Talk:Resurrection

Moved this content to Talk page:

Interestingly Judaism followed a similar path in reaction to the enlightenment and deism. Although Judaism had formally accepted the resurrection of the dead since the Mishnah (Sanh. 10.1) and in the liturgy (“Elohai Neshamah” and “Shemoneh ‘Esreh’”), the deistic school had affected some in that religion as well.^[1] The well-known Jewish philosopher Moses Mendelssohn had essentially revived the Platonic-friendly belief in the immortality of the soul as the goal of man in his work Phaedon. The Jewish Encyclopedia concludes “Thenceforth Judaism emphasized the doctrine of immortality, in both its religious instruction and its liturgy, while the dogma of resurrection was gradually discarded and in the Reform rituals, eliminated from the prayer-books.”^[2]

Note that all the sources here are at least a hundred years old. I challenge editors to come up with a (significant/influential) Jewish thinker within the last 30 years who uses this approach. --Shirahadasha 05:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Despite the Mesopotamian concept of resurrection, belief in personal resurrection (before the Common Era) was known among only one culture: the Hebrews.

From the time of its development from within Judaism during the second-Temple period to the incipient decades of Christianity, the meaning of the word acquired sharper edges and mutations, to include differentiating the common quality of the premortem body from the new glorious quality of the postmortem body (cf. 1 Cor. 15:35-54 and the Gospel accounts of Easter). It held to a permanent unification of physical body and soul.

Resurrection was used figuratively as a metaphor both for the national restoration of Israel (Ezek. 37) in Judaism, and for the regenerate life (the Apostle Paul) in Christianity.

This content is unsourced, and is very POV. It claims the concept was developed in the 2nd-temple period, although there are arguably prior biblical references and mixes Jewish and Christian beliefs whose compatibility(at least from some points of view) may be more subject to question.

Plus it's a waste of headers. Am separating Judaism and Christianity sections. --Shirahadasha 06:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed this language to Talk page:

The majority point of view is that Rebirth is a different but analogous religious concept; but there is a minority point of view among Jewish mystics, Gnostics, Sufis and Albigensians that resurrection is more or less identical to Rebirth.^{[citation needed]}

What's the basis for claiming that there is a majority point of view about "rebirth"? This concept doesn't exist in anything like the Christian sense in most of Judaism or, for that matter, in many other religions. Intro to a Wikipedia article should not be pushing Christian concepts as if they had something to do with other religions or claiming the Christian POV has majority status in the world. Majority of what? --Shirahadasha 04:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking that sentence out of the intro. The information in this sentence is "Some Jewish mystics, Gnostics, Sufis, and Albigensians have interpreted the prophecied resurrection as rebirth, rather than as its original meaning of being brought back to life 'in the flesh.'" Unfortunately, I have no idea what's meant by "rebirth." Jonathan Tweet 05:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree I don't think the intro should discuss all these other concepts like "rebirth", "resussitation", etc. The intro should focus on what ressurrection is, not what it's not. --Shirahadasha 08:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Professor Koch is a Christian theologian and missionary. His accounts represent a Christian missionary's view of other religion's practices, which is not necessarily their view and should not be presented as such. Clarifying account accordingly. Section also needs references. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The section Christian missionary accounts of other cultures, where the experience of Kurt E. Koch with the Eskimo shaman, Alualuk is narrated, has been tagged as “original research/ unverified claims”. Besides, at the end of the text of the section, a notice ^{[citation needed]} has been appended.

I have traced the probable source in the webpage At the threshold of Fiery Gehenna. In the webpage, there is also the citation of the book from which the information has been originally gathered (Kurt E. Koch, ‘’Demonology Past and Present’’, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1973, pp. 31-52.)

Consequently, after a day from the present post, I am going go modify the relevant section of the main article, eliminating the “original research/ unverified claims” tag, and providing the a.m. link and/or book as “source” of the information.

Miguel de Servet 16:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello. If you have sources for this section, go ahead and add them and remove the template. No need to discuss it with other users. These tags and their removal are just part of routine maintanence. Thanks for your help. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, as an FYI these sources appear to be self-published, see the reliable sources policy on this. I've added "according to a missionary account"; not sure if I have the ability to decide how reliable these sources are as long as the accounts are clearly labeled religious in nature. --Shirahadasha 19:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

One guy's account doesn't deserve its whole section. I've summarized it down to what is worth mentioning in an encyclopedia. Jonathan Tweet 15:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A minority point of view is that this particular passage from Matthew is to be understood as a metaphorical description of the revelation of the memories of previous lives; the argument being that, had this occurred in the space-time reality, there would have been some mention of it in the historical record.

In conclusion the resurrection of Jesus and His ability to resurrect others is 'The' central belief in Christianity that validates Jesus as the Messiah and as God incarnate. In this respect it is the most debated and denied doctrine by non-Christian groups who seek to disprove the Christian faith. User:Kazuba 15 Dec 2006

I did some reorg. Subheaders prove to be helpful in organizing information that's been accumulated piecemeal.

