Talk:Empty tomb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

History v story[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But FestivalOfSouls, the problem is that this sub-category does not reflect consent. It represents your point of view, to which I for one cannot consent. I appreciate the effort to find appropriate categories, but can you not see that your project is doomed to fail in the long run? Wikipedia works because it takes seriously the idea of working together. Your edit history shows what happens when this idea is not given its due weight. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I am so sorry, I was not aware that wikipedia did not attempt to be an academic endevour. I guess I was wrong to assume that wikipedia was a play on encyclopedia, and that it was trying to be an encyclopedia, not a biased website. Look through the histories of the articles I have edited. Other users have returned the categorization, as well as I have. Feel free to discuss on my talk page, as well. Their has been no real discussion, as no real oposition has come forth. I have yet to see a single valid arument against the categorization. Even here, you fail to do so. I maintain that since the article is about a myth, as defined in and on the good ol' wikipedia article that defines the category (mythology, the categorization is appropriate. FestivalOfSouls 18:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
How do I "fail to do so"? Your use of "mythology" as though it were neutral in this context is disingenuous. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Root of the problem?[edit]

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

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

Para based on false evidence[edit]

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

Historicity and scholarly consensus[edit]

Here's what might be a stupid question, but the article doesn't answer it: William Lane Craig is famous for using the supposed historical accuracy of the resurrection of Jesus as a point in his debates. He frequently claims that the consensus among "new testament scholars" (by which I assume he must mean professional historians) is that the the early Christians' account of the empty tomb is a) truthfully reproduced through history and b) best explained by the actual ascension of Jesus. Now I find it exceedingly hard to believe that a majority of scientists would be so trusting of a story that wasn't even written down until decades later 'and' then make the completely wild leap to ascribe a figure in the story magical properties. Is there actually such a consensus, and if there is, is it among historians or among theologians? — Mütze (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't get the relevance of "scientist"s opinion, historians and theologians are the ones that matter here, specially those that study early Christianity, or are you implying that non-Christians are impartial when arguing against Chrsitianity but Christians are partial and unreliable when arguing for Christianity. If that is it, your argument is self-defeating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, theologians don't "matter here". That is, when evaluating the historicity of a particular claim. While historians may not be scientists in the way physicists etc are, they're work is conducted systematically with the tools of their trade. This is not to suggest theologians can't or don't work in the same way or that they can't talk, write, argue, or even make valuable contributions to such an inquiry, but historicity is a question for historians. Now to Mütze question. It's instructive that historians of Ancient Rome, Judaism or Old Testament scholars are not included in Craig's consensus. Are we to believe that historians studying first century Judaism or ancient Rome aren't qualified to evaluate this question? It helps if you understand that the minimal facts approach, which Craig did not originate, is more tactical than analytical. Spiker 22 (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It's incredibly one-sided to include WLC but no one else. There are endless debunkers of his tenuous arguments and yet none included in the article... Intaminagag (talk) 02:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Secret Mark?[edit]

The article asserts "Most Christians and scholars before the discovery of the Secret Gospel of Mark tend to the view that the figure was an angel. It is not possible to tell whether the "angels" supposedly were in the form of men."

Am I missing something? What does "Secret Mark" have to do with what Most Christians and scholars think about the identity of the "angels" Did most Christians and scholars change their minds due to some evidence in secret Mark or is the editor trying to insinuate this along with the idea that secret Mark is authentic or that it contains any reference to Jesus tomb. Their is absolutely no way this expansion can be authenticated and it certainly does not contain anything that would change the mind of "Most Christians and scholars'. I would suggest this statement, which relies entirely on insinuation, should be removed from the article. Spiker 22 (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Citations please?[edit]

The first paragraph simply asserts that (1) tending to Jesus's body is something his disciples, not his female followers, "should have done," and (2) women are portrayed more favorably in Mark than men are. Both of these need citations, particularly the first one: I don't know what the custom of preparing a dead body for burial involved in early 1st-century Judea, but if the article is going to assert such knowledge, it should provide a citation. --Tbanderson (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Apotheosis & Jewish tradition[edit]

I'm surprised that the discussion of the importance of apotheosis doesn't mention its relevance in Jewish tradition. One authority, IIRC Raymond Brown, points out that at the time was an empty tomb was believed to be a sign the individual was a holy man because he was taken up to Heaven by God. Or an angel. He also mentions two relevant & well-known examples of this phenomena: Enoch, & Elijah. If I could remember the authority who wrote this, I'd add it to the article. -- llywrch (talk) 06:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

POV of Historicity section[edit]

The "Historicity" section only presents arguments in favour of the historicity of the empty tomb, and only one scholar (William Lane Craig)'s views at that. He is not the only scholar to have made contributions to this question, and as well as those who argue in favour of its historicity, there are those who argue against it. The section should spend less time going into detail of Craig's arguments; rather, it should give a survey of the breadth of scholarly opinion on both sides of the issue. SJK (talk) 07:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)