Talk:Jesus/Archive 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

James brother of Jesus

I took out 'James the brother of Jesus' as not all agree that Jesus had a brother. I took out 'Paul apostle of the gentiles' as it could imply that only Paul preached to gentiles.--ClemMcGann 19:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to add both back in, as the New Testament describes James as Jesus' brother, and Paul was indeed the apostle of the gentiles, that was his unique mission. Jayjg (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
I have to agree with Jayjg. Not only does the NT say Jesus had a brother named James, it names 4 other brothers of his. And taking out "Paul, Apostle of the Gentiles" is the wrong solution. The solution would be to change it to "Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles", as that is what he is called, going back as far as the earliest codices of the NT itself. All may not agree that James was Jesus' full brother, since some, notably the RCC, believe that Mary died a virgin, but even those who make this claim hold that James and Jesus' other brothers were his half-brothers, children of Joseph. Tomer TALK 20:57, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Jayjg and Tomer make compelling arguments. If anyone has a problem with them, let me remind people of the NPOV way to handle this (which is not, as ClemMcGann did, to delete them): state "According to (Mark, Tertulian, E.P. Sanders, whatever) Jesus had five brothers, including one named James. However (Tertulian, E.P. Sanders, whomever) argue that this is metaphorical, or refers to ...(whatever)." Ditto with Paul's mission to the Gentiles. "According to X, Paul's mission was to the Gentiles, although Y and Z argue ..." Slrubenstein | Talk 21:07, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, in this case, it would be "according to the New Testament, James was the brother of Jesus". Jayjg (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
I am not Catholic, but my understanding is that Catholics object to this, and that line is not present in their version of the NT. Could someone comment on this? Given the number of Catholics in the world, it seems such a revision may be necessary. Phantym 21:57, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Hey, you know I am not trying to pick a fight or anything. All I meant was, if there are theologians, clerics, or other scholars who interpret these passages differently, there is a way to handle that without deleting anything. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
The version which I objected to was by User:209.78.18.134 which stated in the intro:
His teachings were initially spread by a group of "Twelve Apostles" and the Jerusalem Church led by James the brother of Jesus and by Paul of Tarsus who called himself "Apostle to the Gentiles". (Acts)
Further down in the text the brothers/cousins/half-brothers are discussed,and that is the place for them. There was no reason to put it in the intro --ClemMcGann 23:30, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Just a point for everyone, no one has referenced their source for James being the brother properly. There is no concrete evidence in the NT that James is the brother of Jesus. I believe the most you can safely say is "James, who is believed to be the brother of Jesus". If someone can find a biblical reference for James DEFINITELY being Jesus brother, then I will accept it. MyNameIsNotBob 10:58, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Have you read the The Gospel of James ? --ClemMcGann 13:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
I think you'll find that is an apocryphal book and not part of the canonical Gospels. Reliable sources would be better in an encylopaedia. MyNameIsNotBob 06:24, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
I would refer to it as pseudepigrapha rather than apocryphal. It is not in the Apocrypha as defined by the 1611 KJAV. While it would be better that an encyclopaedia would use ‘reliable sources’, wikipedia is dependant on its editors (such as me and thee) as well as its administrators (such as Jayjg and Slrubenstein).--ClemMcGann 09:39, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Then it is our responsibility as editors to make sure we use the most reliable sources that are practically available to us, ie, use the canonical Gospels, as they are accredited as trustworthy. MyNameIsNotBob 21:27, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Then try to correct it. As you can see from the start of this section, an administrator might well have a different opinion. Having said that, despite saying that he would 'add it back in' - he didn't --ClemMcGann 09:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Totally disputed tag

Reading through the article, and setting aside the raging debate on BC vs BCE and AD vs CE, it seems to me that the article itself should describe Jesus as Christians perceive him. Which is to say that the introductory paragraph should simply ask the reader to accept this as a premise for purposes of the article (though not, it must be said, beyond that). If you'll forgive the comparison (and I mean no offense by it), articles on divine figures in paganism don't include twists and turns throughout to qualify the fact that "not all people believe this is true." Indeed, Christians believe that Jesus existed, and that faith is at the core of their religious convictions. I'll let this thought air before being bold. --Leifern 21:16, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

I have to disagree here. I think this page does a good job discussing in the most broad terms who Jesus is with respect to the broadest possible audience. We have an article about Christian views of Jesus and another about the Historicity of Jesus and others about all manners of things. The primary Jesus article ought to be a quick summery of the tons of specialized articles we have floating around wikipedia on Jesus and try to touch on as many topics and perspectives on Jesus as possible so that it can serve as a branchpoint to jump to all the other information we have on him. -SocratesJedi | Talk 21:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
That might work, too. What I think we have to avoid is trying to create a comprehensive article that is acceptable to all sensibilities. So two choices so far are: 1) Cut the article drastically and let the other articles go into depth on important aspects; or 2) simply write this from a Christian point of view, but making the point of view explicit upfront. At least SocratesJedi and I agree that it isn't going to work in its current form. --Leifern 22:05, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
I'm pretty certain the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy doesn't allow presenting things from only a Christian point of view. That is if you could even define one single Christian point of view, which (given thousands of denominations and billions of adherents) is obviously impossible. Jayjg (talk) 22:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, maybe SocratesJedi's suggestion is the right one. But if you look at the entry for Thor (again, forgive the comparison), we don't insert "alleged," etc. in every sentence. Knowing that he was a mythic character upfront allows the reader to suspend disbelief long enough to read the article. --Leifern 22:20, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Leifern's well studied critical analysis. Here taken from the Introductory paragraphs: "there may exist no other textual references outside of the canonical Christian texts", arguing a negative and inviting the reading to simply dismiss the canon of scripture to deny that Jesus ever existed. Nobs 22:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree with your general point - however
perhaps we should change that intro slightly, after all Jesus is referred to in non-canonical Christian text, even heritical texts. He is also referred to in the Qur'an --ClemMcGann 23:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
I think the section in question is referring to possibly contemporary references. Jayjg (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that's certainly how I read it. It might be that there are contemporary texts that refer to Jesus that I'm just unaware of, but other than the writings of Josephus I thought there we none (and thus the article is correct as it stands). Perhaps however it could be reworded to sound less like a speculation. There may exist no other contemporary references versus There are no known other contemporary textual references. One of them is speculating, the other asserts a fact. -SocratesJedi | Talk 15:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
I actually implemented this pending community consensus. New text is there are no other known contemporary textual references to Jesus outside of the canonical Christian texts and several non-canonical gospels such as the Gospel of Thomas. -SocratesJedi | Talk 15:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Re-reading, I have a concern about "contemporary" (I know, I said it in the first place); the gospels certainly weren't written in 30CE; at the earliest they were written about 30 years later, and possibly as long as 100 years later. Is "contemporary" the right word? Jayjg (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
The word historians use is contemporaneous, meaning "at the same time", to distinguish it from the confusing contemporary with the ambiguous meaning "now". Back to the original premise: User Leifern said "the article itself should describe Jesus as Christians perceive him". I pointed out the Intro argues a negative premise. It simply invites the reader to deny the canon of scripture, and they can deny the existence of Jesus. Whereas the canon of scripture has a fourfold corroboration: Matthew is corroborated by 3 other witnesses; Mark is corroborated by 2 other witnesses; Luke is corroborated by John. Pardon me for not being a mathematic whiz, but I beleive this formula can be expressed by a power to x degree, whereas the law only requires 2 witnesses to establish facts. Thus, the article dismisses multiple corroborations by arguing a negative, "the canon of scripture is uncorroborated". Nobs 22:07, 12 May in this Anno Domini 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, I see you've written an article about it. Jayjg (talk) 22:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, contemporary is ambigious. Updated with contemporaneous. With respect to Nobs concerns, I think that the fact that the only information we have on Jesus comes from the Gospels and a handful of references from ancient historians does merit inclusion. The inclusion of such information does not "invite the reader to deny the canon of scripture", it is the facts themselves which some people claim invites that type of denial. Our intro ought not to argue for anything and dispassionately present the facts. Perhaps you can say the phrasing of that specific sentence is biased, but the inclusion itself is not. Indeed, to remove it to prevent people from rejecting the validity of historical claims about Jesus would be a POV move in the article. What the article should basically say is this: "Here's the deal, reader, the Gosples and some other texts present this information. There are some historians who also report this but those texts are controvertial to a degree. There aren't many other contemporaneous references to Jesus that are solidly verified." It would be wrong to imply either that (a) the evidence for Jesus' existance and the validity of the gosples is beyond question or (b) the evidence for Jesus's existance and validity of the gosples is horribly unsupported and ought to be ignored. Report facts, let readers decide. I think it's more or less NPOV as it stands, but please disagree if you feel I'm wrong. -SocratesJedi | Talk 00:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Very good analysis, and you are getting to the heart of the arguement. The canon of scripture (which evidently is an article that soon needs to be written) was not contemporaneous to the event, it was several centuries later that the so-called "canonical texts" were seperated from what biblical scholars call merely "historical texts" (like Gospel of Thomas, Epistle of Barnabas etc). The reference here is strictly out of place and therefore presents an arguement. Also, the arguement asks to disprove a negative ("since none other exists, therefore..."). Further, it is deceptive, cause it takes what is essentially 4 corroborating witnesses, and presents them as one ("the bible", or "New Testament", or "canonical texts"), even though contemporaneously to Time of Christ (digression:another article which needs to be written, seeing AD and CE are reckoned from the Time of Christ, not from the Birth of Christ) no such canon of scripture existed outside of Hebrew texts, i.e. Torah and the Prophets. Nobs 01:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Strongly disagree that Christian pereception of Jesus should drive this article, to the exclusion of other viewpoints. BrandonYusufToropov 15:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Me too, and this is simply a matter of complying with the NPOV policy. About a year ago, in fact, this article was much longer because it included as many different views of Jesus as possible. It was too long, and we spun off linked articles including Historicity of Jesus and Historical and cultural background of Jesus which do not take the Christian view. We agree that the Christian view would dominate this article. But that does not mean that the article should express only the Christian view or even privilege it. The bulk of the article provides the NT view of Jesus, but with small subsections directing readers to linked articles, and the whole thing is writtenin NPOV. Perhaps we can do a better job of this, but this is the job we should be doing. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:07, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that this article then, should be, abbreviated drastically and make references to other articles that discuss various aspects of the topic, e.g., historicity, religious interpretations, etc. I'll give this idea a couple of days and try my hand at it. Who objects? --Leifern 19:40, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Why ought this to be abbreviated drastically? It seems to be preforming it's function well at the moment. While it's good that we have many articles discussing specialized subjects, it doesn't mean that this main page should be just a way of introducting them. This page does a good job of giving a reader a view of Jesus in just enough detail to satisfy the casual reader with additional information available for the exceedingly diligent ones. A reader shouldn't come away from the page thinking that the information was insufficient and that would probably be the case if we were to scale-down this article. There's something to be said for avoiding overly long articles (because nobody wants to read an article for more than 15 minutes or so), but those cases are not numerous and I feel strongly that this is not one of these cases. The current article gives a concise and NPOV'ed introduction to Jesus and is mostly good as it stands. (Of course, improvement can always be executed, but reduction of the article's information would not be an improvement). -SocratesJedi | Talk 00:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Accuracy dispute?

The tag on the article says that both the article's "neutrality" and its "accuracy" are in dispute. I gather that the neutrality dispute is about BC vs. BCE and so on for designating years, but what is the accuracy issue? Which statements in the article are disputed or thought to be false? Anyone have a short explanation for latecomers? Wesley 04:46, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Problems with this article

There are a significant number of problems with this article as it stands. Regardless of whether you are a Christian or not, it is clear that Jesus is one of the most influential men ever to have lived. Despite him only having a one-year ministry 2,000 years ago, he is still remembered: his philosophies followed by well over a billion people. His influence today stretches into almost all, if not all, countries.

And yet this article conveys none of this. After a long discursive lead section it moves into a fairly chunky sized section questioning whether he even existed. Then throughout the article there are numerous other references to his maybe not existing. Why? A very small number of people do seriously question whether he existed, and that point is worth making - but briefly and once, not so as to dominate the article.

After questioning his existence there is a long discussion on what he means for various religious faiths. At least Christianity is first, but half of the section discusses small denominations. Do they really need so much airtime in what should be a small (32kb?) discussion on Jesus? However, the bulk of that section (80%) discusses other religions. Why? Jesus is most important to Christianity - and Christianity is the world's leading religion - why are we giving 80% coverage on his impact on the others?

Then there is a discussion on dating his birth and death. Maybe there is some interest here, and it is true that the modern calendar most popularly used worldwide takes an estimate of his date of birth as its reference point. But are all these discussions really more important than what Jesus actually did? It is only after all of this that we have his biography proper. Should this not go at the start?

We then follow the article with a very long list of books and links. These lists are, quite frankly, too long. Wikipedia is not a link directory. These should be cut down.