This page has an in-depth treatment of the resurrection of the dead in Christianity. It's more substantial than the main page. I'd like to move this material to the main page: resurrection of the dead. Then summarize it here. It's important that the "resurrection of the dead" page be substantial. It's more specific than "resurrection" and so should be more detailed. Jonathan Tweet 15:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved. Jonathan Tweet 17:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

BrotherE,

on 8 March 2007 (06:44) you have removed completely (from position 3.2.1) the sub-section “Modern de-emphasis in Christianity” of the main article, with the following “motivation”:

• “Removed NPOV material which presents one side of the debate about what happens between death and resurrection - such material belongs in the main article, not here”

As you have not moved the a.m. subsection anywhere lese, but, in fact, removed/erased it, unless you explain the motive of your drastic edit, I am going to restore the previous situation.

--Miguel de Servet 14:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Given that the idea of resurrection has appeared in most religions since the dawn of humanity, isn’t it a little one sided for the article to focus almost entirely on the Abraham religions? Dionysian Assassin 03:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Resurrection is more central to Christianity than most other religions. Feel free to add more well-referenced things about other religions. However I would warn you that there are a lot of badly-supported internet memes around at the moment claiming that every religious figure under the sun was 'resurrected' in some way. They have had to be removed from Wikipedia a few times. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that only Christian biases are approved by the moderator of this page and resurrection stories that don't involve Christian bias are absolutely false and can't be possible. Sounds like truth is in the eye of the moderator. There is reasonable information that claims Isis resurrected Assur(Osiris). How is the Christian claim of resurrection any more reliable? Both are simply claims and should be treated as such.

When an individual seriously bases their life around loner superstitious ideas, it's called insane. When an isolated group of people build a belief system around superstition, it's called a cult. When the masses accept the belief system to the point it gains political power, it's called a religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.131.210 (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Michael J. Cecil: Please do not make such unsubstantiated edits without discussion at a contentious article. What you are proposing is a fringe theory, and to claim that this is "the doctrine that Jesus taught" is not neutral, unless that view has the consensus of all scholars. It may be the view of Mr Robinson of the Hag Hammadi library, but that does not make it generally accepted. Feel free to discuss the matter on this page. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Michael J. Cecil: Please do not make such unsubstantiated edits

Not unsubtantiated.

>without discussion at a contentious article. What you are proposing is a fringe theory,

so what?

>and to claim that this is "the doctrine that Jesus taught" is not neutral,

To claim that Jesus taught the resurrection as a Doctrine of a physical raising of a dead body from the grave is not neutral either. I said so. I am a scholar.

>unless that view has the consensus of all scholars. It may be the view of Mr Robinson of the Hag Hammadi library,

No. He does not say this. He says that there was a conflict over the meaning of the "resurrection".. He does not explain that conflict in specific detail.

>but that does not make it generally accepted.

The Ptolemaic theory was once generally accepted. It was not neutral. It was wrong.

> Feel free to discuss the matter on this page. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The statements I have made are substantiated in rigorous detail in my book "Jesus and the "Resurrection"--the Secret Teaching (Including) Meditations on a Science of Consciousness.

It is irrelevant whether this is a "fringe theory" or not. At one time the Copernican Theory was a "fringe theory".

Truth is not determined by popular vote.

Michael J. Cecil (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Michael

Thanks for taking the time to contribute to Wikipedia. You are welcome.

Please have a look at the links I left on your talk page describing how Wikipedia works. In particular have a look at Wikipedia:Undue weight, which deals with how we consider minority views. In essence Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so it's purpose is to summarise the current state of human knowledge. It doesn't promote one view over another, but describes what is currently believed to be the case.

It is actually irrelevant whether your views turn out to be right in the end. Until they are shown to be right, and agreed with by most scholars, they don't get coverage here. Especially you can't write about them as if they were 'the truth', when most scholars don't agree. It's true that Copernican Theory was once considered a fringe theory - but so were a million theories that we have never heard of because they turned out to be wrong.

Writing on Wikipedia about theories that you have proposed is very, very strongly discouraged. It comes under Wikipedia:Original research, even if you have also published the theory elsewhere.

If you want more help on how to edit Wikipedia feel free to ask at my talk page. Thank you, and happy editing. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Biblical Scholarship

The assumption that Jesus had a different view of Resurection than the pharasees is a little flawed if you consider Mark 12:24-27 - "He is the God of the living, not of the dead." Which echoes Daniel 12:2 about a physical resurection of the dead into life. I'll try and scout out an accepted reference to the opinion. That doesn't mean to say that Michael's view can't be added as long as the two opinions are properly sourced.

The saducean opinion is traditionally ascribed to a misreading of Antigonus of Socho who said "Don't be like a servant who only work for a wage, but be like one who works with no reward in mind. and let the fear of the heavens be upon you." (ABOTH 1:3) It is definately not certain how much of Mishna they rejected, if at all.

The Essenes held the view of an eternal life, although whether or not this included a physical resurrection, I'm not sure until I do a little research. There is definately some conjecture that Jesus was an Essenes, but that is widely disputed. BpEps - t@lk 15:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

>Please have a look at the links I left on your talk page describing how Wikipedia works. In particular have a look at Wikipedia:Undue weight,

Look. There are hundreds if not thousands of words that convey the understanding of the "resurrection" as a physical raising of a dead body from the grave. But I add a few dozen words to complete the picture and they are removed. That is censorship for the purpose of preserving only one interpretation.

> which deals with how we consider minority views. In essence Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so it's purpose is to summarise the current state of human knowledge.

