Talk:Jesus/Archive 69

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

Sol Invictus

Identifying the image of Sol Invictus in the Tomb of the Julii as Jesus in a picture caption is misleading. That is one rather uncommon view. The works I have read, such as Peter Brown's The World of Late Antiquity, see it simply as a sol invictus.Lostcaesar 13:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, nice catch there. Homestarmy 17:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Uncommon?

According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967, article on Constantine the Great: "Sol Invictus had been adopted by the Church of Rome as evidenced by Christ as Apollo-Helios in a musoleum discovered under St. Peter's Basilica in Vatican City and dated to 250."

Aquinas

Shouldn't Aquinas be considered a major source of philosophical understanding re: Jesus, especially in comparison to C.S Lewis? 16:15 24th july 2006 (UTC)

Archive Contents (minor item)

Just a quick note: I've been spending a lot of time in the Archives for this talk page, and have gotten frustrated over the difficulty in finding the right archive for reference amongst that vast store of material. I have therefore added complete topic lists on the Key to Archives page for most archives. I have also added hard carriage returns after archive descriptions that are longer than three lines. If any of this annoys anyone, please feel free to revert it. If not, I'll continue as I plow through the other archives. Thanks, Kevin/Last1in 19:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the key very much. Thanks for the update! —Aiden 13:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

BC/BCE — AD/CE

Just been reading this article and I'm confused about the terminology. What are BCE and CE please? BlueValour 22:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

See common era. Paul B 22:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you; that's helpful. BlueValour 22:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism

I am an editor on the wikipedia anarchism article. There is an editor(s?) who wishes to include Jesus' (along with Thomas Jefferson and Thoreau) as an influence on modern anarchist thought. There is also a vocal group who do not agree that such information is pertinent to an article on anarchism. I thought that there might be people here who could contribute something to the debate. Thanks, Blockader.

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's." —Aiden 20:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Just to say "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's" is kinda only one side of the story. Jesus' flavor of "anarchism" was more along the lines of religious anarchism if one thinks about it, out against the "brokered" forms of Judaism that the Saducees (with the Temple) and the Pharisees (with strict oral tradition) held fast to. I mean, it was very similar to John the Baptist's movement in that sentiment, where John's was a move away from the formalized forms of ritual purity (i.e. the miqvot and priestly/rabbinic approval) to washing ("baptizing") for ritual purity in the Jordan on a daily basis. 'Just food for thought, mind you. :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 02:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

References standardization

Right now we seem to have several varying formats for Biblical references. In some instances we make use of the various Bible verse templates and place corresponding verses in parenthesis at the end of a sentence. For example:

Jesus advocated, among other things, turning the other cheek, love for one's enemies as well as friends, and the need to follow the spirit of the law in addition to the letter (Matthew 5).

Yet in other instances we have superscripts which basically do the same thing. For example:

Jesus promises to come again to fulfill the remainder of Messianic prophecy.[1]

And finally, we have some instances of both styles being used:

The Gospels state that Jesus is the Messiah,[2] "Son of God",[3] and "Lord and God" [4], sent to "give his life as a ransom for many" and "preach the good news of the kingdom of God." (Mark 10:45, Luke 4:43, John 20:31).

Proposals

While we need to standardize these references, we may run into problems both ways. By using individual footnotes for each verse used as a source, we will soon find that our footnotes section is several hundred entries long. Likewise, some sentences use multiple verses, which if cited through the Bible verse template create a long string of verses which hinders the readability of the article. Another thing I personally dislike is the use of references at multiple points in a sentence, rather than at the end. This is sometimes necessary, but in most places in this article, single paragraphs deal with a single subject which can be easily sourced with one footnote. Here are a few solutions I've come up with:

Aiden's proposal

When more than one Bible verse is provided, use a footnote, otherwise use the Bible verse template. For example, a sentence with one reference will look like this:

Jesus advocated, among other things, turning the other cheek, love for one's enemies as well as friends, and the need to follow the spirit of the law in addition to the letter (Matthew 5).

The same method would be used to replace single references in sentences such as this:

Following his baptism, according to Matthew, Jesus was led into the desert by God where he fasted for forty days and forty nights.

So that the sentence would look like this:

Following his baptism, according to Matthew, Jesus was led into the desert by God where he fasted for forty days and forty nights (Matthew 4:1-11).

While a sentence with multiple references will look like this:

Jesus sent his apostles to the Gentiles with the Great Commission and ascended to heaven while a cloud concealed him from their sight.[5]

This is a nuanced position which already exists in many places in the article, although as of yet it is not consistently enforced.

For paragraphs which cover one particular subject and have multiple sources, convert all references to inline citation with one footnote for one paragraph, unless specific citation is needed. For example, the paragraph on Jesus' relationship with the Pharisees currently looks like this:

Jesus also debated with other religious leaders. He disagreed with the Sadducees because they did not believe in the resurrection of the dead (Matthew 22:23–32). The relationship between Jesus and the Pharisees is more complex. Although Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their hypocrisy (Matthew 23:13–28), he also dined with Pharisees (Luke 7:36–50), taught in their synagogues (Mark 1:21), specified their teachings to his followers (Matthew 23:1–3), and counted Pharisees such as Nicodemus among his disciples (John 7:50–51).