To try to deal with these issues I have rewritten the article. Anything deleted from the article can be found in articles linked from this page, so no information is lost. But the balance of the article is improved. Although we should boost up the section describing his life - after all, isn't a biographical article meant to describe its subject's life?

Kind regards, jguk 14:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

We are an NPOV article. Some people believe Jesus never existed and is a creature of myth; that view must be represented. Many people do believe he existed, and Christians are obviously one of those groups and no one has ever denied that their views should be presented. But Jesus is a figure of importance to Muslims, and of concern to Jews, and their views must be represented. Finally, there is a vast body of scholarship by scholars who accept that Jesus existed, reject all supernatural elements of stories about him, argue that the Gospels relect the views of an emerging Christianity and not an objective, accurate account of his life &mdash in short, that he should be studied as any other historical figure; their views must be represented as well. Long ago we all agreed that there is not room in this article to provide an adequate account of all points of views. We decided that this article would list the various points of view with links to other articles, and provide the Gospel account in an NPOV way. Jguk has already provided ample evidence that he neither understands NPOV or cares about NPOV. All he has done now is to recast this as a "Jguk POV article." I am sure the article can be approved uppon, but this is no improvement. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:20, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
We definitely should start by mentioning the people who question Jesus' existence, since this is the most fundamental question that needs to be addressed; I see no point in mentioning the issue elsewhere in the article, though. An account of his life would be the reasonable second section; religious views (both Christian and otherwise) should come third, and other material still later, since it is less important. Ben Standeven 06:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I have made a request for comment

Mr Rubenstein, when you wish to be, you are a very offensive man. You know full well that blindly reverting good intentioned edits is a kick in the balls - it means there is nothing meritorious about them and that you have no willingness to discuss them.
My edits were not about hiding views - but about putting them into proportion. The view that Jesus did not exist deserves one small mention. This is because it not a mainstream view, and only a small number of people serious dispute it. It certainly should not be the first thing said in the article proper, and for his existence to be called into doubt many times throughout the article. That is NPOV - not silencing minority views, but not giving them undue prominence either.
I have reasoned my amendments above - but you have not discussed my points. You merely accuse me of being POV - yet all I have done is reorder some sections and removed some of the side issues, which are all discussed in articles clearly linked from this one.
It is clear that you have no intention of discussing how this article can improve anymore. Maybe you should consider taking a break from it. Kind regards, jguk 15:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Jguk, you should know that if you are going to make a major change to an article, you should allow for some discussion before doing it. Float the idea, see what people think, you may even get some constructive suggestions. Now, perhaps I misunderstood your changes and if this is the case I sincerely do apologize to you. I have no principle objection to rearranging the material. However, when you claim that the Gospel account is "what Jesus actually did," I think you are violating NPOV.

You say that "after all, isn't a biographical article meant to describe its subject's life" and believe it or not I agree with you. But what critical historians offer as an account of his life diverges considerably from what the Gospel's offer as an account of his life. I have no objection to including the Gospel accounts. But the way you explain yourself, you make it sound like you think they are objective and accurate. This may be a view help by many but it is a POV and must be presented clearly as one, and if you really want to forefront a biography of his life, you should take seriously what critical historians say — not as "the truth" but as another POV. But a POV as worthy of consideration and as important as that in the Gospels.

Well, you reverted my revert. I do not want a war in this case. I do want to see what others have to say, but I will not revert again. However, a majority of people polled on this page prefer BCE/CE over BC/AD. Someone suggested as a compromise using both BCE and BC, CE and AD. Your revision deleted the BCES and CEs. I will not demand that you change all BCs to BCEs and all ADs to CEs, even though this is what the majority believes is right. I do, however, ask you to honor the compromise and put in both sets of terms. I could do it myself, but there is no point if you will just revert it, and especially if you see it as another example of my mucking with your work. I ask you to do it as part of the revision you just did, and ask you to do it in the spirit of compromise and to respect the views of the majority. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:56, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not claim my reordering and amendments are perfect - just an improvement. The article needs further improvement.
My comment that the NT account is what Jesus actually did was on the talk page - it is not in the article. As you are aware almost all of what we know about Jesus' life comes from the NT. It may not be a perfect historical source - but it is the best we have got. So that is what we have to go with. The section is clearly labelled up "according to the NT" - which puts readers on notice that it is an uncritical account taken from a source which may not be historically perfect (depending on your viewpoint). The reader is quite able to decide for himself how much store he puts by the NT.

I read most of the article because there was a request for comment. I think the general tone is fine, but I do think a bit of a broader discussion of how the gospels present Jesus is needed. Saying he was a Jewish preacher and healer is rather an understatement.

Also, Josephus mentions Jesus explicitly, so this should probably be added somewhere in the discussion of historicity.

Hope that helps some. Phantym 22:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Saying he was a Jewish healer and preacher is not an understatement — for those who accept that Jesus existed (and some do not), this is maybe the one statement everyone agrees on. Yes, there are many other views of Jesus, including views in which he is far, far more than a healer and preacher, and these views must be represented in this article. But those are views, and in an NPOV article we cannot let one view dominate. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:18, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

The name of this article

I realize that someone went to painstaking efforts to change every single article on Wikipedia to point to Jesus, and not Jesus Christ, the name of this article needs to be Jesus Christ, not Jesus.

  1. "Christian vegetarianism is the dietary practice of vegetarianism based on the idea that Jesus Christ was a vegetarian."
  2. "Christian vegetarianism is the dietary practice of vegetarianism based on the idea that Jesus was a vegetarian."

From a non-Christian's ear, version one sounds right. Version two sounds informal. There are more non-Christians on the planet than Christians. We should not refer to Jesus Christ in an informal way in Wikipedia. Kingturtle 18:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Then you are saying this article should be written from a Christian POV? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:38, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

no, i am saying that using Jesus in a sentence is informal - like one would have during a prayer, while Jesus Christ is formal, which is encyclopedic. Kingturtle 18:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, Wesley has argued that "Christ" should be seen as a title, and I am sympathetic to that argument. On the other hand, it seems to me that "Jesus Christ" refers only to the Christian Jesus, since non Christians do not refer to him as Christ. I respect your view but honestly do not understand it, I mean, I don't think "Jesus" alone is "informal." Many people become so famous that they need only one name (Cher, for example, and I do grant Jesus is more famous than Cher). Slrubenstein | Talk 18:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Calling an article "Jesus" is like calling an article "John". Thia article is about a specific Jesus - the one called a Messiah then and now by many. Thus he is disambiguated by the term Jesus called the Christ or (Christ Jesus or Jesus the Christ or Jesus Christ for short) because Christ was simply Greek for Messiah (anointed one). But arguing about the title or AD/BC is a waste of time. Who is going to be mislead about the facts? Noone. 4.250.27.228 20:20, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

If there were a John as famous as Jesus, you'd be right. But the reason we could call the article "Jesus" is precisely because he is so well-known. There is no John nearly as well-known as Jesus (thought John Lennon put in a claim). Slrubenstein | Talk 23:59, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

If this article is about "Jesus Christ", will there be others called "the Muslim Jesus", "the Jewish Jesus", "Jesus for people who do not think he was a saviour", and this page made into a dab called "Jesus"? Perhaps we could move this page to "Jesus Christ the Risen Lord" and put a message "For other uses of Jesus, particularly those for people who don't share the Christian POV, see someone else's encyclopaedia"? Jesus is Jesus. If anyone can make a serious argument that the figure we are all discussing is not known universally by his given name (not even all the people in his own lifetime who met him knew him as "Christ"! I believe it was considered POV even then) they should present it. Perhaps we can have another half a megabyte on another sterile, useless debate that is easily resolved by plain common sense.Grace Note 04:34, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Grace Note here - this article should clearly describe all POV's regarding Jesus with links to other specific articles about him (as opposed to one article for each pov). I do think it should be more clear in the intro why he is such an influential historical figure. Trödel|talk 04:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps thre can be two separate articles: A JESUS article discussing the historical Yeshua, and a JESUS CHRIST article discussing theology and the "Jesus of Faith." The Sword of Solomon.


Ok, here is an idea -- not original, but maybe it may work: call the article Jesus (ben Josef of Nazareth)-- I think that's pretty much what he was called by his contemporaries, many of whom would have rather died than call him Christ or Messiah -- these titles were given to him later on.

However, I found the article by looking for Jesus, just as I found the article on Mohammed (whose proper name was most likely Halabi bin Abdhulla) --Dietwald 17:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The comparison with Cher is a good one. There, however, the problem is solved not by calling the Cher article Cher and qualifying the titles of articles about other Chers, but by requiring that they all be qualified equally, so we have Cher (entertainer), Cher (departement) etc. I suggest this article be treated similarly. "Jesus (the one in the bible)" or something like that ... you can do better, I'm sure. -82.32.96.141 07:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's no single way to do disambiguation, and in instances where one subject clearly predominates, it's not uncommon for it to sit unqualified. I think Jesus is such an obvious case, unless someone can suggest another party anywhere near as famous or important as Jesus? Graft 15:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

size of this article....347K ?!?!

This article is ten times the recommended size for an article. It needs to be parsed down dramatically. Sub-articles need to be created. I am happy to help. Kingturtle 18:20, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

The talk page is 347 kb (and growing). The article itself is only 45 kb. srs 18:28, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

oh oops. it's the TALK page that is 347K. my mistake :) Kingturtle 18:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Archive it. And let me close with this from Act 10:15: What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. Nobs 18:53, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

[T]he most heavenly ecstacies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. El_C 23:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes.. and of course a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I do believe the most appropriate quote for this talk page would be: "Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate". Perhaps it should be up the top in bold? --Silversmith 12:07, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Calm Down Everyone

I would like to recommend that everyone involved in the most heated of debates on this talk page take a 12-24 hour breather. Re-read everyones contributions, write your responses, and TAKE 23 HOURS and 59:30 MINUTES to CONSIDER them. Too much bandwidth has already been wasted on this talk-page with people arguing irrelevant points. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion. This talk-page, on the other hand, is being treated as both, by proponents and opponents on both, each, and every side of this question. Let the steam off, and then come back and let's try to reach a consensus. Written this 21st day of the Omer, the Sixth day of the Month of Iyar, in the 5765th Year of the Creation of the One and Only Real God. (NO POSERS ALLOWED!) Tomer TALK 07:32, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Having read over this talk page, I don't see how the talk is not related to the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

My comments on the main article

The third paragraph of the intro contained too much trivia; I've trimmed it a bit.

We shouldn't pretend that the Common Era is something different from the Anno Domini; they're just two different names for the same thing.Ben Standeven 08:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Not quite. This is precisely the sort of thing Wittgentsein wrote volumes on. They are two different ways to refer to the same thing, but they are nevertheless different ways used in different contexts and thus have different meanings. "The United States of America" and "The Great Satan" refer to the same thing, but have vastly different meanings. "H2O" and "Holy Water" are two different ways of referring tot he same thing, but they have different meanings. "Sodomy" and "blowjob" and "felatio" are three different ways of refering tot hs ame thing, but they have different meanings. "Venus," "the evening star," and "the morning star" are three different ways of referring to the same thing, but they mean diffeent things. Get it? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Slrubenstein - if you think sodomy is a blowjob then you are very (sorely?) mistaken! jguk 13:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
well, I admit sodomy means other things besides (but including) blowjob. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:04, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
I can't speak for all English dialects, of course, but all the dictionaries that I've checked say that "sodomy" means buggery, and only buggery. I'm sure that there's a really funny joke about this — it's on the tip of my tongue, but I just can't get to the bottom of it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Err... at least in the U.S., sodomy is now commonly understood to mean "buggery", since oral sex is now rather common and socially acceptable, and people don't want to call it "sodomy" any more. But historically, so-called "sodomy" laws include both oral and anal sex, since both of these are repellent, deviant acts contrary to nature and the Will of God, etc., etc., which is what "sodomy" really means. The definition has narrowed as mores change. Anyway... Graft 17:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Oral sex is now socially acceptable? Not in the restaurants I frequent, it isn't! jguk 18:00, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

To be serious for a moment, the notion that the meaning of "sodomy" is dependent on U.S. law is somewhat startling; I doubt that the compilers of the Collins English Dictionary or the Oxford English Dictionary were merely following the narrowing of U.S. legislation. U.S. law might have lumped all sorts of things in under the title "sodomy" (look at what it does to "free speech"), but that's not the point here.

