Talk:Jesus/Archive 24

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

Pop Culture Mention

Why is there nothing about Jesus in Pop culture in this article?.--ikiroid | (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably because there is a dearth of evidence that Jesus is a movie star or rock guitarist or the like. Ruby 22:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
No but Jesus is portrayed in movies, cartoons, musicals, rock operas, and so on. It seems there should be some reference in there. I don't want to do it, but someone should. pookster11 23:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Jesus in Islam

There is no mention in the article that Muslims consider Jesus to be the promised Messiah.

The sentence :

"In Islam, Jesus (known as Isa), is considered one of God's most-beloved and important prophets."

is better to be changed to

"In Islam, Jesus (known as Isa), is considered one of God's most-beloved and important prophets and the long awaited Messiah."

How is that?

It is wrong, Muslims do not identify Isa with the coming Mahdi. Ruby 01:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
No they don't, but the Mahdi is not the Messiah. Jesus is repeatedly called the Messiah in the Quran. The proposed sentence is perfectly accurate. Paul B 01:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I'm seeing things, but the paragraph in the intro states that Muslims believe Jesus to be the Messiah twice already. --Oscillate 02:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Gosh, then you better capitalize the word "messiah" used in the intro so we know that Muslims believe Jesus is THE Messiah. Ruby 02:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmm? I can't personally say if Muslims usually capitalize it or not. In Messiah#In_Islam it is lowercase, but I see that in quotations here and there of the Qur'an it is written as "Messiah". It's lowercase in the paragraph here, and in Isa, it's capitalized. I certainly can't make a judgment on it. But I don't understand the tone of your reply, I'm afraid. --Oscillate 02:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The title of Messiah is only used for Jesus in Quran and Hadith; Mahdi is never called with the title of Messiah in Hadith. So it is justified to use the Messiah instead of messiah. Also, Although intro says that muslims consider Jesus to be Messiah, but it is better to include this in the part about islam as well. Why not?

Also Another suggestion:

The sentence: “However, unlike Christians, Muslims do not consider Jesus to have been the son of God, and do not believe that he died on the cross”

To

“However, unlike Christians, Muslims do not consider Jesus to have been the son of God by nature, and do not believe that he died on the cross”

The reason is that everywhere the Quran denies that Jesus is the son of God, clearly uses “son of God” in this sense and therefore considers it blasphemy. Jesus is considered as one the closest to God and Abraham was considered as a friend of God in Quran. I think the following verse makes the matter clear:

How could it be that (Allah) should have a child without there ever having been a mate for Him -since it is He who has created everything, and He alone knows everything? - Qur'an 6:101

OK, to clarify things, according to the Koran, there are two saviours - Jesus and the Mahdi, a person that will emerge from Mecca. Jesus will return AFTER Mahdi emerges from Mecca.

Any comments?

  • ever since this article became a candidate for feature article status & then failed, the article has become increasingly biased. I have seen no disagreement (except by me) to repeated comments that this is "a Christian article". There are NO Christian articles on wikipedia, though some have "Christian perspectives on...." in the title. This article does not. This is NOT wikiChristian --JimWae 02:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
You'll have to elaborate on what you're driving at here. Clearly and calmly point out the parts you think are biased, and what leads you to say it is "a Christian article" or it's going to be difficult for there to be a constructive discussion about this. --Oscillate 02:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Many biographical articles have a legacy section. The Barabbas incident, and Jesus' harsh words about Jews & Jewish leaders very much contributed to a legacy of anti-Semitism. AND why are discussions only 2 days old archived already? --JimWae 21:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Everything on the Talk page was archived recently, including recent discussions since there is a lot of activity here. --Oscillate 02:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Right now the intro presents ONLY religious views of Jesus and makes NO mention of that which even most non-believers hold to be true about him - while the article itself DOES present some of that - which it most definitely must to be of any historical and encyclopedic value. As such, the intro does NOT represent the rest of the article. While I agree that extensive mention of the names of non-believing scholars names is not called for in the intro, a summary of their views IS needed - their names can come later in the main body--JimWae 20:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I would think that readers, whether they be believers or not, would want to know from the intro whether they are about to encounter ONLY religious views or not. I would also think that believing scholars would be interested in hearing what non-believing scholars had to say about Jesus--JimWae 20:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Currently, the intro makes absolutely NO mention of any sources for information on Jesus - something the 1st para of 1st sub-section clearly does. Something very much like that paragraph - perhaps without all the scholars names - needs to be included in the intro --JimWae 21:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No, the article should not be "a Christian article". What would that mean anyway?
  • Jesus did not have harsh words about "Jews", but about Pharisees.
  • There's no reason why non-believer's views should not be included, but the problem is that it's difficult to characterise non-belief in other than negativities ('non-believers do not accept that he was God...'). It's bit like stating the obvious to add this, rather as if the Muhammad article stated "non-believers do not consider him to have been God's final prophet". As it stands the Muhammad article says "Non-Muslims generally consider him to be the founder of Islam." But it's not even possible to say that about Jesus, because his actual life and beliefs are profoundly disputed. Some people would say Paul of Tarsus was the real founder of Christianity.
  • Maybe a non-believer's position could be added in these terms "Most secular scholars are skeptical of the accounts in the Gospels, but accept that a Jesus was a preacher with a distinctive message who was executed by the authorities of Roman Judea." --Paul B 02:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not advocating putting in what people are skeptical about, but rather what even secular people would agree on -- This is a biography article, after all.

