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.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-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.

Contents 1 Merge Noli me tangere to ressurection proposal 2 Markan priority 3 Homophobia? 4 Appearances in John 5 Original research in the first para 6 Mark 16:9-20 7 Para removed from 1 Cor discussion 7.1 appearence to Paul 7.2 Original research on "not in bodily form" 8 In Universe Style

[edit] Merge Noli me tangere to ressurection proposal

• Oppose-These are two distinct topics : the words of Christ and the Ressurection. --Jondel 05:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Jondel. As a theme in religious art alone, Noli me tangere could grow into a large article; it has been treated by almost every major painter from Giotto to Veronese. Skarioffszky 15:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Markan priority

I think this paragraph (currently beginning "According to the theory of Markan priority") is largely twaddle.

• The theory of "Markan priority" doesn't say that John derives from Mark; it's only a theory about the Synoptics.
• It doesn't, so far as I know, specifically say that the resurrection narratives of Matthew and Luke derive from Mark's.
• If it were conclusively shown that Mark originally had no resurrection narratives, all that would follow is that Matthew and Luke didn't in fact copy theirs from Mark.
• The paragraph refers to "the heterodoxy" but surely means "the orthodox". Actually, the whole article is riddled with instances of "heterodox" that clearly should say "orthodox"; very strange.

There seems to me to be only one valid point here: that if Mark, the earliest gospel, originally had no resurrection appearances then this would argue against there having actually been any. (Not against there having been a resurrection, since no one disputes that Mark has an empty tomb and a claim of resurrection.)

I am about to replace it with a shorter paragraph containing fewer highly dubious claims. If anyone cares to argue that this is an error, let's discuss.

Gareth McCaughan 02:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homophobia?

I've just deleted another bit of silliness. The article, until a few minutes ago, claimed that Kastner's theory (that Jesus didn't want to be touched by Mary because he was concerned lest she be tempted by his naked body) implies homophobia on John's part because he doesn't report any such concern about Thomas. That's silly because there are other explanations at least as plausible as homophobia: for instance, perhaps John supposed that Jesus was unclothed immediately after the resurrection but clothed when he appeared several days later to Thomas; or perhaps John supposed that Mary and Thomas were both straight and known to be so. Gareth McCaughan 02:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

were both straight and known to be so.

I think the word you're looking for is heterosexual Also, it's not too much of a stretch of the imagination that a guy with 12 'close friends' that follow him around all the time might be homosexual. It's not like it's against nature or anything: Homosexuality in animals

[edit] Appearances in John

Right at the beginning of the article there's what purports to be a comprehensive list of appearances in the canonical gospels. But (1) it describes John's account of Jesus's second appearance to the disciples together, at which Thomas was present, simply as "to Thomas Didymus", and (2) it entirely omits the appearance described in John 21, as indeed does the entire article. This seems like a pretty serious omission. Gareth McCaughan 02:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research in the first para

The opening paragraph attempts to reconcile the different lists given by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul. It says that "the several occasions on which Jesus appeared after the empty tomb, in order, are ..." and then gives a composite list of appearances based on all five sources. However, this reconciliation is original research unless attributed to a source.

As an example, the first paragraph identifies the appearance to Peter reported by Paul with that reported by Luke -- but this identification is pure speculation. We should remove this composite list and replace it with the separate lists given by each source. Grover cleveland 03:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark 16:9-20

Hi,

There may be an inconsistency with the article linked in Mark_16, because that article mentions Irenaeus, a 2th century church father quoting from that questioned ending, so he originally used a manuscript with that ending before the so-called "earliest" manuscripts.

You can find a good discussion on Mark 16 at http://www.new-life.net/faq011.htm . Though the author believes that part is in the original texts, he presents a detailed explanation, why.

Thanks, VATTee 11:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Your reference to an online blog is not a Wikipedia:Reliable sources. 75.15.196.42 (talk) 05:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not the NT Textual Scholarship page. It is sufficient here to note the content in the appropriate place, with a comment that it is uncertain whether Mark 16:9-20 is part of the original text, and a link to the discussion elsewhere. Tb (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Para removed from 1 Cor discussion

This appears to violate WP:SYN since it was placed as a commentary on the 1 Cor appearance, but is based on a reference that does not appear to be addressing that passage. Grover cleveland (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

To those who advocate the Primacy of Peter, this is a hierarchy of how the church will be. Peter, James, and Paul are the most important figures in the Early Christian Church.^[1]

[edit] appearence to Paul

Unlike the other appearences, there is no indication of bodily anything in the appearance to Paul. It is clear from the NT that this appearance is not like the others--which is only to be expected, given that a narration of it is only given in Acts, after the Ascension. I would like the comment to remain that it was "probably not in bodily form" for this reason. The editor who deleted the clause explains that the Paul took the experience very seriously--which I don't doubt--but saying that the appearance was different in kind does not imply that it was somehow not important. Tb (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. But there are probably other sources to expand the section, and one day I will ge to it, or you can do so if you wish. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If you read the accounts in Acts (see the verse listings at Road to Damascus) you can see that there is no bodily appearance, only a voice. 75.0.12.200 (talk) 09:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, looks like Road to Damascus has been dumbed down. There are three accounts, all slightly different: Acts 9:1-31, Acts 22:1-22, Acts 26:9-24. 75.0.12.200 (talk) 09:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course they're all slightly different, but that's of no huge consequence here. Each of them features bright light and a voice only. Tb (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original research on "not in bodily form"

