Talk:Resurrection of the dead/Archive 1

Modern view

I think modern philosophical&scientific theories of ressurection can be added from Fyodorov to Tipler — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.70.253.242 (talk) 07:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Eschatology?

Should this page be deleted, and redirected to the page on Eschatology? I can't see any reason for it to stay, in its present shape. However, there would be a reason to keep this as a separate entry if someone wanted to create a general article on multiple factes of this one eschatological topic. This article, if one wished to work on it, could summarize the Biblical, Jewish, Christian and Islamic views; then move on to a discussion of this topic in art, literature, popular culture, movies, influences on religious trends, etc. RK

Might it be an idea to merge with Resurrection? Man vyi 11:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

No this should not be merged, but the stuff regarding resurection in general or the afterlife as believed by various groups should be moved out. Rather, the phrase "the resurrection of the dead" describes a distinct concept in christianity which says that while the souls of dead people go onto the after life, at the end of the world these souls will be reuinted with their recomposed physical bodies. The phrase comes from the various creeds.

I agree - this distinct page on this topic is useful. The concept is credal and was crucial to the faith of the early Christian church. There is no need for it to be relegated to an entry in a general article about eschatology.Orlando098 (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Join them

I suggest that the articles should be joined. Alternatively, we should have "Resurrection of Jesus" and either "resurrection" or "resurrection of the dead". Pol098 14:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Other religions

This article should not just focus on Christianity as it is not the only faith that includes Resurrection of the Dead. I just added a stub of a section on Judaism. There are also Zoroastrian beliefs of a Resurrection. Some say the Jews got the idea from the Zoroastrians but this is disputed and personally I do not believe this. It could also have been the other way around.

As for merging the articles, I disagree - they are two different things. The Reurrection of Jesus is said to have been a past event that occurred in AD 33. The general Resurrection of all the dead covered in this article is believed to be a future event that has not happened yet.

There is still a lot of specifics that could be added to this article; for example, the teachings in IV Esdras... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Codex Sinaiticus, I was wondering if you had any sources when you write that the idead of the resurrection of the dead could have been taken from judaism to zoroastrianism. Thanks for your help! --Squallgreg 18:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest that we delete the section on ancient Greek philosophy, since it has to do with the immortality of the soul, not with resurrection. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Six months later, nobody has objected, so I deleted it. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Modern De-emphasis? NPOV

The article states, "Currently, however, it is a popular Christian belief that the souls of the righteous do go straight to heaven[citation needed], and the resurrection of the dead is downplayed." This is much, MUCH too broad a statement. The majority of Christian denominations still teach a physical resurretion of the dead. The musings of a handful of modern "theologians" cannot really qualify as a statement of "a popular Christian belief." The statement is definitely not NPOV. MishaPan 22:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

How about this: "Currently, however, it is a popular Christian belief that the souls of the righteous do go straight to heaven[citation needed]. Popular Christian eschatology mentions souls going to heaven after death more often than bodies being resurrected on judgment day."? You say, "The majority of Christian denominations still teach a physical resurretion of the dead." They do, but the concept of going straight to heaven is way more common. Popular accounts of heaven (near death experiences, fanciful movies, Warner Brothers cartoons, etc.) have people going there straightaway. "Swing low, sweet chariot!" Yes, there's still teaching about the general resurrection, but it's been flooded out by popular culture's depiction of the soul rising to heaven as an angel at death. Jonathan Tweet 23:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

NT Wright

I do believe Bishop Wright's position is not so much this, as quoted:

"In this school of thought, the dead remain dead (and do not immediately progress to a Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory) until a spiritual or physical resurrection of the dead occurs at the end of time"

but rather a dual process - that there is a continued existence of the soul "in God" UNTIL such time as a physical resurrection of the dead occurs at the end of time. To include him with the rest in this category is probably misleading. At least this is his position in the book "The Resurrection of the Son of God" 2001.

Here is further info on NT Wright

NT Wright on Soul Sleep

Here is what NT Wright supports, I obtained this quote from another site:

Wright definitely does not advocate soul sleep. He thinks that the intermediate state is some sort of restful, conscious existence in the presence of the Lord (hence the use of 'paradise' as a description which wouldn't make much sense in terms of soul sleep), until the day of resurrection when we will be re-embodied.