Actually, what is the point here? We seem to have become slightly side-tracked. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

The point is, I think, the same as your rabbi joke above - we probably all need to lighten up a bit here and allow ourselves the odd light-hearted comment:) Kind regards, jguk 18:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, I just found it intriguing, as a nerd. I didn't mean to suggest U.S. law was the source of the definition, merely that it reflected the colloquial understanding of the term. Also, the O.E.D. says sodomy is merely "An unnatural form of sexual intercourse, esp. that of one male with another.", not necessarily specifically buggery. Anyway! Sorry, sorry. Graft 19:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Sodomy was defined in most of the 50 states prior to 1980 as to "carnally know" anyone (or anything) in other than the appropriate orifices. Nobs 15:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments on the rewrite article

We have the same trivia problem in the new third paragraph; but now it is even more trivial, since the question of J's existence is no longer being raised. Ben Standeven 08:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


==

Where does this come from?:

"His teachings were initially spread by a group led by 12 followers that were originally disciples but became apostles after the death of Jesus."

You people need to check your facts first. Look at the wikipedia article on Apostles for a start, and it wouldn't hurt to actually read the Bible also. According to the Bible, Jesus selected 12 of his disciples (Greek for students) and called them the Twelve Apostles (Greek for emissary). Then, according to Acts of the Apostles, the 12 Apostles formed the Church of Jersualem which was led by James the brother of Jesus. Judas Iskariot committed suicide, so another Apostle was appointed to replace him and soon there after 7 Greeks were also appointed. And then of course there is Paul of Tarsus who nominated himself as "Apostle to the Gentiles"

You really should get your facts straight first, with Bible references so they can be verified. It's truly amazing the nonsense that is out there that has absolutely no basis in the Bible. Maybe there should be two articles: Jesus as recorded in the Bible and Jesus according to whoever wants to make up stuff perhaps from a dream last night.

You should get your facts straight, anonymous writer. The NT mentions more than 12 apostles and there were clearly other people who followed Jesus and spread his teachings. Slrubenstein | Talk
The Gospels don't agree on the names of the twelve, but they agree that Jesus selected twelve. After Jesus' death, the Jerusalem Church was led by James the brother of Jesus, aka James the Just, who was not one of the Twelve Apostles selected by Jesus. Also, the Jerusalem Church was in conflict with Paul of Tarsus who proclaimed himself Apostle to the Gentiles, but again he was not one of the Twelve Apostles selected by Jesus.
The Gospels also record that Jesus sent out seventy apostles, who were separate from the Twelve, even before his death and resurrection. Also, since the resurrected Jesus sent the myrrh-bearing women to tell the Twelve that he had risen, those women are sometimes called "apostles to the apostles," so the number of apostles continues to grow. There are other examples of Jesus sending individuals or small groups to tell others about Him and the Kingdom of God. Wesley \
That's because the English word apostle comes from the perfectly ordinary Greek word apostolos which means emissary. In English, the tendency is to give some special meaning to the word apostle, however that distinction does not exist in the original Greek. There are many apostles/apostolos/emissaries, but only one "group of 12 apostles/apostolos/emissaries".
About the "70": I assume this is in reference to Luke 10:1-10? What English translation translates the Greek as apostle here? The Greek has the *verb* apostello which means to send away. Ref: Greek-English Lexicon of NT, Bauer et al
Acts 15 records that the Jerusalem church reached a compromise with Paul regarding the status of Gentile converts, while some of Paul's epistles mention his gathering funds from among the Gentile churches to give to destitute Christians in Jerusalem. Any division there was between Paul and the Jerusalem church was relatively minor, at least according to the New Testament. Wesley \
"Incident at Antioch" http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08537a.htm

2Pet3:16 James 2 ...

BTW, there is already a "Jesus as recorded in the Bible" article; it's called New Testament view on Jesus' Life. Wesley 17:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

SOURCES!!!

It never ceases to amaze me the number of self-proclaimed Christians who are ignorant of the Bible. These are the facts about Jesus Kata Markon (Greek for According to Mark, known in English as the Gospel of Mark):

  • Jesus was baptized in the Jordan river by John the Baptist [Mk1.9], he then went out into the wilderness for 40 days [Mk1.12-13].
  • After John was locked up (for sedition according to Josephus), Jesus returned to Galilee proclaiming the message that the time of God's imperial rule is near, time to change your ways and trust in the good news (presumably of the Bible which was then the Hebrew Scriptures or Greek Septuagint). [Mk1.14-15]
  • He was called "The Nazarene" [Mk1:24,10:47,14:67,16:6] for reasons that are lost to history. There are many theories, the most common is that he was from Nazareth, Galilee, however it doesn't appear that existed in his time.
  • He selected a group of twelve to be sent out to speak and drive out demons [Mk3.14-15], the group the other Gospels call the Twelve Apostles (apostolos is Greek for emissary).
  • He was crucified by Pilate for sedition, the crime was not denying a claim to the title "King of the Judeans" [Mk15.26]. At that time the Romans occupied Judea and appointed a Prefect (Pilate), a High Priest (Caiaphas) and a Tetrarch of Galilee & Perea (Herod). Claiming to be the rightful King of Judea was considered an act of sedition by the Romans and punishable by crucifixion.
  • Joseph of Arimathea claimed the body and wrapped him in a shroud and placed him in a rock tomb [Mk15.42-47].
  • Mary of Magdala and Mary mother of James discovered the body missing and a young man told them Jesus had been raised (presumably by God) and had gone to Galilee [Mk16.1-8].
  • The original Gospel of Mark then ends at Mark 16:8 though other endings were added later.

A formal proposal

When this vast debate concerning AD and CE began, someone told me that what I really needed to do was to try to change Wikipedia policy, not this article. Well, OK. I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

So you basically want to enshrine your POV as "NPOV"? Did you not read the discussion above? You are suggesting that Wikipedia should adopt as a policy that it exclude a POV. That is never going to be consonant with the NPOV policy. Grace Note 00:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
No, not at all. I have explained that BCE and CE is not my POV (my POV is that this is the year 5765). If you read the proposal, you will see my arguments for why I believe BCE and CE comply with our NPOV policy, and CE and AD do not. By the way, this in no way means that I want to banish AD and BC from Wikipedia; in fact, I think there is a place for them here. I think there are occassions when they can be used appropriately and should be used. I just do not think they should be used as POV terms. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, and I've explained at very great length why I think that your preferred versions are not "NPOV". Your "argument" simply dismisses all other views as varying degrees of nonsense and seems to stand on the entirely mistaken notion that "NPOV" means "be neutral". The policy explicitly states that this is not so. You do not address the NPOV policy's clear statement that all views must be represented fairly but insist on misrepresenting another piece of the policy.
And you do not accept the BC/BCE compromise. You are trying to have a policy passed that wants BC excluded from Wikipedia! This is not "accepting a compromise".Grace Note 02:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Are you thick, or just lying? I ask this in all seriousness because I just wrote that I do not want to ban BC from Wikipedia, I wrote in response to your comment concerning my proposal that I do not want to ban BC from Wikipedia, and in the very proposal, I write that BC and AD should be used appropriately in Wikipedia. How you can read all of this and say that I want a policy that excludes BC from Wikipedia is beyond me. Is English your second language? As for accepting the BC/BCE compromise, se my answer to Trodel, below. It has big words, just read it slowly. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, like everyone who disagrees with you, I am either thick or lying. While you're reading the NPOV policy once more, in particular the section that suggests that "neutral" does not equal NPOV, you might run your eyes over the policy on personal attacks. You have tactically accepted the compromise here, while you are pursuing a strategy of exclusion for BC. Your argument against it has been in part that it is not "appropriate" in this article. Grace Note 04:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
hmmm, Slrubenstein, I know you know better. While I completely support your well-articulated argument, these comments to Grace Note definitely crossed a line and were unnecessary. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 04:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you are right, MPerel. I no longer know how to respond to "you are pursuing a strategy of exclusion for BC" when I have never stated that BC should be excluded from Wikipedia, and when, on the contrary, I have stated that BC should be used when appropriate several times. People have a right to disagree with my views and arguments. But I cannot stand it when they lie about what I have said. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
"the issue here is which is more appropriate. And we should pick the one that is not affiliated with one religion, one that is non-denominational, as most appropriate to conform with our NPOV policy". So you say here that we should use what is "appropriate", that BC/AD is not "appropriate" here, and in your policy proposal that we should not use BC/AD unless it is "appropriate", and I am thick, lying or mischaracterising you to suggest that you do not think it should be used here and are not really looking to compromise? Well, I may not have a PhD in obfuscation but I think it's quite clear that if A/ you achieved a policy that said that BC could be used only when "appropriate" and B/ then argued that BC was not "appropriate" here, then C/ you cannot claim that you support a compromise here or anywhere else. All you need do is argue against BC's being "appropriate" anywhere and you have excluded it. You do not -- I note -- give suggestions for when it would be "appropriate" in your view. Grace Note 05:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Grace Note, I really have spelled out where I think it is appropriate -- here, in my proposal, and on the proposal's talk page. I wish you would read those, but to cut to the chace: BC and AD must be used whenever presenting a Christian POV, or describing a Christian POV. That is, I have no objections to any sentence like "Christians believe that Jesus was crucified in AD 33" or "Pope John XXIII convened the Second Vatican Council in AD 1962." These are prefectly appropriate uses of AD. BC and AD are not appropriate in non-Christian accounts. Perhaps you think that because this article is about Jesus, that it is a Christian account? If that were so, yes, I would agree that BC and Ad would be appropriate. But I do not agree that because this is Jesus it is a Christian account. The Jesus article itself should not be written from a Christian point of view but from a neutral point of view. Of course, within this article Christian points of view may be expressed, and AD and BC would be appropriate. But non-Christian views must also be expressed, and there BCE and CE are appropriate. I hope this answers your questions. If you feel I should state this on the proposal page, I will, although I believe I have already albeit in an abbreviated form. Slrubenstein | Talk 05:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
My suggestion is that you simply respond that it is a mischaracterization of what you are proposing (accusations of lying is a little strong and implies purposeful malicious intent) and give a link to where you best articulated your position. I've seen you respond to people's statements with a link to your counter arguments on the NPOV BCE/CE debate page and that's a good route to go imho. Other people can read for themselves and make their own judgments. We do all need to remember to respect each other especially in these contentious discussions. And btw, I don't say this to you (or anyone else here) as the paragon of civility since I'm as human as anyone else and need to be reminded myself sometimes. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 04:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

You've shown your true colors in refusing to accept (as I have during the requested layoff) the use of BC/BCE and to avoid the use of AD/CE except when absolutley necessary by trying to impose your POV on all wikiepdia. Trödel|talk 01:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Trodel, you have lied before, and you are lying now. As far as this article is concerned, I have accepted the BC/BCE compromise from the moment it was offered. Just go here [1] and read the second paragraph. In the section "Problems with this article," I wrote "Someone suggested as a compromise using both BCE and BC, CE and AD. Your revision deleted the BCES and CEs. I will not demand that you change all BCs to BCEs and all ADs to CEs, even though this is what the majority believes is right. I do, however, ask you to honor the compromise and put in both sets of terms." and Jguk replied that he would not honor the compromise. When the text of the article included both BC/AD and BCE/CE, I never deleted the BC/ADs. Moreover, in my proposal I make it clear that I believe BC and AD should be used when appropriate — I state this explicitly. I have said this several times and will say it again: you do not understand our NPOV policy, you do not care about our NPOV policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I feel honored to be amongst those you disagree with and call liars Trödel|talk 12:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
You have said on this very page that you do not think BC/AD is "appropriate". It's not helping you to keep talking about the NPOV policy by the way: "We said that the neutral point of view is not, contrary to the seeming implication of the phrase, some actual point of view that is "neutral," or "intermediate," among the different positions." You are insisting that your point of view is "neutral". That is the basis of your argument. But NPOV is not "express views neutrally". It is "express all views without judgment". Grace Note 05:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

As a contributor who thus far has only contributed on the Talk page and only observed how the main article has taken shape, it is a very good article representing the Jewish POV of Jesus. Nobs 16:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Dubious lead section sentence

I find the following sentence dubious: "A smaller but still predominant portion of Christians believe that Jesus was the Son of God, and one of the persons in the Godhead of the Trinity." Exactly how many Roman Catholics do we have in the world? And how many Protestants who believe that Jesus was the Son of God? And how many Eastern Orthodox Christians beleive this? I think that would be more than the fringe groups that don't beleive that Jesus is the Son of God. I would urge that this sentence be removed or modified. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Further, I also find that this particular text should be modified:

"Some historians, citing the lack of external evidence, argue that no such person as Jesus ever existed. Other historians, however, maintain that the source documents (see two-source hypothesis, Q document, and Gospel of John), on which the four canonical Gospels are based were written within living memory of Jesus's lifetime".

Why oh why is it so impossible for those who write these things to cite who the historians are who cite what externel evidence is available!!!!

Then we have "Some say that the Gospel accounts are neither objective nor accurate, since they were written or compiled by his followers." who again says that? Do we expect our readers to just swallow this without thinking? I thought Wikipedia's no original research coupled with the cite your sources policies were clear that all information should be verifiable from an external source!