Precisely my point. The current writing does not summarize the current state of human knowledge at all. It conveys only one perspective: that the "resurrection" is the physical raising of a dead body from the grave. That is the Pharisee position, which is the majority position. But you have deleted the Sadducee's position, which is one minority position, as well as the position taken by Jesus which explains the opposition to his Teaching by the entire Jewish priesthood, which is another minority position.

>It doesn't promote one view over another,

You have no way of understanding precisely how utterly nonsensical and cynical this sounds to me. It sort of reminds me of the theory in physics referred to as "counter factual definiteness". This is precisely what you are doing. This is something that you are doing. You are insisting upon only one perspective concerning the "resurrection".

>but describes what is currently believed to be the case.

>It is actually irrelevant whether your views turn out to be right in the end.

This is your opinion.

> Until they are shown to be right, and agreed with by most scholars, they don't get coverage here.

What is the definition of a "minority point of view"?

Such are never agreed to by "most scholars" in the first place.

What you are saying is that only majority points of view are allowed. If so, how in the world would that be considered "a summary of human knowledge"?

>Especially you can't write about them as if they were 'the truth',

Those who assert that the "resurrection" is a physical raising of a dead body from the grave are asserting that that is the truth--the only truth.

Clearly, you are not being either objective or neutral here.

> when most scholars don't agree. It's true that Copernican Theory was once considered a fringe theory - but so were a million theories that we have never heard of because they turned out to be wrong.

>The assumption that Jesus had a different view of Resurection than the pharasees is a little flawed

I understand that this is your interpretation, but it is not the only interpretation. There is a minority interpretation.

> if you consider Mark 12:24-27 - "He is the God of the living, not of the dead."

Strange that you would choose this particular passage. I have already performed a reverse speech analysis of this (link upon request)which is "And then when I die, see what"; which suggests that Jesus was *taunting* the Jewish priesthood to murder him.

> Which echoes Daniel 12:2 about a physical resurection

This is your INTERPRETATION. That is what it is, even if you don't 'think' so.

But this is merely the majority interpretation. It is not the only interpretation.

> of the dead into life. I'll try and scout out an accepted reference to the opinion.

Don't bother yourself for my sake. In my 30 some years of research, I have probably read dozens if not hundreds of examples of such nonsense.

>That doesn't mean to say that Michael's view can't be added as long as the two opinions are properly sourced.

SURE it does.

You don't understand what is involved here.

I explain the reasons for this elsewhere (links upon request).

>The saducean opinion is traditionally ascribed to a misreading of Antigonus of Socho who said "Don't be like a servant who only work for a wage, but be like one who works with no reward in mind. and let the fear of the heavens be upon you." (ABOTH 1:3) It is definately not certain how much of Mishna they rejected, if at all.

According to Luke 20:27, the Sadducees "say there is no resurrection". What has been deleted is an explanation of what this phrase means. Why did they say there was no resurrection? This is what is being deleted.

I have little patience in pursuing this much further, by the way.

There are other ways of approaching this problem.

Michael J. Cecil (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Michael

You ask some questions about majority and minority views. Most of this is covered in Wikipedia:Undue weight, which I suggested you read. In summary a Wikipedia article is expected to cover majority points of view and significant minority points of view. So the article Earth might talk about different viewpoints on the age of the Earth, but not the viewpoint that it is flat, even though some people think that.

When I wrote "It is actually irrelevant whether your views turn out to be right in the end" you answered "that is your opinion". Well, no, I was explaining to you the rules of Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't analyse the arguments and then come to a conclusion - it records the consensus of informed opinion. As with any community you need to abide by the rules if you want to be part of the community. Please read the articles I recommended to find out what those rules are.

Also anything written in a Wikipedia article requires Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and you did not supply those. Is there anyone other than yourself who has written on these matters? If so you might want to try using them as a reference rather than yourself. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

A Final Reply

DJ,

Just a few final comments here--it being utterly pointless for me to argue with you anymore:

>In summary a Wikipedia article is expected to cover majority points of view and significant minority points of view.

Once again, your deletion of my comments rests on your definition of the term "significant".

You are arguing that my perspective is not "significant".

>Wikipedia doesn't analyse the arguments and then come to a conclusion

I'm not dealing with "Wikipedia". You are the one who deleted my comments. You. Not "Wikipedia". You, not "Wikipedia", decided that the perspective I presented is not "significant". That was the result of "analysis", whatever you may choose to believe.

What you have no awareness of, and what you will never understand until it is too late, is that this particular subject is unlike any other topic covered on Wikipedia, although you may consider it to be nothing more than a trivial matter.

People believing that the Doctrine of "resurrection" is a physical raising of a dead body from the grave exterminated tens of thousands of people believing that the "resurrection" refers to Rebirth; among them, Jesus, his original followers and the Gnostics; and, later, tens of thousands of Albigensians and Bogomiles.

That is the specific reason that this perspective is not only not the majority perspective; it is also, in your eyes, not even a "significant" minority perspective: You have never been informed of this perspective because those who believe it have been either slaughtered or censored.

So, far from being "insignificant", this perspective is so significant that it caused the Jewish priesthood and the Roman church to go to the trouble of exterminating those who believe it.

Thus, your argument is, essentially, little more than a justification for genocide:

All you have to do is exterminate those who disagree with you; and then you can say whatever you want; censor and suppress forever the doctrines of those you have exterminated; and, at the same time, argue that you are being completely "objective" and "neutral".

Cute.

Really cute.

>Also anything written in a Wikipedia article requires Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and you did not supply those.