  • Most scholars, even those who are not members of religions that hold Jesus in high regard, agree that Jesus lived from about 8-4 BC/BCE to 29-36 AD/CE. Most scholars, both Christian and not, also agree that Jesus preached to the Jewish people, was often at odds with the Jewish religious authorities, and was crucified outside of Jerusalem during the rule of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate.
  • The main sources regarding his life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels from the New Testament, which were written by followers some decades after his death. Scholars also rely on other contemporary sources about Hellenic Judaism and Roman politics to provide a context for interpreting these gospels.
  • According to these gospels, Jesus also could heal the sick and perform other miracles, forgive sins, ...--JimWae 05:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we can put in "what even secular peole would agree on", because there isn't any thing they agree on. By definition secular scolars are skeptical about the content of the gospels. If they were not, they'd bve believers. (Imoved you signature to clarify where your contribution ends and Rob's begins. Paul B 10:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I have put in point form above 2 paragraphs about which nearly everyone (skeptical or not) can agree --JimWae 18:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is meant to be biographical not biased to any opinion. In a biography it is important that the sources are verifiable and accurate. The intro SHOULD mention that there are no extant contemporary documents which refer to his existence and that there is no mention of him for over a generation. Robsteadman 09:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

A suggested new intro

Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene (circa 4 BCE – 30 CE), is mentioend in several religions but is the central figure of Christianity, in which context he is known as Jesus Christ (from Greek Ιησούς Χριστός) with "Christ" being a title meaning "Anointed One" or "Messiah".

The main sources regarding his life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels from the New Testament, which were written several decades after his death. There are no extant contemporary documents which has led a minority of scholars to hold that Jesus did not exist at all (see Historicity of Jesus).

How about:
The primary sources regarding his life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels from the New Testament, which were written in the final half of the first century. Later books in the New Testament add some additional information. While mention of Jesus is made by some non-Christian writers of the first and second centuries, the lack of extant contemporary documents has led a minority of scholars to doubt the existance of Jesus.
--Oscillate 20:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Christians generally believe Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides at the "right hand" of God the Father until the Second Coming.

How about:
Christian viewpoints on Jesus (known as Christology) are both diverse and complex. Christians generally believe Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides at the "right hand" of God the Father until the Second Coming.
With all appropriate wikilinks, of course. --Oscillate 20:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

In Islam, Jesus (called Isa) is considered one of God's most beloved and important prophets, a bringer of divine scripture, and also the messiah. Muslims however do not share the Christian belief in the divinity of Jesus. Jesus is also considered a manifestation of God in the Bahá'í Faith.

everything else should then be moved to the body of the article not in the intro. Just a suggestion..... Robsteadman 18:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep going and do the rest if the article if you want ;-) Robsteadman 19:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's not get carried away. --Oscillate 20:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


