Talk:Resurrection of Jesus
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theResurrection of Jesus article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL |
Archives:1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9Auto-archiving period:30 days  |
 | This level-5 vital article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The first to see Jesus after his resurrection was Mary of Magadala.65.186.177.151 (talk)03:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does anybody else realize that this sentence lacks asubject?
In secular and liberal Christian scholarship asserts that religious experiences, such as the visionary appearances of Jesus and an inspired reading of the Biblical texts, gave the impetus to the belief in the exaltation of Jesus as a "fulfillment of the scriptures," and a resumption of the missionary activity of Jesus's followers.
I think the word "Christian" could be changed to "Christianity", and then "scholarship" would become the subject of the sentence. But as it stands, "In secular and liberal Christian scholarship" is a prepositional phrase, and the sentence has a predicate but no subject.Kk.urban (talk)17:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Updating with 2020 OUP textbook next (haven’t been able to find 2023 edition on short notice).AintItFunLiving (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Blocked sock. Ramos1990 (talk)05:56, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua Jonathan - in this edit you madeseen here, where you changed sfn to harvtxt, you have now created another cite errorseen here -Cite error: Alist-defined referencehas no name. (see thehelp page). This Cite error will continue to be listed inCategory:Pages with incorrect ref formatting until the error is fixed.
As thehelp page explains inIssues and resolution - More than one use of{{refn}} or #tag:ref within list defined references. You can only use{{refn}} or #tag:refonce as a list-defined reference. Thisbug has been a known issue for a while now, and is being tracked inPhabricator taskT22707 Nested refs fail inside references block. So you can either move the note back into the body of the article like it was previously was to resolve this known issue, or figure out your own workaround to this known issue. Thanks in advance.Isaidnoway(talk)05:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Such an important article -- but is it Class B? If up to me, I'd down-grade to Class C. Why? It's got lotsa references, but they are poorly presented. To keep it in Class B, and perhaps upgrade to Class A or GA, a hard-working editor should convert the many loose citations into templated citations. Thanks. –S. Rich (talk)04:09, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