To quote from Surprised by Hope: "all the Christian dead are in substantially the same state, that of restful happiness. Though this is sometimes described as 'sleep', we shouldn't take this to mean that it is a state of unconsciousness. Had Paul thought that, I very much doubt that he would have described life immediately after death as 'being with Christ, which is far better'. Rather, 'sleep' here means that the body is 'asleep' in the sense of 'dead', while the real person - however we want to describe him or her - continues.

... it is a state in which the dead are held firmly within the conscious love of God and the conscious presence of Jesus Christ, while they await that day. There is no reason why this state should not be called 'heaven', though we must note once more how interesting it is that the New Testament routinely doesn't call it that, and uses the word 'heaven' in other ways." pp.183-184

Explicitly, Wright states that "the Christian dead are conscious" (p. 185). This is from the section in the book on ‘Paradise’, pp. 183-187

76.110.182.203 (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Nautica8076.110.182.203 (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Does NT Wright present what Anglicans believe? I think that it is misleading in the article to have such an emphasis on NT Wright under the heading of what Anglicans believe. In terms of numbers, as NT Wright himself suggests, they tend to believe that you die and go to heaven and that's all there is to it. Even if everybody were to read Wright, there are people who HAVE read his books and don't (fully) agree with him but are still 'Anglican'. Perhaps there should be something about the ancient creeds and such that Anglicans adopted rather than making it look like Anglicanism is defined by NT Wright? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.64.160 (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

An explanation has since been added about Anglican creeds. -- Beland (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

New Testament Writings

Do we really need separate sections for Christian beliefs concerning resurrection, and writings in the New Testament? Aren't Christian beliefs supposed to be based (for the most part) on the New Testament? As evidenced by the duplication of references, I think these sections would be better if combined. 24.17.56.169 15:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Most Christians today don't believe in the resurrection from the dead. Instead, they believe in the Platonic doctrine of the immortality of the soul. Thus they reinterpret the passages concerning the resurrection into a description of a rapture. If you die and go to heaven or hell at the moment of death (are still alive), then what need is there in a resurrection from the dead? The immortality of the soul doctrine can not be found anywhere in the Bible. It is a fiction, not a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.149.91 (talk) 03:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I would encourage people to look at 70.45.169.175's 18:22, 10 June 2008 contribution. I added a little disclaimer, but I still do not think that it maintains a neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.117.181 (talk)

Zoroastrianism an Abrahamic religion ?

Since when ? adriatikus | 21:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Any such claim has since been removed. -- Beland (talk) 05:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Modern de-emphasis in Christianity is missleading

Per:

1. It's only about (neo-)protestant denominations with (neo-)protestant sources, which is unfair to the others (a large number, btw) if it's not clearly visible.

2. "Early church fathers defended the resurrection of the dead against the pagan belief that the immortal soul went to heaven immediately after death" -- I'm not sure at all this is accurate (despite being sourced). It appears to be the interpretation of a specific denomination only.

This opinion is stated in the writings of both Irenaeus and Justin Martyr, probably the leading Christian writers of the 2nd Century; I don't know what is meant by "a specific denomination only." Orlando098 (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

3. The search for the source of "shift in Christian thinking from an emphasis on the resurrection of the body back to the immortality of the soul" yields no result (the 7 entries are copies of this articles and garbage result) [1]. Or this search [2].This says a lot.

4. "But in modern Christianity, resurrection is in many places not mentioned much". This is speculation. It may be true here and there, but on what basis is it a generalization ? And BTW, what is "modern Christianity" ? Or, "many places" meaning what ? There are denominations where such topics are discussed in "catechisms" (being authoritative, so no "many places" for them).

5. The same: "The emphasis on the immortality of the soul in heaven instead of the resurrection of the dead continues largely in the 21st century". Can you point a study, a scientific poll, a sociologic survey (on an representative scale - that's global level), or authoritative theologians?

6. Since when a parish (or whatever you like to call it) site like http://www.believeinjesus.org with email on hotmail.com is the source for an encyclopedic article ?

adriatikus | 22:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This seems to have since been re-referenced and partly rewritten. -- Beland (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Dubious part in the text concerning Zoroastrians seems to be stated as an opinion

'It is dubious whether this doctrine formed a part of Zoroaster's original teachings.', this is the text in the Zoroastrian part of the article seems to be pointed out as an opinion rather than factual, unless otherwise pointed out as factual with a direct source or otherwise, it might be best to omit this. I shall take liberty in this unless proven otherwise.

