Talk:Resurrection of the dead

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Modern view[edit]

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

Eschatology?[edit]

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

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

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

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

Join them[edit]

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

Other religions[edit]

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

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

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

Hello Codex Sinaiticus, I was wondering if you had any sources when you write that the idead of the resurrection of the dead could have been taken from judaism to zoroastrianism. Thanks for your help! --Squallgreg 18:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest that we delete the section on ancient Greek philosophy, since it has to do with the immortality of the soul, not with resurrection. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Six months later, nobody has objected, so I deleted it. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


Modern De-emphasis? NPOV[edit]

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

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

NT Wright[edit]

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

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

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


Here is further info on NT Wright

NT Wright on Soul Sleep

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Testament Writings[edit]

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

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

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

Zoroastrianism an Abrahamic religion ?[edit]

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

Modern de-emphasis in Christianity is missleading[edit]

Per:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sermon[edit]

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

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

Oxmoronic?[edit]

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

The article says:

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

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

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

Removal of "split section" template for "Christianity" section of main article[edit]

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

Suggestion for a new external link for further research[edit]

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

I'm fine adding this to the EL. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Done. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"Resurrection of the Dead" versus "Resurrection of the dead"[edit]

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

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


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

Resurrection current[edit]

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

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

Not a "specific event", not a proper name[edit]

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

Resurrection of the Dead is a proper noun, thus in English one capitalizes the nouns. This is done to distinguish this specific topic from general resurrections of the dead. The article on Resurrection of the Dead is on that specific topic, not general resurrections of the dead which instead is covered at Resurrection. For example, the Resurrection of Lazarus is a resurrection of the dead, but it is not the Resurrection of the Dead. 75.14.220.130 (talk) 06:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
This article is not about a specific "Resurrection of the Dead" but about eschatologic notions of resurrection of the dead in general. When the lead mentions "Christian, Islamic, Jewish and Zoroastrian eschatology" I do not interpret that to refer to one specific doctrine for Resurrection of the Dead, but to resurrection of the dead doctrines in general. Similarly, in the rest of the article, we find descriptions of more than one echatology, not one specific doctrine (contrary to what someone in the same city and using the same ISP as you has added to the lead sentence a few days ago). By my reading, the Resurrection article is about resurrection in general, including resurrection of specific individuals and not just eschatological resurrections, while this article is about various echatological doctrines of resurrection of generic dead people, not specific individuals. If you would like there to be a Resurrection of the Dead (Christianity) article, please start one. Jojalozzo 00:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I removed the word "specific" which was recently added to the lead. This word is contrary to the rest of the article which discusses multiple resurrection eschatologies, not any specific one. Jojalozzo 00:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

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

The concept of Abrahamic Bibles does not exist in the project. Here Bible refers to the Christian or Jewish holy books but not those of Zoroastrianism or Islam and as I understand it, Zoroastrianism is not Abrahamic. Furthermore, neither the Jewish eschatology, the Zoroastrian eschatology nor the Islamic eschatology article capitalizes "resurrection of the dead" and even the Christian eschatology article only capitalizes it some of the time. Assuming these other articles reflect both the sources and the consensus of the editing community, I cannot find much support for your position in the project.
This article describes multiple beliefs about the eschatological resurrection of the dead, not one common, specific, singular event. I do not see how your position is supported by the content of this article or others. Your view of the resurrection of the dead is only one of many and if you would like there to be an article to be about one specific view, Resurrection of the Dead (Abrahamic), then I suggest you create such an article.
Since it appears unlikely that we can work this out between us, I will submit an RFC to get more input. Jojalozzo 03:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

RFC: What is the scope of this article?[edit]

This RfC asked whether the article is 1) generic to any religious belief of an 'end times' resurrection event or 2) specific to the Christian Bible term "Resurrection of the Dead" (aka "Resurrection of the dead"). Results:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is this article about a specific eschatological event, the Resurrection of the Dead (thus a proper name), or a general discussion of various doctrines related to an eschatological resurrection of the dead (thus a common noun phrase)? Jojalozzo 03:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

An explicit Straw vote of "Specific" or "Generic" might be simplest.--→gab 24dot grab← 20:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

