Talk:Jesus/Archive 31

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Slrubenstein

Thank you. You make many assumptions about me and the extent of my knowledge and background and you dish out aggression and personal insult as if it is acceptable on Wikipedia. Thanks for showing your true colours. Now, let's get back to the verifiable facts shall we..... Robsteadman 16:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You still don't get it, do you? It is not for us to say what is or is not a fact. We look for verifiable sources which is what I have always drawn on when working on this or any other article. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes thank you I do "get it' - maybe you don't? Now stop your assumptions, your aggression and your flaming. Start applying the verifiable facts about "jesus".... and make sure that verifiable comments are put in context - it's called being NPOV and encyclopedic. Try it, you might enjoy it. Robsteadman 17:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

No, you really do not get it. I am making no claims about Jesus, and it is not for any of us to make any claims about the "facts" about Jesus. We can only make claims about what other people believe about Jesus and provide verifiable sources. I have added a claim about critical bible scholars and historians. It is a verifiable claim (not about Jesus, but about historians and critical Bible scholars) which I have backed up by citing my sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Slrubenstein: Your comments above are all 100% correct and I support you. Rob has had all kinds of time to produce evidence beyond the classic "just because" argument and has failed to do so. Instead, he has demeaned people of faith and the academy, demonstrating, as you wrote, a phenomenal ignorance of the subject and academic study. I appreciate your truthfulness throughout. I also suggest that until Rob is able to actually produce material, we pretty much just move on and ignore him in as civil a manner as possible (regarding Rob's behavior, we should review this). KHM03 18:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I have offered articles and references and names but, oddly, they get dismissed out of hand as POV - whilst heavily POV articles by people of "faith" are accepted. "Faith" is NOT academic. "Faith" is not scientific. "Faith" is unencyclopedic. If they have something to say that's cool - but their "faith" is an issue which must be stated to put their comments into context. This is not "demeaning" people of faith of academics - it is stati8ng the obvious to, it seems, anyone unless they are in the position of wanting to push their POV. So, KHM03, 1) Get your facts straight about what I have posted. 2) stop your flaming. 3) Stick to what is verifiable - facts first, opinion (and that includes scholarship) second and, with scholarship, clearly labelled if coming from a particular POV. I reject some of your comments, I detest your abusive tone and find them truly not in the spirit of Wikiepdia. I am in two minds as to report both of you for flaming and abuse. Have a nice day. Robsteadman 18:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you KHMO3 and I suggested that same thing a few days ago. Don't worry about the legal threats threats and name calling, no one here has done anything wrong except, Rob. Which is why he's been blocked twice and no one else has been blocked at all (nor will they be). I think it's time we all just move on and stop arguing with him. It's an unproductive area of discussion. Gator (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob, the sources you just posted up above were perhaps more about faith than any of our sources, the first one was just anti-christian faith with a bunch of also anti-christian faith books cited in them with probably really unscientific basis, The facts have been made clear for too long already, the scientific consensus is that Christ exists, and the minority view that He does not is represented as such. There are many articles out there that simply discount all minority views as rubbish and don't actually try to discuss them at all besides a one sentence blurb or a link at the bottom or rhetoric which harshly denounces them as crazy people or something, (Evolution) I think we've been more than generous already over the minority POV when you compare with other types of articles. Homestarmy 22:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob, I feel that your arguments are more appropriate for Criticism of Christianity than for this article. In one sense, you may have a point about the lack of objective, scientific evidence; however, no one here is arguing for Jesus' miracles or anything else that would violate the laws of science. In another sense, your argument is inappropriate to an historical discusson. History, as a social science, has a different standard of evidence than the physical sciences. Others have pointed out that arguments for the historicity of Jesus are at least as good as for other generally recognized ancient historical figures. (For example, where is the evidence for Socrates outside of Plato and Xenophon? Yet Plato and Xenophon were as much Socrates' disciples as the New Testament writers were disciples of Jesus). Certainly the existence of a rebel Galilean preacher with a common Jewish name makes sense in the context of the times. Neither side is going to prove whether or not Jesus existed; the most we can do is summarize the various religious, historical and other relevant views on the subject. We've done that much. archola 23:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

