Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro

Untitled

Note:this subpage is now about Christian views of Jesus in general, and not just about the third paragraph.

Archives: /Key,/Archive 1, /Archive 2, /Archive 3, /Archive 4.

Buried, or entombed? BOTH!

Most Christians believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and entombed... I don't see a citation to a published source for this, so I'm going to assume it is being asserted as an obvious fact. Well, it is not obvious to me. I insist it be deleted as an unsourced opinion. Quotes from the Gospels won't help, as I don't consider it a fact that just because the Gospels say something, most Christians believe it. Furthermore, its original research to argue that Christians believe something then point to a Gospel passage. Therefore, the sentence has to go.

Now, before some editors have a heart attack over this, (or until I acquire stock in all major hospitals) I will accept the sentence if we replace "entombed" with "buried".

Why? "Buried" is what the latest version of the Nicene Creed says. Since I accept the idea that most Christians believe in what it says, I'll accept the statement using the word "buried". -- Drogo Underburrow 13:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I'm being accommodating here. Actually, I don't buy the idea that most Christians believe what the Nicene Creed says, but I'll accept the idea for Wikipedia purposes for now. I'd have to see test results that would prove that most Christians even know what the Nicene Creed says, and surveys that prove that they believe in it, before I would consider it a fact. But, I'll leave that to another day.

I would also accept a statement like "Professor X states in his book, "My Nonsense" that most Christians believe in the Nicene Creed." Notice, that NPOV favors stating what sources say, rather than editors trying to state what is. Drogo Underburrow 14:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we discussed this before (I don't have a chance to look through the archives at the moment). Both are correct; entombment is more precise. Entombment is a form of burial. Jesus was buried in a tomb provided by Joseph of Arimathea. Yes, that is from the Gospels (all four of them). Why you do consider the Gospels to be original research, but not the Nicene Creed? That's simply illogical and inconsistent. It's verifiable that more Christians believe the Gospels than the Nicene Creed. Nontrinitarians and noncreedal trinitarian Christians accept the Bible but not the Nicene Creed. It doesn't work the other way around: I don't know of any Christians who accept the Nicene Creed but not the Bible. I dare you to provide any. Certainly if you do find some, they will be in the minority, not "most Christians."

Not to mention that we removed the reference to the Nicene Creed some time ago, for the sake of noncreedal trinitarians.

Well, see you after church. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 14:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The previous discussion is in Archive 43. I didn't look beyond that to see if it was discussed previously to that.

You are arguing whether Jesus was buried or entombed. That is not the question. The question is, what do most Christians believe? As I've stated, I accept, only in order to be accommodating, the notion that most Christians believe what the Nicene Creed says. Why do I accept this? In the spirit of compromise. I don't want to edit war for complete deletion of the sentence. I can't win that war; as Robsteadman here has pointed out, there is a cabal that watches over this page. In my opinion, this cabal would sooner flout Wikipedia policy on NPOV and no original research than agree to this sentence being deleted. Now, since the Nicene Creed, in all its wisdom, says Jesus was buried, and large groups of Christians, such as Catholics, supposedly have to profess believing in what the Nicene Creed says, I'll accept that they believe Jesus was buried. If the Nicene Creed had meant "entombed" it would have used that word, you can bet that every word of it has been carefully chosen, more so even than the words in the introduction of the Jesus article (attempt at very dry humor). -- Drogo Underburrow 15:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The English language creed is, of course, a translation, and I strongly suspect that the problem here lies in mistranslation, since the Bible clearly says "laid in a tomb". If Jesus was "buried" the image of his resurrection reminds one of the ending of the movie Carrie -- not exactly a reverent picture. Rick Norwood 15:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

