Talk:Resurrection of Jesus/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Crucifixion or Cruicifiction

Shouldn't something about Deedat's "Crucifixion or Crucifiction" be mentioned here somewhere? [1] It's a study by a muslim scholar of the bible. Faro0485 (talk) 06:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is the Latter-day Saint view included?

The Book of Mormon has no historical value. Its origin is unknown. Its history is demonstrably false (i.e., native Americans are not tribes of Israel). This should be removed.

You might as well quote what the moonies think about the resurrection as evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.64.30 (talk) 07:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to hear how the Book of Mormon is any less valid than the Gospels. There are no originals of the Gospels, and scientific and historical evidence disputes many things in them. So what makes one fairy tale book less believable than the other?SuperAtheist (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, the Book of Mormon doesn't date to the historical period or location it purports to provide information about--in order to believe it as a narrative, you have to presuppose a supernatural explanation for the origin of the text. The Gospels, on the other hand, were written in the part of the world they describe, and within the lifetimes of some of the people who knew Jesus. They may represent second- or third-hand oral history rather than direct eyewitness testimony, and they may have been added to and tweaked in the ensuing century or two, but their provenance is much more objectively plausible (from a naturalist/materialist point of view) than that of the Book of Mormon. Their contents, obviously, contain much that's supernatural, but that's a different matter. 206.208.105.129 (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Post-ressurection

What happened afterwards? Someone should post a link or start a new paragraph

24.98.47.141 (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Try Resurrection appearances of Jesus. Mark J (talk) 08:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding inclusion of link to Mythography of Jesus article

This link was removed with the pretext "Myths take several generations to take hold". This assertion, if it were true (and it isn't, as analytical psychology has repeatedly demonstrated -- new myths can take hold within a single mind, in a single lifetime), is a non-sequitur to the article content, which discusses the archetypal dynamics of the Jesus resurrection story. This link should stay, as the article it links to contributes important insights to the psychological dynamics of the resurrection, and why it is that the story, as told in the Bible, has persisted for millenia despite inconclusive verifiable evidence of its literal historicity. Davigoli (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a completely non-NPOV to me. Awayforawhile (talk) 03:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Resurrection vs. Incarnation

Although Christianity is commonly described as the religion of the Resurrection, there is an older tradition that places more emphasis on the dogma of the Incarnation, hence the title religion of the Incarnation. This is very much apparent when reading the works of the Church Fathers, such as Cyril of Alexandria, who mentioned the Incarnation when debating against Arians in order to prove the divinity of Christ. It could therefore be argued that the original apostles already believed in Jesus's divinity before his crucifixion/resurrection because they had been taught about the incarnation doctrine. ADM (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

Please fix this: "It is, of course, critically important whether or not Jesus did actually rise from the dead: for if he did, then his teachings are worthy of serious consideration. " -- 200.226.152.206 (talk) 05:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed and tag removed. ► RATEL ◄ 04:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Skepticism is not NPOV. I made a couple of edits to provide a more-neutral POV, and they were removed because someone considered them "unsourced and POV." Skepticism is a POV. For an article to be NPOV, it must fairly represent all views. In the section "Jesus Resurrection," A fanciful account from the "Gospel of Peter" is presented alongside a reference to the canonical Gospels. This juxtaposition implies that the accounts are on more or less equal footing. This is not an objective POV. Whatever, one's view of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, he or she must admit that documents such as the Gospel of Peter have a very different quality than the four canonical Gospels.

In the section "Tomb Discovery," there is the following statement: "However, such an argument has an obvious flaw: the very fact that people consider the story to be 'self-authenticating' due to these elements provides a motive for their inclusion." First of all, this is not NPOV. Second, it misses the point of the argument. The point is that it is extremely unlikely that anyone at that time would have invented such an account. Even those who were reporting history frequently embellished the facts to make their patrons or friends appear more heroic. It is a very modern idea to design an account so that it contains unflattering elements to make it appear authentic even though it is fabricated. The above statement is clearly not NPOV and commits an anachronistic fallacy.RodPickett (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if I follow the argument, but we think matters not, Wikipedia works on references. Are there sources for these? And let us wait to see what others may say. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed it - it had no source, was written in a polemical way and seems to be the magic exception to the criterion of embarrassment. "The gospels authors made the women a witness, not so that their own audience will find it convincing, but so that 2000 years in the future historians utilising something called "the criterion of embarrassment" will." If someone believes it was a premature removal, find a scholarly source and fix up the wording. --Ari (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Your trim was ok, but he had other edits there too... Anyway please take a look at those too. History2007 (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This sentence/phrase "Some contemporary scholars still express doubts about the historicity of the resurrection accounts and have debated their origin" seems to take a NPOV and reads as if the author believes in the resurrection of Jesus. Essentially, to me, the sentence reads as if most people, by now, accept the resurrection of Jesus as historical fact and that only some small minority of people think it didn't happen. (edit by IP 95, etc.)

Yes, that needed to be fixed. I fixed it, Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent change to definition

Recently, a user has changed the definition of the resurrection (which is an event), to a belief. Such a change is inaccurate and no valid reason has been given. ReaverFlash (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

First sentence of lead

The first sentence currently reads: "According to Christians, the resurrection of Jesus, following his death as result of crucifixion, is the event upon which Christian doctrine, ritual and theology is based." It seems to keep changing every few hours, but basically that's the sentence.

I humbly submit that this isn't what the first sentence should be. It's a statement of why the Resurrection is important, not a definition of what it actually is (or was, according to taste). A definition of the Resurrection should point out that it's the return to bodily life of Jesus after his death (crucifixion). Just a single sentence. After that, by all means this material about the importance should go in. PiCo (talk) 07:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

EXCELLENT point, PiCo. Very constructive! Thank you! Afaprof01 (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Holy Spirit

The article should probably mention the fact that many theologians have tradtionally explained the resurrection by a supernatural action of the Holy Spirit. In the divine Trinity, there is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. If the Son, who is physically incarnated, happens to die for some tragic reason, then it is possible to explain an eventual resurrection of the Son through the logic of trinitarian doctrine. Hence, the Holy Spirit, who is the Incarnator and the Paraclete, might also deserve to be given the title of Resurrector for his soteriological role in the Resurrection of Jesus. ADM (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you give an example of such a theologian? That might be helpful here. Jacor2 (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Lorenzen's opinion

According to international scholar Thorwald Lorenzen, the first Easter led to a shift in emphasis from faith "in God" to faith "in Christ." Today, Lorenzen finds "a strange silence about the resurrection in many pulpits." He writes that among some Christians, minsters, and professors, it seems to have to have become "a cause for embarrassment or the topic of apologetics."

I deleted this for two reasons. One, the second part is just the man's opinion on things, given without any evidence other than that he "finds" it to be true. He says he finds it to be true in many churches, which is a weasel word as many could mean anything from two to all but one. I personally don't go to Church much but when I do I never experience people silent or embarrassed about the resurrection of Jesus. Any Church that recites the Nicene Creed says they believe in the resurrection every week. But again, that's just my personal experience, as his experiences are just his.

