Talk:Jesus: Empty tomb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] History v story

There is no question that the use of "mythology" to describe these accounts, very strongly implies that historicity is not relevant to them. This is clear where the single most decisive criterion for determining what constitutes a "myth" is the presence of some "supernatural" element in the story. The "truth" of a "Myth" is regardless of factuality. This is not the case, for history.

These accounts are received as history by most Christians - the meaningfulness of the events is tied specifically to their factuality. The explanatory power of these stories is specifically in the claim that they actually happened. This is why the term "Mythology" will always meet with objection. The use of the term suggests the point of view that the "truth" of the empty tomb does not rest in its factuality - which most Christians do not believe. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree with the above. Surely we can create a better category for events which are regarded as true by Christians, even if disputed by non-Christians. How about 'supernatural events in Christianity'? DJ Clayworth 16:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

FestivalOfSouls: you write that 'other users agree the category should stay'. Well if they had done they would have written so here, which does not seem to be the case. Please discuss the matter here, rather than just making your own changes. DJ Clayworth 17:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Regrettably, it appears that some believe that their point of view is so obviously right that it requires no discussion, and that Wikipedia will be closer to the ideal world when their crusade is accomplished. As someone has already said, burying Christian historical belief under the extremely derogatory label of 'Mythology' is "not POV pushing". I'm sure that there are other atheists, agnostics and anti-supernaturalist religionists who feel just the same. That's all FOS means by "other users agree". If this opinion prevails, it gives permission to presumptively shout down the opposing perspective. And why not? It's all part of moving toward the "ideal world". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

This article meets the definition of a myth : "myths: stories of a particular culture that it believes to be true and that feature a specific religious or belief system." as given by the headline article of category:mythology. As such it is entirely appropriate. Since some have expressed concern over my adding category:mythology, I have compromised and been putting the correct subcategories into the articles. FestivalOfSouls 17:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Let me repeat what I said elsewhere. While 'myth' is used in academic circles to mean an explanatory story (true or otherwise) it is commonly taken to mean an untrue story. Adding this category to items of fundamental Christian belief is therefore misleading. Festival, please take note that no-one has so far no-one on this page has agreed with you. If the discussion has taken place, and consensus been reached, then please include a link to the page where that happened. DJ Clayworth 18:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

But FestivalOfSouls, the problem is that this sub-category does not reflect consent. It represents your point of view, to which I for one cannot consent. I appreciate the effort to find appropriate categories, but can you not see that your project is doomed to fail in the long run? Wikipedia works because it takes seriously the idea of working together. Your edit history shows what happens when this idea is not given its due weight. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I am so sorry, I was not aware that wikipedia did not attempt to be an academic endevour. I guess I was wrong to assume that wikipedia was a play on encyclopedia, and that it was trying to be an encyclopedia, not a biased website. Look through the histories of the articles I have edited. Other users have returned the categorization, as well as I have. Feel free to discuss on my talk page, as well. Their has been no real discussion, as no real oposition has come forth. I have yet to see a single valid arument against the categorization. Even here, you fail to do so. I maintain that since the article is about a myth, as defined in dictionary.com and on the good ol' wikipedia article that defines the category (mythology, the categorization is appropriate. FestivalOfSouls 18:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

How do I "fail to do so"? Your use of "mythology" as though it were neutral in this context is disingenuous. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can say "no real oposition has come forth" when this entire page is devoted to disputing your categorisation. I repeat, even if your categorisation were technically correct (in academic usage) the popular usage is not the same, and adding the category is misleading. If you really want a discussion about this lets choose a page and invite others to join in. DJ Clayworth 18:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

A user saying " I don't like you pointing out that my religion is based on myths" is not, in my eyes, a valid argument against doing so. I did not intend to say their was no opposition, just that their was no valid opposition, meaning those that oppose this do so for trivial, unimportant, and often irrelevent reasons. It is like me opposing a change YOU make because I have a cat. Irrelevent. FestivalOfSouls 18:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Please see my talk page for the contiuation of this discussion, or the appropraite place, the talk paeg for category:mythology. I will not read nor reply to arguments here. FestivalOfSouls 18:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I must strongly caution you that asserting that any other users' practiced religion is "based on myths" on any wiki page whatsoever, is expressly forbidden by wiki policy, and in addition to your 3RR violations, is disciplinable. Codex Sinaiticus 18:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

In violation of what I just said, I would like to point out that I never said that, only that people are using that as the argument against correctly classifying articles. I am making no remarks about the religion, only that particular articles meet the requirements of being labeled as about myths. FestivalOfSouls 18:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Now are you using 'myth' here in the sense that you are trying to imply that you always using it, i.e. an explanatory story that may or may not be true? If so no-one will have any objection. I suspect you mean something different, though. DJ Clayworth 18:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

See my talk page. Already answered that question. FestivalOfSouls 18:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Root of the problem?

I thought it was more "ideal" when people could co-exist with their differences without deliberately seeking to offend, and find a neutral path. I am sorry to see that this individual may think this is a tool to start provocations, because he received an absolutely terrible introduction to wikipedia. Particularly the way "Do not bite the newcomers" was cleverly altered to read "Don't let the grumpy users scare you off" (not at all the same thing!), and placed directly between "Be bold!" and "Play nice with others", "Contribute, contribute, contribute!"...etc. My gosh, if I had got that as my official introduction on day one, I might possibly be a little less diplomatic myself...! So perhaps we may be a little more understanding, considering that that practically looks like an official invitation for a new user to "act up", stir up controversy, and get directly "in your face" of other users... the precise opposite of what is desireable for an encyclopedia project!

I hadn't noticed that. Who placed the notice? Maybe we should ensure that "Co-operate, don't confront" and "Reach consensus" are given as much emphasis. DJ Clayworth 17:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Para based on false evidence

The removed para starts with the sentence "John portrays Mary as stooping to view the tomb, but Peter as being able to walk into the tomb quite easily." This is just not the case. I will try to re-write to inclde the archaeological detail