Talk:Resurrection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Original content (Unsectioned)

Ideas for other things to include:

  • Other biblical examples of resurrection
    • Elijah raising the widow's son
    • Paul who raised the young man (Euteches??? his name starts with "E" anyway...) who was listening to Paul preach, fell asleep, fell out of the upper story window he had been sitting in and died.

Don't know whether to include this, but in Clement's letter to the Corinthians (2nd century?) he looks at "resurrection" in nature, such as night turning to day, and also mentions the story of the phoenix.

This article mentions discussion of the other resurrection stories and their influence on Christianity, but the links didn't make it here. I eventually want to offer a Christian response or explanation of those stories, but am trying to figure out both the response, and how to phrase it properly for wikipedia. --Wesley

"In the New Testament, Jesus is said to have raised several persons from death, including Lazarus and the young girl sometimes known as Tabitha."

Where or by whom is it stated that Jesus raised a girl known as Tabitha?

S.

Acts 9:40, I believe 72.9.29.11 20:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

From what I understand, Islam also teaches that there will a resurrection of the dead. Perhaps Islam and the resurrection could be included in the main article.

Not Jesus, but Peter:

Acts 9:36 (RSV) Now there was at Joppa a disciple named Tabitha, which means Dorcas. She was full of good works and acts of charity. Acts 9:37 (RSV) In those days she fell sick and died; and when they had washed her, they laid her in an upper room. Acts 9:38 (RSV) Since Lydda was near Joppa, the disciples, hearing that Peter was there, sent two men to him entreating him, "Please come to us without delay." Acts 9:39 (RSV) So Peter rose and went with them. And when he had come, they took him to the upper room. All the widows stood beside him weeping, and showing tunics and other garments which Dorcas made while she was with them. Acts 9:40 (RSV) But Peter put them all outside and knelt down and prayed; then turning to the body he said, "Tabitha, rise." And she opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter she sat up. Acts 9:41 (RSV) And he gave her his hand and lifted her up. Then calling the saints and widows he presented her alive.

-- Someone else 09:37 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)

The paragraph starting "On a similar note, many stories..." seems entirely tangential to the subject of the article. This is an article about religious interpretations of the idea of resurrection, not about how Judeo-Christian beliefs and pagan myths may or may not have influenced each other. -- Alanyst 22:01, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

BTW, this is the paragraph removed, in case someone should wish to restore it (Alanyst):
On a similar note, many stories in the Torah, held sacred by both Jews and Christians, also are noted by historians to have close parallels to earlier pagan myths and stories. Liberal Jewish and Christian denominations agree that this is likely the case, and have theologies that do not depend on this finding. Traditional Christians and Orthodox Jews typically explain these similarities by appeal to their belief that all of the world's religions are corrupted versions of the true tradition that has been preserved more purely through a people chosen for this purpose, the Jews. And, Jewish history itself is held to be the workmanship of God for the correction of the nations. According to a traditional Christian interpretation, for example, the destruction of evil through the death and resurrection of the "seed of the woman" (cf. Genesis 3:15) is the oldest salvation myth in the world with parallels in many cultures, which they hold to have been literally fulfilled through the Virgin Mary, by the virginal conception, wilderness temptation by Satan, crucifixion, burial, resurrection and ascension of Jesus

[edit] Other stories? (request)

Is there any way someone could add a listing of other people who have supposedly resurrected from the dead? Outside of Judeo-Christian beliefs? I love coming to wikipedia and reading about other religions and this page would provide a good jumping point to other pages... I wish I could do so myself but am not an expert even in my own religion! JoeHenzi 12:03, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Duh, upon further inspection there are in fact others... can we make a better listing and seperate it out (like "Resurrection in Eastern Religions" or something?). Basically, to me this is stubby due to the fact it only talks about things people basically know like Jesus (and pals). Sakya Buddha could be a good start. (Sorry to request, if nothing is done I'll come back and see what I can do).JoeHenzi 12:08, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

see: A mystical view of the resurrection of the dead within Judaism see :Resurection of the dead is already happening. An insight into the inner meaning of the Resurrection of the dead based on the teachings of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson [Lubavitcher Rebbe http://www.torah.5u.com/rebbe.html] King [Moshiach http://www.torah.5u.com/moshiach.html] Shlit"a Ariel Sokolovsky 04:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Messy Piece Meal