His first statement is an actual argument about what belief in the resurrection did to religion in general and, if any actual arguments are included with it, could be put into the article. However his second statement is clearly just his personal opinion given with no evidence to back it up whatsoever. No polls, no anecdotes, just his statement that he finds it to be true, which makes it just the personal opinion of one theologian. If you guys find his point interesting, so be it, but that does not mean it should be included in an encyclopedia article on the subject with out any kind of evidence or argument. What if some other theologian found it to be generally true that the opposite was the case and that the majority of Churches and Christians boldly proclaim the resurrection? Without any other evidence than that being his personal opinion it would be wrong to include that as well as then we're just saying "is so" and "is not" back and forth without any side making any actual arguments. I therefore think that this section should be eliminated or changed to include any actual evidence he has to make his case.Roy Brumback (talk) 19:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not how Wikipedia works. That is a valid reference and if there are dissenting opinions with references you can include them. Personal opinion relates to you and me, not quoted sources: what we think matters not. Today Alan Greenspan said that he thinks that US unemployment will reach 10%. Is that his opinion? Yes. Can it be included in Wikipedia? Sure, for he is an expert. As is, I see no reason for the deletion. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't reference anything but his personal opinion, and this dude isn't Alan Greenspan. Of course it's "valid" in the sense he probably really said it. That's not the issue. He's some random theology prof. Knowing a lot about theology doesn't give you the ability to claim to know what's in the hearts and minds of many Christians without, you know, actually asking them. Again, does he have any, you know, evidence for these assertions? Should we include another theologian with a different assertion also without any evidence? How about the opinions of a lot of theologians? How many is too many? They're "experts", but so what? Just listing their opinions without any backing evidence is pretty pointless. Is something true simply because they assert it, especially if they don't give any anecdotes or polls to back up the claim. Of course not. And again, how can the majority of Churches be embarrassed by the claim of the resurrection if they proclaim it with the Nicene Creed every Church service? I could waste a lot of my time putting in counter claims to his, but I'm pretty sure that unless he has evidence for these claims they should not be on the page.Roy Brumback (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Let us see what others have to say as well. As for "evidence", in theology that is a different measure. If you have dissenting opinions, please feel free to add them. History2007 (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

We're not talking about theology, that's the whole point. He isn't making a theological argument, he's stating his opinion about what other people think and feel, which would make this a psychological issue or an issue for statistical polling, not theology. Thus his theological expertise has zero bearing on the issue he's addressingRoy Brumback (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess that is your opinion, not mine. History2007 (talk) 06:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

So is your opinion that his expertise in theology makes him an expert on what people think and feel? Roy Brumback (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess that is your characterization, not mine. History2007 (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

So what's yours? Roy Brumback (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Main Image

There is a current dispute about the main image on this page. The repeated use of Bloch images as the leading image on many pages seems to me to be against NPOV given that it has a clear association with the Mormon church, as Wikipedia itself states: "For over 40 years the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has made heavy use of Carl Bloch's paintings, mostly from the Frederiksborg Palace collection, in its church buildings and printed media."

I think a non-Bloch image will be more neutral. User Reaver Flash has already crossed the 3 revert line on this, adding Bloch. Suggestions will be appreciated from 3rd parties, else I will seek an official 3rd opinion. History2007 (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Bloch is not a member of the LDS. Although the Mormon church has used his images, many other parties have used it as well.Flash 22:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

But the LDS has made a point of using Bloch heavily and now the association is pretty strong. What is the reason for "insisting" on these Bloch images all over Wikipedia on your part? History2007 (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

As I've said before, Bloch is not even LDS. Furthermore, there are hundreds of images on wikipedia that were used by EXCLUSIVELY by the Catholic Church. The art style is exclusive to the catholic church as well. Should THOSE images be removed as well? Flash 05:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)

You avoided the question. What is your attachment to Bloch? And no, the Cath Church is not promoting artists as LDS does Bloch. I will seek a 3rd opinion. History2007 (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not "attached" to Bloch, I just think it's ridiculous to remove images based on some "association". And you're the one avoiding my point. There are hundreds of images that are DIRECTLY associated with the Catholic Church used on wikipedia. And you want to exclude paintings even though the artist is not LDS and the art style is not based on LDS either. There are hundreds of images that are strongly associated with the Catholic Church used on wikipedia, when as you say it, many more "neutral" images can be used. Should THEY be removed as well? Flash 00:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)

Furthermore, the Catholic church has promoted artists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_Church_artists

The Vatican has commissioned and paid many artists, which is "promoting" them. Flash 03:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)

We are going in circles. I am not promoting any single artist. That is clear. As you well know, the issue started on the talk page for Baptism, and Bloch was changed there by other users, not myself. I started to object to this Bloch image only after another editor (User:Lima) had made an objection on that page to your continued insistence in plastering Bloch on that page, which was just one of the pages where you were adding Bloch. As you recall, I was even alerted to that page because "you asked me to comment on it". You could not make your point there, so hoped I would make it. I was NOT watching that page until you ran into obstacles there. This issue goes beyond this page alone. We must wait for a 3rd opinion. My suggestion is to let a 3rd party pick a 3rd image for this page, neither mine nor yours. History2007 (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Only YOU had a problem with Carl Bloch the artist. I don't appreciate you systematically removing Carl Bloch images from wikipedia just as I'm sure you will not appreciate me removing William Adolphe Bougoureau images from wikipedia. I don't understand what is your reason for removing Bloch images. First you said it was LDS, then you've moved away from that. Flash 04:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Resurrection of Jesus/Archive 7 and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: Unless the Bloch image either (a) depicts a particular sectarian point of view or (b) is so clearly identified with some particular sect that the average reader would recognize it as such, I do not think that it is objectionable under NPOV, nor do I feel that the frequent or common use of any particular artist's work as the lead image is objectionable unless there is a clear effort to merchandise the artist or unless (a) or (b) applies. What is of importance is whether the image improves the article by illustrating it or some element of it. If it does that, then as between images portraying essentially the same content, the image which has the highest conceptual clarity and visual clarity should be used. Having set those principles, I believe that the Bloch image is not objectionable for NPOV, but the Raphael is nonetheless the better image because it is visually a sharper image, but even more so because it is not clear in the Bloch image that Jesus is coming out of a tomb - it could be any doorway. The Raphael image isn't entirely desirable, either, because it diverges from the typical Gospel images (the rolling door, the cavelike tomb), but at least it is clearly a grave or tomb. In short, the Raphael image is better in both its conceptual clarity and its visual clarity and as between those two images should be the image used. A better image might well, however, be found than either of these.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 05:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond TransporterMan. I think your decision to use Raphael should end this debate. History2007 (talk) 07:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you TransporterMan.

The response is that the Raphael, although better, "isn't entirely desirable".

Furthermore, do you accept the opinion that there is no "situation" with Bloch? Flash 20:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)

Contra the interpretation of ReaverFlash, I think the 3O request indicates that we should not use the Bloch image, because it is an unclear illustration of the article subject. I've found an image that addresses some of the concerns raised about the lack of a cave-like tomb, though I couldn't find an already-uploaded image that had the rolling door. — æk^Talk 20:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Æk. If Reaverflash persists in resverting, he will just get blocked out of Wikipedia. He already crossed the 3 revert line here once, after warning. I have no problem with the image that Æk added. Let the matter be settled. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I am perfectly fine with not using the Bloch image. However, there are better images available. Flash 00:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)

I don't want to get into a picture one-upsmanship game, but wouldn't the picture you just added be better for an article on the Ascension, given that it depicts Jesus rising into the sky and doesn't show any of the tomb/grave motifs of any of the other images that have appeared in the lead section recently? — æk^Talk 00:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The resurrection is often depicted this way. The tomb is visible behind the angel. The ascension is different in the sense that there are usually a lot more disciples depicted. Flash 01:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)

Again thank you TransporterMan and Æk for helping resolve this issue. History2007 (talk) 09:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

More on historical Jesus?

I would like to read more about historians' opinions about what might factually have happened after Jesus was Crucified, assuming no specific Christian beliefs -- this is neither addressed in the Crucifixion of Jesus article, nor here, not anywhere, as far as I can see. If one is not Christian and is a skeptic, rationalist, but believes Jesus existed, what are the alternatives to a belief in literal resurrection of a "glorious", renewewed and all-powerful body (that later ascended to Heaven). I am familiar with, for example, the theory someone stole the body, or Crossan's theory that it was thrown in a common grave and/or eaten by animals and birds - and then some people claim he resuscitated and lived out his life somewhere... maybe someone more knowledgeable could add something? Orlando098 (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, there are a set of articles on that, e.g. Historical Jesus, Historicity of Jesus, Jesus and history, etc. that go into a lot of detail. They are kept separate from these for the sake of world peace... History2007 (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Historical material of the sort Orlando asks for belongs here. It's good to have history-based articles but not proper to exclude historical analysis from other pages in general. Leadwind (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Why did you remove the link?

