issue isn't doing anything more than drawing attention away from the message Jesus delivered concerning how to be a Christian. What we have here is essentially a debate of two positions, both of whom are going to quote passages from scriputures to support their speculations. The result is entrenched positions, with two sides trying to assert their theory on a truely un resolvable issue. Does anybody think that such a dead end debate is worth the energy?86.4.59.203 23:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Soloman.

Eusebius and Josephus

 * Some scholars, such as Ken Olson speculate that Eusebius of Caesarea was the author of the alleged forgery

Just wondering who the other scholars are; Lostcaesar 10:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am the one who reverted to the previous version. My edit summary was v, this theory has been aroudn[sic] since at least 1842, while a terrible online source by itself, there are some sources that meet RS and V mentioned http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm. I'm not saying their arguments are good, or that they are top not scholars or anything like that. Just that Ken Olson didn't event this idea. I think Meiers put it best, when commenting on the claim that Origen might have been the forger, that it is nearly impossible to find the culprit, when most likely each interpolation was added, possibly as a marginal note or gloss, by different Christian scribes over quite a bit of time.--Andrew c 15:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, what makes me uncomfortable is that this looks like a cheap shot at Eusebius by a bunchof crackpots. It is mildly troublesome to me that an article here would so hastily jump from the legitimate and respectiable discussion of the interpolation to suddenly grasping onto this kind of theory.  To me its like a discussion of the pyrmaids that talks about their massive size and skill in construction for the age, then says "some scholars, like soandso, argue that aliens built the pyramids".  I won't lose any sleep over it, but I think it just makes the article poorer.  Lostcaesar 16:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the discussion of the authorship of the TF is not really appropriate for this article. I also think we may be giving too much weight to the Eusebius view. I, however, disagree that simply crackpots hold this view. I would not be opposed to removing the sentence completely. The previous sentence says as much as the reader really needs to know for this particular discussion for this article.--Andrew c 00:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * sounds like a fine idea; Lostcaesar 00:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What bible version to link to
I noticed someone changed the bibleverse template to external links to an online LDS bible. I am curious why. I think using a wikitemplate is better than hardlinking to one cite (especially a site that doesn't represent the majority of Christianity). And second of all, I think it is better to give the user a number of options between what translations they want, instead of forcing the use of KJV, or NIV, or whatever.--Andrew c 02:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sir nobody is qualified to estimate the majority views of a such a large and diverse group such as aspiring Christians. Even the pope cannot say such statements. In most cases, statements such as 'doesn't represent the majority of Christianity' really means 'doesn't represent what my lot think, or what I think'. However, on the translation issue, it is agreeable to give people a range of translations to compare, so that they may get a perspective of how different translations cause problems of interpretation. So I fully agree with your main point. The problem is the LDS lot are very evangelical about their own view, as alot of denominations are these days.86.4.59.203 23:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Soloman.


 * Well, I changed some links to the niv, because the old template "bibleverse" was bugged, causing a rather large formating error on the page. (ps, I don't like the niv myself so much, but many do - I like to give the reader a choice, but as I say it was bugged)Lostcaesar 02:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Regardless what we decide, I feel we should at least be consistent and use the same method through out. And I am more partial to a wiki template, becase it is more standardized, and can be updated through the template (thereby, delegating the more technical issues to the template talk page, instead of on each individual article). Just curious, what links are buggy with bibleverse?--Andrew c 02:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I initially changed them for the same reason that Lost has stated. It is my personal prefernce, the KJV and, more importantly, it is the one I most eaily know how to link and use as a reference.  However, I do like the method you use because it takes you to such a broad collection of difference Bible translations.  Thank you.
 * I did raise the issue to Lost about my using an LDS KJV site for the reference; I did not suspect it would take long before someone would change it. It obviously did not take long, but I am not opposed to the change.
 * You should go back to the history and just see how the article looked; it was bad. I did not search for who did the referencing, but I will give it a go.  Storm Rider (talk) 02:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, LC, about blanking your changes. I was looking at an edit diff, and the columns were so wide, I had to use a horizontal scroll bar (i.e., I couldn't view the before and after at the same time). I changed all the stuff I saw in red in one column, but the items you deleted did not show up in red because they weren't in the most recent diff. If that makes sense. Sloppy, I know, so I apologize.--Andrew c 02:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * np at all; Lostcaesar 17:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I am checking history and now I don't see the errors I was seeing before. It had been showing a template tag about the NIV. Every time a scripture was used, using the reference method I changed, the template would show up. It affected not only the article, but the footnotes. Very strange. Storm Rider (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Death of Jesus
Someone has recreated the Death of Jesus article. Should we re-merge the articles, or spinout content from this article and create two seperate articles (one on death, one on resurrection)? or what. I really wish users would look at past conversation, and talk things out before rehashing disputes from 3 months ago.--Andrew c 01:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As you will read below, I have NPOV concerns over the present article. My view is that we should go with two articles. They deal with different, albeit linked, events, and it will be easier to achieve NPOV. Also the new Death article does seem to put the various scenarios in a clearer fashion than is done here. BlueValour 01:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have concerns over the article as well, notably that it includes the religous POV's, but not the historical and archaeological POV. But as for the merge, I support it, because the other article has no citations.--Sefringle 22:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think this section should focus on the piercing of the heart. The section would do better, to mention how it is the most common opinion that he did die, as well that its universally reported amongst early sources that he died, and of course the fact of being first whipped and then nailed to a cross make it practically impossible to survive. 74.137.230.39 23:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
I am concerned that what seems to me to be a wholly factual sentence "It is important to note that no historical account of the resurrection exists outside of religious texts." has been removed without comment on here.