  • The discussion leading up to this rfc may be viewed above. Jojalozzo 03:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The key is that in religious contexts, the phrase the Resurrection of the Dead is almost always used by itself, rarely is it necessary for the writer to specify the eschatological resurrection of the dead, which is what the proper noun (the Resurrection of the Dead) refers to. Since wikipedia editors repeatedly have trouble with the issue of capitalization, perhaps this page should be retitled: Eschatological resurrection of the dead to avoid ambiguity and avoid the capitalization issue, at least in the article title. It would thus be a spinout of the article on general resurrection. 75.14.209.103 (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
[Are you the same IP that has been editing here recently or another editor using SBC from the same city? Whether you are the same editor or not, it would make it much easier to carry on a conversation if you created an account. Since SBC often changes your IP address from one login to the next we have no way to tell who we are talking to and whether we are starting a new conversation with a new person or continuing an ongoing discussion. Thanks. Jojalozzo 21:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)]
  • RfC Comment: I would think that this article would probably be about the Judeo-Christian concept of the "resurrection of the dead." Resurrection, more or less by definition, is in some way resurrection of the dead. On that basis, the existing resurrection article, which deals with that subject, is rationally the main article on the subject of resurrection in general. Christianity, perhaps also other Abrahamic groups, I am less certain there, does have a specific concept of the "resurrection of the dead" as a primary eschatological event, and it seems not unreasonable to me that the more focused topic could also be sufficiently notable for its own article.