I was trying to simplify the intro, make it all verifiable and factual and allow it to lead on! Robsteadman 20:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I hate to be picky but there are no undisputed mentions of Jesus in the 1st century from non-Christian sources. There are only the Testimonium Flavianum and a mention of "James the brother of Jesus" both by Josephus written in 93 AD and both of which are generally but not universally accepted.
In the 2nd century there are mentions of "Christ" "Chrestus" and "Christians" but not Jesus by non Christian writers.
Maybe something like "Whilst most scholars agree there are references to Jesus and Christians by 1st and 2nd century writers, the lack of extant contemporary documents has led a minority of scholars to doubt the existance of Jesus." or something like that? SOPHIA 23:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
(Darn edit conflict!) I notice that this eliminates part of my Nicene compromise, which may resurrect some of the disputes that this compromise helped to settle. (The compromise included placing the info in the intro rather than the Background section, as well as explicity mentioning that not all Christians agree). I'd like to hear how others who were influenced by this compromise feel. Otherwise, Oscillate's modifications of Robsteadman's revision look fine to me at first glance. The intro was starting to get too long again... archola 23:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
The introduction as it stands does a very good job of illustrating the majority view of Jesus in a NPOV way. I understand, however, the need to represent secular views of Jesus in a historical context. But in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, these minority views should not be given unfair weight and prominence in the article. I feel that the section on the historicity of Jesus as well as the extensive linkage to concerning articles very well represents this view accordingly. That said, I am not against a few (note: few) sentences in the introduction making note of this view. This would belong at the end of the introduction as it would not be the primary focus of the introduction or the article and would not entail removal of any existing material. (Drawing on some of the previous suggestions,) what I feel would do the trick:
The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament. However, scholarly views relating to existence and life of Jesus vary widely. While most scholars hold that Jesus probably lived from about 8-4 BC/BCE to 29-36 AD/CE and played the key role in the establishment of Christianity, a minority of scholars, citing a lack of extant contemporary documents, question the historicity of Jesus. Aiden 01:16, January 30, 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that even the secular, scholarly view aknowledges the historical existence of Jesus.pookster11 07:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Have a care. There are none who question the historicity of the trans-Alpine advance by Hannibal with elephants, yet there are only two extant contemporary documents certifying that it happened. This is possibly because no one has a vested interest in the non-existence of an elephant attack. Ruby 02:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
What two are you talking about? There's Plutarch, Livy... um... my brain just went to mush. But yeah, what two sources are you thinking of contemporary with the Second Punic War?pookster11 06:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Two about Hannibal is two more than about "jesus" Robsteadman 06:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Both the Romans and Jews had plenty of reasons to destroy such documents, if they existed. rossnixon 08:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Care to elaborate on what reasons the Jews and Romans would have for destroying contemporary documents about a minor Jewish religious figure? pookster11 08:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I've seen Rob told that Wiki is not the place for maybe's. We have to report what is (or isn't in this case). My preference is at the end of the intro but if it's going to cause grief I will be Ok with a mention and link in both the backgound and history sections. SOPHIA 08:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is entirely off-track. NOR is a core Wikipedia policy. It is not the place of editors to weigh the evidence the supports or raises doubts about the existence of Jesus. Any sentence in this or the preceeding sections asserting that there are or are no contemporary documents attesting to Jesus' life are irrelevant because they can play no role in how we edit the article, as they represent original research. What we are supposed to be doing is discussing the current state of research on Jesus and the New Testament from a variety of views, and make sure those views are respresented in the article. We also need to identify the source of those views (i.e, is is important to know if the source is a Catholic cleric, a Rabbi, or a critical Bible scholar). It does not matter whether I or anyone else here agrees or disagrees with these views, or believes that there is or is no evidence to support those views. That violates NOR. Our task is not to debate whether or not Jesus existed. Our task is not to decide on "the truth." Or task is to write a well-researched article that complies with our core policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well said. pookster11 11:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Very well said...and also quite correct. KHM03 12:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I've not taken this as original research. We all come from different backgrounds and POVs. Somehow we need to blend those to write an article that fairly reflects the current summed views of society on this topic. As Joe Public can go into any book store and buy books that speculate on the existence of Jesus as a true historical figure these views must be included in this article. The position of these facts is always POV. I (because I'm like that) will want to know why something is so - what supports this theory - who says so - what is their data etc. But others are not like this and will want a run down of the basic assumed mainstream facts. What makes Wiki interesting (and why I'm bothering to edit at all) is that we have the opportunity to cover both camps. We can give a comprehensive mainstream run down but include links off for those interested to get a deeper picture. To mention there are no contemporary documents is an important fact in a biography. Why is this a problem? It doesn't change anything but the reader knows that secondary sources are being solely relied upon. Most won't care but why should I, as an interested reader who does care, not be allowed to know this?
If you want Encarta or the Catholic Encyclopedia then go there for your info. It maybe my misguided POV but I thought Wiki was more than that. I thought it was supposed to be the sum of all the distributed knowledge on a subject with links for easy reference - which is all we are trying to achieve. SOPHIA 13:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Now, that is well said. archola 14:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Briliant post SOPHIA. I really don;t see what was wrong with my suggested new intro.... concise, covered verifiable fact and clearly stated Christian (and other religion) views. Isn;t that NPOV??? Robsteadman 14:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
And Slrubenstein is wrong - the article is about "jesus" not the state of research into him -though if that were the case we would have to state even more strongly that there are no contemporary documents because that is fundamental to the research. Robsteadman 14:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
How does the lack of documents constitute original research? NOR? It is verifiable FACT that there are none. Unless you know better? the page needs to be unprotected and I suggest my new intro is a good balanced NPOV start to a complete re-qwrite of a poor article.Robsteadman 14:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadman is wrong. When I said we should be discussing the current state of researchon Jesus, i thought it was clear from the context that I mean on this talk page as I go on to say that we should then make sure that the various views on Jesus are appropriately represented in the article. Robsteadman's statement, "the article is about "jesus" not the state of research into him" is a non-sequiter. An article about Jesus has to be based on research. There has indeed been a good deal of research on Jesus and the New Testament, and we should draw on this research. I stand by what I said: it is not for us to say that "Sanders is wrong" or "Crossan is right." Our job is to present the result of their (and others') research, and whatever context is appropriate for people to know the perspective or approach of the source (e.g. a theologian or a critical scholar etc.) "The lack of documents" is original research if you Robsteadman use it to make your own interpretation, synthetic or analytic claim, and add it to the article. This is our policy. If your claim that there are no documents concerning Jesus contemporary with his life, then it should be very easy to provide a source for this claim. In any event, my point was not about asserting the fact that there are no sources concerning Jesus that are generally believed to date to the time Jesus lived. I do not object to adding this to the article. What I object to is using it to argue a point. This is uncontroverably a violation of Wikipedia policy. Articles are not venues for editors to argue their own views. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I have posted this link several times, though it has now been mpoved to the archive: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08375a.htm - a "chrsitian" source making it clear that there are no extant contemporary documents that refer to "jesus". I am not suggesting it is used to make any "claim" just that it needs to be stated taht this is a verifiable fact - one of the few verifiable facts about "jesus" life. It is also verifiable fact that, as a result of this several scholars do not believe he ever existed - FACT. If the intro does not state this verifiable fact it remains a poorly written, factually inaccurate biased POV aintro to an article which is also highly contentious in its lack of verifiablilty and POV. Slrubenstein please be careful with your accusations - I await your retraction and apology. Robsteadman 17:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