--ParthianPrince (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sermon

This page should be deleted. It is nothing less than a sermon. Burpboohickie (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a sermon though. What improvements can you suggest? ^rossnixon 01:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Oxmoronic?

Hi, I'm not sure if I'm using the talk page in the right way by editing it, but I couldn't see any other way of doing it...

The article says:

Note that the only group amenable to resurrection are the dead, so it is oxymoronic to state 'resurrection of the dead'.

Would the redundancy of saying "of the dead" make it tautological rather than oxymoronic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.8.77 (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm deleting the sentence as nonsense vandalism. Thank you for bringing it to attention. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of "split section" template for "Christianity" section of main article

As I do not find, in this discussion page, any suggestion that the section "Christianity" of the main article should be split, I am going to remove the relative template ...{{splitsection}}... at the top of section Christianity.
Miguel de Servet (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for a new external link for further research

The Resurrection of the Dead is an often overlooked topic among Christians. I have recently written a new book, entitled "Out of the Dust: Understanding Heaven, Hell, and the Resurrection of the Dead". This book addresses the subject of the Resurrection of the Dead from a purely biblical perspective, both within the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament. I believe that "Out of the Dust" is the most definitive and unbiased non-denominational study ever done on the Resurrection of the Dead, and would be an excellent link for those seeking more information. The section is available online for free at, http://www.cupofwrath.com/OD8-resurrection-nature.htm76.119.240.83 (talk) 04:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine adding this to the EL. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"Resurrection of the Dead" versus "Resurrection of the dead"

I think the first form is correct because it's a proper name not a general topic. Other examples: Sermon on the Mount not Sermon on the mount; Sermon on the Plain not Sermon on the plain; Cleansing of the Temple not Cleansing of the temple; Second Coming not Second coming; Last Supper not Last supper; Pilate's Court not Pilate's court; Crown of Thorns not Crown of thorns; Great Commission not Great commission.

75.15.205.2 (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

There already is a Resurrection of the Dead page, this article should be moved there. 75.15.198.187 (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Resurrection current

Can we rework the lede a little bit - the idea of an apocalyptic future resurrection of the dead, while popular, is itself largely based on symbolic interpretation of scripture. Hence misinterpretations abound. The current and ongoing resurrection view seems to have less issues with symbolism and misinterpretation. -Stevertigo (t | c) 21:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The "current and ongoing resurrection view" is a minority viewpoint. Should be mentioned but should not dominate this article. 75.14.220.130 (talk) 06:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Not a "specific event", not a proper name

Since this article covers multiple eschatologies and discusses events that may have already happened, are happening now, may happen in the future, or may even be an ongoing process and not singular events, the term, "resurrection of the dead", is not a proper name, but a common noun. If the topic was a single eschatology in which a single event was described, the proper name could apply but as it is, we should remove the word "specific" from the lead and use lower case for the term. Jojalozzo 01:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Resurrection of the Dead is a proper noun, thus in English one capitalizes the nouns. This is done to distinguish this specific topic from general resurrections of the dead. The article on Resurrection of the Dead is on that specific topic, not general resurrections of the dead which instead is covered at Resurrection. For example, the Resurrection of Lazarus is a resurrection of the dead, but it is not the Resurrection of the Dead. 75.14.220.130 (talk) 06:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