Further, the accurate statement "Almost all non-Christians do not accept the bodily resurrection of Jesus. They therefore deny the resurrection as a form of myth." Goes on to say "People can, however, still find a meaning in the text, for instance Carl Jung suggests that the crucifixion-resurrection story was the forceful spiritual symbol of, literally, God-as-Yahweh becoming God-as-Job." which is watering down another factual statement with a POV. In my view "People can, however, still find a meaning in the text, for instance" is a non sequitur with the reference and should come out.

I should welcome comments since I see no reason why both these changes should not be made. BlueValour 01:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In the light of comment by another editor I am amending the statement I should like to see included to "No historical account of the resurrection exists outside of religious texts." dropping "It is important to note that". BlueValour 02:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the phrasing is still problematic, because it confuses the concepts of "historical accounts" and "religious texts". I think phrasing this in a positive manner might be better, such as "Accounts of the resurrection are only found in religious texts". We aren't making a negative claim, and we aren't saying whether or not these accounts are historical. But I still feel it would help to contextualize this claim. I'd suggest finding a scholar who states this 'fact', and briefly explain why this scholar feels it is important. Why should it matter if this account is only found in religious texts? 99% of the information dealing with Jesus is found solely in religious texts. I'm not sure how important this information is, and what exactly it is trying to accomplish. Filtering it through a scholarly interpretation, and adding a citation might help. --Andrew c 02:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Blue, I am sorry I did not comment sooner. I find the statement to be one of those "DUH" things that come up. It is stating the obvious. Why is it important to note? Important for whom? The subject is obviously a topic of religion or faith. Should these caliber of statements be put in all topics related to faith? I would say no; it is clumsy and as I already stated, it is obvious. I believe readers are far more adept at understanding the value of each article without providing judgement calls for them in advance. I also believe the article i quite clear about stating sources and so your concerns are already met. Of course, when you find that Book of Facts that is recognized by all humanity as such, please share it; I have yet to find it. Cheers. Storm Rider (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As I commented above, I have taken the well made point that "It is important to note that" was an inappropriate construction for the reasons you state. BlueValour 03:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

First off, many thanks to Andrew c and StormRider for these helpful comments. I have followed Andrew c's advice and contextualized the position. I have also rejigged the lead paras a bit for clarity. I hope this meets the points. BlueValour 03:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The statement seems pointless to me. If you think that the resurrection is a religious event, then any text mentioning it would therefore be a religious text.  So all we have here is a circular statement.  And we haven't asked whether such a religious text could also be historical, so unless we answer that question, the real one, then we have said nothing. Its like saying "Christian scholars think Jesus rose from the dead..." - well yeah, if you think he rose from the dead, you're likely to convert; that says nothing about why you think he did, which is the real matter.  Lostcaesar 08:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Jesus as a sacrifice to pacify God?
I wonder, what is the source of the statement "The Roman Catholic view is that Jesus willingly sacrificed himself as an act of perfect obedience as a Substitutionary atonement, a sacrifice of love which pleased God. This pleased God more than the disobedience of Adam, and thus cleansing Mankind of the stain of original sin." I think that many people see Jesus' sacrifice of his life as a model of love for the world to follow, not as a sacrifice to appease God. In this sense, it seems as though Jesus is just a medium for salvation, and although this may be symbolic in the Jewish tradition, it doesn't seem like the true point of the crucifixion. This idea of Jesus as a sacrifice to appease God for Adam's sin makes God seem like a dictator of humanity, having complete control over our lives and fate, which seems to contradict the Church's teachings of God as a forgiving being whom humans can "take or leave." I don't wish for this to be a philosophical discussion, I'm just concerned with the validity of the statement that the Church teaches what I have quoted from the article, but since I don't have access to Church documents that would clear this up, so could this please be investigated?The Edit0r 03:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think its off as well. Lostcaesar 03:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to rephrase it in a reliable way source it from here, the Vatican's own website. BlueValour 04:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The belief that Jesus' Death was a Substitutionary death for the people goes back to the Servant Songs of Isaiah 53, which seems to be how Jesus sees his ministry in the gospels. Paul also seems to hold the view in Romans that Jesus was a propitation for our sins, or a satisfaction of the wrath of God.