Believe me, I tried. One of those sources you deleted. I am not acquainted enough with the coding to add the others. I spent maybe an hour and a half on this.

> Is there anyone other than yourself who has written on these matters?

Of course there is.

But you have already referred to one of those sources as being, in your eyes, not "significant". And I fully suspect that would be your response to anything else I would reference; for example, the Merkavah mystics, the Sufis, the Treatise on Resurrection, the Gospel of Philip, and probably a dozen or so of the Dead Sea Scrolls, most of them beginning with the designations 1Q or 4Q. (Pfffff. What's that? Never heard of them. Who are they? They couldn't be "significant" to the argument.)

> If so you might want to try using them as a reference rather than yourself.

I am not going to waste my time. I know what I am dealing with here.

I have been dealing with this kind of mentality for more than 30 years.

In any case, even worse than all of the above, the doctrine of a physical raising of a dead body from the grave is the doctrinal foundation of the anti-Semitism that resulted in the Holocaust (which, to you, is, apparently, not "significant"); and is also, at this very moment, the doctrine which is causing conflict between Jews, Christians and Muslims and pushing this civilization into a possibly nuclear confrontation (also, apparently, not "significant" in your eyes) between Judaeo-Christian civilization and Islamic civilization...

All of which, in your eyes, is, of course, insignificant in comparison to enforcing the rules of Wikipedia and your purported "neutral" point of view.

So, go ahead, keep your precious "neutral" point of view (which is pushing this civilization towards Armageddon) by deleting my comments.

As long as I am capable, I will be explaining my arguments against your mentality on my web pages.

Michael J. Cecil (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Michael J. Cecil's position in this debate; however DJ Clayworth is correct about the "majority view". Nevertheless the other interprestation of resurection should be explained somewhere in Wikipedia. Many Gnostics and followers of the Thomasian tradition of Christianity did believe in rebirth (reencarnation), which they did trace to Jesus' sayings. Wikipedia has many pages on now defuct/unpractised religions and beliefs and there is no reason why a page entitles Gnostic resurection, or Thomasian resurection could not be added.68.148.123.76 (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The article says: "The Torah addresses the issue of bodily resurrection, but for the most part only in an indirect way.. When Jacob dies, he says "I am about to be gathered to my kin. Bury me with my forefathers in the cave which is in the field of Ephron the Hittite"

I just can't see how Jacob's words can be interpreted as being about resurrection - he's just talking about being buried with his ancestors, surely?PiCo (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be a reasonable interpretation that "gathered to my kin" means more than just buried together. Not conclusive I know, but the article does say "indirect". DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

When I read this article I find that it is trying to cover two subjects: namely "bringing back to life" of people who have died and the "final fate of mankind", eternal life at the end times. My personal view is that these should be covered in two separate articles.

There are of course troubles with this approach. In Christianity the same word "resurrection" is frequently used for both. Moreover the Resurrection of Jesus overlaps both categories. Theologically it is an example of the second kind (a point that frequently has to be cleared up by theologians) but it also appears to be an example of the first kind, since it happened in past history rather than at the end of history.

Despite this I think separation is the way to go. Otherwise differences that should be brought out are obscured. The first kind of "resurrection" is not (from my reading) an important part of Islam, although the second is. The first kind is more important in Judaism, and even more important in Christianity. The second kind is important to all three. However without the division we have to say that "resurrection" is important in all three, blurring the differences.

Any thoughts? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a notice to anyone watching this article: User:Born Immortal tried to add a couple of paragraphs on obscure Russian mystic and convicted fraudster Grigory Grabovoi, and when reverted threated a "wave" of vandalism against Wikipedia. Nothing significant so far, but please keep an eye on this article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Kazuba made some recent additions and I undid them. The reasons for my removal were: a) the additions were an unstructured list of events without any context b) some of the events, such as the resurrection of Jesus, are dealt with elsewhere c) some of them are not really resurrections, such as Elijah ascending to heaven (the point being that Elijah did not die, not that he was resurrected). I have no objection to these being added in another form. Or feel free to persuade us about their addtion. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

==Originally the section was titled "Bodily Disappearances." Someone else added the words resurrection and other traditions. The Morman stuff has also been added by someone else. Why was this section "Bodily Disappearances" attached to Resurrection? I thought this was the best place to put it. The resurrection of Jesus is often argued with "the empty tomb " bit. Where did the body of Jesus go? Certainly there must be people who never heard of some other disappearing people and or their bodies. The ascension of Jesus is most certainly a case of bodily disappearance. The last time Jesus is seen he is (I do not mean this as a weasle word) flying away. [The term weasle word is quite new to me. Personally I think the whole thing is ridiculous. Recently I came across an example: naked and nude. Where does bare fit in? How about: skinny dip?) Certainly I do not agree with someone telling another person that's irrevelent. Well, teacher," Where did Cain's wife come from? Isn't he banging his sister?" I talk too much. But then I am all alone now.Kazuba (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Kazuba: The section you tried to add this to is called "Resurrection or Bodily Disappearance in Other Traditions". That means 'not the traditions already mentioned', where Christianity is one of the traditions already mentioned; so the things you added did not belong there. I would agree that 'bodily disappearances' does not belong in the article at all, and I will try to find time to edit it.