So the Nicene Creed in English is a mistranslation? Wow, we sure have a bunch of lousy translators, that nobody has corrected it. Still, it doesn't matter, it says what it says, that is what Christians profess to believe, so that is what should go in Wikipedia. Buried, not entombed. Drogo Underburrow 15:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems strange to equate "Christians" with "English speaking Christians" and very strange to say that "Christians" believe what a creed says above what the Bible says, since the creed is based on the Bible. By the way, I didn't say there was a mistranslation, only that there might be. Is there a scholar of Latin and Greek in the audience? Rick Norwood 16:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The word in the Creed is ταφέντα -- put in a grave OR sepulcher. i.e., tomb. Is this really worth squabbling over? Pretty sad, it seems to me. Behold these Christians, how they so love one another. •Jim62sch• 23:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I can honestly say I do not ever remember meeting any Christian (Or anyone else for that matter) who thinks Jesus was buried rather than entombed :/. Homestarmy 16:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you never met a Christian or anybody else who believes what the Nicene Creed says? That's fascinating. Interesting group of acquaintances you have. Statistically most peculiar. Now if you say that all Christians you have met are evangelical Christians who take an extreme view of sola scriptura, and who reject the Nicene Creed, and don't want its words used in the Jesus article, that I would believe, especially since you are a fundamentalist Christian yourself. You say "rather than"; I'm not sure what you mean by that. The argument, of course, is not whether Jesus was buried rather than entombed. The argument is what Christians believe. They believe, I will allow here for the sake of compromise, in the Nicene Creed. That creed says that Jesus was buried. I question changing the carefully chosen words of the creed, then claiming that everyone believes in the altered version. I will allow though, that fundamentalists believe in the altered wording. It is just that most Christians happen to be Catholics, and the sentence starts..."Most Christians believe.." I say we stick with what an accommodating person might allow, and go with the same choice of words that most Christians recite: "was buried". -- Drogo Underburrow 16:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I mean i've never met a Christian who thinks Jesus was buried in the typical sense of getting put into a coffin and lowered into a plot in the ground. Being entombed is not the same as simply being buried. Homestarmy 17:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I am inserting this out of chronological order, because it was written as a reply to Homestarmy:

I am not saying that the article should say that Jesus was put into a coffin and lowered into a plot in the ground. The article should say:

Most Christians believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death...

because that agrees with the wording of the Nicene Creed, which is the source for the statement. Or, the statement has no source, in which case it has to be deleted, as it is not a self-evident fact what most Christians believe. Now, in the spirit of ecumenicalism, I will point out to those whose faith is based on sola scriptura, that nowhere in the NIV, King James, or New King James Version does the word "entombed" appear. Instead, in the NIV version of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and John, the chapter heading (which I know was not in the original manuscripts, but it is still in our Bibles) says "The Burial of Jesus" while in Luke it says "Jesus' Burial". In the New King James version, it says for all four gospels, "Jesus Buried in Joseph’s Tomb". -- Drogo Underburrow 18:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

In my experience, Christians very rarely believe what they say they believe. For example, I know a lot of Catholics who say they believe the Pope is infallible, yet practice birth control. And I know a lot of "Bible believing" fundamentalists who say they believe very word in the Bible is true -- but gather up their riches upon the earth. For that matter, it seems clear to me that Drogo Underburrow says he believes that Christians believe Christ was buried, but doesn't really believe that that is what Christians believe. Of course, I could be wrong. Rick Norwood 18:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Besides Archive 43, you might try /Christian views in intro. Lutheran ministers are trained in Koine (NT) Greek and (OT) Hebrew, usually Latin as well. If drboisclair or CTSWyneken were here, I'm sure they could answer your questions about the translation. I don't mean to disparage anyone else; I'm sure there are scholars from other Christian denominations, as well as non-Christians, who can answer your question. Besides, the Nicene Creed originally written in Greek:

Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Θεόν, Πατέρα, Παντοκράτορα, ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, ὁρατῶν τε πάντων καὶ ἀοράτων.

Καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ, τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων·

Φῶς ἐκ φωτός, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί, δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο.

Τoν δι' ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν καὶ σαρκωθέντα

Ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς Παρθένου καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα.