I apologize for my ongoing messy additions to this fine article. I ain't no literary artist. I just keep coming up with new things; that I think are important. Please forgive me.Kazuba 19 Oct 2004

[edit] Raising from the dead and resurrection are different

People, I may be off base, but I have never thought the concept of raising someone from the dead and the resurrection as equivalent. I think the article does differentiate different types of resurrection, but I believe that is the problem. They are not different aspects of the same thing. One is eternal without the possibility of a future death. The other is a recovery of the same body with the path of death to be fully experienced. There is very little that is similar.

With such a drastic differnce I think this article does an injustice to the concept of the resurrection. It becomes weak milk, to the point of becoming water. Storm Rider 01:38, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The examples of resurrection we see in the NT are of both types (a) Christ. Though - since he is no longer phsyically present on earth he presumably did die in the sense we normally take death to be - arguable. Isn't "assumption" or "ascension" equivalent to death? (b) Lazarus.

I would suggest a discussion of resurrection should include both of these, plus perhaps the "resurrection" described in Revalations.

Exile 10:05, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Resurrection is not the same as coming back to life

I've just been reading NT Wright's "Resurrection of the Son of God" and he makes a number of points that may be useful here:

1. Resurrection is a very Jewish word, referring to being given a new bodily existence in a renewed world after the Day of Judgement. It does not refer to becoming like an angel, to a spiritual existence or just coming back to life for a short while.

2. For the moment, as far as Christians are concerned, Jesus is the only one who is resurrected. Everyone else is waiting for the day of final judgement.

3. Resurrection is thus about life after "life after death", and not just about "going to heaven". It is part of a totally renewed universe.

What I'm suggesting, I suppose, is clarifying the Judeo-christian meaning of resurrection and separating this from it's more vague meaning of "coming back to life". I understand the connection between the two, but "resurrection" is a much more precise term than that. --Pagaboy 00:04, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Biblical prophecy ?

Shouldn't this bit have something about prophecies of final judgement, everybody coming back to life, etc. ? I remember the apocalipse had quite a bit of those, no ?

[edit] These articles should NOT be merged

The resurection is a term usually used to describe Jesus's supposed resurection from the dead. The term the resurection of the dead used in the various creeds and in catholicism and orthodoxy is refering to the distinct concept that, while souls will live forever and go to heaven or hell after they die, they will be rejoined with their physical bodies at the end of the world.


-I Concur. In christian theology, the ressurection of christ was the means and forshadow of the general resurection of the dead, so they are related, not the same Thanatosimii 17:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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". 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The articles should be together under "Resurrection," especially since there is so much overlap, with possible sub-headings: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, Resurrection of the Dead, Resuscitation, all of which should be distinguished from the Hellenistic concept of immortality.


[edit] Section neutrality warning: Sathya Sai Baba did not re-surrect Walter Cowan

Please use the book by Mick Brown "The spiritual Tourist as a source" ch. "In the house of God". See also Sathya Sai Baba and talk:Sathya Sai Baba. I will try to correct it here later. Andries 18:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bodily Disappearances

Surely Mohammed's tomb is in Medina, not Mecca?

Why is this section even in this article? Disappearing and resurrection from the dead are not the same thing. 65.95.115.169 (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved "Modern Jewish" beliefs to talk page

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)

[edit] Moved Judeo-Christian content to Talk page

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)

[edit] Intro POV

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)

[edit] Professor Kurt E. Koch

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)

[edit] Removed Original Research

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

[edit] reorg

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)

[edit] Modern de-emphasis in Christianity

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)

[edit] General Bias?

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)

[edit] Rebirth

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)

[edit] Resurrection and the Neutral Point of View

>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)

[edit] Can someone explain this for me?

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)