Elijah doesn't fit into the article for the same reason. It is probably valid to include the resurrections that accompanied Jesus' death in the section on resurrection miracles higher up. The Mormon appearances might be mentioned very briefly, but I am not sure they are substantially different from Jesus' other post-resurrection appearances.

The term "weasel words" (that's the correct spelling) means words that try to imply more than they say, usually trying to imply approval or disapproval of something rather than simply stating the fact of it. The question about Cain's wife isn't appropriate here. We are writing an encyclopedia, not discussing the validity of religion. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this section, it is entirely about people who have disappeared. None of them have come back, and so the section is not about resurrection at all. Unless someone has an objection I will remove it entirely. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

So all this obscure researched information goes in the trash can? And the Great Library of Alexandria has a small fire? I think an alternative home for this material should be given before it is removed as Bodily Disappearnaces. Empty Tomb? Kazuba (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Bodily disappearances has been here at Resurrection for a period of about 4 years. And during that time the information has become mildly distored. It is my fault because I do not like deleting the material of others unless I am convinced it is wrong. I prefer to edit. I think B.D. it is better now and back to its correct form. I apologize for not taking action earlier. Kazuba (talk) 00:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm not going to insist on it's removal since it's been here so long. But I've moved some of the contents to more appropriate places. The transfiguration appearances I've moved to the Christianity section. Jesus ascension should also be covered in the Christianity section. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree with that. If anything I think there should be a doublet here about the these "disappearances". Disappearances are disappearances, and they should be treated as such. I do not believe Biblical data should be omitted from B.D. I do not think that is being fair. Treating Biblical data as being something special has hampered Biblical Studies for too long a time. Kazuba (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Obvious nobody seemed to care but myself, as usual. Kazuba (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This keeps being removed, presumably because it deals with Biblical characters who must be treated differently. So perhaps I can preserve this information here. For a bodily disappearance is a bodily disappearance, whether it is in or out of the Bible.

Deuteronomy (34:6) Moses is secretly buried. Elijah vanishes in a whirlwind 2 Kings (2:11). After hundreds of years these two earlier Biblical heroes suddenly reappear, and are seen walking with Jesus. Then again they vanish. Mark (9:2-8), Matthew (17:1-8) and Luke (9:28-33). Only The Gospel of Luke (24:51) tells of Jesus leaving his disciples for the last time by ascending into the sky and leaving the Earth. Kazuba (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I attempted to improve the neutrality of the article by chopping a bunch of stuff that reads like a christian promotional pamphlet and has no references and shows incredible bias. Stuff like this is complete garbage:

• "Though a few other religions have teachings concerning resurrection, it features most prominently in Jewish and Christian scripture. Since the first century CE, most of the world associates resurrection with the resurrection of Jesus--for which there are numerous, elaborate attestations throughout the books of the New Testament of the Bible."
• " No other resurrection event enjoys more historical record: there are numerous, elaborate attestations throughout the books of the New Testament of the Bible."

There are many examples of religions with resurrection. And the bible is not a historical account by any means.

This article also has an incredible bias towards being essentially "Resurrection of Jesus" which is covered in an article of the same name. This article needs to be about resurrection in general. Not just jewish and christian resurrection. I'll work to improve this and widen the scope beyond the Christian perspective. NathanLee (talk) 02:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, have tried to make the lead more about general resurrection, linked in with the birth-death-rebirth deity stuff and talked about other resurrection stories. Still think there's a lot duplicated on the christian viewpoints which is probably already in Resurrection of Jesus. Still, a bit of coverage doesn't hurt as "resurrection" is pretty commonly linked to "christian resurrection stories" (at least in the "west"). NathanLee (talk) 05:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It might be good to add a section on native american resurrection beliefs. Quetzalcoatl, for instance, was a symbol of death and resurrection. --RhoOphuichi (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Some bloody odd stuff going on in the intro, what with that last paragraph being what seems like a sort of circular argument proving God, or something, with source links going directly to an online Bible. Not a Wikipedia user myself, so I've not edited it out (being afraid I'll end up deleting half the article by mistake), but somebody might wanna look into that. -Mr. Anonymous, May 11 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.28.255.201 (talk) 03:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been working to improve this article. For now, I remove the controversial 3rd-paragraph in the Intro. But much more is coming....

I just went to the research library and got three books. One is "Osiris - The Egyptian Reiligion of Resurrection", written by F.A. Wallis Budge in 1961, but there are concerns about how the author defines resurrection. I shall attend to it in detail. The second book is one of which you seem quite fond: "Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan", by John Day. Yet the careful reader is immediately suspect when reading the flawed and grossly omissive arguments in the opening chapter (Yahweh and El).

The third book is "The Riddle of Resurrection - Dying and Rising Gods in the Ancient Near East", by Tryggve N.D. Mettinger [Coniectanea Biblica, Old Testament Series 50, Almqvist and Wiksell International, Stockholm, 2001]. It seems quite good, since it takes time to explain what is meant by those ancient 'dying-and-rising' gods. I will soon incorporate the following into the Mesoptamia / Ancient Near East section. It's an outline of the Epilogue:

(1) The world of the ancient Near Eastern religions actually knew of a number of deities (Dumuzi, Baal, Adonis, Melqart, Osiris) hat may be properly described as dying and rising gods...[Yet] only in the case of Melqart-Heracles do we have express terminology of resurrection.

(2) Moreover, this is the case long before the turn of the era, in pre-Christian times.