Σταυρωθέντα τε ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου, καὶ παθόντα καὶ ταφέντα.

Καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρα κατὰ τὰς Γραφάς.

Καὶ ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ καθεζόμενον ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Πατρός.

Καὶ πάλιν ἐρχόμενον μετὰ δόξης κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, οὗ τῆς βασιλείας οὐκ ἔσται τέλος.

Καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον, τὸ κύριον, τὸ ζωοποιόν,

Τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον,

Τὸ σὺν Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον,

Τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν.

Εἰς μίαν, Ἁγίαν, Καθολικὴν καὶ Ἀποστολικὴν Ἐκκλησίαν.

Ὁμολογῶ ἓν βάπτισμα εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν.

Προσδοκῶ ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν.

Καὶ ζωὴν τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος.

Ἀμήν.

We're awaiting translators. (If the Greek letters don't show up, try Nicene Creed#Greek version.)

Of course, we can't read Christian hearts or minds, so we can only go by what Christians profess. I'm sure we can find a cross-denominational sociological survey of Christian beliefs if we look hard enough. We might have trouble finding a global study, though. When we looked for statistics re:the Virgin Birth, the studies were limited to the US, to Europe, or to the UK alone. Maybe we could try the UN?

Rick's right: it's strange to put the English translation of the Nicene Creed above the Bible. Anglocentrism is unbecoming. As for Drogo's question, frankly, I believe it's a false dilemma. Many Christians believe that Jesus was buried by entombment. Does any Christian disagree? Speak now or forever hold your peace ;) Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 18:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this is a completely crazy semantical argument.

BTW, transliterating

Σταυρωθέντα τε ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου, καὶ παθόντα καὶ ταφέντα. Καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρα κατὰ τὰς Γραφάς.

Which seems to be the part dealing with this issue, goes

Staurthenia te ēmōn epi Pontiou Pilatou, kai pathonta kai taphenta. Kai anastanta tē tritē ēmera kata tas Graphas

I don't know Greek, but since "Pontiou Pilatou" is "Pontius Pilate", and "tritē" is presumably "three," and "Graphas" presumably "Scripture", I would guess that "taphenta" (ταφέντα) is the word that is translated "buried." Anyone know enough New Testament Greek to give the connotations on that? john k 18:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The Greek word is in the Creed is ταφέντα, from the root θάπτω, which means "bury, inter"Thayer or "honour with funeral rites"LSJ. "Bury" matches this just fine: "To ritualistically inter a corpse in a grave or tomb"wiktionary, entry 1, and so does "entomb," as Archie said, since entombment is a type of burial. » MonkeeSage « 18:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Jesus was entombed; however it does that Jesus was buried. Those of you who insist on using "entombed" are the ones who are going against the Bible and the standard translation of the Nicene creed, which says "buried", and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which says that Jesus was buried. Drogo Underburrow 19:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

What the Hell do you think a sepulcher made of stone is? It's only on all four Gospels. Do you really need an agnostic to spell it out for you? As I said above, sad, really friggin sad. •Jim62sch• 23:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The New King James version says, literally, "Jesus Buried in Joseph’s Tomb". I don't feel it correct to omit the word "buried" here. The Nicene creed, in English, is officially translated as "buried" not "entombed". The Catholic Catechism states that Jesus was buried. We should be as faithful to the sources as possible. I see no reason to use "entombed" alone while omitting the word "bury". Do you have a reason to go against the literal language of the sources and chose an word they do not use? Drogo Underburrow 23:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The key point is this: what the frig does it matter? Isn't the key point for Christians that Jesus was "resurrected"? Does it matter from where? (He asks hoping to avoid a very long discourse on linguistics). Give it a rest -- why not just change the article to "Jesus' body was stuffed away somewhere..."? •Jim62sch• 00:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: "Stuffed away somewhere." Stolen body hypothesis? Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 14:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Please specify which translation of the Bible you are using. Rick Norwood 19:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This sentence is here only to be covered up by the box at the bottom of the page, so people can read the last sentence of the posts. Only now, of course, the box at the bottom of the page refuses to cover up my last sentence, the way it did before. Rick Norwood 19:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I do know what the NIV says, here's John 19:38-42

Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jews. With Pilate's permission, he came and took the body away. He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds. Taking Jesus' body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs. At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid. Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.