Why did you remove the link I added which was very relevant on the Resurrection of Jesus? It was just removed without any notice?Humilityisfine (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Question to other users: Is Golden Legend a reliable source? It is full of fanciful lore, not historical, or Biblical facts. It does not meet WP:Reliable by any measure. History2007 (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It has been published countless of times and been read by millions of people during the ages. There is no "fanciful lore" more than the bible. What wiki rules do you follow when you claim that it must be biblical facts? Your personal opinion is evident in this reversion you made. Must I contact the wiki jury in order to make you change it back? PeaceHumilityisfine (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please contact whoever you like. I have seen that you have added catholicrevelations.com/ to other pages, and I think these are spam links. Nothing more. History2007 (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This does look to be an inappropriate addition to the external links section. I would advise the editor that if he keeps this up the URL will be added to the spam blacklist. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Look at his edit history: Spam Galore. History2007 (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like he's stopped. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This medievil sourcebook is a book composing several books in one. I am no spammer. Why don't you check the links I added instead of accusing me off linkspamming? How can these persons remove my work when I followed the wiki rules perfectly? Should I contact the wiki committe jury to resolve myself of these charges? I also linked to specific lives of saints which you removed without any reason whatsoever? What is your reason for telling that I am a linkspammer? Saying I am a linkspammer don't make me one when I linked every single article I read on that page to the relevant wiki article. Check it yourself. Peace and Please help!Humilityisfine (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

As someone else pointed out, there are several sources for that medieval book, but you insist on adding that single website - just seems like spam to me. History2007 (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Could it be that I read it there? NO, that's impossible:) Don't know if any one can help me here. here.Humilityisfine (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a link directory. If you want to improve Wikipedia, please work on improving article content. You can do simple tasks, like copy editing, spell checking, and other forms of clean up, or you can write and contribute content, or peer review articles, or help out in editing disputes. You can create and add images and illustrations for articles. Point being, there is a TON of things you can do to improve the encyclopedia. While we do have a small section in articles for further reading and external links, that is not the focus of the encyclopedia, and is a very common form of abuse (which we generally call spam, even if non-commercial in nature). Promoting offsite content, especially on multiple articles, is frowned upon. I'd urge you to find other ways to contribute. If not, read and re-read WP:EL. It appears all your links are to catholicrevelations.com. If you are associated with the site, it is even worse of an offense to spam the link, due to conflict of interest WP:COI. Any questions or concerns? If not relevant to this article, you may want to contact me on my user talk page, but feel free to ask anything.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I read there frequently. And if I find something that have a wiki article, I like others to be able to read it, simple as that. Should I tell others in the talkpage to add a link from that site since I am banned or the site is banned in some way, I dont understand fully what happened? Can I add links myself after I have gotten consent from the talkpage? How long should one wait for consent? Will someone always answer me on the talkpage? Please help and advice me so i wont break your rules again. Thank you.Humilityisfine (talk) 03:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you here to build an encyclopedia, or are you here to link to offsite content. I'd highly suggest forgetting about links for awhile, become familiar with Wikipedia, and work on improving the encyclopedia, to demonstrate you care about improving our website, not promoting your website. As to your last questions, some talk pages are not active, and few editors may be watching, so articles like that may not get a reply, but other high profile articles may get a response in just a few minutes. It all depends on who (and how many) are watching the articles. Good luck. -Andrew c ^[talk] 03:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you answer me about if Im banned somehow or if i banned the sitein some way? I thought I was acting in accordance with your rules. I wonder if anyone even watched what I linked to. Oh well. I am here to try to help others find relevant material that goes more in depth than the specific article they read. Is this not a contribution? How many answers must I await from admins or others before adding anything? PeaceHumilityisfine (talk) 04:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If you can edit this page, you are not banned. But you have been warned about linking by multiple editors, so if it continues, you may end up being blocked temporarily. You'll know if you are blocked because you will have a message on your talk page, and you will not be able to edit any page besides your own user talk page. I'm just trying to guide you in the right direction to avoid any future block. If you don't want to give up your efforts to promote offsite content, then you may end up being blocked. Seeking consensus for links on the talk page first is a good step for sure. Maybe if you ask others on the talk page to add the link themselves if they feel it is appropriate, and you not adding any links at all, will steer you clear from trouble. But really, if you want to help wikipedia, help improve OUR content, and focus less on off site content. That said, this whole topic is off topic here, so I won't respond any more on this talk page (but will gladly continue this discussion on your or my talk page.)-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The Golden Legend was a very important book in the Middle Ages and all the way through to the early 17th century - it's the source of quite a lot of Western imagery about various religious subjects even as late as Caravaggio (1571-1610), but fell into disuse soon after his time. As a European cultural artefact it's highly notable, but as a source for 1st century Judeo-Christian beliefs, no. PiCo (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Atomic theory, Fringe comment please

There is a new section on a physical theory of resurrection via a discussion of atomic elements. I think it is pretty clearly within WP:Fringe but comments from others will be appreciated. If the door opens to that a hole pile of other fringe items will fly out towards this article. Comments will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Frank J. Tipler is hardly a fringe theorist--he is the world's leading expert on Einstein's general theory of relativity. I don't think there is any danger of other fringe theories about this topic since I don't think anyone else has come up with a testable scientific theory of how the resurrection could have happened. Keraunos (talk) 06:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Tipler certainly knows physics, but calling him "the world's leading expert" would probably be a "fringe assertion" on its own and would make Steven Weinberg, Sheldon Glashow, Edward Witten and a whole pile of other physicists scream in pain. And of course General Relativity is a completely "biology free" theory anyway, and NONE of the gentlemen mentioned above (Einstein included) ever claimed a detailed knowledge of biology. However, that aside, a good test for "not being fringe" is the number of OTHER scientists that have written about it, or even bothered to strongly criticize it in the "main stream" referred journals. Any professor can publish a book, but if it is not fringe, others will discuss it in "main stream" publications, say Physical Review, Nature, etc. Do you have a list of others big time physicists who support this theory, or even bother to debate it in mainstream publications? History2007 (talk) 09:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess I typed too fast: it is worse than that, as pointed out on his Wikipage anyway. There are discussions of the book in the main stream media e.g. New Scientist [2] but they say things like Tipler's book is a remarkable speculative tour de force, single-handedly constructing a kind of cosmic Tower of Babel which ultimately proves no more successful than its predecessor on the Plain of Shinar. I thought the title of the review in Nature was quite funny: "Piety in the sky". The Nature review calls the book: "a masterpiece of pseudoscience". And by and large the book is attacked as fanciful, too speculative to be science and in one word: fringe. Now I think it is clear that thi sis totally subject to WP:Fringe and should be removed. Sorry. History2007 (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Have removed this fringe theory again. It would need support from other reputable sources to be included, as I stated in my previous edit/revert. ^rossnixon 02:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I would not bet on support from other respectable sources. The way the scientific community works, once Nature kicks it so hard, it will gradually die off. History2007 (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

ANE background to resurrection

I've added this sentence to the opening of the second para of the Background section:

The idea of rising from the dead on the third day was deeply rooted in ancient Near Eastern culture, with precedents as ancient as the Sumerian Inanna and Egyptian Osiris myths. (FROMDavid L. Petersen, Joel M. LeMon, Kent Harold Richards (eds), "Method Matters: Essays on the Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible", p.186)

As you can see, it's from a reliable academic source, and is relevant to the subject as a lead-in to the Hellenistic-period Jewish belief in afterlife and resurrection.