(3) One should not hypostasize these gods into a specific type "the dying and rising god". These gods are of very different types.

(4) All of the gods that die and rise have close ties to the seasonal cycle plant life.

(5) Yahweh is distinct. The Hebrew Bible offer no evidence that Yahweh was a dying and rising god. In this respect, Yahweh offers a striking contrast to Canaanite Baal.

(6) The resurrection of Jesus in the New Testament is utterly unique, and stands categorically apart from "dying and rising gods":

(a) The ancient Near Eastern gods such as Adonis and Osiris were deities. In Jesus, we confront a human being for whom divinity is claimed by himself and his followers. For the apostles--including Paul--the resurrection was a singular historical event which took place in a particular geographic location. The empty tomb is seen by Christians as a historical datum.

(b) In stark contrast to the one-time resurrection of Jesus, the dying-and-rising gods had close relation to the seasonal cycle--with death and life corresponding to changes in plant life.

(c) The NT writers present the death of Jesus as an intentional act of vicarious suffering of atonement for sins on behalf of those he came to save. Nothing even remotely similar may be said for any dying-and-rising god.

(d) There is no "evidence that the death and resurrection of Jesus is a mythological construct, drawing upon the myths and rites of the dying and rising gods. While studied with profit against the background of Jewish resurrection belief, the faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus retains its unique character in the history of religions."

John Vanderzyden (talk) 07:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It is interesting that as time passed Jesus' birth was associated to the pagan winter solice and his resurrection was associated with pagan Easter. Of couse this to be expected when the New Testament is entirely written in Greek and vast majority of Christians were pagans. You don't stop giving gifts to your beloved children on the holidays because you had a religious conversion. Kazuba (talk) 05:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think there can be a tendency to limit the definition of resurrection to that which conforms to some kind of christian orthodox theology that excludes any possible "contamination" from pre-christian conceptions of the divine. But since Wikipedia is not about promoting only one groups theological constructs it follows that the article should continue to reflect how the concept is commonly applied without trying to prove "our resurrection is not the same as yours" .....

Taking up one point regarding corn-deities which appears to be dismissed in the above list: it was Jesus himself who makes the rather startling allusion to his own resurrection using the imagery that would be easily associated with corn-deities "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds." (john 12:24) Unlike some of his modern evangelists Jesus seemed quite comfortable using and identifying resurrection imagery with himself that would resonate with the wider world. The words recorded in the Bible relating to the last supper when Jesus "took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, 'Take; this is my body.' And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to them, 'This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.'"(Mark 14:22-24) would make perfect sense to people who already identified deities with the corn and fruits of the earth.

"but 'tis a common proof, that lowliness is young ambition's ladder, Whereto the climber-upward turns his back, Looks in the clouds, scorning the base degrees By which he did ascend" (Shakespeare's Julius Caeser)

As others have commented "In the mind of Eastern [Christian] mystics, everything in this world is required to undergo crucifixion in order to achieve resurrection; everything must die in order to rise (John 12:24-25). Or, in the words again of Maximus Confessor..."all phenomena must be crucified"...it is what Greek monastic writers like to call "the little resurrection"...("The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Ecology", Roger S. Gottlieb, p. 108, Oxford University Press US, 2006, ISBN 019517872) Taam (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

//Many scholars, preachers and laypeople do not believe that the resurrection of Jesus was a physical historical event, since it is not scientifically "falsifiable". Instead, say it is to be understood metaphorically to affirm the living reality of Jesus after death in a way beyond complete understanding, that nevertheless draws believers together in a hopeful new political and social order.//

Considering that the historicity and physical actuality and every reality is accepted by the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Miaphysites, the Assyrians and the vast majority of Protestants, I am removing this nonsense source which states that lay people and preachers deny any reality of the resurrection. Gabr-el 05:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"Many" scholars do believe that. It is called modern biblical criticism, e.g. the Jesus Seminar. Simply because you do not agree with their view does not mean that they do not exist or that their view does not belong in the article. And what you call "liberal crap" is in the real world called "logic."-1/19/09

Excuse me Gabr-el? Maybe it escaped the notice of bible-believers, but the notion that the resurrection did not occur in space and time was commonplace in twentieth-century systematic theology. See for instnace Karl Rahner's discussion in his Foundations of Christian Theology or Joseph Ratzinger's Introduction to Christian Theology, where he says that Christ appeared "from out of the world of God"--as, it seems, a theophany. In Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life, Ratzinger notes that Paul advanced neither a sheer physicalism, nor a sheer spiritualism, but a "pneumatic realism," which is "a corporeality stemming from the Holy Spirit". Note also Origen, who in the third century said in Contra Celsum that only those with a faculty of "spiritual sight" could see the resurrection body. The fact is that the Church has never pronounced one way or the other on the materiality of the body but has only required that Christ "rose again according to the scriptures". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.207.100 (talk) 14:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Another source which confirms the apocryphal character of the resurrection of Jesus is http://www.v3.co.uk/vnunet/news/2222246/world-oldest-bible-goes-online Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