Hmm, it seems that Jesus was laid in a tomb. Sounds like entombment to me. Homestarmy 19:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere does it say "entombment". However, what does the chapter heading of your NIV bible say right before John 19:38? "The Burial of Jesus" Drogo Underburrow 19:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"en" is a prefix for "in", and Jesus was placed in a tomb. How can it not be entombment? Homestarmy 19:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"Going against the Bible?" Hardly. Matthew 27:57–60; Mark 15:43–46; Luke 23:50–53; John 19:42.

Matthew: "As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus. Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus' body, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him. Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away."

Mark: "Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body. Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph. So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid.

Luke: "Now there was a man named Joseph, a member of the Council, a good and upright man, who had not consented to their decision and action. He came from the Judean town of Arimathea and he was waiting for the kingdom of God. Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus' body. Then he took it down, wrapped it in linen cloth and placed it in a tomb cut in the rock, one in which no one had yet been laid."

John: "Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jews. With Pilate's permission, he came and took the body away. He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds. Taking Jesus' body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs. At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid. Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there."

The Nicene Creed says Jesus was buried. The Gospels say that Jesus was buried in a tomb. Christians believe that Jesus was buried in a tomb. There is no contradiction. Drogo, you are the only one who is going against the Bible. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 19:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying Jesus was buried. The Nicene Creed says Jesus was buried. The Bible says he was buried. Nowhere in the Bible does is say he was "buried in a tomb" or that he was "entombed". The contradiction is that the Jesus article says he was entombed. Its wrong. I, the Nicene Creed and the Bible are correct. Drogo Underburrow 19:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Entomb redirects to Tomb which, interestingly enough, mentions parts in the Bible where tombs are mentioned. Jesus being placed in the tomb is mentioned there. Why would Entomb redirect there if it wasn't entombment? If "entombment" is not the correct word, then it would mean Jesus was not put in a tomb. That is clearly a contradiction. Homestarmy 19:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"Nowhere in the Bible does is say he was "buried in a tomb"" Drogo: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are all part of the Bible. They all say that Jesus was laid in a tomb. John even says that "This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs." Just so there's no confusion, the dictionary definition of entombment is "To place in or as if in a tomb or grave." Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 19:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You keep extrapolating to come up with how Jesus was "entombed", while I quote you the literal words of the Nicene Creed, the Bible, and the official teaching of the Catholic Church. Now, the sentence in Wikipedia only uses one word. That word has to be the same as used by the Bible, the Catholic Church, and the Nicene Creed: "buried", not "entombed", which is a word chosen by Wikipedians. I'm sorry, but you are way off base here. You have to collect a bunch of passages then infer that he was "entombed", while ignoring the direct, literal use of the word burial and buried. -- Drogo Underburrow 19:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Then what does Entomb mean Drogo? It seems to me that it doesn't mean what we're saying it means in your eyes.Homestarmy 19:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Entombing somebody means they were put in a tomb. All four gospels say Jesus was put in a tomb. There is no reason to think that later documents like the Nicene Creed mean anything different. One doesn't have to "infer" that Jesus was entombed - this is the clear meaning of all four gospels. What is your point here, Drogo? Are you disrupting wikipedia to prove a point in some way? Because that's what it seems like you're doing. john k 20:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict. Drogo, Nope. I've quoted you the literal words from all four gospels of the Bible. I've given you the literal definition of entombment: "To place in or as if in a tomb or grave." You want the literal definition of bury? Try definition 2A: "To place (a corpse) in a grave, a tomb, or the sea." No contradiction. The Nicene Creed is a summary. The Bible is more detailed. The creed says that Jesus was buried. The Bible--all four Gospels--say that jesus was placed (ie buried, by definition 2a) in a tomb. The creed agrees with the Bible on this point. You, however, do not. Plain English.