I'd also like to take this section a little further - there was quite a lot of discussion in late-period Judaism on this subject, and there's far more that can be said to put the Christian belief into its cultural perspective. PiCo (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You are right, it is an academic source. But the quote goes against mainstream scholarship so it has to be nuanced to reflect this. The category of so-called rising gods is a remnant of an older era of scholarship and as far as I know of no scholarship on the resurrection in a long time has made the connection being made here. --Ari (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to make clear, it's dealing with the question of whether or not Hosea describes Yahweh as having dominion over death. On that matter, the usual opinion is that he does not, but the author is arguing that he does. He quotes Wolff as the source for the sentence about ANE resurrection myths. Wolff wrote what is still the major commentary on Hosea (published 1974) - so it's pretty hard to argue that it's not mainstream. Do you have any major sources to the contrary? PiCo (talk) 04:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

On the outdated concept of ANE rising deity e.g. Jonathan Z. Smith, "Dying and Rising Gods." who brands the category largely a misnomer; for an extensive study on the historical context for resurrection beliefs see N.T. Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God which finds no such three day resurrection belief in extensively dealing with the primary data. --Ari (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

J.Z.Smith isn't quite relevant - he was arguing against a certain explanation of ancient myth, not the existence of those myths. In brief, the paradigm of his time was set by Frazer's argument that certain myths of a dying/resurrected god reflected the annual cycle of vegetation, esp. for crops, and that this in turn reflected an ancient practice of peoples ritually sacrificing their king in order to renew the fertility of the land. Frazer, in short, was advancing a historical source for myth, and this was what Smith demolished. For a good explanation, see Bernard Frank Batto, Kathryn L. Roberts, Jimmy Jack McBee Roberts (eds), "David and Zion: biblical studies in honor of J.J.M. Roberts". As for Wright, he advances a view which is not within the dominant consensus, as he himself admits - he's setting out to challenge the idea that resurrection was part of the framework of beliefs in 1st century Palestine. He might be right, but so far his book hasn't swept all before it. We should also bear in mind that Wright is an Evangelical with a theological agenda (he honestly believes in the Resurrection), and also note that he's been accused of circular reasoning. All in all, I don't find your arguments against my sentence convincing. PiCo (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Mettinger notes in quite explicit terms that to argue in favour of the category was very much against consensus (The Riddle of the Resurrection.) Oh no, Wright is a Christian, cannot trust his scholarly work then. ;) Can you explain where Wright strays in failing to locate a third day resurrection belief motif? (Note, you are not correct in your representation of what Wright challenges.) Can you explain where every scholarly discussion on the resurrection I can think of fails to find this motif? --Ari (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you're going too far if you're saying we can't trust Wright; but we need to be aware that while he's arguing to support a deeply held belief, and can hardly be expected to be unbiased about it, he isn't being dishonest, either. Anyway, my main point is that the question of the dying/rising god is not what we're talking about here. What we're talking about is whether a verse like this:

The Lord gave me life

Who but Marduk restores his dead to life?

Marduk can restore to life from the grave

indicates that Marduk-worshipers believed that Marduk could restore the dead to life. What's your interpretation? PiCo (talk) 04:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was going too far: but that was the essence of your claim. We are talking about verifiable reflections of mainstream scholarship, not my or your interpretation. So, for the background of Jewish and Christian resurrection belief, we use mainstream sources not synthesise a whole new background. --Ari (talk) 11:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I have no idea what you guys are arguing about, and it does not seem a big deal. Why all this heated debate? History2007 (talk) 08:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ari believes that the resurrection is a unique event, with no parallels in the beliefs of the ancient world - if it did have parallels, there's a chance that the early believers might have been just building on their beliefs, like people today interpreting clouds and flocks of birds as flying saucers. So he doesn't want anything in the article that suggests otherwise. PiCo (talk) 11:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You could tell my beliefs and motives because I referenced mainstream literature on the topic of resurrection? Why you are trying to make this personal betrays a clear polemical agenda on your part. Maybe you are better suited to a blog? --Ari (talk) 11:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting point. However, I am not sure who can win the debate. So I will leave it to you guys, but perhaps you could explain that a little somewhere. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

PiCo should add the material. Out of deference to those who don't like it, it should say, "According to so-and-so," It's not perfect, but it's a compromise that's "nuanced," and Ari says. Then Ari can cite Wright as saying that Jesus' resurrection after three days bears no significant resemblance to myths of that time or place. Leadwind (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

My problem isn't only that the claim goes against mainstream scholarly consensus, but that the source itself doesn't connect it to the resurrection of Jesus. --Ari (talk) 07:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe PiCo will favor us with a quotation so we can see whether it pertains. Leadwind (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

edited boldly

This article needs a good deal of work. It's piecemeal, and it doesn't use the best sources. I did a lot of work on it, but there's plenty more to do. Leadwind (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the statement that This article needs a good deal of work but it is not the type of work that I predict is about to be proposed. What I see happening is that this article will continue to devolve towards a debate about the historicity of the Resurrection, quot emore from Josephus, Davidus, Markus, or WhoknowsWhus and get a lot of new references from academics who are more obscure than ever. And it will totally fail in the way that it is already failing: to address the spiritual component of Christian beliefs on Resurrection.

It is a fact that by some Wikipedia policies quoting pompous academics such as the Jesus seminar is encouraged, but that should not become the key focus. But I think as in all cases WP:UYB (WP:use your brain) should be the first policy. What are we trying to teach the reader and what are the demographics of the readers we are addressing?. How many of them are theology students and how many are new comers to Christianity who want to grasp the basic ideas? I think WP:UYB suggests that there are fewer theology students than the general public. Hence this over-riding desire top load the article with obscure debates about the historicity of the Resurrection will just add enough trees to obscure the wood. And let me state, as I have stated elsewhere that personally I find these debates about historicity to be at best idiotic. We are talking about events that took place 2,000 years ago and as of today there are 20 different theories about who did JFK or MLK - events that were witnessed by people who are currently walking the streets. So personally, I find these pompous Jesus seminar or other determinations to be laughable. I wonder how many other readers feel the same way. Again, one can bring up the "it is academic" flag, but then let me point out that most readers in the world do not visit theology libraries - because those types of books bore them to death. Turning this article into a purely theological or historical debate will also bore readers and they will just click away - you can not stop them from doing that by adding more references. So that trend will make this article have the fate of all those thick theology books that are gathering dust in the corner of the library. Of course trying to debate that with the authors of those books is a waste of time, for they will just bring up more obscure theological angles.

By the way, the same is true of the more useless parts of physics such as M-theory which can not even be subject to a real test. So perhaps we should let the Jesus seminar crowd get together with the M-theorists and talk each other to death, then see if they can get resurrected. However, letting a general article on physics get lost in M-theory is a mistake. And letting a general article on Resurrection get lost in historicity and the Jesus seminar is even a bigger mistake. History2007 (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Concur with History2007. ----moreno oso (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, I seem to have touched a nerve. Sorry. I didn't realize that citing the Jesus Seminar would cause such a stir. Most of what they say is pretty well in line with contemporary Jesus scholarship. Crossan, Borg, Harris, Funk and other Fellows are notable authors on the topic individually. If you prefer another RS on the topic, please cite it. And I'll agree with you this far: this article should explain the meaning and significance of Jesus' resurrection, and not focus on the issue of historicity. Naturally the article should address historicity, but it would be silly to make it the focus of the article. And remember, when we disagree about basic things like whether Jesus really rose from the dead, we should take extra care to stick to WP policies and guidelines. Leadwind (talk) 03:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the very first policy of Wikipedia is to inform the readers about the topic. And it is not just the Jesus seminar, for that was just one item, the question was that of upfront getting bogged down into a debate about historicity and missing the boat about the topic itself. There should be a "section" on historicity in these articles, and that is all. The article lead should mention that there is a debate about historicity, but getting lost in the details of that debate will just stop most people from reading, as I said above. And it will miss key elements of the interaction of that episode with other episodes such as the fortelling of the resurrection - at the cost of debates upfront. History2007 (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Please cite any WP policy or guideline that says we shouldn't describe the details of the debates over how the resurrection accounts came to be, whether from WP:UYB or not. In fact, WP policy says we should summarize what the reliable sources say on the topic. Per the WP:TPA, we should address all aspects of the topic. And the lead should summarize the article, so the lead should also summarize the historicity section. Leadwind (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the topic, the account of the resurrection and its place in Christian teachings or Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus? I think you are in effect trying to write a new set of articles on Historicity of X and and add them to all articles on X, while what should happen is to have a main that refers to the historicity debates. The addition of 5 times as much on historicity to an article that has failed to discuss its own supposed topic, will change the focus of the article beyond its title and scope. Indeed the article Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus split from this article on April 9th 2006 because: "(split off from Resurrection of Jesus because that article is too big)" and then through a series of corporate mergers and acquisitions got acquired again. Now the subsidiary seems to be ruling the parent. History2007 (talk) 03:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me as though the historicity material is a fraction of the article, as it should be. Please add more material about the significance of Jesus' resurrection. It's a big topic. I tried to add something about Jesus' resurrection as a cornerstone of Christianity to the lead, but someone moved it to the body. Leadwind (talk) 04:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

restored material

An editor restored this text regarding reference to Jesus' resurrection in 1 Corinthians:

Concerning this creed, Campenhausen wrote, "This account meets all the demands of historical reliability that could possibly be made of such a text,"<ref>Hans Von Campenhausen, "The Events of Easter and the Empty Tomb," in ''Tradition and Life in the Church'' (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968) p. 44</ref> whilst A. M. Hunter said, "The passage therefore preserves uniquely early and verifiable testimony. It meets every reasonable demand of historical reliability."<ref>Archibald Hunter, ''Works and Words of Jesus'' (1973) p. 100</ref>

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. These two authors are making the extraordinary claim that Jesus rose from the dead, but they are neither of them extraordinary, or even contemporary, sources. If we need to go back 40 years to find unremarkable scholars to say this, then let's not say it at all. Leadwind (talk) 03:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Without getting involved in that specific passage, I should point out much of the Bible is one extraordinary claim after another (for it violates the known laws of physics and biology) if one assumes it to be a statement of scientific facts, e.g. Raising Lazarus, Walking on Water, etc. Walking on Water and "action at a distance" to make another person (Apostle Peter) walk on water is as much an extraordinary claim as the resurrection. If we go down that path all that will be debated is the historicity of the Bible. However, teaching the reader about what the Bible says about it is a separate issue from debating if there were stones that they walked on or not - and again regardless of all scholarship, how is anyone going to determine what happened that night on a lake 2,000 years ago. So all Wikipedia can do is the following:

• First, state the account of the episode in the Bible, clearly in simple English
• State the interaction of that episode with other related biblical episodes
• State that Christians believe these, but scholars continue debating its historicity and will probably do so for ever.

No claim should be made as to whether it actually happened (as an extraordinary event) or not, for that will turn the article into a battleground of ideas instead of a page intended to inform the reader about the episode. History2007 (talk) 04:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If we should make no claim that Jesus actually rose from the dead, then we should delete these two citations because that's what they claim. So I agree with you on this count. Anyone mind if I delete them again? Leadwind (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think actually stating as a matter of scientific fact that ANY miracle took place should be avoided. One may just mention that Mr ABC thinks that something happened not assert it as a mater of fact. History2007 (talk) 02:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

And unless Mr ABC is an extraordinary source, we have no reason to quote him when he says something extraordinary. These two authors cited are neither of them contemporary nor extraordinary. Can we find a prominent, contemporary historian who says that Paul's account is historically reliable? If so, we don't need these two sources. If not, then we definitely don't need these two sources. Leadwind (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not even bother looking that source up, but if you are presenting arguments for and against historicity you can not exclude all of the for args and must include args on both sides of the table. That is simple. History2007 (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

History, I'm not sure why you're addressing this content as if it were a pro/con argument about the historicity of Jesus' resurrection. That's the sort of argument that appeals to opponents of Christianity or to its defenders, but that's not what WP is about. According the NPOV, we're supposed to present all notable viewpoints roughly in proportion to their notability. It would be a mistake to try to present "both sides" when instead we should present all notable views. To what extent are these sources notable? Surely there must be some contemporary scholar of some standing that affirms the bodily resurrection of Jesus. N. T. Wright, for example. Let's use him instead of these guys. Leadwind (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

As is obvious, I am not an expert, or even interested in historicity arguments. However, I do not want to let the argument stick that pro-historicity people have a different yardstick because they are making extraordinary claims. Both points of view need to be given roughly the same amount of real-estate and with a neutral tone. Of course, notability often depends on the type of pizza the editors decide on that had for lunch, but in any case, the amount of pro/con views need to be about equal. History2007 (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is a case of pro-/con-. I guess some historians go out and say the resurrection did not happen. But I think a good number say something like "the resurrection was not a historical event, meaning it cannot be examined by the historical method, but that does not preclude the resurrection from having happened". I believe Meier and Ehrman are in that court. If we are to go into that much depth regarding historicity, we should probably also present that view as well. -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

So what is becoming clear is that there are a whole pile of authors/historians/commentators etc. who have specific (and often incompatible) views on the historicity of the resurrection, call them pro/con/decided/undecided/whatever. Are the views of most of them who are not total jokes (like the Tipler item above that was deleted) eventually going to have to get mentioned? Probably so. It seems clear that there is a lot of interest in discussing the historicity of the resurrection, and that it is in fact a topic unto itself, and as I mentioned above in April 2006 it became an article on its own, then got merged with crucifixion that got absorbed elsewere and then back here. I think the best way is to simply populate the page Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus that already exists and redirects here, so the discussion can take place at length with almost all major authors given a few paragraphs. Then we have a main here that refers to that. And it may take 200 keystrokes to do that and 2,000 keystrokes to discuss it here. History2007 (talk) 06:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"Are the views of most of them who are not total jokes (like the Tipler item above that was deleted) eventually going to have to get mentioned?" Most certainly not. Let's just stick with top names among current scholarship. Now let's return to the topic on hand. Can you give me any reason that the two scholars that are quoted above deserve to be included on this page, let alone be quoted verbatim? As they're not current, are they exceptional in some way? Leadwind (talk) 04:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I looked at those specific authors, and it is clear that the argument to remove the statements based on extraordinary claims is 200% incorrect. The first 100% is because neither author makes a claim about the resurrection but about the historicity of a document, namely the creed. There is nothing, nothing, nothing extraordinary for a historian to comment on the historicity of an ancient document. The second 100% is due to the fact that as discussed above this article is primarily about what the New Testament states about the resurrection, not the scientific analysis of the resurrection, and as stated above the Bible is effectively a collection of extraordinary claims anyway, and its discussion can not be banned based on claims of extraordinality. The article needs to educate the reader about teachings of the Church on the resurrection, without endorsing or rejecting them as scientific issues for that would be "waging a surrogate war" on the issue of science and religion on this page. The policy regarding the claims of extraordinality does not ban discussions of what the Indians teach about Shiva and can not ban discussions of what the Christians teach about the resurrection. Now, about quoting people at length, given that this document's focus is not the "historicity debate" neither those pro, nor against historicity should be quoted at length, so I trimmed that, and the same needs to be done to anti-historicity quotes. History2007 (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you care to provide even a single reason that these two authors are notable enough to be included here? They're not current. Are they remarkable in some way? Leadwind (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The Jesus Seminar is not only just long defunct, but most third-questers seriously disagree with their assumptions before even moving to their results - yet you have no qualms about them being the representative of contemporary historical-critical scholarship. That said, we have wp:rs and wp:verifiability to remind us that our personal opinions aren't what determine our use of sources. --Ari (talk) 03:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ari and think you are beating a long dead horse in this argument. Acknowledge, drop and move on please. History2007 (talk) 06:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting for a single reason to include these 40-year old sources. Anyone? Leadwind (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

They meet WP:RELY and the point that the creed is considered historical was informative to me, so it will be informative to other people. And without the sources the info would have to go too, making the article less informative. End of debate. History2007 (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finally answering my question. That wasn't so hard, was it? See, if we play nice together, maybe editing this page won't be so painful. Leadwind (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue was obvious from the very beginning. The answer was really trivial. History2007 (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Origin of the narrative section