I might prefer Eschatological resurrection if the article were to refer to the broader end-of-the-world resurrection, or, maybe, even "end of the world resurrection" or something similar. Also, yes, I have no doubt that the specifically Christian version of the resurrection of the dead, given the sheer volume of material on the subject, is also probably sufficiently notable for a separate article itself. Based on what I have seen in general here, we do have a bit of a muddled area for religion in general, and eschatology in particular, with some articles possibly being somewhat redundant but having a separate title and article because of the frequency of use of the word in the title. In general, I suppose, this might be the title for the general Western rotd, with perhaps spinout articles on "Christian eschatological resurrection" or "Christian resurrection of the dead" being separate. But I do definitely think that, whatever the final decision here, it is probably true that there is sufficient material for the religion-specific versions of these interfaith concepts to exist, and it might make more sense to go ahead and spin them out rather than arguing about how much weight to give them in a broader less specific article on a general subject. John Carter (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I also like Eschatological resurrection since it is more clearly generic and avoids the capitalization issue. I didn't think we were arguing about allocating weight here but agree that some eschological rotd's merit separate articles (though I'm not sure on what basis we'd choose one for the proper name title). Jojalozzo 21:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • RfC comment: As an uninvolved observer it's clear to me that the article is about the general concept of Eschatological resurrection, so that title would describe it well. The IP, however, seems to see the article's scope as pertaining solely (or primarily) to the Judeo-Christian belief; the "resurrection of the dead" (as stated in the article) is part of the Nicene Creed. Consensus seems to favor a broader view for this article. All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • GenericGeneral discussion. The term "eschatological" does not presuppose "Christian", so a thusly-renamed article would not be immune from sections discussing Zoroastrianism etc. Even the Christian "end times" eschatological "resurrection of the dead" is not automatically a capitalized proper noun, and I would not support a rename to "Resurrection of the Dead". I also note that the nondenominational template Template:Salvation includes both resurrection and resurrection of the dead as "General concepts" of salvation. I think non-Christian religions should continue to be accommodated here as-is, even if it's not very pretty. --→gab 24dot grab← 21:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Would you support a name change to "Eschatological resurrection"? Jojalozzo 03:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
No, because the terms (in this context) are synonymous and "resurrection of the dead" is overwhelmingly more common (see WP:COMMONNAME and maybe WP:POVTITLE). I understand Christianity more than I do other major religions, so I can see why Christians feel some "ownership" of this topic. Yet, I really and truly think the article's current discussion (including all religions) isn't terrible. Frankly, my off-the-cuff idea is to hit 'Last Judgment', spinout/create a separate 'Judgment Day' or 'Judgment Day (Christianity)' article, and make a significant section there for 'Judgment Day (Christianity)#Resurrection of the dead'. Whatever, I suppose I wouldn't object to a spinout article called 'Resurrection of the dead (Christianity)', but there is also material currently at 'Christian eschatology#Resurrection of the dead'. --→gab 24dot grab← 14:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Generic The scope of this article needs to remain generic, first addressing the resurrection of the dead in general, and then addressing specific differences between the teachings of various faith groups. Both testaments of the Bible speak of more than one resurrection, the resurrection of the just and the unjust in the Old Testament, and in the New Testament, the resurrection of life (aka. first resurrection) and the resurrection of damnation.—Telpardec  TALK  19:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I oppose renaming to Eschatological resurrection. Eschatology is the study of last things, so that would be the same as calling the article "Final resurrection". There have been a number of resurrections of the dead in the Bible already. Martha did not have to wait until the "last day" (John 11:24) to see her brother Lazarus live again, because a short time later Jesus LOUDLY commanded he that was dead four days, saying, LAZARUS, COME FORTH: and, behold, Lazarus blindly hopped out of the cave! Hip, hop, flop! (What? Did you think he came strolling out like a walk in the park? There was a "napkin" about his face, so he couldn't see. His hands were "bound", so he couldn't remove the napkin or hang onto anything to steady himself. His feet were "bound", so he couldn't walk. (John 11:39–44) How else could he have come forth? Roly poly? :)
—Telpardec  TALK  19:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
As its hatnote already explicates, "This article concerns itself with the belief in a final resurrection at the end time, commonly found in the Abrahamic religions." Bold added. --→gab 24dot grab← 20:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and as the hatnote already explains, other (non-eschatological) resurrections are covered at Resurrection and Resurrection (disambiguation). This is another reason why this article should be renamed Eschatological resurrection, to avoid these kinds of confusion. Yes, "Resurrection of the Dead" is a common phrase among Christians, but this article is npov per wikipedia policy and covers more than just Christianity. Resurrection of the Dead should redirect to Eschatological resurrection#Christianity. 75.14.217.49 (talk) 04:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
As I noted in the thread following my own vote, the term "eschatological" does not presuppose "Christian". The suggested rename from "Resurrection of the dead" to "Eschatological resurrection" seems to me like suggesting an article entitled "Frozen desserts" be renamed "Subzero desserts" so it would only discuss ice cream. Yes, the articles 'Dessert' and 'Dessert (disambiguation)' may discuss grattachecca, but grattachecca could still also be discussed at 'Frozen desserts' and/or 'Subzero desserts'. --→gab 24dot grab← 21:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd earlier mentioned that a Christian-specific discussion of "Resurrection of the dead" is already at 'Christian eschatology#Resurrection of the dead'. Since 'Resurrection of the dead#Christianity' also exists, I'm unconvinced that an additional, separate article is necessary. --→gab 24dot grab← 21:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Generic scope and No need to change. It is a somewhat low quality article, but that content issue aside, it is a generic enough item, and adding eschatological etc. to the title will intimidate some new readers anyway. Energy should focus on improving the content, not repackaging. History2007 (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
The titles as they exist now: Resurrection and Resurrection of the dead are ambiguous, they both mean the same thing because only the dead are resurrected. This article is about: "the belief in a final resurrection at the end time" and the title needs to somehow reflect that. Perhaps "Final Resurrection" or "End Time Resurrection". Calling it "Resurrection of the dead" is meaningless. Yes, "Resurrection of the Dead" is a fairly standard proper noun phrase in Christianity, however even in Christianity several phrases are used, such as "The Resurrection of the Body", "The Resurrection", etc. 75.0.9.145 (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