PS: this page includes an interesting comparison of the historicities of Jesus and Socrates. archola 00:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadman, you are being entirely unfair to me. I have never "dismissed out of hand as POV" any sources you have suggested. Never. What I have done, though, was to argue that they were inappropriate sources. A philosopher can argue for or against something on logical grounds. But a philosopher is not a trained historian. S/he did not study the languages of the primary sources, and therefore is not an authority on the primary sources; moreover, the medthod of a philosopher is different from the method of a historian. A philosopher can say whatever he or she things about the historical Jesus but they are just expressing their personal opinion, as much as if they commented on art history or geology. The same goes for a professor of German. We wouldn't put his views in an article on physics. Why should his views on Roman/Hellenic/Second Temple Jewish/Palestine history be considered appropriate then? Second, you continually misconstrue and misrepresent what I wrote. in fact, I doubt you read it and if you did you did not understand it. I have provided verifiable sources from credible reputable trained professional historians, and you write, "heavily POV articles by people of 'faith.'" This is pure BS. I explained to you that Crossan (and Meier's and Sander's) faith does not enter into their historical scholarship. I explained to you that they use the same methods any trained historian uses, regardless of their personal beliefs. Yet you keep deleting the word "critical" or "historian." I have asked you to provide evidence for your claim that Crossan and others' history books are written based on the authors' faith, and you have provided no evidence. If you cannot put up, shut up. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

too many clauses

Kdbuffalo, I think there are too many clauses on that sentece to justify saying, "virtually all" scholars agree. Maybe virtually all scholars agree on any given one of those things, but for all of them together, "most" seems safer to me. --Allen 23:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

See my material under the heading "Re: POV compliant" But if you can show my material to be wrong then do so. For example, show me a historian in any part of the world (both living and dead), at a accredited university/college who ever denied Jesus existed. ken 23:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Thanks for pointing me to your earlier comments; I didn't realize you had addressed the crucifixion issue. That's the issue I really had in mind in my comment, not the existence of Jesus. I'll take your word for it unless I do find out about such a historian. Thanks again. --Allen 00:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to have caught your change up in the revert, kdbuffalo, but I had to undo the radical surgery on the paragraph.

Think we need to represent the minority view for these reasons:

Far more than three people hold these views. Hundreds of works over two hundred years hold this position. It is a small cottege industry on the internet. We need to acknowledge this view, while pointing out that the position is rejected by nearly every scholar in the field itself. By indicating that the minority are mostly not scholars in this field, we achieve that. If we do not, we will have this fight all over again. --CTSWyneken 02:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The phrases "a vast majority" and "a small minority" work perfectly fine. —Aiden 06:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus went to India

Am I the only one who is still baffled that nobody ever talks about Jesus going to India during his lost years? In the bible from about age 11-30 something there is no talk about what Jesus did or where he was...This is called his so called "Lost Years"....And there is tons of evidence that he went to India 71.119.249.226 01:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC) Note: This anonymous IP belongs to Verizon Internet Services, Inc.

That's one theory. Another is that he went to England with Joseph of Arimathea. You mention "tons of evidence," but I've seen little beyond medieval Christian legends. Can you supply a source that dates back as far as the New Testament? archola 01:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is no evidence I know of that Jesus went to India, England or anywhere else other Egypt and Palestine during his lifetime. If you have such evidence, please log in and cite it here. --CTSWyneken 02:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The Jesus and Joseph in England (specifically Cornwall and Glastonbury) may have started as propaganda by English Kings. In some versions, it's also tied to the King Arthur legend via the Holy Grail. I know of no evidence either; actually it's something I remember reading while persuing my first BA in English Language and Literature. I only brought it up because I suspect that both it and the anonymous Verizon IP's India theory are both examples of Christian mythology. archola 03:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps Muslim mythology. A quick Google search on "Jesus in India" revealed several references to Ahmadi Muslims (apparently they believe that Jesus travelled to India in search of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel). This is already included in the Jesus article (except that the reference is made to Kashmir, not India.) It's also mentioned in the Ahmadi article archola 04:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

There's been quite a bit written about this, but little of it would be considered mainstream scholarship as far as I know. See, for example, Holger Kersten (1994), "Jesus lived in India". Some of the theories have Jesus visiting India during the "lost years" as mentioned above, and others have him surviving the crucifiction (swoon hypothesis) and making his way there. It is a central belief of Ahmadiyya, and a number of christians in Kashmir claim to trace their community back to Jesus himself. ntennis 05:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

So...not scholarship but perhaps relevant to the appopriate Religious perspectives on Jesus articles. archola 05:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As long as we clearly identify that, in the view of historical scholars, these are religious views and/or legends, myths and stories and not historical events, we certainly can do this. --CTSWyneken 11:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)