All of the sources regarding Achilles death all have him wandering around as a spirit on his island. Go look for yourself on his page. If it matters to anyone, all but one of those postdate the gospels, and the one that doesn't specifically mentions Achilles being a "spirit". The page said Alcmene was taken up to heaven but her page says there are two accounts of her death. One she is buried, and the other, she is turned into a rock. Asclepius was killed but never brought back from the dead. I'm pretty sure he was made into a constellation. theoi.com has all the sources mentioning him on there. Techincally, he did resurrect people, but it should be noted that he used a special herb to do it. 69.254.76.77 (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we scrap the sentence asserting that "According to Juan Garces, a British Library project curator who has studied the Codex Sinaiticus, the resurrection of Jesus was not included in the original Bible manuscripts, which means that it is an apocryphal belief.[7]"? It's misleading in numerous ways. Firstly, an ordinary reader might assume that "the original Bible manuscripts" refers to the first versions of the Bible that were ever written, but the article is only about the oldest currently existing more-or-less-complete Bible manuscript. No scholar, Christian or atheist, believes that the Codex was the first Bible. Secondly, Juan Garces is not quoted in the article as saying anything about apocryphal beliefs. Thirdly, the article doesn't say that the Codex makes no mention of the resurrection of Jesus, only that some passages dealing with the resurrection are missing. Any casual reader who reads this article will come to the conclusion that the Codex is the original Bible and that it doesn't include the resurrection at all, whereas in fact it isn't and it does. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, I see that you've modified the paragraph in question to clarify that the missing passages are from the Gospel of Mark. But the difficulty remains--in the article you cite, Juan Garces doesn't assert that the Resurrection isn't in the ORIGINAL BIBLE MANUSCRIPTS of Mark. He doesn't use the word "apocryphal" at all. The article just points out that some passages relating to the Resurrection don't appear in the Codex Sinaiticus. The Codex is not itself the original Bible manuscript; it was copied many years after the initial composition of the Gospels. It's true that many scholars are inclined to believe that Mark 16:9-20 is a later interpolation. Garces quite likely believes that himself. But he doesn't say anything of the sort in the article you cite.

I'd suggest that a better way to phrase it would be more or less as follows: "Most modern scholars believe that the Book of Mark was the first-written of the Gospels, and that it served as a source for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke [provide citation]. But in the earliest known manuscripts of Mark, the narrative ends with the discovery of the empty tomb and with a secondhand report that Jesus has risen; it does not describe any of Jesus's followers meeting with him after his resurrection [provide citation]. Scholars X and Y take this as evidence that the direct descriptions of the resurrected Jesus in all three synoptic Gospels are a later interpolation [provide citation, NOT the Garces article.]" 65.213.77.129 (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the gist is: there is no resurrection described in the Gospel of Mark, there is only a young man saying that Jesus was resurrected, well, except the infamous apocryphal ending of Mark, which was added by creative scribes. This is common stuff in biblical scholarship. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

> The vast majority of Christians; Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants and adherents of the Assyrian Church of the East accept the resurrection of Jesus as a real historical event

ALL Christians accept it, because if you do not, you are NOT a Christian! (If Christ did not resurrect in body, he was not God and therefore couldn't redeem mankind with his death on the Cross.) 82.131.210.163 (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps there are Christians that believe that Christ redeemed mankind solely with his death, and not with resurrection? I'm unfamiliar with any Christian faith that doesn't believe in Jesus' resurrection, but it seems quite feasible that such denominations exist. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 01:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Large portions of this article are off-topic, and should be moved to the Resurrection of the dead article. Editor2020 (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The article says:

"Most also teach that it is only as a result of the atoning work of Christ, by grace through faith, that people are spared eternal punishment as judgment for their sins."

Most whom? Since the majority of those who profess to be Christian are Catholic (look it up, its true), I would say most do not say that. Furthermore, it is irrelevant to the topic of resurrection. I suggest we delete this, because its off-topic. As a matter of fact, I will.Glorthac (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

By grace through faith is an important concept. -Stevertigo (t | c) 00:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The term "resurrection of the dead" has been capitalized with an edit summary asserting it is a proper name. However, highly reliable sources (including the Vatican web site catechism) do not capitalize it and even if they did, this article is not discussing a single eschatological perspective but approaches the topic from a general view. We should only capitalize the term where we refer to a specific eschatology and have sources to support that usage. Jojalozzo 01:55, 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) 05:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

"The soul is the divine and immortal part of the human mind" This is currently marked as "citation needed", but it goes far beyond that - it makes unsupported (and ultimately unsupportable) implications about divinity and immortality.(Unless this is intended as a theoretical definition, in which case it should probably clearly state that.) The referenced pages (such as Soul or immortal) are much more careful about qualifying the truth of such statements - X believes Y, not just Y is true. A simple qualifier (and eventually a citation, please) is probably enough: "The soul is believed to be ...". I will be bold and add the qualifier - although far from perfect, I think it is better than the current wording, which is much too strong. (I see a lot of unqualified, unsupportable statements in articles relating to mysticism, religion, and superstition, so this is not unique. Every little fix helps. ;) 173.172.95.186 (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I doubt this, and it is unsourced: "Nearly all Christians – Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant and adherents of the Assyrian Church of the East – accept the resurrection of Jesus as a real historical event, and condemn the denial of the physical reality of the resurrection as a heresy." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strangesad (talk • contribs) 20:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I removed it. No need even asking for a source, as such a claim by definition is not possible to source unless one does an opinion poll of all Christians asking them if they condemn as a heresy the denial of the resurrection as a historical event. If someone wants to add it again, please provide a source and a wording that matches the source. I also removed the following sentence as it had been tagged since 2010 and no source had been added.Jeppiz (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Please don't follow me to articles. Strangesad (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