The title "Resurrection of the dead" might seem ambiguous, but it is the expression for the event which is most-commonly used by English-speakers who are aware of the topic. At WP:Naming conventions (events)#Definitions, it states, "A common name or standing expression exists if most English speakers who are aware of the topic call it the same thing." Anyway, the article's header explicitly states, "This article concerns itself with the belief in a final resurrection at the end time"; that is, a specific event period. --→gab 24dot grab← 15:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there is a proper noun phrase in the English language, namely "Resurrection of the Dead", however it is not widely known, that is why some editors contest that the proper noun phrase even exists, hence the current title of this article as "Resurrection of the dead" which is not a proper noun phrase (proper noun phrases in English get all their nouns capitalized). And, that is why one editor above even brought up the case of the Resurrection of Lazarus, because that is a "resurrection from the dead", however it is not an End Time resurrection. Wikipedia article titles have to accurately reflect what an article is about and there is no distinction between "Resurrection" and "Resurrection of the dead", so there should not be two seperate articles on wikipedia with those two titles, the titles are ambiguous. Now if you want to change the name to "Resurrection of the Dead", a proper noun phrase, that might help, but most wikipedia editors would miss the subtle distinction, as is obvious in this discusion. Also, "Resurrection of the Dead", the proper noun phrase, is mostly only used in Christianity, and even there not consistently as other phrases such as "Resurrection of the Body" and "End Time Resurrection" are also used. So, yes, the proper noun phrase "Resurrection of the Dead" does indeed exist in the English language, however there are and will continue to be editors who dispute that, so obviously knowledge of that proper noun phrase is not widespread, at least among wikipedia editors. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a technical journal, so article titles should represent the article as much as possible to a general audience. In that respect, the phrase "Resurrection of the Dead" and certainly "Resurrection of the dead" don't work, as should be obvious by reading the various editor responses here. A better article title needs to be found for the End Time Resurrection. 75.0.1.234 (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia's relevant naming convention states, "A common name or standing expression exists if most English speakers who are aware of the topic call it the same thing." It seems plain that English speakers aware of the eschatological/"end times" resurrection of the dead call it by the same thing: "Resurrection of the dead". I disagree with capitalizing "Dead" but I do not strongly object if others believe it necessary to provide ready disambiguation from plain-old "Resurrection". It should be noted that the fully-capitalized term is only a proper noun for some Christians (not 'all Christians', even not 'all Christian subscribing to the doctrine').
Are editors fixated on focusing this article on Christianity ("specific" v "generic")? It may be better to resolve the current RfC matter first, before wading neck-deep into an RM.
You may recall that I did not support "Eschatological resurrection" because the term "eschatological" does not presuppose Christian. Similarly, I do not support "End time resurrection" because the term "end time" also does not presuppose Christian. --→gab 24dot grab← 14:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe anyone is claiming this article should be Christian only, that appears to be a straw dog. It would also violate NPOV Policy unless it was titled Resurrection of the Dead in Christianity or some such. Likewise, as far as I know, everyone is aware that Eschatology is not limited to the Christian only viewpoint, instead that article is Christian eschatology, and likewise End time is not limited to the Christian only viewpoint, and as yet there has been no need to spinoff an End time in Christianity or some such. So, not presupposing Christianity is a reason for calling this article Eschatological resurrection or End time resurrection. For example, in Zoroastrianism, this topic is called Frashokereti, not Resurrection of the dead. And in Judaism it's called Olam Haba, not Resurrection of the dead. In Islam it's called Qiyamah, not Resurrection of the dead, and so on. 75.14.221.234 (talk) 00:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I like "End time resurrection". Is there a reason why you propose "End Time Resurrection" (title caps rather than sentence caps)? Jojalozzo 04:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Again, I believe this article should not be limited to Christianity. The simplest way to dispose of the "Christian only" proposal is to gather sufficient support/!VOTEs for "Generic"; I'd opine that we're there already but I can't close the RfC.
My support for the currently-existing name ("Resurrection of the dead") was based solidly on relevant naming convention, which no editor should ignore altogether. However, I now believe that adhering to that naming convention in this instance is not in Wikipedia's best interests, and so, per WP:NORULES, I now support an article move to either "Eschatological resurrection" or "End time resurrection" with preference for the latter. I won't open a "Request for Move" until this RfC closes; Jojalozzo? --→gab 24dot grab← 14:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I was away for a couple of weeks and not monitoring this closely. I am okay with either "Eschatological resurrection" or "End time resurrection" but also prefer the latter. Please proceed. Jojalozzo 23:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • RfC Comment:There is far too much Christian material here and insufficient examination of other cosmologies and belief systems with regard to the afterlife. The article is generic (and low quality as mentioned earlier) and much of the material on the Nicene Creed could be moved off to more relevant articles. It appears the differing Christian beliefs are the sole purpose of this article. Comment: This should be a generic articles with links to Christian beliefs on this matter in other articles in the Christianity portal.Whiteguru (talk) 01:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
    I agree that the Nicene Creed discussion can be entirely offloaded to that article, and I agree that this article should discuss non-Christian beliefs regarding "end time resurrection". But I disagree that we need to artificially limit the size of the discussion related to the beliefs of the various Christian denominations. Is any one denomination receiving an WP:UNDUE amount of space? If you believe others need to be added or expanded, please, WP:be bold. --→gab 24dot grab← 14:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
There should be at least some mention of the Nicene Creed here, because that is something professed in common by ALL the mainstream Christian congregations (I don't know of any exceptions) where they explicitly state their firm belief in the Resurrection of the dead, and the Life of the World to Come. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Requested move 2012-06-25[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. Cúchullain t/c 21:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