As for:

"There are many similarities between stories about Jesus and myths of Pagan Godmen such as Mithras, Apollo, Attis and Osiris Dionysus, leading to conjectures that the pagan myths were adopted by early accounts of Jesus." - well, there are some similarities, but from what I understand they are tenuous at best and really only supported by a few fringe "scholars" (if they can be thought of as this), like Alexander Hislop who wrote The Two Babylons.

Anyway, these are my $0.02. Take them for what it's worth. I'm going back to editing Windows 2000. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

  [RESPONSE]

Citing historians who cite what external evidence is available: I can offer some reputable leads that are indirectly already listed in the biblio of the article. John Dominic Crossan, Professor Emeritus, Religious Studies, DePaul University has written eighteen books on the historical Jesus and earliest Christianity. He was one of the commentators on the FrontLine PBS series, "From Jesus to Christ," a few years back (in the biblio). Three of his most recent books, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (1991), Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (1994), and Who Killed Jesus: Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus (1995. Harper San Francisco published, The Birth of Christianity. which I do not have. In fact, run over to http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/etc/bios.html#white and check all these other people out. They went on record saying the guy (definitely/in so far as we can ever know) existed. Harold Attridge-Yale Divinity School; Allen Callahan-Harvard Divinity School; Elizabeth Clark-Duke University; Shaye I.D. Cohen-Brown University; John Dominic Crossan-DePaul University; Paula Fredrickson-Boston University; Holland Lee Hendricks-Union Theological Seminary; Helmut Koester-Harvard Divinity School; Wayne Meeks-Yale University; Eric Meyers-Duke University; Elaine H. Pagels-Princeton University; L. Michael White-University Texas at Austin Others that come to mind --William Barclay, University of Glagow (deceased) Barclay did not actually believe that Jesus was the Son of God in the sense that he was man and God. But he had no trouble believing that he existed. --Eberhard Arnold (deceased) wrote a work, "The Early Christians," that provides a good intro with actual translated quotes from first century sources. User: Malangthon 29 May 2005. 12:30 SPT

Generally good points, although we don't want to overstuff an article with names, when we can just provide an extensive bibliography. Anyway, I tried to respond to one of your comments ... Slrubenstein | Talk 03:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Excellent! I realise it's in summary form, but we still need to cite the sources of claims. I do appreciate you do doing this Sl. Even if I disagree with the scholars. WARNING parse error! I misread that bit that Slrubenstein clarified... I do in fact agree with the scholars. Oops. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I've just realised that "Some historians, citing the lack of external evidence, argue that no such person as Jesus ever existed." still exists in this article. Which historians again? Actually, this might be interesting to see if there really are credible historians who still believe this! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Let me concur w/Ta bu shi da yu; source information is identified yet "critics" like some historians are aloud to remain anonymous (problem on throughout the entire project). Nobs 19:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The two versions

I was asked by Slrubenstein to comment on this page and the two versions. Firstly, a caveat. I'm an evangelical Christian. However, I do oppose the rewrite of religious perspectives of Jesus. There is nothing wrong with stating what different religions think about Jesus, so long as it is a neutral and factual account. I'll most certainly disagree with them, but it's very useful to know nonetheless, IMO. However, I think it is more logical to put the "Life and teaching according to the New Testament" bit at the top, then followed by "Cultural and historical background". "Religious perspectives should come after historicity... so basically I think that jguk got it right on this one.

I would like to know why the lead section is so long! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Picture

Does anyone dislike the main picture as much as me. I mean the one next to the introductory paragrpahs that is cropped in the "topics related to Jesus" box. Isn't there an alternative that doesn't invoke such a negative response? Abeo was User Jesus is the Christ 16:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I like it fine, personally, though not as much as I like the one from St. Catherine's monastery on Mt. Sinai shown on Images of Jesus labeled "Christ Pantocrater." We'll never reach universal agreement on which one "looks best," but I think we could do a lot worse than what we have now. Wesley 16:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Is there a reason that there's Fonzie as the picture? It threw me off for a second... Evan, 24 May 2005

God

Can I suggest two modifications to the opening paragraph. First, among Christians Jesus is known as Jesus Christ, not Jesus the Christ. I know it's technically wrong, and that Christ is a title not a surname, but that is how he is known. Secondly it's nearly a page down the article before we mention that a billion or so Christians believe that Jesus is God. It's an important fact, and we leave it very late to state it. The "central figure of Christianity", while true, doesn't convey the same information. DJ Clayworth 16:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed usage of Jesus Christ is more common, I just got reverted when I put in Jesus Christ elsewhere and thought it was because I wasn't following the theological formulation. Even more strongly agree that to not mention that Christians believe the Jesus is the Son of God is even more appalling. It is like the opening paragraphs do all they can to talk about the different views of Jesus Christ other than the most common belief (amongst English speakers anyway). Jesus is the Christ 21:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
I added a bit from the Nicene Creed to the intro, which I hope resolves the issues DJ CLayworth and Hesus is the Christ raise. I am not Christian, so if my assumption that all Christians agree about the Nicene Creed is wrong, I apologize. I also added back mention of the Muslim belief. Without it, the next sentence, "Because of his significance in these religions ..." makes no sense, so it is either put Muslims back in (and really, why not? Jesus is of importance to other people besides Christians), or delete the sentence on his influence. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:14, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Most Christians agree about the Nicene Creed; the notable exceptions are the nontrinitarian ones, who perhaps should be mentioned along with that link to find who at least most of them are. I for one have no problem mentioning the Muslims, and I believe that some Hindu sects believe Jesus was another avatar along the lines of Krishna. Shall we mention that too, or leave it for later since Jesus is clearly less significant in Hinduism overall than he is in Islam? Wesley 16:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
There are indeed non-trinitarians who take the name 'Christian', and who therefore would not agree that Jesus is the Son of God. The question is certainly worth of further explanation in the article, but for the intro paragraph can I suggest something like "most Christians consider him to be God incarnate". I prefer "God incarnate" over "Son of God" because it takes in a slightly larger number of believers (those who believe that Jesus was God taking the form of flesh) and conveys almost the same sense. DJ Clayworth 17:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
The wording "Son of God" is ambiguous to any outside of Christian dogma. I could consider myself and everyone else "Sons of God" and still not consider Jesus God incarnate. --metta, The Sunborn 18:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, but it says "the only son of God" which I think makes it much more specific. Also, remember that the specifics of Christian beliefs about Jesus can be explored in detail in the appropriate section below. Introductions cannot explain everything, they can only orient people to what is to come. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Pardon me for interjecting the canon of scritpure but John 1:12 states: "as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God", by implication those who have not received him remain sons of Adam. Thank you. Nobs 19:34, 18 May 2005 Vulgar era (UTC)
Thank you Nobs, that is a great quote. (By the way, in the Bible King David is described as a son of God too). Nevertheless I was just going by the Nicene Creed (meaning, the sentence is "Most Christians believe ..." not "According to the Gospel of John ..." JimWae deleted it anyway, and replaced it with "an incarnation of God." Jim, how come? Isn't it NPOV and accurate to say that most Christians believe Jesus was the only son of God? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

"Son of god" is so ambiguous that it gives no info on what the belief is. It is used in many different ways. Most Xians believe Jesus is an incarnation of 2nd person in the Trinity - & that he is & was co-eternal with the 1st person - he is called the son, but most Xians believe he existed/s always - he was the only person of trinity to be incarnated - and the 3rd person seems to have had more to do with being the "father" than the 1st person - I am trying to make as much sense of this as possible - ultimately it cannot be sensibly expressed, so any claim of "literal belief" re trinity usually fail - it all becomes some kind of imperfect metaphor - at least for most Xian churches. Many Xians do think "only begotten son" means there was a time when 2nd god did not exist at all & 1st god created him - but few Xian churches teach that. Anyway, saying he is an incarnation of a person of the trinity is what most Xians believe & is less ambiguous than "son of god".


Simple explaination: "unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them" Hebrews 4:2, "them", being "whose carcases fell in the wilderness" referred to in Hebrews 3:17. Gospel, being a Greek word, nowhere appears in old testament canon, yet Christian doctrine teaches that the Gospel was preached to Isreal in the wilderness. Nobs 20:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction is already a full page long, and it seems to be expanding. It is no longer an introduction, it is a whole article in its own right. Please make future edits with an eye to making the introduction shorter, not longer. Jayjg (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


View of Jesus by different religions.

In the beginning of the article, it has a statement that states how the Muslims view Jesus. I'm not against having this kind of information in the article, but we already have the "Religious perspectives" section that shows the various point of views by the other faiths. So I don't think we need this info at the beginning of the article if the "Religious perspectives" section already states how the Muslims and other non-Christians view Jesus.--Gramaic 20:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Jesus is an important figure in Islam, a faith with over 1 billion adherents. He is not a particularly important figure in any other faiths (aside from Christianity of course). Jayjg (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
In my limited understanding, Koranic teachings about Jesus are merely of an historical nature, not doctrinal. In otherwords, the Koran does not dispute whether or not Jesus existed, merely acknowledged what at that time was regarded as historical information, and likewise acknowledged the roots of authenticity of Christian believers of that age's beliefs. Has no doctrinal significance in Islam, other than denying the divinity of Jesus. Nobs 21:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Jesus has religious significance in Islam; Islam considers Jesus both a prophet and the Messiah. Jayjg (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but Jayjg, it must be remembered that Islam has nothing to do with Christianity. Jesus does have a religious significance in Islam, but the Muslims don't view him in the same manner as the Christians. As I suggested earlier, let's just keep the POV of Jesus by Islam and other non-Christian beliefs restricted in the "Religious perspectives" section.--Gramaic 21:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, Islam is not Christianity, but how is that relevant? Is this article about Jesus from the Christian POV only, or about Jesus? I thought it was the latter. Jayjg (talk)
Christians think Jesus is God, Muslims don't. Big difference. Nobs 22:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it's a big difference, but they both view him as important. Jayjg (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Nobs, I want to follow up on what Jayjg wrote and ask you to look at this a different way. Instead of thinking "Jesus is not as important to Muslims, so the Muslim belief isn't so important to the article," instead try to think "Even people who do not believe that Jesus is the only begotten son of God and one with God nevertheless think he is important." Please try to think more inclusively — Muslims are not trying to belittle Christian belief, they are trying to express their reverence for Jesus in their own way. By the way, if you cut the Muslim line, you also have to cut this sentence: "Because of his significance in these (emphasis mine) religions, many consider him the most influential historical figure of all time." It was I who put the line about Muslims back in the opening, and as I explained above (when I made the change) it was so as not to have to delete this sentence. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Likewise Jews, Christians and Muslims think Satan is important, yet it doesn't have to be redundent in an article about Jesus.Nobs 23:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, Nobs, most Jews don't think Satan is that important. Aside from a demonology fad in the middle ages, I think if Jews think of Satan at all, it is as God's mischievous and cynical side-kick. Be that as it may, certainly you understand that the way Muslims think Jesus is important is fundamentally different from the way they think demons are important. Anyway, the argument is NOT that anything Jews, Christians, and Muslims agree on has to be in the Jesus article. The argument is that the Jesus article must be NPOV and represent all views. No one is suggesting that all views be given equal space — everyone knows the Christian point of view will occupy most of the space in this article. Nevertheless, the introduction to the article just has to introduce Jesus in an NPOV way. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

To Slrubenstein: about the following statement that comes after the small info about Islam. I suggest we get rid of the Islamic information, and rephrase the statement from;

Because of his significance in these religions, many consider him the most influential historical figure of all time.
to
The significance Jesus has brought to this world, has made many people, including non-Christians, view him as the most influential historical figure of all time.

--Gramaic 02:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you want to get rid of the information about Islam. Jesus is an important figure in Islam, and Islam is the world's second largest religion. It's hard to see why this information is not significant. Jayjg (talk) 02:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
There is no doubt that this info is significant. The reason I want this info removed is because the "Religious perspectives" section already has this kind of information. I think that we are repeating ourselves when we talk about what Islam thinks about Jesus in the beginning of the article, and then restating Islam's POV about Jesus in the "Religious perspectives" section. Doesn't it look like we are repeating this information twice in the article?--Gramaic 05:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
If we remove the Muslim religious perspective of Jesus from the intro and restrict it only to the "Religious perspectives" section, then we would certainly need to do the same for Christian perspectives, don't you think? Jayjg (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree. In that case, let's delete both the Chrisian and Muslim POVs and just keep this info in the "Religious perspectives" section.--Gramaic 05:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
The only extent that Jesus is an "important figure" in Islam is the recognition of a large population that identifies itself as Christian, i.e. followerers of Christ; that has really nothing to do with "Jesus". Similiarly, many atheists view Jesus as "an important" figure, again from the recognition as an historic personage, but reject entirely Christ own claim as to his divinity. Nobs 14:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
No, Jesus is a prophet and Messiah according to Islam, regardless of what Christians think of him. Jayjg (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

That is not true, they think he was a prophet of God. Are you suggesting that the only reason Christians think Isaiah is an "important figure" is in recognition of a large population that identifies itself as Jewish? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

In addition to believing Jesus was a prophet, they also believe in Jesus' virgin birth. I know the intro is a bit long, but I agree with SLR and Jayig that this bit is worth keeping in the intro. Of course it should stay brief, and other less significant religious perspectives can wait until the religious perspectives section to be covered.