Another point: not all Christians are Catholics. I am a Lutheran. However, if you think Catholics disagree with me, try asking one. User:Str1977 and User:Musical Linguist are both Catholics. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 20:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

PS: As per John K, I will now stop feeding Drogo. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 20:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You insist on using "entombed", a term not found in the Bible, the Nicene Creed, or the Catechism of the Catholic Church, instead of using the word that they use: buried. You have to use dictionary definitions and string whole sections of scripture to justify using a term instead of the one used by them. You are being extremely POV here. I don't know why you refuse to write the article so that it uses the same word as the Bible, the Nicene Creed, or the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but I do know that you are pushing your own POV here. You have no source at all for what you are saying, simply arguments on equivalent meanings. Well, they aren't equivalent. You say most Christians believe in what the Bible, the Nicene Creed, or the Catechism of the Catholic Church say, and I'll agree with you. You say they agree with a statement that is made up by Wikipedians, and I say its original research, a POV, and its ridiculous to ignore what the Bible says and come up with a "better" word. What does the NIV, and other bibles, say in the chapter headings? What does the Nicene Creed say? What does the Catechism of the Catholic Church say. They all use "buried" and "burial". Only Wikipedia uses the word "entombed" Drogo Underburrow 20:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we just write "buried in a tomb" then and forget all this? Homestarmy 20:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds okay to me, Homestarmy. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 20:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Done; its in the article. I'm quite willing to compromise as long as the truth doesn't get compromised. Drogo Underburrow 20:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

None of these words is in the Bible. The Bible uses a word in koine Greek. For all we know, there is no koine word for "to entomb". I've never heard that Biblical paraphrase has to quote the exact words used in the Bible. The Bible says that Jesus was buried in a tomb. "To bury in a tomb" meeans the same thing as "To entomb." This would appear to be an incredibly broad reading of what is "original research" - essentially, new phrasing constitutes original research. This seems unsupportable to me. john k 20:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

According to all four Gospels he was entombed. —Aiden 21:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Now, look, Aiden, this was argued at length, and finally reached a compromise solution that three editors agreed to. Its not right of you to come along and instantly revert our compromise with a short statement and no debate. Give me at least, the same courtesy as I gave you, in that I made no edits before reaching a consensus of the active editors, and after a long and heated discussion. -- Drogo Underburrow 22:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

So, did Jesus come to bring peace or a sword? •Jim62sch• 23:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

A sword of course, is there any other way? :D Of course, all those who live by the sword will die by the sword, and I do suppose it would be kind of pathetic to die from editing wikipedia, I mean i'd rather die for something more....you know....Christian-y. Like guarding a fellow Christian from being shot or something, I dunno, or maybe getting killed while open air preaching, there's many possibilities. Homestarmy 23:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this a hint that you want me to make arrangements for your matyrdom? Alienus 23:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