Resurrection of the deadEnd time resurrection – The article title "Resurrection of the dead" is from the Christian Bible, yet the article discusses the similar belief in any religion. Already, it seem editors have reached consensus for the new title "End time resurrection"; see Talk:Resurrection of the dead#RFC: What is the scope of this article?. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 10:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC) →gab 24dot grab← 14:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment: current title seems redundant (it's not really "resurrection" if the subjects aren't already dead, is it?). Powers T 17:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
It would seem that User:LtPowers agrees with the need for a new name. --→gab 24dot grab← 19:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Please don't put words in my mouth, and please remove the bolding around "agree", as it implies a !vote on my part. Powers T 02:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
LtPowers' first point about redundancy may be valid, but as the word "resurrection" is used in the alternate title as well, I'm not sure how much it helps to point it out. This seems to me to maybe be related to the statements of Jehovah's Witnesses and some others regarding those who are alive at the time of the apocalyptic resurrection, and are bodily assumed into heaven alive. But, I think most of the sources consider those individuals' bodily assumption to be a minor point of the hypothetical event, considering the much greater number of dead than living people expected at that time. John Carter (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree per previous RFC consensus. Jojalozzo 18:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Obvious Oppose a move from 2.6million Google Book hits WP:COMMONNAME Jewish/Christian title to a title unworkable, inaccurate and barely found in sources is a much more problematic solution than simply downsizing the ORish Zoroastrian speculation in the article and improving mainstream Jewish/Christian content with more solid content and refs. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
The Zoroastrian section appears to be well enough sourced (I don't see evidence for OR) and I understood the previous RFC concluded that the scope was not just Jewish/Christian, so I see no consensus for narrowing the scope to Jewish/Christian. However, I don't think that has bearing on your main objection (COMMONNAME) since I assume your google search didn't filter by religion. I am ok with COMMONNAME (in lower case) since many non-J/C sources use the term. My main concern is that we be clear that this is not a J/C article since ambiguity about that has caused confusion in the past. Jojalozzo 02:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
This evidently is always going to be a J/C article due to notability of J & C. The fact that there's an overweight and poorly explained lump of Zoroastrian parallels in it does not change that. Personally I would break it out into Zoroastrian beliefs using a MAIN template, and only hold main sources such as Mary Boyce, Frantz Grenet Zoroastrianism under Macedonian and Roman rule p366 1991 "... making an end of all evil.14 The doctrine of a universal resurrection of the dead was thus essential to Zoroaster's theology, and was linked with the fact that his future expectations were fixed upon this loved and familiar earth."
None of this changes that this is an unworkable move and is unlikely to hold even it gets passed. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
The RfC immediately above reached consensus that this article will be generic (all religions), which is what explicitly led to this RM. Are you rejecting that very-recent consensus? --→gab 24dot grab← 12:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely I disagree with RfC above. And the comment below "until and if a generic (not just Christian) subject.." doesn't make sense. There is no generic term there is simply a possible parallel between possible badly described and badly sourced Zoroastrian belief subsection rebirth, and Christian belief. Rather than doing an RM in advance of sourced content about Zoroastrianism, it remains better to source the Zoroastrian section. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I reversed my willingness to go with your proposal of COMMONNAME since it most likely the common name for the Christian version of the article's topic, not a generic name (which does not appear to exist). I think the proposal for End time resurrection is a fine generic topic name that we can use until and if a term for the generic (not just Christian) subject comes into common use. Jojalozzo 14:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - There is a rather serious question regarding how to differentiate between all the various theories about what happens to people after the final apocalypse or end of times. Even the better reference sources, like the Eliade/Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, have been said to have some overlapping and redundant content in multiple articles. Having said that, my own personal opinion is that, maybe, we might try to get together an RfC to address all the related articles to this topic, including Afterlife, Apocalypse, End Times, and whatever and try to get some clear and coherent agreement on what content goes where, including some indications of which individual-religion-specific spinout articles are clearly notable and desirable on which related topics. Personally, despite this existing title being more or less Christian, and acknowledging I am myself a Christian, I think this existing title isn't particularly objectionable for those topics which relate to end times ressurections of the dead in whatever religion. However, certain belief systems, like the Dharmic religions, are less focused on a single individual lifetime, given multiple reincarnations, and they might best be included in separate articles which deal with what some might consider to be similar ideas, but which have significant variation given the differences in fundamental religious tenets. I hope that made some degre of sense. If not, let me know and I can try to revise it into a more coherent statement. John Carter (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment what about coverage of non-end-times mass resurrection? I take it that should not be covered in this article? 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • 2nd reason for oppose - apart from the OR nature of the new name no one has yet addressed the point that it seems many protestants believe in two lots of resurrections at either ends of a milleniums. Stick with the existing name. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