?? To the best of me knowledge, we've come across each other at only one other article, and that article is highly related to this one.Jeppiz (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say we came across each other there. You went to that article from the ANI just to revert me. If you got to this article some way other than checking my contribs, then fine, but that's highly coincidental. Strangesad (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I am staring this discussion to talk about the references added by Corn Cheese. I have agreed with the other editor who reverted his edits. When he continued to add the blog as a reference, I reported him as being in violation of the 3 revert rule. But then I got a note on my talk page from another user who agrees with Corn Cheese. So I wanted to post here and discuss his edits and give them a fair chance for possible inclusion. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 04:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe the issue arises because the revert does not actually remove the reference. It only removes information that was added to the ref. I went ahead and removed it completely as per WP:SELFPUBLISH. Dromidaon (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks for explaining it better. I am glad to finally get this issue resolved. Hopefully Corn Cheese will accept that and move on. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Earlier today, an editor added a major new section 'Resurrection#Transhumanism and technology', even though the matter of resurrection is not discussed AT ALL at the current article 'Transhumanism'. Let's wait for edits AT THAT ARTICLE, and likely a discussion at that article's Talk, before such a section is added here. Another editor already reverted the addition. Thanks!--→gab 24dot grab← 02:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The major problem with transhumanism is its assumption that a computer simulated human would be as conscious and alive as a real human. Maybe this is WP:OR for now, but surely some reliable source must have made this point before. Another problem with mind uploading: suppose you upload your mind, it is copied in 100 copies, 50 copies are sentenced to eternal torments, and 50 copies to eternal bliss, and you continue to live: have you been punished or rewarded in this way? Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The new section has in the meantime be reinstalled under the new title "Technological resurrection". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.169.235.136 (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I have witnessed a lot of what I would call "propaganda article submissions" concerning transhumanism lately and submit that this should be monitored. Justification: Transhumanism is an ideology / religion that tries to suck credibility by claiming to be science. The latter claim is only true in so far as transhumanisms' claims are mainly about the future, and so, by absence of time travel we simply can't be sure the claims made by transhumanism are true or false. In short: the claims are falsifiable only in the future. To call this attitude "scientific" is a stretch, since the claims don't come as proposals of scientific theory. Qualifications as "believes" or similar are frequently absent from transhumanist claims. 84.169.233.39 (talk) 10:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Resurrection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140310040156/http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/stewart.cfm?id=136 to http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/stewart.cfm?id=136

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

There are some odd sentences in the Resurrection_Miracles section - for example "This resurrection is singular, because there is not Jesus or an apostle in resurrecting some other people died." Read the rest of the paragraph too. It looks either like vandalism or maybe a non-native English speaker. 188.2.21.236 (talk) 10:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I’ll fix this when I have time. Based on a preliminary reading, it seems to be people mixing the KJV terminology with modern English. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The introductory paragraph of this article states:

"Resurrection is the concept of coming back to life after death. In a number of ancient religions, a dying-and-rising god is a deity which dies and resurrects."

Yet there is no reference given to support this claim (regardless of its accuracy) and no examples of said "ancient religions" or name of the "dying-and-rising god" is given.

In the sections which seek to lump other similar concepts in various religions to resurrection, either no references are given such as in the section about Hinduism or don't explain how the story is one of resurrection. For example from the section on Buddhism:

"One day at the street market Fuke was begging all and sundry to give him a robe. Everybody offered him one, but he did not want any of them. The master [Linji] made the superior buy a coffin, and when Fuke returned, said to him: "There, I had this robe made for you." Fuke shouldered the coffin, and went back to the street market, calling loudly: "Rinzai had this robe made for me! I am off to the East Gate to enter transformation" (to die)." The people of the market crowded after him, eager to look. Fuke said: "No, not today. Tomorrow, I shall go to the South Gate to enter transformation." And so for three days. Nobody believed it any longer. On the fourth day, and now without any spectators, Fuke went alone outside the city walls, and laid himself into the coffin. He asked a traveler who chanced by to nail down the lid.

The news spread at once, and the people of the market rushed there. On opening the coffin, they found that the body had vanished, but from high up in the sky they heard the ring of his hand bell."

Is this not a story of a ghost bell? There's no explanation as to how a disappearing body and the sound of a phantom bell ringing from the sky is comparable to resurrection of the physical body which is what the article is about. Correct me if I'm wrong but either an explanation with full references is required or this should be removed.

Likewise the section on Zombies has no references and no explanation as to how re-animation of a corpse and resurrection are the same. The word resurrection refers to the rising again of the same spirit into the same body as per all the examples found in Judeo-Christian beliefs. Re-animation on the other hand suggests a different spirit into the body which has been given animation for example the monster in Frankenstein. It isn't the same concept, isn't understood as such even colloquially and quite frankly the inclusion of such in this article is quite bizarre. Iynx (talk) 08:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Yup, according to Bart Ehrman the concept of dying-and-rising gods fell out of favor in the academia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The Islam section has a short general paragraph, followed by a long paragraph about the views of "Nasir Khusraw... an Ismaili thinker of the Fatimid era", which does not represent the views of the majority. Bquuune (talk) 10:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to say that the resurrection is only believed in by those who believe in the Nicean Creed, since Mormons believe in it, for example, and they reject the Nicean Creed. 67.207.42.204 (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)