And is that a threat? No really, dying from editing Wikipedia is silly, there's better way to die than that. Homestarmy 23:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Jim, User:Jesus Christ brought pieces of swords. Alienus, I hope you're being sarcastic. Homestarmy, no one ever died from editing Wikipedia. Gone insane, yes; I see it all the time. But not died. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 23:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Homestarmy, you proposed a solution, and I agreed and put it in the article. Aiden now is edit warring, reverting our agreed upon compromise with no discussion. May I ask you now to show good faith, and put back in the version you yourself proposed? Drogo Underburrow 23:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, I am stating for the record right now, that the Gospels do not speak for themselves, and are not a published source such that you can make a statement in Wikipedia, and point to Bible verses to justify it. If Wikipedia allowed that, almost anything could be supported, as over the ages Bible verses have been used to support everything from abolitionism to slavery. If all you do is quote the Bible, you have no source for your statement. Wikipedia requires published sources, written by verifiable and credible authors, not anonymous ancient religious texts. The only valid use for a Bible quote is to say that the sentence is in the Bible, and then a literal quote is required. The minute that other than a literal reading is involved, interpretation has to be made, somebody has to read it and decide what it means, and that someone cannot be a Wikipedia editor, or its simply his POV of the Bible. Even literal readings cannot be then used to support intrepretive points. I'm going to take this point to arbitration if I have to, the Bible is not a valid source. Neither is the Koran; the Koran speaks of Jesus too. You are going to have people putting Koranic Jesus passages without visible attribution, using footnotes only like you are doing now, in the intro if you do that using the Bible. -- Drogo Underburrow 00:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The Qur'an is cited in the Muslim views section. The Bible is used to cite what Christians believe, and the Qu'ran is used to cite what Muslims believe, and for that matter both the Mishneh Torah and Devarim (Deuteronomy) are cited in the section on Judaism's views. It is not at all unverifiable to say that religious views are based on an interpretation of texts that are considered holy to said religion. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 00:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

My solution only served to replace a word that summarized my suggestion. As long as the text currently renders a meaning of "buried in a tomb", then its fine by me. However, should somebody change the text to simply read "buried" I will most likely qualify it with "in a tomb" rather than "entombed". Furthermore, is an arbcom request really necessary over "entomb" vs. "buried in a tomb"? Finally, the English language, like any other language, seeks to convey a meaning. When synonyms are used in common speech, the meanings of one or more words or group of words should be immedietly understood as interchangeable in full, I mean, it's not like im making my own private little fantasy land interpretation of what English is. There are, truthfully, many interpretations people make of the Bible which Wikipedia certainly should have nothing to do with, such as thinking that "atonement" really means "at one ment" (as in, one with God) or "eternal" really meaning "just a relatively short amount of time because the Greek might mean that if we rip this out of context alot". However, I don't see how this is one of those situations. Homestarmy 00:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Did it ever dawn on editors that the reason the Nicene Creed, and the Catholic Church, and the Bible (in the chapter headings) always say "buried" might be to make clear that Jesus was dead, and not simply unconscious? And that this was very important, to refute charges that Jesus wasn't really dead, and his followers later released him alive? Look up "entombed" and "bury"

Bury: 1. To place (a corpse) in a grave, a tomb, or the sea; inter.

2. To dispose of (a corpse) ritualistically by means other than cremation.

Entombed: 1. To place in or as if in a tomb or grave.

Jesus was crucified and entombed? Oh, then maybe he wasn't dead. -- Drogo Underburrow 02:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

What in the world is your point? Have you ever heard of the term "buried alive"? At any rate, you continue to say that the "Nicene Creed" and the "Bible" say things, when in fact you are referring to "standard English translations of the Nicene Creed" and "modern descriptive chapter headings printed in 20th century English language Bibles." (I'm not sure what you mean about the "Catholic Church" saying things - as I understand it, the main Church saying on the business is the Nicene Creed). The arguments you are making are nonsensical, and you have no support at all for your explanations of why "buried" is better than "entombed" - both terms are appropriate to what happened to Jesus as described in the Gospels. john k 02:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

My point is that the Catholic Church, in its official teaching, the Catechism, and the Nicene Creed, say "buried" so that its clear to all that he was dead. As the above definitions show, buried implies a corpse. Entombed does not. Drogo Underburrow 03:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting that you seem to want to limit the Christian views intro paragraph to Catholicism. Catholicism may be the majority, but you are effectively eliminating Eastern Christianity, Protestantism and Restorationism from the paragraph. Even so, I said earlier you could always ask a Catholic whether or not they make the distinction between "buried in a tomb" and "entombment" that you are making. If that's not good enough, you could try emailing the pope. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 03:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Drogo mentions:"...charges that Jesus wasn't really dead, and his followers later released him alive?" See also swoon hypothesis. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 02:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Paul first says buried in 1Cor 15:1–9. The Gospels are more specific, Jesus' body was placed in a tomb Mark 15:46, i.e. entombed. 64.169.7.171 (talk · contribs)