I also think Because of his significance in these religions, many consider him the most influential historical figure of all time. is better than the alternative Gramaic proposed. It both reads better and is slightly more neutral. Wesley 16:08, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the wording you quote is better. Jayjg (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The Five Pillars of Islam have zero to say about Jesus. In fact, the First Pillar of Islam: "There is one God, but Allah, and Mohammad is his Prophet" can be interpreted to denying any significance or importance to the person of Jesus, to whom this article is about. Again, the importance or significance to Jesus the Koran pays is recognition (noncontemporaneous) to an historical person whom many non-Muslims revere. Nobs 17:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Just because he's not mentioned in the Five Pillars of Islam doesn't mean he is not important in Islam. The Qur'an has a fair bit to say about Jesus and his important role, as do the hadith. In contrast, the Trinity is not mentioned in the New Testament, but all the same I think you'd argue it's pretty important in Christianity. Jayjg (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Having just read the Abraham page, I guess I can see the point now. Nobs 19:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

== this statement can't possibly be supported by the evidence:

thus, the majority of Jews accepted Roman rule

it's like saying the majority of Frenchman didn't mind Nazi occupation I deleted it

Weasel words

Because of his significance in these religions, many consider him the most influential historical figure of all time.

This is a weasel sentence because it doesn't say who these "many" are. Beyond that, this sentence is completely unnecessary. What it essentially says is: because of his significance, many consider him significant. That Jesus is the central figure in Christianity, explained in the very first sentence, establishes his significance well enough. Fredrik | talk 11:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

If you think that the use of the passive is too vague, say so — perhaps that can be remedied; the hostile use of the term "weasel words" doesn't help, though.
I am hostile toward the text, not any authors. Fredrik | talk 12:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Your central point is wrong, however. The claim isn't that his significance makes him significant, but that his significance in certain religions makes him the most influential historical figure. The claims in the antecedent and the consequent are entirely different in themselves, as well as in their contexts and their degree. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
This part about "many considering" is not a statement of fact, it's someone's personal analysis. It should however still not be included even if you can find a specific survey that shows a certain percentage of people agreeing with the statement, because (I re-iterate that) the fact that Jesus is the central figure in Christianity is far more important and interesting, and also sufficient since its implications are obvious.
There are 100s of people who are "among the most influential historical figures". For every subject covered in an article in Wikipedia, you can find (or validly presume that there exists) a group of people who consider said subject to be significant. Whether something is considered significant isn't interesting, why is. Fredrik | talk 12:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
By the way, this has popped up in the article earlier and was then removed. See Talk:Jesus/Archive 12#Jesus: The most famous person in history? - Fredrik | talk 12:55, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  1. "Many consider that p" is true if many consider that p; it expresses a fact, not personal analysis.
  2. The claim that we shouldn't include fact A becase fact B is more interesting is personal analysis, and the claim that fact A obviously implies fact B is also not a reason for omitting fact B.
  3. Your second paragraph again bobs around uncertainly between talking about being historically important and being significant. The claim that Jesus' religious significance makes him historically important is not trivial, for he could be religiously significant without being historically important, and historically important without being religiously significant. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree that religious significance and historical importance are not the same thing; it may not be obvious that one implies the other. I therefore withdraw the argument in my first post.
The primary issue here is one of style and accuracy (which, in fact, the second paragraph in my previous post was about).
The phrase "many think X is the most Y" is someone's speculation wrapped up in a vague reference to the opinion of an undefined group of people. Specify who these people are, if they exist. It is not interesting that an unspecified group of people consider something. It is possibly interesting that some particular group considers something (but questionably relevant for the lead section, in any case). Regardless of whether the information is true, it stands as someone's personal analysis until it can be stated convincingly.
Instead of mentioning this unspecified plurality of people known as "many", which in Wikipedia is referenced more often than all scholars together (!), we should state specific facts. The lead section could thus say something along the lines of "Jesus is the central figure in Christianity, due to whose worldwide influence he has become one of the most important people of all time." But this is still bad, in my opinion, as it no less than before merely offers an inherently vague estimate of how much, that may just as well be done by the reader.
(As an aside, although I could accept the statement "many consider him to be among the most influential..." as truthful (though still not appropriate), this article actually says that "many consider him the most influential historical figure of all time". This formulation is hyperbolic.) Fredrik | talk 19:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


This is a typical and ridiculous Christian claim. Islam certainly doesn't consider him to be one of the most influential historical figures of all time. Of course neither do most Chinese or Indians. And neither do athiests in otherwise Christian nations. Really all he did (if the stories are to be believed) was get crucified and then supposedly get resurrected, he didn't even come back as Hercules the strongest man in the world as many of his contemporaries did, his teachings are for the most part just references to the Jewish Bible, even the Golden Rule was known before from Hillel and Confucius. Read your history, there are far more influential people, here's some: Khufu, Gilgamesh, Sargon, Hammurabi, Hattusilis, Akhenaton and Nefertiti, Wen Wang, Nebuchadnezzar, Homer, Sappho of Lesbos, Solon, Zarathushtra, Lao-tzu, Mahavira Jina, Darius, Pythagoras, Buddha, Confucius, Mo-tzu, Herodotus, Tsou Yen, Socrates, Plato, Alexander the Great, Aristotle, Euclid, Asoka the Great, Archimedes, Wudi, Zhang Qian, Caesar, Octavian ... - 63.201.25.224 09:33, 24 May 2005

I can't see how anyone can doubt that Jesus is one of the most influential figures of all time. If the Christian religion had never existed then the world would be a very different place from what it is now. You don't have to believe in a religion to acknowledge it's significance on the world stage. I, for one, would never want to downplay the significance of Mohammed, or Moses, or several others. As for your list of 'more influential' people, I'm afraid not. And even if all of them were as influential as Jesus, it would still make him one of the most influential people of all time. DJ Clayworth 21:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I certainly agree that Jesus is one of the most influential figures of all time. But this is my personal opinion, and should not masquerade in the article as the opinion of an unspecified "many", true or not. If it is fact, it should be stated as such, with references. Fredrik | talk 22:53, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
My starting point would be the billion or so Christians, who would certainly rank him pretty high in world influence. Then add in the adherents of Islam. In case we need specific references, here are a few. [2] [3] [4] [5] (Jewish site) [6]

DJ Clayworth 21:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

On whether Jesus is the God or a God

I know that some Christian groups believe that other Gods exist, but that only one God is to be worshipped. Also, not all Christian groups believe Jesus is their God, but instead a member in the Godhead concept. This same debate goes into subjects like henotheism, Arianism, Council of Chalcedon, Nicene Creed, Mormonism and Christianity, et al. But to say that all Christians believe no other Gods exist, and to say that all those who believe other Gods do exist are not Christian, is an on-going debate and to establish it as fact when it has not (and probably never will be) settled is clear POV. - Gilgamesh 12:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The words were "Most Christians believe that Jesus is God". There is no need to complicate the issue with your "Most (though not all) Christian groups believe that Jesus is the one God". I am unaware of any Christian group who have multiple gods as a tenent of their faith - do enlighten me. There are groups, such as the JWs, who deny the deity of Jesus (which is why they use bce/ce to emphaise their pov). I fail to see why "most" does not satisfy you --ClemMcGann 13:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
I could be incorrect, but don't some Latter Day Saints claim that there are multiple gods in the cosmos? That said, I believe it's still accurate to state that "most Christians believe that Jesus is God". "Most" may be the key term there. KHM03 14:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  1. "Most" implies "but not all".
  2. Secondly, there have been Christians who have treated the Trinity as being three gods, or three distinct divine substances ("tritheists" such as John Ascusnages and John Philoponus [7]), but this probably isn't the right article in which to discuss that. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree totaly with this "Most, but not all, ..." is redundant Abeo POV: Jesus is the Christ 18:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why there is a fear to use the simple declarations in John regarding the divinity of Christ- that he is the "only beggotten son" the interpretations of this phrase explain the different meanings differing Christian groups ascribe to God (i.e. incarnation of God in Flesh, son of Heavenly Father, non-trinitarian God the Son ideas, etc.). That begotten is not well understood is what needs to be explained later on and we shouldn't avoid words like thes - I doubt scientific articles avoid complex words that explain the concept but instead expect the reader to learn about them. Abeo was User Jesus is the Christ 16:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

A couple of days ago, I added this to the intro: "Christians believe that Jesus was "the only-begotten Son of God ... begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father" (see Nicene Creed)..." I was then informed that some Christians do not believe this. But I do not understand why this was deleted, rather than just saying "Most Christians believe that Jesus was "the only-begotten Son of God ... begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father." Don't most Christians accept the Nicene Creed, or use it as a starting point for further theological developments? Sure with the word "most" added this is a safe quote, isn't it? I am not a Chirstian but my understanding of Christianity is that it does not assert that Jesus is "one god" or "God" but something more complex, which is what I always believed the wording of the Nicene Creed was trying to articulate. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Defining beggotten as "not made, one in Being with the Father" takes some Christians out and is not from the "canon". Since all christians believe in some way in the New Testament it seems better to use that language here from John 1, and 3 and let the interpretations be discussed elsewhere. Only a few english translations do not use "begotten". Abeo POV: Jesus is the Christ 16:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Jesus was quite clear that the first Commandment is the most important one - I would find it surprising if you were to argue that there are proper Christians who disagree with that. It is impossible to discuss everyone's view of Jesus in this article (which ideally should be no more than 32kb). We should therefore stick to the mainstream ideas here, doing no more than noting that there are others, and providing a link to another article that offers a more detailed discussion. Kind regards, jguk 17:22, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

To say that most Christians believe that Jesus was begotten by god is no more likely to be correct than to say that most Christians believe that Noah's Ark saved two of every living thing. Many Christians, at least, if they think about such things at all, think of them as allegorical in some way. Given that "begotten" is archaic, likely to be perceived as "Biblical English", I'd say that it's not only inappropriate for use (though not mention) in Wikipedia, but that it might even be thought of as PoV. (My suspicion is that if it were translated into modern English, most people would immediately think it odd to include the claim, but I'll leave that as a mere suspicion, unless anyone wants to try the experiment.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
I was thinking that the use a scriptural quote rather than one from the Nicene creed would be better. Given that the article needs to not go on forever, using a concise quote from agreed text along with a link explaining that text would be best. Are there some Christian groups that do not believe that Jesus was the "begotten son of God?" - with the assumption being that they may define what begotten means differently. How about "Christians believe Jesus is the Son of God in the flesh." Abeo POV: Jesus is the Christ 18:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
But if language is to be treated cavalierly in this way, then we could as well say that most Christians believe that Jesus was a pink teapot ("with the assumption being that they may define what [pink teapot] means differently"). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a page entitled something like Traditional Christian views of Jesus, or Contemporary views of Jesus, while leaving the main Jesus page as simply a brief overview with a list of links to other pages. Just a thought. KHM03 17:44, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

You guys should all check with Wesley, who, aside from being knowledgable, some time in the past discussed a Christology article as a place to discuss different Christian views of "Christ." I do not remember if he was raising objections or arguing for it, but he certainly has ideas about this worth listening to. In any event, the Christology article exists and we don't need two more (yet); the intro to this article needs a "Most Christians believe ..." and a link to this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I think Christology is the right place to discuss different Christian views of Jesus Christ in detail. I think using a snippet from the Nicene Creed as a summary of Christian belief is far better than choosing one or two Bible verses, for several reasons. First, any given Bible verses suggested, including the ones suggested here, can and have been interpreted to mean very different, even contradictory things about Jesus. The Nicene Creed is intentionally much more explicit and less subject to contrary interpretations, and this has the side benefit of being more informative to an encyclopedia reader seeking information. As SLR surmised, this creed is either directly affirmed or at least used as a starting point by most Christian denominations; I think the most notable exceptions to this are the main nontrinitarian groups. As to the Bible being "canon" while the Creed is not, this is true. However the Creed was adopted in 325AD, at least 50 years before the earliest record of our current New Testament canon was listed in its current form. As a tradition the Creed slightly older, and almost as widely accepted. (Of course the individual books of the New Testament were written well before the Creed; I'm talking about the canonization of it.) A few Christians don't entirely agree with the New Testament canon either; the Mormons have added additional to it, and the Jehovah's Witnesses affirm the list of books but translate selected portions of it very differently in order to better support their theology; see New World Translation. And I think the Coptics also include some additional books from the first or second century like the Shepherd of Hermas. And to go back to an earlier subject, the Mormons do believe that multiple gods exist, although you sometimes have to press them a bit to admit it. Sometimes they'll say they only worship one god so the others don't matter, practically speaking; I'm still not really clear on their doctrine in this regard. Wesley 16:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Just for clarification; Mormons worship One God, the Father of all living. They believe that Jesus Christ was his only, begotten Son; the Savior of all mankind. They also believe in the Holy Spirit. In addition, Mormons believe there may be other gods in the universe, but hey have absolutely nothing to do with what Mormons consider as God's creation. One can think in Old Testatment terms; Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Who are those other gods GOD was referring to? The answer: it doesn't matter as long as you worship the one, true God. Where ever these other gods are, whatever they are; in this world or on other worlds...they simply do not matter. Mormons have one faith and that is in God the Father and in His Son and in the Holy Ghost. I hope this clarifies for those who might be interested. I also hope it will enable those who hear the next benevelent, but rather subjective, preacher that attempts to expound on LDS doctrine to promptly, quickly relieve them of their misguided understandings of Mormon doctrine. In doing so, you would have at least one, but more than likely the undying gratitude of the more than 12 million other LDS in the world. Storm Rider 04:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this, so I'll stick it here: "Jesus is said to be divine by the majority of Christan groups, as well as some interpretations of ba'hai and Bhuddism" Cuts out the messy god words. If you don't want to get too hung up on, truncate the last clause. Also, later add. "How that divinity is seen, is hotly contested between diffrent religions, their denominations, and between theologians." Trust me, it is, been having fun with it myself. Note, any of what I just said here should have copyedit and consensus before implentation... same as everything else.--Tznkai 22:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Most (but not all)