To repeat:
Robsteadman, Wikipedia edits are not judged based on facticity, but rather verifiability. While it may or may not be 'fact', in a restricted sense of the word, that no 'contemporary' accounts of Christ exist, it doesn't matter in terms of Wikipedia acceptability. Cite a verifiable and reputable source that claims this and explains why it matters.
Here's what I would consider NPOV, Robsteadman -- a sentence with the structure, "

Invalid language.

You need to specify a language like this: <source lang="html">...</source>

Supported languages for syntax highlighting:

actionscript, ada, apache, applescript, asm, asp, autoit, bash, blitzbasic, bnf, c, c_mac, caddcl, cadlisp, cfdg, cfm, cpp, cpp-qt, csharp, css, d, delphi, diff, div, dos, eiffel, fortran, freebasic, gml, groovy, html4strict, idl, ini, inno, io, java, java5, javascript, latex, lisp, lua, matlab, mirc, mpasm, mysql, nsis, objc, ocaml, ocaml-brief, oobas, oracle8, pascal, perl, php, php-brief, plsql, python, qbasic, rails, reg, robots, ruby, sas, scheme, sdlbasic, smalltalk, smarty, sql, tcl, text, thinbasic, tsql, vb, vbnet, vhdl, visualfoxpro, winbatch, xml, xpp, z80