I have been away for a few days and just read this exchange. It is clear to me that Drogo just wants to waste people's time. If anyone doubts me, just take a deep breath and then read this exchange as a whole. It is just a waste of time. I encourage people to ignore Drogo. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Amen. This section is a page all by itself (36Kb in length). Double Blue should note that Slrubenstein is Jewish, and thus by definition not a DWEEC. Welcome back, Slr. For the sake of my sanity, I may need to take a Wikibreak. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 12:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, the Greek word in the Creed is ταφέντα, from the root θάπτω, which means "bury, inter" (Thayer) or "honour with funeral rites" (LSJ). "Bury" matches this just fine: "To ritualistically inter a corpse in a grave or tomb" (wiktionary, entry 1), and so does "entomb," as Archie said, since entombment is a type of burial. "Entomb" is more precise, but is just as accurate as "bury." Drogo's insistence on "bury" is about as silly as insisting that the Super Bowl is a "sporting event" not a "football game" — it's both, the latter is just more precise and is a subset of the former. Same exact thing with "bury" vs. "entomb." » MonkeeSage « 19:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)-

Lack of Sources

The mere fact that the Gospels say something, is no proof that most Christians believe it. Therefore, in the sentence, Most Christians believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and entombed... simply pointing to Gospel passages is no evidence at all as to how widespread Christian belief is. The claim that most Christians believe in the cited passages is completely unsupported by any evidence and is simply being asserted by the editor. Material that is unsourced can be removed at any time by any editor. Drogo Underburrow 01:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Not again, didn't we have this dispute over the virgin birth months ago? All the polls I found seemed to at least support that American Christians believe as a majority in the virgin birth, crucifixion, and everything we've listed here, but I don't think we ever found stuff from the European version or gallop to cite. Who wants to tackle it? however, I should note, all of those first paragraphs are under a "revert on site to what's there" rule, since we spent months debating each one, it was quite annoying. Homestarmy 01:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, JimWae brought this up, but we had trouble finding a global survey. If Drogo's looking for citations it would be better to look at sociological surveys than journalistic polls (the latter of which are often unscientific). OTOH it's silly to argue that religious beliefs are not based on documents considered sacred by said religion. Drogo's just being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. He isn't helping the article. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 07:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Saying what "Christians believe" should not be based on public opinion surveys, but on the statements of documents that Christians accept as the basis of their religion. That most Anglicans don't, in practice, actually believe the 39 Articles personally doesn't mean that the 39 Articles aren't the basis of the Anglican religion, and that it would be inappropriate to say that "Anglicans believe" things that are in the articles. john k 02:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

We've been through this before. Look up the logs before you restart this tiresome debate. —Aiden 05:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Drogo's been raising semantic challenges for a while now, but he's just this weekend moved from the second paragraph to the third. John K and Aiden both have good points. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 07:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

While surveys would be a good way to get at it, perhaps the best bet would be to find a scholarly source that says "most Christians believe..." Remember, my friends, we're here to represent the scholarship in the field. So, can we all take a momentary wiki break from the issue, go check some encyclopedia articles or other sources and cite these? For those who wonder if this is true, may I suggest you look for negative statements like: "most Christians do not believe..." in the lit?

Barring that, we can try something less clumsy than: "the largest Christian traditions teach that..." --CTSWyneken 11:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, whatever sources we need, now is the time to find them. Welcome back, CTS. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 12:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

To hell with sources - if teh Bible says it surely that's sufficient? Ignore the atheists and heretics. RobSteadman 13:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Note: This user was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Robsteadman. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 14:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sources

I'm new. What is considered an acceptable source? I, for example, can cite "sources" (published works) that contest the universality of Jesus Christ's very ministry. October 28, 2007 Sahansdal Sahansdal 06:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)