It doesn't seem to have any structure. Take a look. It bounces around from paragraph to paragraph. I'd have put it in chronological order, but I want to be sensitive to those editors who wish I would just stop already. How about we put the Origin of the Narrative section into chronological order? That would be kerygma, Paul, Gospels. That gives you virtually the whole NT narrative. Leadwind (talk) 04:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, what exactly do you mean by chronological order? The early Christian kerygma is present throughout the sources. Furthermore, the primitive nature of, say the pre-Pauline creed in 1 Cor 15 although put to paper earlier doesn't make it any more or less primitive than the Markan narrative that was put to paper later. Most scholars will tell you the resurrection narrative is not a Markan creation, such as for the empty tomb: "The empty tomb story was not the Evangelist's creation but tradition with a long history behind it." (Reginald Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives (SPCK, 1972) p. 171.) --Ari (talk) 10:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that the resurrection narrative is not a Markan invention. Chronological order means: what experts say about RoJ in the oral tradition, what experts about RoJ in Paul, and what experts say about RoJ in the Gospels. First, second, third. Leadwind (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Some suggestions

Just a few ideas that I have for the article:

1. Expand the Background to the resurrection - e.g. contemporary beliefs about resurrection
2. The resurrection in the church practice - something about Easter services and more on the theology of it. This seems to be lacking in favour of a historical debate. (Note, the historical question has little to do with many people's experience of the resurrection in the Church).
3. Focus the key historical debates in the Origins of the Narrative section.

--Ari (talk) 06:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Translation: a breath of the fresh air of logic at last. I agree and think this article has missed the boat and does not address what most people think of when they search for resurrection. The discussion on historicity and origin should be centralized and be a world unto itself. A key sign that the article has missed the boat in addressing its topic is that term "redemption" appears exactly once in the intro and nowhere else. Yet that is a fundamental element of the teachings on the resurrection. I should say that I found the discussion on the Markian issues informative, and I think that should be preserved somewhere - but I think eventually origin and historicity will become an article on their own. History2007 (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The article is pretty thin on the theological and liturgical significance of Jesus' resurrection. I'll start moving historical debates to the Origins section. Leadwind (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

For those who are interested in expanding the article, here's a link to Encyclopedia Britannica's article on resurrection: link. It has some material on the RoJ, plus links to other articles and other sites. I offer this link in the sincere hope that it will be useful to editors who want to expand the "Christian beliefs" component of this article. Leadwind (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It's been two weeks and nobody has stepped in to expand the article. Where did the enthusiasm for expanding the theological and liturgical content go? Leadwind (talk) 01:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Doubtless it's awaiting resurrection.PiCo (talk) 11:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Top marks my friend, top marks. Well done. History2007 (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Avoiding a battleground

I issued a WP:Battleground warning to Leadwind on his talk page and I think the unnecessary tagging he is performing on the intro, challenging that there is a discussion of historicity is unconstructive. I think it is clear that there is a discussion of historicity and there is no need to tag that as a disputed fact and start an edit war, given that the same paragraphs has references that discuss historicity. I think the tag should be removed and he should take heed of the warnings issued. History2007 (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The sentence I tagged wen far beyond innocuously mentioning that there's a debate. However, heeding History's warning, I removed the tag and changed the sentence to a simple statement that (I hope) no one can disagree with. Leadwind (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The whole issue could and should have been avoided in the first place. History2007 (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

All's well that ends well? Leadwind (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Christian tradition

I think this section has missed its turn, searching for direction. Exactly what does the Shroud have to do with the resurrection? The Shroud could be there, sans resurrection. The Shroud has zero, zero evidence of resurrection. And it is the most controversial artifact in history, so what does it buy in this article? The Christian traditions, as well as the theology of redemption, and Ari's suggestions above need work - but this avenue does not lead there. History2007 (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The shroud is a notable artifact related to Jesus' resurrection. Maybe it's a fake, but maybe the stories of Jesus' resurrection are fakes, too. The point isn't that the shroud is legit or that it's proof of the resurrection. The point is that it's a notable artifact related to the topic of this article, specifically to the physical act of Jesus' corpse being perfected. You might not like the shroud, but it's notable.

I'd be pleased to see you add the material that you think is important to the article instead of complaining about the material that I've added. The Christian Tradition section could still use a lot of work. Go for it! Leadwind (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hell no, per: WP:COATRACK. Even the Catholic Church refuses to say the shroud is authentic. Here are some more reasons, too. The Turin shroud doesn't match the biblical description of Jesus' shroud. The Turin shroud is also not like other shrouds found that have been dated to the time period of Jesus' life either in weave or design. As a result, including reference to the Turin shroud would simply misdirect readers who are interested in the subject of the article "Resurrection of Jesus". If you want to include information about 1st century burial shrouds, then by all means - add a link to an article about a shroud that actually comes from that time period as well as articles about 1st century Hebrew burial practices. Rklawton (talk) 23:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No shroud, it has the same relationship to the resurrection as red spots do to measles - an associated phenomenon. But I think the entire article needs to be re-written. It just goes on repeating the same things under different headings. Any suggestions on what the headings should be?PiCo (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Fine, but let us get this into a multi-user endorsement. Do we have 3 people now against a Shroud section? I think if you look at the theological literature on Resurrection you will hardly ever see a discussion of the Shroud. So Wikipedia would be breaking new theological ground by starting that new branch of theology. Not the mission of this encyclopedia. History2007 (talk) 09:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for a good solid section on the theology of the resurrection - and source it from mainline bible commentaries. PiCo (talk) 10:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Against- no Turin shroud. Rklawton (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Against- ok, if you want to list it that way, me too, no Shroud section. History2007 (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The big, multiparagraph section on the shroud seems vaguely related to the topic. I'd support removing or significantly reducing the size of that section. However, I would not support complete removal of every reference to the shroud. I think we should keep at least a sentence or two, at least if we have a source that relates the creation of the image to Jesus' resurrection. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

To most people's surprise there is only one historical item that relates the Shroud to Jesus, and that discovery dates to November 2009, as the burial certificate. All else has been speculation, but the Barbara Frale item may be solid research. But it does NOT relate it to resurrection - it relates it to burial. So the Shroud could be the burial cloth, but there is nothing said about resurrection. In any case, it is a really marginal issue for this article. History2007 (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind reducing coverage of the shroud, but (with Andrew) I oppose eliminating reference altogether. Editors who believe in the resurrection but not in the shroud want the shroud off the page, but that's a POV distinction. We put resurrection-related beliefs in the article whether we personally believe in them or not. Leadwind (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly how was it determined which editors believe in the Shroud and which do not? Mind reading? History2007 (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

If the Shroud is really the cloth in which the body of Jesus was buried, then it's evidence that he died; it is not evidence that he was resurrected. PiCo (talk) 23:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Amen. Logic at last. Now what is your vote? Or are you expecting free mind reading? History2007 (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe some people posit that there is a supernaturally created image on the shroud, perhaps created during the resurrection moment. We know that under normal conditions that putting a shroud on a dead body like that does not produce such an image, so if it was authenticated, it would do a bit more than simply be evidence that he died (I don't see the logic behind that.. creepy negative image on cloth = someone died??). Like I said, if we have sources from believers who claim that the resurrection is what caused the image, then I feel strongly that we should retain a sentence or two in reference to the belief. But of course, this is all hypothetical without sources. I am just presuming that it's the resurrection is an explanation for the image (since death alone clearly is not). -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

According to the Shroud article ...and believe that the image on the shroud was miraculously produced at the moment of Resurrection.[56][57] Bam, two sources there. -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, for yours truly actually wrote that miraculous formation section of the Shroud article, and added said references over a year ago. Yet, I think the topic is still tangential to resurrection. History2007 (talk) 04:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

A death certificate is usually regarded as proof of death, not life. Anyway, my real point is that the article needs more on the meaning of the Resurrection - on theology, in other words. PiCo (talk) 07:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

So what do we do before you tell us your secret vote Pico?