I'd just like to point out that the word "most" necessarily implies "not all"; therefore adding "but not all" to the word "most" is at best superfluous, at worst POV-pushing. Jayjg (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

No, you're right... I made a thoughtless grammatical error. >.< Fix it as you see fit. - Gilgamesh 10:30, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

BC/BCE

It is no secret what my feelings about BC versus BCE are, nor how strong my feelings are. Nevertheless, perhaps a week ago, maybe more, partisans of two extreme positions accepted a compromise to use both BC and BCE. If only for the sake of peace, I think this is a compromise we should stick with. On top of that, understanding how important this article is to Christians, I think that as long as BCE and CE are also used, and as long as we otherwise adhere to our NPOV policy and present multiple points of view, this compromise is quite reasonable. Much as I sympathize with anyone who favores BCE/CE only, I really do think we have to stick with this compromise. Perhaps one day we can revisit this debate, but that day is at the very least months away. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

The time to revisit the debate has arrived. Although this proposal affects era designations for all articles on religious topics, not just Jesus. Kaldari 22:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Intro sentence

I'm somewhat inclined to think that the fact that Muslims and Christians regard Jesus as the Messiah is worthy of noting in the first paragraph, although they seem to differ in their beliefs about the significance of that title. - Mustafaa 18:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is mentioned, but somewhat obliquely, probably because it is obscured by all that talk about his names in various languages. That's three places in the article which discuss that, when it only really needs to be in one place. I'm going to be bold and at least try to cut down on that, and we'll see how it goes. Jayjg (talk) 18:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The Nazarene

The Nazerene, as I understand it is a very important title for Jesus (Christ), and is often used by historians, theologians, etc. as a religiously neutral term to keep on topic. The first mention of Nazerene, or Nazareth is within the historicy section. This is bad writing, not because of NPOV, but because of the use of a defining characteristic, without introduction of why that characteristic is important

Part of how you write articles, in my opinion, is to explain it to the little green men who just visited you and have no context of what you're talking about

Furthermore, Nazerene and Nazareth are terms I learned in highschool, wikipedia is a resource used by many many people, including middle school writers. I'm sure that I am not being disengenous in my objection. --Tznkai 22:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

You are not. Clearly, according to the Gospels, Jesus was called Jesus the Nazarene. The exact meaning of the term has been lost to history, but there are a number of theories. This alone probably tells you the title is historically correct, because the Gospel writers use it without knowing its exact meaning. The most common explanation is that he was called the Nazarene because he was from Nazareth, but that explanation has its problems as the gospel writers themselves tell you.

In the ancient world, folks were often identified by their family name or their father's name (Julius Caesar...Ceasar his name, Julius his family; or, in fiction Judah Ben Hur, etc.). Likely, Jesus was known as Jesus ben Joseph (in Hebrew or Aramaic, of course) or Jesus of Nazareth. But with the realization of the Church that Jesus was much more than just another guy, Jesus the Messiah (or Jesus Christ) was adopted, a name/title which superseded all family or hometown connections. The Scriptural writers largely adopted this (esp. Paul). The same thing happened with the Roman emperors, who took the name of Caesar as a title, while largely dropping their own family names or hometown designations. KHM03 19:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

No, he was called Jesus son of Mary, because, what's the pc way to put this: the nature of his birth was irregular, i.e Mary was an unwed mother. So, probably the nicer name was Jesus the Nazarene. And, even nicer, Messiah Jesus, however: what was the crime?: INRI i.e. Jesus the Nazarene Judean King, i.e. the crime was sedition, under Roman occupation the Jews were not allowed to have their own king and any claimants were crucified. The Romans were well aware that the Jews thought one of their own would rise up and overthrow them, in fact Josephus, attempting to make nice, said the Jewish prophecy actually foretold Vespasian who was proclaimed Roman Emperor on Jewish soil.


Jesus the Nazarene is neutral, Jesus Christ assumes Christianity or Islam, i.e. not neutral.

Virgin Mary in the New Testament

In the section on Jesus' life according to the New Testament, I found this: "He was the son of Mary (thought to be some to be a virgin, though others translate the relevant passage as "young maiden")". Now In the NT Mary explicitly says "How can this thing be, seeing that I know not a man", so the translation is irrelevant. Can I make it unquestionably virgin? (remember this isn't a question about whether the NT is reliable or not - the whole section is describing Jesus' life as depicted in the Bible). DJ Clayworth 21:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

"He was the son of Mary, a virgin according to the NT". The relevant passages in the NT clearly state that she was a virgin. <MyPOV>The translation of the prophecy in Isaiah is only a "relevant passage" if you suspend reason (and stop reading after that verse) and assume that it refers to the messiah, and then it's only relevant if you disregard all prophecies about the messiah in favor of blindly believing that Jesus was the messiah.</MyPOV> Tomer TALK 00:46, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Tomer's proposed text, that Mary was a virgin according to the New Testament. I would also observe that the Gospel of Matthew quotes the Septuagint translation of Isaiah 7:14, which used the Greek word that clearly means "virgin." The Septuagint translation was made by Jews and was widely used in the Jewish community in the first century; you can disagree with Matthew, but Matthew clearly thought that a literal virgin birth fulfilled that prophecy of Isaiah, based on the text that he had. Wesley 16:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
parthenos didn't mean virgin prior to the second century
Ooooh! An unsigned unsupported assertion! Got a source for that? Tomer TALK 06:07, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
Well, in Genesis 34 in the Septugaint the term is used to refer to Dinah after she is raped. It also refers to other non-virgins in early Greek texts. Jayjg (talk) 20:11, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Requested moves

The vote on this move request is now over - see the Decision section below

Jesus → Jesus Christ -- Jesus Christ is the full name. 152.163.100.139 19:28, 31 May 2005 (UCT)

  • Oppose. Unisgned request (I added the information from the hisory). I suppose we have to feed this troll, but this is a waste of time. I would ask an admin to close this vote ASAP. Philip Baird Shearer 08:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Jesus is a name, Christ is a title (and claim). This title has already been debated at length, and has been decided long ago in favour of Jesus. Jayjg (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with Jayjg , of course, as it's simple and verifiable fact. A peculiar request and justification. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Keep at Jesus, of course. As noted, Christ is a title - and one with a rather heavy load of religious significance. His "full name" would have been along the lines of Yeshua bar Miriam, but let's not go there. - Mustafaa 21:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Keep at Jesus. Request would reduce neutrality. --goethean ॐ 21:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Split Jesus into two articles, Jesus and Jesus Christ and move all the stuff about Jesus in Christianity to Jesus Christ and leave the stuff about the beliefs about Jesus in other religions at Jesus.
  • Oppose. Keep at Jesus. I could easily be convinced, however, to argue in favor of changing the redirect at Jesus Christ to Christian views of Jesus instead of to Jesus (where it presently points). As JayJG says, of course, this argument (about the proper name of this particular article) has long since been had. The rationale used to recommend the move, however, is incredibly weak, to say nothing of its factually inaccurate POV-pushing. Tomer TALK 02:26, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Jesus is his name, Christ is a title (and one that only Christians would apply). DJ Clayworth 13:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Let's keep the article name with Jesus by itself. Christ is not the last name of Jesus. Christ is Just another term for the word Messiah.--Gramaic 05:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons stated by Jayjg and others above. Guettarda 05:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons stated above. -- The Anome 09:05, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Originally posted at WP:RM
  • Jesus is a name, Christ is a title (and claim). This title has already been debated at length, and has been decided long ago in favour of Jesus. Jayjg (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with Jayjg , of course, as it's simple and verifiable fact. A peculiar request and justification. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep at Jesus, of course. As noted, Christ is a title - and one with a rather heavy load of religious significance. His "full name" would have been along the lines of Yeshua bar Miriam, but let's not go there. - Mustafaa 21:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep at Jesus. Request would reduce neutrality. --goethean ॐ 21:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Split Jesus into two articles, Jesus and Jesus Christ and move all the stuff about Jesus in Christianity to Jesus Christ and leave the stuff about the beliefs about Jesus in other religions at Jesus.
  • Keep at Jesus. I could easily be convinced, however, to argue in favor of changing the redirect at Jesus Christ to Christian views of Jesus instead of to Jesus (where it presently points). As JayJG says, of course, this argument (about the proper name of this particular article) has long since been had. The rationale used to recommend the move, however, is incredibly weak, to say nothing of its factually inaccurate POV-pushing. Tomer TALK 02:26, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep at Jesus. We have gone over all of this in the past, and the consensus was to keep at the current title. -- The Anome 09:10, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)


Discussion

--That's Mr Christ--

Someone has slapped a move notice on the article (without the courtesy of discussing it, or even mentioning it, here), on the grounds that Jesus' full name was "Jesus Christ" (! I'm surprised that he forgot to add his middle initial, "H."). I don't imagine that it will go though, but those who are interested might want to go to the Proposed Moves page in order to register their votes and comments. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

This issue was already debated and decided on long ago. Jayjg (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

152.163.100.139, please don't delete other people's vote, and please sign your comments. Jayjg (talk) 16:03, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Jesus, also known as Jesus Christ...." which happens to be part of the introduction statement in the beginning of the article, should be enough information to show the readers that Jesus is also known as Jesus Christ.--Gramaic 05:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Decision

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 09:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Move to Jesus Christ

Jesus → Jesus Christ -- Jesus Christ is the title the article is often titled in encyclopedias. Many encyclopedias see no problem with having the article called Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the full name. Jesus could mean the name that's pronounced hay sooss, but spelled exactly like the Jesus in Jesus Christ. Thus, it's better to have the article at Jesus Christ, because call an article Jesus is like calling an article John Thia article is about a specific Jesus. It should be titled Jesus Christ. 152.163.100.139 Jun05

The community clearly feels otherwise. This was previously debated and decided, and reconsidered just a few days ago. If you feel strongly about this, feel free to submit it for reconsideration after an appropriate waiting period. --MikeJ9919 01:10, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 7 changes

The current changes -- mostly by User:Neutrality -- ignore extensive discussions of about 6 weeks ago - they undermine those who doubt Jesus lived and they are excessively from the Xian viewpoint - saying he WAS a prophet and going early into details that are Xian centered - such as quoting from Bible. I will be rewriting when I get a chance. --JimWae 02:16, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

NDE / Faith healings

There are also moderate intermediate positions, such as the suggestion that Jesus may have undergone a Near-Death Experience (NDE), a phenomenon well-attested in recent times. Most of the Miracles of Jesus are Faith Healings, which are well documented throughout history. Their numbers, in fact, seem to be increasing rather than decreasing.

NDE Jesus theory is not a "moderate intermediate" position. It has very little relation to what is written in Bible, and at the same time completely ignores all historicity problems, making it completely unacceptable for both sides.

There is no such thing as a faith healing. Even if we count placebo effect and shamanic trickery in, it's not anywhere near strong enough to resurrect people, give sight to the blind or do other feats allegedly performed by Jesus. Taw 13:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jesus claiming to be god

Jesus himself claimed to be God. When "Philip said, Lord, show us the Father.' Jesus answered. . . .Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father'" (John 14:8-9). Once, when the Pharisees were disparaging Jesus and challenging Him, Jesus responded, " I and the Father are one.' Again the Jews picked up stones to stone Him, but Jesus said to them, I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?' We are not stoning you for any of these,' replied the Jews, but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God'" (John 10:30-33). It is clear in these two statements, Jesus claimed to be God. His opponents clearly understood His declaration of equality with God.