Blake

That belief originated with Paul's writings, not Isaiah 53, which does not support the idea of a substitutionary death. The chapter speaks of him being taken from prison and judgment and cut of from the land of the living, not killed. The chapter also speaks of him having a long life and of him having descendants.

Anon
 * Through Jesus' teachings, one can find the path to salvation. Jesus came to reestablish correct religion. As a result of upsetting the Jewish orthodoxy, Jesus gets cruxified. Jesus knew that coming to Jerusalem was risky for him, ergo by going to Jerusalem Jesus shows willingness to risk his own neck to preach his Gospel. The cruxifiction and resulting suffering means Jesus factually sacrificed his body to bring his teachings to the people. Whether Jesus died on the cross or not, he put his own safety at risk for God (pleasing God). A sacrifice he had made because of the sins of others who distorted the scriputres. Ergo if anyone wishes to be saved, they must put themselves on the line for God also (just as James the Just did). One can be saved only if you follow the example of Jesus. After all, each human is free thinking (self reasoning), and therefore responsible for their own sins. Every human must assert full rational control over their own base desires for power and ego, and instead accept willingly subserviance/obedience to God. It is Eve and Adams desire to know all God knows and have Gods power which constitutes the original sin. God is not a dictator in the sense of a human dictator. If Hitler truely did know everything, and could see and know every thought in every heart, we may have accepted him as a legitamate leader! God does not make one accept his authority (although factually one has no choice as we live in a world under his direct and indirect control). God does have complete control over individual fate, its just that he chooses not exercise it because he wishes all souls to accept him willingly. Its all down to interpretation of the scriptures. If you wish to believe that God is a callous omnipotent being, then you would naturally agree with Eve about eating the apple, and you would be against the teachings of Jesus. You can take or leave the teachings of God (as you put it), but if you leave them, you put yourself at the mercy of both natures rules/regulations that control our environments and the rules of society (which come from religion). There is always consequences for the values one adopts, hence there is always suffering when one's actions cause the consternation of others. A Christian must be able to willingly accept suffering from others who hate their ethos and wish it to be extinguished.86.4.59.203 02:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Pharisee.

Anon's comment
Whats your problem man its the way the Bible tells us not no twins Jesus was ressurected so stop trying to ruin something perfect with all your weird theories. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.110.167.93 (talk • contribs).
 * The Roman bible is like a cake reciepe that only derives from an original cake reciepe taught by one man (Jesus), but alas Jesus never wrote it down himself. Jesus showed some of his friends (discipes and roadies) how to make the cake, but each one remembered only some of the reciepe. These diciples then taught their friends whom told their friends etc till one day some of the literate students wrote down what they were told was the correct reciepe. So the perfect cake reciepe passed down firstly by word of mouth, and then only later written down by many people in many different ways. Then disputes arise amoung the many friends as which written accounts of the reciepe's were correct and which were mistakes. Disputes even arose as to the interpretation of the same passages. So the perfect reciepe has been lost/buried in a giant game of Chinese whispers. That means the reciepe in the Roman bible is likely no more or less perfect than the Gnostic, or Ebonite, or Manichean, or the Islamic views concerning Jesus. The roman bible is one book, supporting one view point. Even the 4 gospels in it don't reach agreements on all the details hence how can it be viewed as perfect? Also, the English version of the bible derives from Aramaic/Greek/Hebrew scriptures translated into Latin and then into English. Transiliteration disputes were rife, making it difficult to know the precise meaning of words like Resurection, Nazarene/Nazareth etc. The bible is one of the most contentious books ever compiled as even experts can't agree with each other. It is perfect, like a smashed mirror!86.4.59.203 23:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Pharisee

English translations of the bible were done from the original languages into English - the translators didn't use the Latin translations of the day. They translated the bible from Greek and Hebrew and didn't rely on the Roman Churches translation - though the Authorized King James Version did rely on Tyndale's English translation, which was also translated from the Greek and Hebrew. See the article on the Authorized King James version before making unfounded comments. Floorwalker 05:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

fact tagged content
I removed things that have been tagged for a long time. Please do not restore this content without providing a citation:


 * This pleased God more than the disobedience of Adam, and thus cleansing Mankind of the stain of original sin.