This article is not about a specific "Resurrection of the Dead" but about eschatologic notions of resurrection of the dead in general. When the lead mentions "Christian, Islamic, Jewish and Zoroastrian eschatology" I do not interpret that to refer to one specific doctrine for Resurrection of the Dead, but to resurrection of the dead doctrines in general. Similarly, in the rest of the article, we find descriptions of more than one echatology, not one specific doctrine (contrary to what someone in the same city and using the same ISP as you has added to the lead sentence a few days ago). By my reading, the Resurrection article is about resurrection in general, including resurrection of specific individuals and not just eschatological resurrections, while this article is about various echatological doctrines of resurrection of generic dead people, not specific individuals. If you would like there to be a Resurrection of the Dead (Christianity) article, please start one. Jojalozzo 00:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed the word "specific" which was recently added to the lead. This word is contrary to the rest of the article which discusses multiple resurrection eschatologies, not any specific one. Jojalozzo 00:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Different versions of the same eschatological event. Just as the Bible comes in many different versions, still the standard practice is to capitalize the word when referring to Abrahamic Bibles, in contrast to other bibles. Likewise, Heaven is capitalized when referring to the metaphysical concept even though there are many different views, but not capitalized when referring to the celestial sphere. Likewise, the Messiah when referring to the religious concept with many different views, but on the other hand, Cyrus the Great for example was "a messiah", not to be confused with "the Messiah." Likewise, the Resurrection of the Dead is an eschatological event with many different views, not to be confused with a resurrection of the dead such as the Resurrection of Lazarus or modern examples of the Lazarus syndrome. 75.14.218.124 (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The concept of Abrahamic Bibles does not exist in the project. Here Bible refers to the Christian or Jewish holy books but not those of Zoroastrianism or Islam and as I understand it, Zoroastrianism is not Abrahamic. Furthermore, neither the Jewish eschatology, the Zoroastrian eschatology nor the Islamic eschatology article capitalizes "resurrection of the dead" and even the Christian eschatology article only capitalizes it some of the time. Assuming these other articles reflect both the sources and the consensus of the editing community, I cannot find much support for your position in the project.

This article describes multiple beliefs about the eschatological resurrection of the dead, not one common, specific, singular event. I do not see how your position is supported by the content of this article or others. Your view of the resurrection of the dead is only one of many and if you would like there to be an article to be about one specific view, Resurrection of the Dead (Abrahamic), then I suggest you create such an article.

Since it appears unlikely that we can work this out between us, I will submit an RFC to get more input. Jojalozzo 03:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Egypt section OR

The ref in the Egypt source is to the "resurrection" (misnoma) of Osiris. If there's a significant secure source then fine, but otherwise I would delete the Egypt section as OR. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the Egyptian section doesn't belong, though rather than OR it's a misunderstanding of the terminology. As I understand it, the article (at least as we are now defining it) is about end time renewal of whole body/mind/soul life (on Earth?) after death. Soul life after death is outside that scope. Jojalozzo 15:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes that also. Is there much objective evidence that the Zoroastrian idea of universal rebirth has any relevance to Jewish resurrection of the dead? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see such a claim in the article. Please explain. Jojalozzo 02:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Well I mean why is it so prominently in the article? Is "resurrection of the dead" habitually used to refer to Zoroastrian beliefs? What did later Zoroastrians believe, etc? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I assumed it was in an early (prominent?) section because it is an early instance of rotd religious belief. I don't understand why it needs to be relevant to Jewish RotD since this article is about rotd in general, not just J/C rotd. Jojalozzo 17:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Well if that's the case then lets improve copy and sources either here or in the Zoroastrianism article. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Well neither of us did. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Egypt is no longer mentioned. -- Beland (talk) 05:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Technological and scientific resurrection.

Why is there no section for technological resurrection like on the page ressurection of the death? Can I copy/paste the one here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundergodz (talk • contribs) 03:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

That's out of scope for this article, but not for Resurrection. -- Beland (talk) 05:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Paul and Resurrection

This article is very inaccurate, or at least very one-sided, when it comes to Paul and his view of Resurrection. The article says that "Paul the Apostle insisted that the resurrection did not involve “flesh and blood”, arguing that we instead will be resurrected with a spiritual or pneumatic body." and it contrasts this with the Gospels in which "the resurrected Jesus in Luke that he is of "flesh and bones" and not just a spirit or pneuma;". This is a gross misunderstanding of Paul's view of the Resurrection. Paul did not have a Platonic view of the resurrection but he was firmly Jewish in his view that the resurrection of the dead would include the raising of the dead. N.T. Wright, among other New Testament Historians that I have read, have argued very persuasively that Paul is NOT contrasting a physical and a non-physical body. Further more, it fails to take into account all the other references to the Resurrection of the Dead in the Epistles, like Romans 8:5-8 and Phillipians 3:20-21 amongst many others. You have to see the whole picture of Paul before drawing one conclusion as to what his view of Resurrection was. NorwegianCross (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

References

This has since been rewritten. -- Beland (talk) 05:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)