A mention of the shroud somewhere in the article would be appropriate, but it should be no more than a sentence noting that it's held in veneration by many as evidence of the Resurrection. I want to see more about the meaning of the Resurrection - concepts such as salvation, sin, grace, all that sort of thing. Physical relics are a bit vulgar - every religion has them, the shroud is far from unique. PiCo (talk) 08:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion: I think we have an agreement that the Shroud material will become one sentence or two sentences at most. If so, will someone do that please so it does not look like I butchered it myself. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not you? Scrap the current section and do it over along the lines of what the resurrection means. PiCo (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, but first I have to do a little research to figure it out. But I think this time I will start understanding it in a new and fun way: through art first - which often says as much as other angles. And I am just tired of reading about and talking about the never ending dynamic duo of Bart Erhmann and Geza Vermes. Can we have another agreement to remove those two people from our collective consciousness for 6 months? History2007 (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Further note: It looks like Resurrection of Jesus in art will be an article by itself anyway. I am gradually figuring out the history that way, then I will add that to the article here. It will take a few days at best. History2007 (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Pico: The more I look at this, the more I see the need for rewriting. In fact, question to everyone: Why are the events duplicated from the rest of Wikipedia in such detail? And many are from the resurrection appearances not resurrection. I think those need a serious trim. History2007 (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit boldly is my advice. PiCo (talk) 10:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Bold is ok, as long as it is not brainless, else we get one of those day time soap opera situations: "Wiikipedia: The Bold & The Brainless". I wonder when Hollywood will get to do a Wiki-comedy. 11:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Sunday

Isn't it the case that Christians worship on Sunday because that's the day of the week on which God raised Jesus from the dead? If so, that information belongs here. Even the unchurched associate Sunday with worship, and the resurrection seems to be the reason why. Leadwind (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Christian mythology

Explaining my removable of this category, there are multiple reasons that the resurrection of Christ can't be called 'mythology'.

• 1. Myths do not develop within the lifetime of witnesses. There is no example anywhere of a great myth becoming established within 30 years of an event.
• 2. The style of the gospels is radically different from all ancient myths.
• 3. No relic of a non-miraculous story exists. That the original story should be lost and replaced by another goes beyond any known example of corruption of even oral tradition.
• 4. The New Testament claims that the resurrection is not a myth. If it was a lie by the writers, we have a conspiracy with all its related difficulties.
• 5. The New Testament as we now have it is written by eyewitnesses to the facts they report.
• 6. The myth theory cannot account for the empty tomb.
• 7. The myth theory cannot explain the sudden conversion of Saul(Paul) to Christianity.

(all taken from http://www.riversoflife.co.uk/Resurrection-evidence/the-resurrection-story-is-a-myth.html) ^rossnixon 01:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a good list, Ross. There are quite a few other articles that can benefit from it. Thanks. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 04:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the resurrection of Jesus Christ can be called mythology because no proof exists for it outside of the Bible. Also, it is a supernatural event, which typically isn't associated with real life, but rather with mythology. The New Testament was not written by direct sources, but rather by second and thirdhand accounts which could have been manipulated. As for the empty tomb, graverobbers or Jesus's family might have stolen the body, or the Romans could have secretly buried the body somewhere else. As for Saint Paul, he was hallucinating, just like Joan of Arc was. And yes, accounts can be manipulated. For instance, many people believe in conspiracy theories and doubt historical narratives of particular events. It wouldn't surprise me if someone made up a story of how Jesus secretly escaped, which was then converted into the resurrection story over time. It also wouldn't surprise me if this story spread to other places since many Christians believed in Jesus and hoped that he was still alive. Thus, since the Bible has been proven false numerous times before, and since contemporary accounts other than the Bible do not confirm the resurrection, the resurrection story should be treated as Christian mythology. And until someone develops a time machine and allows us to travel back in time to see what really happened to Jesus, the resurrection story of Jesus Christ will continue to be regarded as Christian mythology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.235.86.70 (talk) 05:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Any source has to be considered a Reliable Source before it can be used. The Riversoflife apologist site does not meet that criteria. --Havermayer (talk) 05:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that states that the NT accounts of the resurrection fall within usual accepted definitions of mythology. Consensus and support must be obtained before adding the category, thanks. ^rossnixon 01:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Since the resurrection is a core belief accepted by almost every Christian it should not be counted as mythology. Something like Saint Veronica could be included in that category though. Perhaps a Christian doctrine category could apply, but since the topic is so big that it deserves a category in itself, any of these should be super categories and not on this article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

1 Peter references as "Peter the Apostle"

I am changing the references to Peter the apostle for the quotes from the first epistle of Peter. These are changed to simply reference 1 Peter since most modern scholars do not believe that this book was actually written by Peter the apostle. In keeping with a neutral point of view just referencing the scriptural reference with a link to the 1 Peter article is best used here.Allenciox (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I see no problem in your edit, and 90% of users will not notice the difference anyway. History2007 (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

No critical sources

Most modern secular scholars do not think that Jesus rose from the dead. This view is entirely lacking from the article. We need some of these critical sources in the article. Here is an example source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444327946.ch18/summary 69.86.225.27 (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I added that ref anyway, but there was/is a discussion about Sanders etc. so that view was not entirely lacking. And that tag was absolutely not applicable, because the article would have had to use the Bible alone to qualify for that tag, but there are over 50 non-biblical refs. And note that the lede carefully says that "The resurrection of Jesus is the belief" and does not assert it as an event. History2007 (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your inclusion, but there are still problems. The tag you removed says that the article is using primary source religious texts without secondary source criticism. This is still the case. Can you help work this out? 69.86.225.27 (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I did explain that above. Primary source means the Bible itself. As in WP:Primary: Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved. So the Acts of the Apostles is a primary source, but The encyclopedia of Christianity, Carl Jung and Geza Vermes all written in the 20th century are not. The article is about the "Christian belief" as it starts at the top. This comes about all the time, e.g. Gautama Buddha does not have a tag either because it is about the Buddhist belief. Historicity of Jesus is the article you are thinking about I guess - a separate issue not about the explanation of beliefs but about deductive reasoning about them. History2007 (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the article about Jesus of Nazareth, this is the article about the claims of resurrection. To that end, it is important that we present a detailed and scholarly evaluation of the claim that Jesus resurrected. Using Christian sources primarily to evaluate this is problematic for the reasons explained in the tag. Namely, Christian sources are simply not well-balanced with regards to the subject. The problem we have with this article is the very fact that no rational sources think there is anything more here than base mythology is swept under the rug. That's why the tag is appropriate and why I think the article could use a major rewrite. 69.86.225.27 (talk) 05:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

In the Historical Jesus article there is a section historicity of resurrection appearances. That is the place where historicity is discussed. And there is a section on Burial and empty tomb and a section on Disciples abandon Jesus there. So there is a specific section on the historicity of each specific incident. And if you read those carefully, you will see that they directly quote what Encyclopædia Britannica says as well. So they do have general encyclopedic support. The way these articles are structured, be it for Jesus or Muhammad or Gautama Buddha the historicity issues are kept in one place to keep focus, and the other issues together. And it does not take much to say: "it never happened". That is what those sections already say. In general, modern scientific thought not only dismisses the resurrection of the dead, but all other religious phenomena, so what you are saying is not going to surprise anyone. That is why the articles on Muhammad, Buddha etc. are also all there, and scientists dismiss them all. But the encyclopedia does need to include a description of the beliefs about them, regardless of their dismissal by the scientific community. So this is not just a resurrection issue, but a general issue about all religious articles - across religions. And this article is no exception. History2007 (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand that there is a broader issue here, but it seems to me that there is an uncritical acceptance of the historicity of these accounts in this article in spite of the sections you are outlining. Why don't we link to those sections in this article? 69.86.225.27 (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The link is no big deal and is there now. And in the lede there is already a sentence right upfront: "Skeptical scholars have expressed doubts about the historicity of the resurrection accounts" so there is a clear and unambiguous statement there that there is no blanket acceptance of historicity. As a practical matter, you should remember that 99% of the readers have already made up their minds if God exists or not before they get to this page and the rest is just a question of looking into the details of the accounts in a form that is more readable than a long book. The way Wikipedia works is to provide an easier to read format that summarizes things via hypertext, that is all. History2007 (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Still, it would be wise to get away from the heavy reliance on direct references to the bible and use instead the many good academic commentaries - that way you'll get some critical (in the good sense) insight into what the bible says. PiCo (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. That is the WP:Primary philosophy. And the question of the historicity of this episode can not even be addressed by the Bible. The Bible states that a set of "actions" took place but said actions do not match modern science since they require the regeneration of life. The bible can not discuss that, because it was written pre-science. So the question of historicity is somewhat obvious I think. It is like asking: "is it historical that an angel appeared at the tomb?" But the very existence of angels is not historical, so the whole issue of whether this is a historical/scientific account seems obvious. It is a primarily religious document. The faithful happen to believe it as events, based on their belief in God who can over-rule science, but that in itself is neither scientific in the 21st century sense. In any case, the article has dozens of non-primary sources. History2007 (talk) 09:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