This article has always been about a seemingly-future 'end times' resurrection ("resurrection of the dead" per Matthew 22:31). Material unrelated to 'end time resurrection' already doesn't belong at this article, and can be removed now. --→gab 24dot grab← 19:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - [I have deleted "agree with my own request", sorry we don't do that in RMs, the guideline is somewhere]. As far as the title change I don't have a firm opinion yet other than that replacing a title with 2,460,000x Google Book hits for one with 242x (yes 242x if the tail "end time resurrection [of the dead]" is excluded) isn't an improvement. Is Zoroastrian universal rebirth really resurrection of the dead at an end time? Do Christians even believe in "an end time" I thought there were some Protestant groups which believed in 2 resurrections at either end of a millenium. Or is it just Ben Witherington? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
You can see in the preceding thread that I also argue against changing the article name for exactly the reasons mentioned by User:In ictu oculi. The problem with the existing name is twofold: 1) the exact term "Resurrection of the Dead" is from the Christian Bible and thus implies a Christian focus in this article; and 2) the pan-religious term "resurrection of the dead" is sufficiently ambiguous that editors continue to add material unrelated to 'end time resurrection' (despite the existence of both Resurrection and Resurrection (disambiguation). As the article details, many Christians do believe in 'end times'. Please discuss details related to Zoroastrianism in a separate thread. --→gab 24dot grab← 19:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
"resurrection of the dead" concept is found in 4Q521, words in Antiquities 18.14; Jewish War 2.163 and the Mishnah: Jacob Neusner World Religions in America: An Introduction 2009 Page 133 "D. He who says, the resurrection of the dead is a teaching which does not derive from the Torah, ... Excluded are those who deny the resurrection of the dead, or deny that the Torah teaches that the dead will live, " it is primarily a Second Temple Jewish concept, not Christian, as is an end time. Personally I think the Zoroastrian section is probably misplaced here but worth a note. And there is no pan-religious term. Likewise some Christians believe in 2 resurrections and 2 ends of a millenium. Plus as I said the proposed title has only 242 to 2.6 million hits. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The distinct term "resurrection of the dead" is from the Christian Bible (not the Hebrew Bible), and the term "resurrection of the dead" is not found in Judaism's Torah or Talmud. Even when speaking or writing in English, Jews typically transliterate or loanword the Jewish "המתים תחיית" ("techiyat hamasim") rather than translate it, perhaps because they prefer "revival" over "resurrection".
Since Judaism and other non-Christian beliefs will be discussed in this article, editors have suggested changing the article name from one focussed on Christianity to an unambiguous name not focussed on Christianity. Since there is no single pan-religion term for the concept of "end time resurrection", we just use a plain term on which editors agree; a few have already favored "End time resurrection". --→gab 24dot grab← 12:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm no expert on this topic, but to me the phrase "End time" seems just as artificial (and possibly Christian-focused) as the phrase "Resurrection of the dead" – and possibly moreso. I just did a web search for "end time", and the vast majority of the results were Christian ministries. I actually hadn't realized that "Resurrection of the dead" was a key phrase associated with Christianity. However, a web search seems to confirm that it is. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
"Eschatological" is a generic, technical term that could replace "end time". Most (all?) here agree "end time" is more accessible than the technical term but I'm open to reconsidering Eschatological resurrection as a more precise title. According to the End time article, it's not a Christian-only term. Jojalozzo 18:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
The suggested name "Eschatological resurrection" is not unacceptable, but it seems less-reader-accessible and more-broad-topic than "End time resurrection" (see for yourself that "end time" is a subtopic of "eschatology"). User:BarrelProof's point is well-taken in that the term "end time" certainly is associated with Christianity; ...however the term "end time[s]" is also explicitly used in the Hebrew Bible (such as repeatedly in Daniel). Further, the term "end time" is relatively unambiguous (a key flaw of the article name "resurrection of the dead" is its ambiguity and lack of obvious connection with the eschatological period/event). Please let me emphasize again that I am a big believer in WP:COMMONNAME and it took several days for me to come around to the need for an article rename here. --→gab 24dot grab← 18:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you both for responding to my remark. Please don't let me derail anything here. I freely admit that I really have no expertise here. (To me, "eschatological" seems like too obscure a word for the average reader.) —BarrelProof (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Pre-close[edit]