 * The largest obstacle this theory faces is that Roman soldiers could be punished by death if ever they allow a crucified man to live, and were thus likely to ensure that Jesus really was dead.


 * though apologists claim that a highly disputed passage claiming to be by Tacitus alludes to this.


 * Saint James the Just is often considered the eldest half brother of Jesus, and according to some traditions did not believe that Jesus was the Son of God until the resurrection. He later became the first Bishop of Jerusalem, and is the most likely author a small part of the bible, the Epistle of James.


 * Some scholars have even argued that Mark never originally contained a resurrection narrative at all, and that the original ending was one which came to embarrass the Church when the theology of a resurrection began to circulate, hence the text was altered to suit. Those scholars who argue that the resurrection was not mentioned in Mark, also argue that the variation is due to the resurrection accounts in the other Gospels also being later, artificial, additions.

Thanks-Andrew c 18:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"Rose" versus "was raised"
At the Christianity talk page there is some discussion about whether Jesus "rose" or "was raised" from the dead, and the "middle voice", which exists in NT Greek in addition to active and passive. I think a discussion of that would bloat the article too much there, but I feel perhaps there should be something about it here. ElinorD 17:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The Bible is pretty clear on the topic:

Acts 2:24 But God raised him from the dead

Romans 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

1 Cor 15:15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised.

Acts 2:31-32 Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.

Acts 3:15 You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.

Acts 3:26 When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways."

Acts 4:10 then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed.

Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree.

Acts 10:40-41 but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. 41He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.

Acts 13:30 But God raised him from the dead,

Acts 13:34 The fact that God raised him from the dead, never to decay, is stated in these words: " 'I will give you the holy and sure blessings promised to David.'

Acts 13:37 But the one whom God raised from the dead did not see decay.

Acts 17:30-31 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."

1 Cor 6:14 By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also.

2 Cor 4:14 because we know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead will also raise us with Jesus and present us with you in his presence.

Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—

Eph 1:20 which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms,

Col 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

1 Thess 1:10 and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.

Heb 13:20 May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep,

1 Pet 1:3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

1 Pet 1:21 Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.14.215.164 (talk • contribs).


 * If you mean by saying that the Bible "is pretty clear on the topic" that it's only correct to say that the Father raised the Son, and not that the Son rose, I'd have to disagree. There are other verses which speak about the Son "rising" from the dead. English translations of Luke 24 (Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here but HAS RISEN. . . must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified and on the third day RISE) tend to use the active voice. Did the Father raise the Son? Yes. Did the Son rise? Yes. Is it okay to focus on one rather than the other? Yes. Is it okay to deny the other? No. We need to find a wording that acknowledges that both interpretations are orthodox. And it's probably more appropriate to put it into this article than the Christianity article, which is already quite long. ElinorD (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, Jesus rose from the dead. But that is a bit vague. How did Jesus rise from the dead? According to the Bible, "God raised him from the dead",, , . Problem solved.


 * One more note, I assume you nor anyone else would claim that the following statement is not orthodox:


 * That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 10:9 NIV


 * Surely this verse is a bit familiar to vitually all Christians? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.14.215.164 (talk • contribs).


 * Please sign all talk page comments by typing four tildes after your post ( ~ ).-Andrew c 23:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Rising from the dead' was could be used as a term meaning resucitated. Saying 'God rose Jesus from the dead' could mean that by God's grace Jesus survived crucifixion. Remember that the average 1st century person knew not of medical techniques to revive a person (although we know from Greek medical history books that such techniques were in use during the 1st century). Those who passed on the stories compiled into the bible were probably not sure how Jesus was able to turn up in Galilee after suposeably being crucified. Hence their version of events seems as likely as an alien abduction story.86.4.59.203 00:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Trinity.
 * And so they would willingly die for the belief that Jesus survived in that pituful state. That is hardly the potrayal of Jesus in the Gospels, or something worth dying for. And "more likely" doesn't mean that it has any real likelyhood. The NT gives absolutely no reason to believe kn a Jesus alive and well on the earth. 74.137.230.39 03:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Wow, this interactive thing is really cool. I was wondering what yall thought about John 2:19:

"The Jews then responded to him, 'What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?' Jesus answered them, 'Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.' They replied, 'It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?' But the temple he had spoken of was his body."