How can you address the historicity of supernatural claims? By definition they're outside the normal. Though it could be good to compare the resurrection of Jesus with the several other resurrections that have happened in history, most of them much more recent. One of the most interesting of these was the appearance of a dragon in the skies over Yunnanfu, the capital of Yunnan province, China, when the last pretender to the Ming throne was executed there in the year 1660-something - this was witnessed by many hundreds of individual witnesses, and written down immediately after the event. Not quite a resurrection of course - the poor dead emperor never came back to life), but it does illustrate that supernatural events are reliably described from all periods of history, and if we can believe this account, then why not that of the Resurrection, which had far fewer witnesses and happened so much longer ago? PiCo (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not understand the comment. I tried to say that super-natural events are by definition not compatible with "natural science". Is that not the accepted definition? History2007 (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if my comment was a little unclear. I was saying that there's no way to subject supernatural claims to the normal historical tests - some people claimed that they saw and spoke with Jesus of Nazareth after he died, some other people, 1700 years later, and including high officials, claimed that a dragon appeared in the sky above Yunnanfu when the Yong Li emperor was executed. There's no way to falsify either claim. PiCo (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem, and I agree with you. History2007 (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Apostolic Creed

I have always been confused by the statement "on the third day He rose again". Again suggests that He had risen previously one or more times. Why "again"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.126.168 (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Many Christians don't really believe that resurrection happened in the biological sense.

In this article about Jesus' resurrection, only non-believers of sorts are purported to not literally believe in the post crucifixion live appearing of Jesus. But most Christians in my family and social network would accept that resurrection in the biological sense likely did not happen. Apparently, many Dutch laymen and students of Christian religion, believe that the resurrection is a metaphor expressing the strength of the bond between Jesus and his disciples and friends, inducing experiences of his followers as if Jesus appeared to them alive. For many modern Christians such an explanation would not diminish the value of the new testament, only increase it, because it takes away the strain of difficult to dispute scientific ideas about live and death.

One seriously Christian friend of mine explained this contradiction as believing in resurrection with your heart, while an other part of you knows that factually it didn't happen in the literal sense. For her, this contradiction only increases the intensity of her Christianity, while leaving undisputed her understanding about the physical world. I think that, at least in modern Europe, this is, also amongst Christians, a very common view of the resurrection. So I think the article could include a line or two about different views taken by different Christians about how literally the resurrection happened. Pieter Smit.Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It would need WP:RS sources. Personal friend experiences are WP:OR. History2007 (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Pieter Felix Smit, while you may be perfectly correct, you need some reliable sources if you want to take the article in this direction. Spong suggests himself, as does David Jenkins - I'm sure the furore over his "conjuring trick with bones" statement produced plenty of editorial about the current state of Christian belief.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

POV issue

Coming across this article for the first time, I'm rather surprised at the POV issue here. I've added some passages and cited them all. I saw one revert while doing so—which violated WP:PRESERVE in a big way—and I suspect that may be a "sign" of things to come. Before reverting any of these properly sourced edits, please first explain how any of them do not meet the requirements in WP:RS. And, regardless of his own POV (as if the writers of the Bible and the other religious sources in the references do not have a POV), he was an evangelical minister for 19 years with a degree in theology. I think that provides some qualifications on his part. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

If you're referring to Dan Barker, he has a degree in religious studies, which is okay. But he's not really a "historian" and he fails WP:RS. Now, if you want a source, I can recommend Bart D. Ehrman. For instance, I remember him listing some of the issues scholars have had with Josephus' passage on Jesus. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm confused why all of the edits were reverted though. Barker doesn't claim to be a scholar and only a couple of the passages were Barker's words. He listed the quotes of other scholars. What's wrong with the credentials of A. E. Harvey, a professor in theology at Oxford University? Or the dozens of bible scholars at the Westar Institute? Why did you remove their statements on this topic? --Airborne84 (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Finally, I don't agree that Barker's book fails WP:RS. There are three parts to the policy, (1) the work, (2) the author, and (3) the publisher. For his book to be dismissed as not meeting the criteria in WP:RS the other parts have to be addressed. I open the discussion up for other editors to weigh in on this. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

RE: Further opinions: I think Harizotoh9 is correct on both counts: 1. Barker is not a scholar, and his work is not WP:RS. I had never heard of him until now, but it seems that maybe he can play the piano, but a scholar he is not. One would be lowering the standards of Wikipedia by using him. 2. There are far better sources than him. e.g. Bart Ehrman as stated above

Now, regarding the general statement that the Resurrection is not a "historical event", what is the big deal? The article starts by saying that it is a "Christian belief". In general "supernatural claims" be they the Resurrection of Jesus in the New Testament or the resurrection of a widow's dead son (1 Kings 17:17–24) by Elijah in the Hebrew Bible are not considered "historical" in a secular encyclopedia. They are to be presented as teachings and religious beliefs, not events. This is unlike episodes such as the Baptism of Jesus (excluding the dove, etc.) which are considered historical by scholars (via correlation with other sources), regardless of any belief in the divinity of Jesus, or his teachings, etc. So Barker brings nothing new to the party except a lowering of standards. History2007 (talk) 14:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, please explain how the other two criteria of WP:RS, besides the author, are not met by Barker's book.

I still see no explanation as to why the Westar Institute and A. E. Harvey are not reliable sources. How is their inclusion a "lowering of standards"? Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

When you ask for further opinion, it does not always agree. As you said: "Barker doesn't claim to be a scholar". That part is correct. Now if Barker writes a book on physics and quotes Einstein, that is still not WP:RS. It is simple. And given that 3 editors have now opposed it, I think that settles it. History2007 (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This is rather bewildering. I've asked the same questions twice now in regard to Wikipedia policies. The answers have not addressed them. The closest has been the statement about Einstein. However, in that case, the source would be Einstein, a reliable source about physics—not Barker. In this case the Westar Institute is a reliable source. It is only reported by Barker. Barker is not the "source" any more than Wikipedia is a "source" when it contains a passage with a citation, or a reporter is a source when she states what Angela Merkel said about a topic. In that case, Merkel is the source.

Since my questions within Wikipedia's policies do not seem to be addresed, I see a few courses of action.

I can add some POV tags to specific sections, or at the top of the article. That was my first thought, but I decided to try to improve the encyclopedia instead.

I can add back in the statments by the Westar Institute and A. E. Harvey and other reliable sources (in themselves)—as reported by Barker—and omit the statements that came directly from Dan Barker.

I can start an RfC on whether Barker's book is acceptable as a reliable source, especially when directly quoting reliable sources. Perhaps some editors outside of this article will actually address my questions in the full context of WP:RS.

Please let me know which is the most acceptable. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I will wait for other editors to respond. It seems clear to me that "second hand quotes" by a less than reliable author are not reliable. It seems simple. And Barker is not a "reliable author". Ehrman also doubts the Resurrection - and Ehrman is reliable, as stated above. But let us see what others say. History2007 (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed—at least the last sentence. I'd be interested in what some other editors say as well. I don't mind waiting a bit. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I also listed it here for further input. --Airborne84 (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, and if you use a lower case "issue" in the link there, it will point to here. History2007 (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Good catch! Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)