So maybe tomorrow we can close this and move to 'End time resurrection' . Any substantive objections? --→gab 24dot grab← 21:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Jojalozzo 00:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Not remotely fine. As above - you'd be moving to an OR title based on content related to Zoroastrian belief which doesn't exist yet in article or in Zoroastrianism article, and (ii) contradicts the sourced belief in article of some Christians in a second resurrection and the end of a millenium. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
"Resurrection of the dead" is a well-known phrase. Even granting that its general familiarity is due, I suppose, to its inclusion in the Nicene Creed, no other candidate phrase is at all comparable for immediate recognizability as meaning what is described in the article. Esoglou (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I more or less agree with In ictu oculi here. I tend to lean toward trying to determine first what content can be considered related and relevant to the proposed new title first. Given the importance of the end of the world to multiple religions, I can easily see how the material for various religions whose material might not belong in this article be placed in other articles first. For Zoroastrianism, for instance Zoroastrian cosmology might be a good home for that content. But I don't think that just a quick fix to the naming issue will be enough. This probably needs a bit of time for us all to determine what particular articles should exist, and a quick fix wouldn't really help deal with that. John Carter (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Not sure that five weeks isn't already "a bit of time". Whatever. Take more time. --→gab 24dot grab← 20:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Around here, five weeks is virtually nothing. And, in all honesty, I indicated specific things to be accomplished which were the reasons for requesting time. Those things have not yet, apparently, taken place. There are serious issues of some years in the developing here. What is probably needed is enough time to deal with those issues, however long that might take. John Carter (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't see why the Zoroastrian content need be moved anywhere. On what grounds would it be considered not relevant? Zoroastrian eschatology clearly includes end time resurrection. Jojalozzo 21:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • John Carter and Esoglou are experienced and competent editors in these subject areas - there are probably another 10 very active contributors to Christianity/Judaism pages whose views I would want to hear before making a change to a high profile Judaism/Christianity page - this RM should really have been notified on Project Judaism/Catholicism/Christianity talk pages. As for Zoroastrian end times there is already an article Frashokereti. Unless it is being proposed that Frashokereti be merged in here all that is justified by the present poorly sourced section on Zoroastrian end times is a pointer to the main article. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
    There has been significant discussion here on this question. You appear to be asking us to wait while you canvass for more support for your position. I don't think it is supposed to work that way nor is the page owned by Christianity/Judaism editors. Jojalozzo 21:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't characterize the discussion above as "significant discussion" - if the RfC had been posted at the Christianity/Judaism boards or if User:JohnChrysostom and User:Editor2020 having contributed to the article had it on their watchlists then maybe there would have been. It isn't an issue of "owned by" - the content and sources speak for themselves as this being Christian/Jewish - but I can say that this certainly isn't "owned by" WikiProject Zoroastrianism either, which seems to be dormant. A badly sourced paragraph in this article on Frashokereti, reflected in a badly sourced article at Frashokereti itself, is not justification for a move to an uncommon, almost invented name. Rather than wasting time on renaming the article. Why not source up Frashokereti with something reliable/tangible, if there is any parallel/traffic between Frashokereti and resurrection of the dead. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
      • And I would also very strongly urge Jojalozzo to perhaps read WP:CANVASS and other guidelines. The allegation that notifying the WikiProjects which are directly relevant to an article is canvassing is something that has never been considered supportable. Indeed, it is in general recommended to notify all clearly related WikiProjects. It would certainly be possible to re-open the Rfc in the hope of achieving greater discussion as well. Regarding the removal of the content regarding Zoroastrianism, in all honesty, I would want to check the sources first. There are some differences between the two ideas, but I'm not sure how major they are. The most highly regarded reference works on the topic of "religion" which doesn't fairly clearly take the position of any particular "school" of study of religion is the Eliade/Jones Encyclopedia of Religion. It also has around 2000-3000 articles. The full list can be found at User:John Carter/Religion articles. I think maybe one useful way to determine what belongs where is to check to see what that reference book says on this subject, and where they place material regarding the Zoroastrian eschatology material. I probably won't be able to do that until Monday or maybe Sunday. That book does have a separate article on the Frashokereti, by the way, so there is no reason to believe that they will necessarily refrain from mentioning in other articles if the editors and authors consider it relevant. John Carter (talk) 01:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
        I don't think my caution about canvassing is so easily dismissed. A careful read should show that it is not aimed at project level notifications. In ictu oculi didn't offer to post a notice at any of the related projects (Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, Muslim, Zoroastrian) but said our decision should be delayed until we heard from some 10 specific editors active in Christian/Judaic articles. That said, I'd caution that even selective notification at some projects (Christianity, Catholism, Judaism, as In ictu oculi suggests) and not others could be seen as canvassing if the resulting selective responses might introduce a bias, especially in light of In ictu oculi's opinion that this should be a Christian/Judaic article. Jojalozzo 21:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
        • FWIW, speaking as someone who is, to some degree, "involved" with about half the WikiProjects and groups out there, and I think all the religion/philosophy ones I know of anyway, I can see some reasonable basis for not notifying all the relevant projects. Honestly, half of them are dead or moribund. On that basis, I have real trouble seeing any good reason to basically waste an edit or two on the possibility that maybe someone is actually looking at that page. I know I personally have all of them on my watchlist, but I might be one of the few, if not maybe the only, active editor who has watchlisted some of those pages. John Carter (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
        • We probably should keep the Zoroastrian material. Quoting the article on Frashokereti in the Jones Encyclopedia of Religion by Gherardo Gnoli, trans. by Roger De Garis, written in 1987 on page 3189 regarding the Frashokereti: "The concept is eschatological and soteriological and.... is at the basis of Zoroastrian doctrine. With this concept Zarathustra (Zoroaster) abolished the archaic ideology of the cosmic cycle and of the eternal return modeled on atemporal archetypes, proclaiming the expectation of, and hope for, an eschaton. He thus introduced a linear conception of cosmic time, an innovation in religious thought that had an enormous influence on humanity's subsequent spiritual history." So, basically, Zoroastrians introduced the idea of linear time, which is required for any sort of end-of-the-world resurrection, and deserves mention on that basis. The fact that the EoR uses "eschaton" and related words to me indicated that "eschatological" might be the best descriptive word over "end times," as well. John Carter (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
          Eschatological resurrection does have an advantage in its precision and lack of sectarian baggage. This is especially so, in light of End time resurrection's failure to obtain any support from sources, as In ictu oculi has pointed out. Jojalozzo 21:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I just got back to this today. I didn't list on WP:Judaism per the objection above, simply because I got a page error, someone should.