  • When challenged by the scholars on His authority over Abraham, the father of the Jews, Jesus replied, "Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.' The Jews said to Him, You are not yet fifty years old, and you have seen Abraham!' I tell you the truth,' Jesus answered, before Abraham was born, I am!'" (John 8:56-58). Jesus clearly believed He had existed two thousand years earlier and knew Abraham.
  • On the issue of life and death Jesus stated, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies" (John 11:25). Here He believed He had authority over life and death.
  • Finally, Jesus accepted and encouraged others to worship Him. Throughout the Gospels the disciples worshiped Jesus as seen in Matthew 14:33 and John 9:38. Jesus states in John 5:22-23, "Moreover, the Father judges no one but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent Him." Jesus knew the Old Testament command "Worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only" (Matt. 4:10).

Some groups identifying themselves as Christian, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, and Christian Scientists, believe Jesus was divinely inspired but not God incarnate. See also Nicene Creed. Others such as Mormons (members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) believe in a Trinity, but maintain that God the Father created Jesus as God the Son, and that Jesus created the universe. They also have additional sacred texts that continue on past the New Testament; and thus form a different sort of overall Christian history.

C.S. Lewis, a popular British theologian, wrote, "I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, The MacMillan Company, 1960, pp. 40-41.)

Copy pasted for the sake of personal sanity. Removed because: Jesus's claim to divinity is a hotbed of theological interpretation. Finding NPOVing to add at this time as a RV--Tznkai 17:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In an article like this it is necessary only to record the fact that a billion or so Christians believe that Jesus is God, and that he claimed that according to the Bible. I don't believe the Lewis quote is relevant. DJ Clayworth 17:36, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Clayworth about necessities, but someone keeps putting up the non-fact that Jesus never claimed to be God. Whoever is doing it needs to keep the unsupportable controversy out- do some research. CE Greenstein

As I understand it Jesus never said in the bible: "I AM GOD!" however it can be inpreted with a minimal amount of theological knowledge that he was reffering to himself as Divine, Worshippable, and the Messaih repetaedly. There are singificant numbers of people who believe he never claimed to be god, epscially that nun who talked about Son of Man, and a lot of people who see Jesus as a great Moral Teacher. I think that can all be said either as I did in my edit, or in some similarly short statement without going into bible quotes.--Tznkai 17:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One great difficulty in trying to prove Jesus claimed, in the Gospels, to be the divine Son of God is that His own words blurred the line so greatly. He is cited as describing humanity as the "children of God", and himself as the "Son of Man". It can reasonably be argued that the above "proofs" of His claim to divinity are simply consistent with this confusing way of speaking.
Especially when one considers that we're getting it all NOT from original texts, but from copies of translations of copies of translations which were made centuries after the official Church, in the 4th century AD, decided Jesus was divine...something the Christian establishment had tended to deny up to that time, as it was dominated by movements like the Coptic church and the followers of Arius.
Kaz 02:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to the New Testament

Once again I have removed a lot of 'debate' from the section on 'His Life According to the New Testament'. Can I again strongly suggest that keeping this section as a summary of what the New Testament says about Jesus would be extremely useful to our readers. We can record doubts about historicity, conflicting interpretations etc in other parts of the article. DJ Clayworth 19:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also made it explicit (in the section 'His Life According to the New Testament') that the New Testament states that Mary was a virgin. It really does, and it can't be a 'mistranslation from the Hebrew' because the NT wasn't written in Hebrew. I'm not saying you have to believe that the NT was right here, I'm just saying that's what it says. DJ Clayworth 19:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Whether or not there is a mistranslation in or misinterpretation of the Septuagint, the Gospels clearly describe her as a virgin. Jayjg (talk) 19:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jesus' life - according to the New Testament

There are already numerous articles on Jesus' life according to the New Testament, or the Christian view of Jesus, etc. This article needs to be freed from that to a greater extent - hence I propose that "according to the New Testament" be dropped from the headings --JimWae 04:25, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

Uhhhh. And where exactly do we have other sources on Jesus? Other than the Book of Mormon, the Pope, and crackpots claiming that Jesus ordered them to blow up small children? This isn't just about NPOV/POV, but about usefullenss of the article!--Tznkai 17:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On that account "According to the NT" would be redundant & unnecessary. I do not think discussion of topics within his life should everywhere be restricted to presenting the view according to the NT - analysis & interpretation should not be restricted on grounds of the title of the heading. --JimWae 17:39, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

Since there does seem to be such an article, that's fine. DJ Clayworth 16:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance

This is why it was described as one retired engineer not an organization From their website: Almost all of the over 2,480 essays and menus on this web site were written by our main author, Bruce A Robinson. He is a graduate of the University of Toronto, class of 1959, with a BaSc (Bachelor of Applied Science) degree in Engineering Physics. He worked for a large multi-national chemical company for 38 years before taking a "golden handshake" and early retirement during a company downsizing. During his employment, he functioned as a specialist in the development of electronic instrumentation, as a computer programmer working in process computing, and as a supervisor. Technical writing formed a major part of his work assignment. Basically on the Internet no one knows if you are a dog, one person or an organization. Dabbler 22:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, but the organization is 5 people - and the article is quite comprehensive, treats all sides quite fairly & has lots of references

It's no less authoritative than many other links here, which could just as well be authored by dentists for all we know, since few divulge their affiliations or authors --JimWae 22:51, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

jguk strongly believes this website should not be linked to, and has removed links to it from other articles (e.g. Common Era), where he described it as a "blog". Jayjg (talk) 06:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Since Jguk seems to be a very strongly POV editor, who at this time has an open RfAr against him for POV edits apparently numbering in the thousands , I think, without intending any disrespect per se against him/her, that perhaps the views of other editors should be held in higher esteem for the time being, at least until such time as Jguk's ability to edit from an NPOV status can be clarified...especially when it comes to views expressed wrt religion. Tomer TALK 06:31, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Rangerdude requested Mediation. Is there consensus for this? -SV|t 00:23, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Christian and Biblical Endorsement of Islam and Arabic Heritage

A Little Assistance Please, help stop reverters with a POV at Abraham.

We have two Muslim editors (Anon and Yuber) attempting to edit the Christian Religious view of Abraham.

Their objective is to get a Christian and biblical endorsement of Islam and Arabic heritage.

I made these points at Talk:Abraham::

1. The New Testament and Jesus simply do not address Islam or its history at all.
2. Certainly the Old Testament, based on Judaism, does not assert the part about Ishmael and the Arabs.
3. The word "ancestor" is a problem for many Christians because some believe it may not mean it in the literal sense.
4. Christians do not view themselves as an "Abrahamic religion" because they only believe in one, Christ. That is why they call themselves a Christian religion not an Abrahamic religion.

Here is my edit for the passage in the 2nd paragraph of Abraham, which the serial reverters keep taking out (and BTW, I invited changes to the Judaism and Muslim parts where I have less expertise):

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are sometimes referred to as the "Abrahamic religions" because they all refer to the lessons of Abraham to some degree. Although Christians do not refer to themselves by this term, they view Abraham as an early figure of faith and recognize his attempt to offer up Isaac as a foreshadowing of God's offering of his Son, Jesus (Gen. 22:1-14; Heb. 11:17-19). Judaism sees Abraham as the founder of the people of Israel and the ancestor of their people through his son Isaac. Muslims recognize Abraham as the one of many religious prophets through his son Ishmael.

So, it would be nice if other Christian experts could weigh in (I stated that I don’t edit a religious view of Islam and they should not of the Christian views either.

--Noitall 00:27, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)


  • Unfortunately, this same POV is being pushed on Ishmael as well. Tomer TALK 01:08, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
WP:AGF--Tznkai 3 July 2005 23:29 (UTC)
There comes a point when good faith can no longer be assumed. That point had been reached prior to my above statement, mostly as a result of a revert war at Ishmael, which featured little in the way of non-abusive discussion. Tomer TALK July 4, 2005 00:19 (UTC)
I can't remember where it was said in what guideline, but part of AGF is to act in good faith, even when you're sure they are not. Its smarter, not easier, but it tends to work out in the end.--Tznkai 4 July 2005 00:26 (UTC)

Language

Actually, he spoke Aramaic. He may additionally have spoken other languages, but he certainly spoke Aramaic. See Aramaic of Jesus. - Mustafaa 17:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't doubt he spoke the local language, as well as Greek and Hewbrew (trade and religious langauges) as the son of a carpenter. Heres my question. WHY DOES IT MATTER!?--Tznkai 17:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Um, I dunno - why does any piece of information matter? - Mustafaa 17:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We Can Agree On Some Basic Clarification

OK, there can be endless debate over whether Jesus claimed to be God, or this was a deification akin to what happened to Buddha, and a lot of other such emotional stuff, but some things should be in this article, and not all are, which are agreed upon by devout theologian and atheistic historian alike:

  • His name would not have been, two thousand years ago, Jesus. Maybe it was Yeshua (though that wasn't a common version of Yehoshua any more, by then), maybe it was something else, but "Jesus" is an Anglicized version of the Roman version of his name. It has the Latin suffix "-us", which no self-respecting Jew of his era, especially an anti-Roman rebel, would have used, and it starts with J, a letter and (in English) phoneme which didn't even exist in that region, neither in Hebrew nor Latin. Anyone here who really knows anything about the period, or the Bible, or Christianity, should be able to agree to this. So mention should be made, early in the article. I mean, one looking up Jesus should quickly be informed of the basic facts of His name.
  • Christ is an anglicized version of his TITLE. It was never his surname. Were this going on today, you wouldn't call him Mister Christ, with Christ taking the place of his last name, but instead something like Christ Jesus, or Christ Jesus Josephson...with Christ as his title, like Pope or Doctor. Of course it wasn't Christ, per se, but something like Krista, anyway.(Christos, I believe. RossNixon) The title meant something like "savior", and was not only used in reference to a potential messiah, but also to smaller-scale martyrs and holy men. Surely a complete article should mention this, too, somewhere up front.

Hmmm...there are several other such basic facts which are often ignored, but are still accepted as facts by educated religious leaders as well as people desiring historical accuracy. It's inexcusable that they're not mentioned because people are so busy debating the more unprovable stuff. Unfortunately, I need to put my youngest to bed, perhaps I can get back to it later.

In the meantime, someone really should add a nice, diplomatic (palatable to both sides) version of the two above facts to the article.

Kaz 02:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Being vs Person

User:Noitall has changed the the first sentence of the second paragraph of the introduction from "Most Christians believe Jesus to be the second person in the Divine Trinity,... " to "Most Christians believe Jesus to be the second being in the Divine Trinity,..." (emphases added), giving "being --> other 2 are not persons" as his edit summary. Although the Father and the Holy Spirit are not human, it is my understanding that the traditional word used to refer to the three parts of the trinity is "person". The article Trinity uses this term. So I'm changing it back.

Good call. If Jesus were called a separate "being", the trinitarians couldn't claim they're not polytheistic. Tomer TALK June 29, 2005 20:31 (UTC)
  • It does not much matter. But my argument was, you have 1 person and 2 beings making up the trinity. --Noitall June 30, 2005 02:30 (UTC)
I understand your argument, and I believe that it comes from an understanding on your part that the word "person" is synonymous with "human". It is not. It is a very ancient usage for Chrstians to speak of three persons in the Trinity, (see for example the Athanasian Creed) It can be very tricky to try to change the wording of the formulas for describing the Trinity. For example, some might take your use of the word Being to indicate a polytheistic aproach to the Trinity, because since God defined himself as "I am", only God can partake of "Beingness", that is only God "is", all other creatures' existence is secondary to God's, so that only God has "Being". To claim then that there is more than one Being in the Trinity, then is to claim more than one God. You might think this is all farfetched, but this is exactly the sort if thing early Christians argued about. Dsmdgold June 30, 2005 03:01 (UTC)
I was aware of the arguments, but not aware of the semantics that go with it. I guess my bad edit was useful after all. Thank you for educating me. --Noitall June 30, 2005 03:38 (UTC)

Aye. "Being" generally connotes independent existence and selfness: to coin a word, "is-ness", whereas "person" comes from the Etruscan word for an actor's mask: it's the perceived face of an actor. (Not, ch"v, that I'm calling God a poser!) Tomer TALK July 1, 2005 03:03 (UTC)

Prophet in Islam

Islam views Jesus as a prophet, but teaches that He was merely a man and, therefore, is not worthy of worship. I don't think the reference belongs in the first sentence, especially not without propper qulifications, as a "major prophet" per se. El_C 3 July 2005 21:44 (UTC)

Doesn't traditional Islam also assert the virgin birth as well? Thats not just merely a man.--Tznkai 3 July 2005 23:27 (UTC)

Maybe so. Regardless, it needs to be better qualified; and whether it should be placed in the article's first sentence elucidated therefrom. El_C 3 July 2005 23:41 (UTC)

Gave the lead a shot. Tell me what you think

Yes, Jesus is regarded as a major prophet in Islam - a rasul rather than a nabi. - Mustafaa 8 July 2005 23:56 (UTC)

Poll: Religions Jesus is important in.