An editor has repeatedly inserted the gloss that the appearance to Paul was "probably not in bodily form". This addition constitutes original research for several reasons:

• The phrase "probably not in bodily form", or an equivalent thereof, does not occur in Biblical text of Acts which is the only cited source.
• The use of the word "probably" shows that this is speculation. Speculation is explicitly banned as Original Research unless it is cited in a published Reliable Source (it's in the very first sentence of WP:OR).
• Because the Bible is a primary source, it is subject to the restrictions on use of Primary Sources specified in WP:OR. Specifically:

anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.

Could someone with no specialist knowledge clearly tell that the cited Biblical passage states that the appearance was not in bodily form? Clearly, no. Please find a reliable secondary source that states that the appearance was not in bodily form. If one can be found, then it's fine to keep the phrase in the article. If one is not be found, it must be removed. Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 06:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

How about this, "nothing in this report mentions bodily appearance", or words to that effect? Tb (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the other "appearances" listed don't mention any details of how Jesus appeared (for example, the ones in 1 Corinthians)ß. It would seem odd to single out this one. Grover cleveland (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

1 Corinthians seems to be referring to the same events described in the Gospels. It's really not radical to think that Luke is making a sharp distinction between pre- and post-Ascension appearances. Tb (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This all needs citations. It's not the role of editors in Wikipedia to make their own judgments on these matters. See WP:OR. Grover cleveland (talk) 10:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to adding a ^{[citation needed]} tag to the phrase. I would also be interested: if there is not consensus about retaining it, can we please hear what's wrong with it? Tb (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with it is that it is not backed up by citations per WP:V and substitutes the subjective judgment of a Wikipedia editor for those of reliable sources, contravening WP:OR. To put it another way, suppose I disagree and say "actually, I think this appearance was probably in bodily form". Who is to judge one way or another? What does "in bodily form" mean anyway? Grover cleveland (talk) 06:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I have no objection to adding a fact tag, and when I'm back with my library at hand (I'm in the midst of moving across the country and books are in transit), I'll get some appropriate references. So far, however, you're just saying, "suppose I disagree." Well, so far, nobody actually has. I haven't substituted judgment for reliable sources: it's not as if there is some reliable source out there contradicting the text I would like to see retained, and there isn't any editor who actually has proposed a problem with it. All we've got is your insistence that a source would be good: and I agree. Tb (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Technically, in bodily form would have implied that "somehow" some cells (e.g. the cone cells) in the retina of the observer (e.g. St Paul), were activated. Given the loss of sight, the matter is really complicated. My personal guess from reading the Gospels is that St Paul did not get a clear image formed on his retina in that experience, but since I am not a scripture scholar, please do not take my word for it. A more complete web search may yet show more references. Cheers History2007 (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In Universe Style

Hi, a couple of days ago I tagged four articles relating to Jesus with the 'in universe' tag. They have all since been removed so someone probably thought it was vandalism thus removed them. Well it wasn't, and this article is the worst of the four.

There is no mention at all in this article that it is about “what Christians believe”, in fact it is referenced throughout with the bible as if it is the unquestionable truth – a book which most consider, at least in part, fictional. Do not let your way of 'thinking' ruin an article.

Look at any of the pages relating to Greek or Roman mythology; how is this any different? They are even called mythology! The only real difference between Christianity and Greek mythology is some people believe Christianity is true (there are many books on Greek mythology, many of those proclaim themselves to be the truth as well).

Consider this question: if many people believed that Only Fools and Horses was real, would it be correct to remove the 'in universe' tag from the Del Boy article?

--Bobby6610 (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Presumably you will also be similarly "in-universe" tagging the articles about works of other writers of about the same time such as, say, Josephus and his works Antiquities of the Jews and The Wars of the Jews. If I recall correctly, doesn't scholarly opinion reckon that the works of Josephus and of the Gospel writers have comparable (i.e. not wildly different) historical and fictional basis? Let us know how you get on with tagging those Josephus and Jews articles, so we can attempt to improve this one. Thanks. Meanwhile, because those articles remain untagged, I'm pulling this article into line with them by untagging. Hope that's OK. Feline Hymnic (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Because other articles do it it's OK in this one too? I guess your right, that's the way to make wiki better.

I am not familiar with those things which you mentioned, I am however familiar with this. I was under the impression that the point of a wiki was for people to criticise, and thus improve, the content which they are familiar with; which is what I am doing.

It is clear that the reason that you do not want the in universe tag is one of personal bias. If you were brought up by people who believed the holy words of Only Fools and Horses I'm sure you would be pulling down good 'ol Del Boy's tag instead. --Bobby6610 (talk) 10:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)