We have seen how at crucial stages in the world's history saviour figures will be born to once more preach the good religion and instil the Ahuric qualities in men and women. The role of the third and final saoshyant, however, will be somewhat different. Born fifty-seven years before the frashokereti, his task is to begin the resurrection of the dead in preparation for judgement and, for those who require it, cleansing. Those still living at this time will also be required to undergo a judgement. - Peter Clark Zoroastrianism: an introduction to an ancient faith Sussex Academic Press 1998

Remind me why the article should be moved again? This is a respected text on Zoroastrianism and it uses the phrase "resurrection of the dead". So what was the problem with following the giant majority of sources and all-but inventing a new term? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what objection you are referring to; please explain. And please tell us where you have listed this. Cheers. Jojalozzo 14:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
It's up there somewhere, scroll up. I don't think I have managed to notify any of the religion projects - I am getting a drop out on WT:Christianity and WT:Judaism.
Anyway, today the disparity seems even bigger: "resurrection of the dead" 6.1 million hits to "end time resurrection." 40 hits
And the objection to "resurrection of the dead" that it is too narrowly Jewish/Christian/Muslim and doesn't include Zoroastrianism, see Peter Clark Zoroastrianism: an introduction to an ancient faith Sussex Academic Press 1998 above. What is the rationale for this move now? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I think a major problem with the current title is that it invites an assumption that it's solely about Christian eschatology because the term is used most often in a Christian context. A more generic title is not so much required to include all resurrection eschatologies but to clarify that the topic is inclusive. Jojalozzo 14:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Egypt section OR[edit]

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

I agree that the Egyptian section doesn't belong, though rather than OR it's a misunderstanding of the terminology. As I understand it, the article (at least as we are now defining it) is about end time renewal of whole body/mind/soul life (on Earth?) after death. Soul life after death is outside that scope. Jojalozzo 15:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes that also. Is there much objective evidence that the Zoroastrian idea of universal rebirth has any relevance to Jewish resurrection of the dead? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't see such a claim in the article. Please explain. Jojalozzo 02:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Well I mean why is it so prominently in the article? Is "resurrection of the dead" habitually used to refer to Zoroastrian beliefs? What did later Zoroastrians believe, etc? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I assumed it was in an early (prominent?) section because it is an early instance of rotd religious belief. I don't understand why it needs to be relevant to Jewish RotD since this article is about rotd in general, not just J/C rotd. Jojalozzo 17:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Well if that's the case then lets improve copy and sources either here or in the Zoroastrianism article. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Well neither of us did. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Technological and scientific resurrection.[edit]

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

question about "increasing emphasis"[edit]

Ignatius56, in this edit you added text that says "In the gospels however, the resurrection, as exemplified by the resurrection Jesus, is presented with an increasing emphasis on the resurrection of the flesh, from the empty tomb in Mark (Mark 16:2-7), the women embracing the feet of the resurrected Jesus in Matthew (Matthew 28:9), the insistence of the resurrected Jesus in Luke that he is of "flesh and blood" and not just a Pauline spirit or pneuma (Luke 24:37-39), to the resurrected Jesus’ encouraging the disciples to touch his wounds in John (John 20:27)." My sense is that the "increasing emphasis" bit, is based on an assumption about the historical order in which the gospels were written. Is that true? If so, I suggest adding a bit to make that clear. thx. Jytdog (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)