It seems like Jesus is saying that he himself will prove his authority by rising himself from the dead... It is interesting how he even says he himself would lay his life down ("destroy this temple"). So, it seems that he ultimately had sovereign control over his death AND resurrection (remember what he said to Pontus Pilot?). Like was already said, the Bible also speaks of God the Father and Holy Spirit raising Jesus from the dead. I am reminded of Romans 8:10-11 concerning the Holy Spirit:

"But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you."

Ultimately, I think the Bible depicts the resurrection of Jesus being carried out by all three persons of the Godhead. What do yall think?

Another good source is work by Mike Licona concerning the evidence for the resurrection... He and Dr. Habermas are good friends, I think. Cool. I'll appreciate anyone's response. Thanks!!


 * The tough thing here is that some authors portray Jesus rising from the dead on his own power, other portray him being raised by God. John, for example, portrays Jesus as an incarnation of God (or at least of the Logos), so Jesus has the power to raise himself. Paul, however, writes of God raising Jesus as Jesus' "ascension" to full divinity. For Paul, it's the Father that raises the Son, the "firstfruits" of the resurrection. So you can't decide whether "the New Testament" says that God raised Jesus or that Jesus rose on his own. It says both, It's different authors meant different things. Jonathan Tweet 05:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I feel you. Paul definitely speaks of the Father raising Jesus from the dead. Although, I wonder what you mean by your comment: "Paul, however, writes of God raising Jesus as Jesus' 'ascension' to full divinity." Does this imply that Jesus was not yet "fully divine" before his resurrection (or at least that Paul thought this)? I remember when Paul said in Romans 1:4 that Jesus "was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead..." I feel that the word "declared" does not mean that he was "made" divine, but was "indicated" as divine. If the former, then all of the times that Jesus said he was the Son of God during his earthly ministry would not have made sense, since that was before his resurrection. I would mos def agree that we can't decide WHETHER the NT says that God raised Jesus or that Jesus raised himself. I think that is a trick question. I would say that we can decided that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit were all involved in Jesus' bodily resurrection according to the NT (John 10:17,18; Acts 13:30-35; Romans 1:4 and 8:11...Yeah, I am assuming that God is Triune). I think it is no contradiction that both Jesus and God the Father are accredited for Jesus' resurrection (and I argue the Holy Spirit as well).


 * Here's what one scholar wrote 50 years ago. "And indeed, so far as belief in the radical significance of the resurrection is concerned, there is more than enough to support this assumption. The letters of Paul contain not a single passage which associates any of the glory of the risen Son of God with the historical life of Jesus. Paul apparently knows of no transfiguration, of no signs and wonders. The glory breaks only at the resurrection. It was then that the human Jesus became the divine Lord, It was then that "God gave him the name that is above every name.’ The whole case for the saviorhood of Jesus stands or falls with the resurrection: " If Christ did not rise, then is your faith vain."(I Cor. 15:14) In fact, it is clear that Paul thought of Jesus’ earthly life as having been more than ordinarily humble, and even shameful. Unless the reference to his having been a descendant of David can be regarded as an exception, Paul never alludes specifically to the earthly life except under some aspect of humiliation: "he took the nature of a slave"; "he became obedient to death, even the death of the cross"; "he was rich but for our sakes he became poor"; "he was born under the law"; "he who knew no sin became sin for us "; "he did not please himself." (Phil. 2:5 ff; II Cor. 8:9; Gal. 4:4; II Cor. 5:21; Rom. 15:3.) Only at the resurrection did Jesus become Lord and Christ. This, as we have seen and as we would have expected, was undoubtedly the faith of the primitive church, and there is every reason to believe that Paul shared it. The quoted passage in Romans does not stand alone." Jonathan Tweet 23:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul also refers to Jesus as the pre-existent Son of God who became an obedient mortal man. Though he was God's son, he was not yet lord or judge. He earned that status through his obedience and gained that status when God raised him. Not adoptionism per se, just in the sense that Jesus achieved his ultimate godly status through his sinlessness and obedience. Jonathan Tweet 23:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Finally, when Jesus is "declared to be" the Son of God at his resurrection, it's like being "declared" to be the winner. It doesn't just mean "said to be." "Designated as" or "installed as" would be alternate translations. Jonathan Tweet 12:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)