I would like to modify this paragraph: Most Christians believe Jesus to be the second person in the Divine Trinity, and also the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible). Most also believe that Jesus rose from the dead after being crucified, and that those who have faith in him will be saved. Muslims believe he was one of God's most important prophets and also the Messiah, though they attach a different meaning to this than Christians.

I'd like to change it to a very brief summary of the position of Jesus in religions. What religions do you think are notable/important enough to include?

Christianity, Islam, Bahá'í Faith come to mind. Other possiblities include Rastafari, Jehova's witness, Mormonism.--Tznkai 4 July 2005 00:02 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya, Buddhism Tomer TALK July 8, 2005 18:22 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya I suppose is about as muslim as mormonism is (it alll depends on your POV) but Buddhism? I thought Jesus was irrelevant in mainstream, zen, and chinese buddhism?--Tznkai 8 July 2005 18:28 (UTC)
I'm no expert, but I thought in Mahayana at least, Jesus is regarded as a great teacher. And if I'm not mistaken, in some incarnations of Hinduism, he's regarded as an avatar of Vishnu as a reëstablisher of what Krishna "came" for. Perhaps it would behoove us, instead of you and I talking about it tho, to go ask some Buddhists and Hindus.  :-p Tomer TALK July 8, 2005 18:33 (UTC)
I can pass for bhuddist, but considering how complicated it really is, it would probably behoove us yes. I'm just trying to think of the most notable and salient ones to add.--Tznkai 8 July 2005 18:39 (UTC)
No you can't. You can't even spell Buddhist.  :-p I'll go invite comment (to this talk section) on Talk:Buddhism and Talk:Hinduism. Tomer TALK July 8, 2005 18:50 (UTC)
You'd be surprised how little people care when you want to sell them "Chakra Crystals" from "Buddhist Monks" anyway. of the above list whcih should be noted?--Tznkai 8 July 2005 19:01 (UTC)

In Mandaeanism, Jesus is regarded as an arch-deceiver who came to corrupt the message of John the Baptist. - Mustafaa 9 July 2005 00:44 (UTC)


Hinduism on Jesus: Jesus has almost zero influence in Hinduism, but considerable importance. We Hindus revere all holy men who teach "Higher Truths", and Jesus brought them to humanity with remarkable clarity and wisdom. Jesus, in the Hindu view, is a very high soul who came here to offer Grace and teachings. As the interpretation of Jesus´ sayings by Hindu sages is different from even the apostles´ interpretation, sayings directly attributed to Jesus, as the Sermon of the Mount, or Jesus´ actions themselves, are the base for this view instead of biblic interpretations and philosophy. (see: "The Sermon of the Mount according to Vedanta", by Swami ) Subramanian talk 9 July 2005 00:55 (UTC)

Images of Jesus are common in Hindu households in Trinidad, and many people do consider him an avatar. Guettarda 02:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Buddhism on Jesus: I wrote most of the Buddhism section in Religious perspectives on Jesus, which might be informative in this case. There isn't that much to say. Before the modern era, Buddhism had very little interaction with Christianity. Most Buddhists, even Buddhist philosophers, probably didn't regard Jesus as anything, let alone a great teacher. In the last 100 to 200 years, there has been a lot more interactions, and I think Buddhists generally remain quite respectful of Jesus, even in situations where they are strongly resisting missionary work. There have been some popular writings, such as those by Thich Nhat Hanh to draw parallels between the philosophy of Jesus and that of the Buddha, but I think it would be an enormous exaggeration to say that there are any schools of Buddhism that regard Jesus as a great teacher. On the other hand, I've heard rumours that there are some Tantric Buddhist texts that take a very negative view of Jesus, as well as other Biblical figures, such as Adam, in the context of a harsh critique of Islam. If that's true, it's probably the only canonical reference to Christ in Buddhism. - Nat Krause 07:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

BC/BCE

you cannot be serious. This is the worst of all possible solutions. Truly Salomonic, only in this case, the infant has been cut in half. I favour BC because it is brief, and conventional. The very statement "Jesus was born in 6 BC" makes it clear that the abbreviation is pure convention. But I'll certainly rather put up with "BCE" than with this "BCE/BC" monster. This is really taking on absurd proportions now, people. dab (ᛏ) 8 July 2005 17:54 (UTC)

I don't know about "now", as that compromise was reached several months ago I believe, in discussions that are now archived. Personally, I'd prefer that we hash it out in the ongoing WP-wide proposals regarding eras, than to reopen it here. Tomer TALK July 8, 2005 18:17 (UTC)
agreed--Tznkai 8 July 2005 18:18 (UTC)

Ettiquette note

If an anonymous user edits a page, please look at their edit before reverting. There are often times when they are contributing something worthwhile to the wiki. Don't assume first off that it's a test, or vandalism. Read it. --Blu Aardvark 9 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)

"Central figure of Christianity"

The term "the central figure of Christianity" is one with which some degree of issue must be raised. Please pardon me if I am riding roughshod over/neglecting significant debate that has already reached some consensus above. Theologically, as one of the three persons of the Trinity, it is not correct (according to mainstream Christianity) to assert that Jesus is "the" central figure of Christianity. In fact, he is one of the three most "central figures". He may be the most "visible," but that is not to say that among Christians he is the sole critical "figure." ~ Dpr 06:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Theologically Jesus is the most relevant, if not powerful or most important of the three. Part of what defines the baseline of "Christian" is to accept that "Jesus is my Lord and Savior, who died on the Cross for my Sins". Also, originally the passage involved "leader" or "object of worship" if I recall, but that definition has problems when you look at Catholicism (Paul was the first pope) and various other Christian sects, so the compromise of "central figure" was reached. Thanks for bringing it back up, and if you have a better compromise, feel free to share.--Tznkai 16:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Don't tell that to all those Catholics who think the first Pope was Peter!  ;-p Tomer TALK 16:38, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Peter, Paul, Mary, all those names just kinda blur together when theres no air conditioning >.<--Tznkai 17:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Dpr makes an interesting point, although I suspect that this is best treated in the Christianity article, where it can be treated at length. In one context, this makes sense, because Christianity started as a sect of Judaism and one thing that Jews and Christians had — and have — in common is worship of God. What makes Christianity different is that it divides God into two — the father and the son — and then puts them back together by saying (in the Nicene creed, I think; certainly in Catholic doctrine) that the Father and the Son are the same, that Jesus is one with his father. So it is the existence of Jesus as the son, which leads to a reconceptualization of God, that distinguishes Christianity from other religions. Certainly we can say Jesus is the central figure in the Gospels where (unlike the Hebrew Bible) God seldom if ever speaks. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in Ressurection & Ascension section

It is stated: "The Gospel of John makes no mention of an angel, but states that after Mary returned to the gravesite, the risen Jesus appeared to her." However, John 20:11-13 describes a conversation between Mary (Magdelene) and two angels before she meets Jesus. Suggest the sentence be deleted and the previous sentence altered to ". . . Mark and John further claim that . . ."

changes to history paragraph

I modified the comparison between Jesus and Alexander to make it accurate, following JimWae's valid point. But I also restored the sentence explaining that these scholars reject the supernatural elements of the Jesus texts; I do not understand why JimWae deleted this, but it is important. Finally, I deleted the reference to Achyar S who seems to have no degree higher than a BA and as far as I can tell, has never published in a peer-reviewed journal, or even cited in one. We all know lots of people (I mean, non-scholars) don't beleive Jesus ever existe, there is no need to try to name all of them. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Now, it is more accurate - but not really relevant. We could be pretty certain that some people existed (maybe Solon & Hammurabi) - but have little idea what they were like as a person. We also have a pretty good idea of the personalities of the Brothers K and Spider-Man - but nobody contends they are historical figures, nor that we know more about them than we do about Solon. I think the sentence should either be dropped -- or given as an example of the obfuscation that is attempted in this regard --JimWae 17:36, 2005 July 13 (UTC)

The reason I included it has to do with the controversial nature of this article. There are some people who believe that if Jesus is real, you have to be a Christian; there are others who believe that, since they are not Christian, or have even rejected religion altogether (or don't believe in God), then Jesus must not have existed. There is of course a third view, which this paragraph mentions by providing a list of scholars. Right now, it seems like this article is in something of a lull, which I hope lasts a long time. But you can bet that sooner or later there will be someone or group who want to eliminate (for NPOV purposes) anything that suggests that Jesus was a real human being. Frankly, I am not even sure the list of scholars needs to be mentioned, it used to be enough to just say "many scholars believe Jesus existed." When that claim was challenged, the list was put in to support it. I consider the Jesus/Alexander thing to be reenforcement. When Sanders makes the comparison he is doing it in the context of his unargued claim that Jesus existed. Your analogy to Spiderman is clever - of course, we can know a lot about non-fictional characters. But that is not the point that Sanders is making, he is making the point that for an historian the sources regarding Jesus are in some ways more reliable than those for Alexander, which provides a basis for his using them as an historian. I think this is a valuable point. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I've not read Sanders & have no idea what position he takes on other things. He says that Alexander "so greatly altered the political situation in a large part of the world that the main outline of his public life is very well known indeed. Jesus did not change the social, political and economic circumstances in Palestine [Note: It was left for His followers to do that!] ..the superiority of evidence for Jesus is seen when we ask what he thought." [Sand.HistF, 3] -- which has as much to do with historicity as knowing the thoughts of Spider-man. I do not see any quote from Sanders about the "deeds" of Jesus. Sanders point has as much relevance to historicity as saying we know more about Spider-Man's thoughts than Solon's --JimWae 00:02, 2005 July 14 (UTC)
  • Regarding

    "Nevertheless, he observes, 'The sources for Jesus are better, however, than those that deal with Alexander'"

    I have to wonder if the context of the quote needs to be given since he discusses elsewhere mostly the sources for his thoughts and to leave that out seems misleading. The quote "the superiority of evidence for Jesus is seen when we ask what he thought" seems more in keeping with the context.--JimWae 18:45, 2005 July 15 (UTC)

JimWae, I have absolutely no objection to your adding the additional quote, and even paraphrasing the contrast Sanders is making (we have a better understanding of what Jesus thought because the source-texts were written by people who know him; on the other hand, while the sources for Alexander's life were written long after he died, Alexander's military and political accomplishments themselves leave an impressive record. How much context you want to put in I leave to you. I do think that the material I added, including the quote, is important, but I have no problem with you adding more. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV question

how can anything that suggests that there was a person named jesus, ever be considered NPOV?? it's just right wing religous giberrish, so how can it be NPOV?? - (anon) 14:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd advise checking your user page (172.174.173.175). IcycleMort 14:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
sorry, but it's a valid question, how can an article that talks about the christian god as if it was an actual historical figure be considered npov? and I'll assume you meant user_talk page, since there's nothing on my user page - (anon) 14:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't refering to your NPOV remark here, but to other edits of yours in the last hour, or so. For example sticking senseless usermessage headers everwhere... As far as I am concerned you can complain about this article being POV as long as you want. I don't see anybody listening to you anyway...
Call me crazy, but you seemed to be listening to me, in fact you thought enough people might listen to me that you felt the need to bash my edit history w/o any context to this article - (anon) 15:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
nope, I just thought it might be the best place to contact you, because you probably don't check your user page. I was fairly sure (and was proven rigth), that you'd come back here. Regarding my "trashing" of [your edit history]: It doesn't look too good for you. Actually, your NPOV remark here might be the best of it. I don't mind experimenting on Wikipedia, so I'd just advise you to do it in the Sandbox. If you want more fun, I'd advise checking out the Kamelopedia... Otherwise, you can always ask me for suggestions what to do around here. Greetings, IcycleMort 15:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Suggest you reread WP:NPOV and come back when you get a clue. Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Icyclemort. Sadly, Anon's edit history speaks for itself. I am much ashamed at having listened, but I dont think anyone will actually act on this. BTW, Anon, most people be they Atheist or Christian, do acknowledge that Jesus's exsited. The question is not whether he exsited, but rather if he was or was not the son of God. Banes 18:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Motion to archive and move on.--Tznkai 16:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Voting open on BC/AD vs BCE/CE compromise proposal

Voting is now open on a proposal to amend the Manual of Style regarding era designations (the BC/AD vs. BCE/CE debate). Kaldari 21:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Dear oh dear...

... what has happened to this article? Why on earth is there a whole section on Jesus having a romantic relationship, and why did nobody look at the original text of John 21 to see that the word is agapao and not eros? This is a sad state of affairs, I must say. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah... has been (sensibly) removed from this article. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)