Under the proposed format, it would look like this:

Jesus also debated with other religious leaders. He disagreed with the Sadducees because they did not believe in the resurrection of the dead. The relationship between Jesus and the Pharisees is more complex. Although Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their hypocrisy, he also dined with Pharisees, taught in their synagogues, specified their teachings to his followers , and counted Pharisees such as Nicodemus among his disciples.[6]

Please take note of how I've added some notes to the references so that the reader knows what the specific verses relate to. We can get as specific as we need here. I feel that this alleviates the problem of having hundreds of footnotes throughout the article by condensing footnotes according to subject matter. —Aiden 14:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Other proposals

Please list any other proposals here.

References for proposals

  1. ^ Matthew 24:36–44
  2. ^ Luke 2:11; John 1:41; John 20:31
  3. ^ Mark 1:1; John 20:31
  4. ^ John 1:1, 1:18, 20:28
  5. ^ Mark 16:19; Luke 24:51Acts 1:6–11.
  6. ^ On Sadducees: Matthew 22:23–32; On Pharisees: Matthew 23:13–28, Luke 7:36–50, Mark 1:21, Matthew 23:1–3, John 7:50–51.

Comments on proposals

Please leave comments here. —Aiden 14:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

In the "life based on the gospels" section, one thing I have always advocated avoiding is attempts to combine details from different gospels into one single account. Instead of adding "According to Luke... but John states..." and things like that, we had been putting the bible verses associated with the statements directly after them so the reader knows that the information is coming from two or more different gospels. Combining all the sources at the end of paragraph would, in my opinion, be a bad idea, unless we added what gospel the information was coming from to each and every sentence. In the past, I have gone through some of the sections to clear up this issue, so perhaps combining the citations in the "Nativity and childhood" and "Baptism and temptation" sections would work. That's my only concern. Your proposal about when to use inline and when to use footnotes is a great guideline.--Andrew c 14:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I understand what you're saying, but I think the Gospels agree more than they disagree, and when all Gospel accounts agree, I don't think we would run into any problems combining sources. I much more like the look of

Jesus sent his apostles to the Gentiles with the Great Commission and ascended to heaven while a cloud concealed him from their sight.[1]

than

Jesus sent his apostles to the Gentiles with the Great Commission and ascended to heaven while a cloud concealed him from their sight (Mark 16:19; Luke 24:51; Acts 1:6–11).

if you see what I mean. However, I think when there are differences, such as between Matthew and Luke's geneologies, the footnote could simply include a note such as "Matthew's geneology: Matthew 1:2-16; Luke's geneology: Luke 3:23-38" or something similair. —Aiden 14:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree completely with your example. If there are multiple references to support a claim, they should be combined (and preferably in a footnote). Because a lot of material is repeated almost verbatim in the synoptics, it makes sense to include all referneces, and it is destracting if there is a whole line of links after each sentence. That said, what I was refering to was to avoid something like this:
John the Baptist had begun preaching in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, c. 28 AD/CE and Jesus was about thirty years old when he was baptized. Jesus came to the Jordan River where John the Baptist had been preaching and baptizing people in the crowd. John tried to decline the baptism of Jesus, saying that it is Jesus who should baptize John. After Jesus had been baptized and rose from the water, Jesus "saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from heaven, 'You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased'".
Even if we had all the references listed in one footnote, it would still give the reader the illusion that they were reading one single narrative, instead of bits of information pulled from 3 different gospels. You can see how it is worded in the article now, which I feel is a satisfactory solution to this problem. As for how the references should go in that paragraph, I personally see nothing wrong with how it is now. There isn't too many references, nor a whole string of them. --Andrew c 15:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that all references should be <ref>ed, not put in-line with the text of this article, as a footnote can also be a place for explaination of differences between sources. If someone is interested in where it came from, they can easily click the link and read the footnote. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 15:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

But Andrew, you're editing out the parts of the paragraph which say things like, "According to Mark..." "and Matthew adds to the other accounts by describing...". Doing this, one single footnote could be used with the notes "Matthew's account: <verse>; Luke's account: <verse>; etc..." I do agree however that we should not treat this as one single narrative, but I think we've so far done a good job of specifying whose account we're talking about. I don't think the footnotes would confuse this, especially if we actually use notes in the footnotes. —Aiden 15:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I was just saying what we should avoid doing. It was simply a hypothetical situation. We should watch out for this. If removing the references in another section makes in not clear the source, and insteads starts to form a harmony, we should added in qualifying phrases like "according to John" etc. That's it. Anyway, I think that your proposal could work, and I'd be glad to help convert some of the citations if we get more support.--Andrew c 15:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
OK great, I agree. —Aiden 16:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Aiden's proposal sounds good to me. Wesley 17:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Aiden's original proposal. The current method interferes with the readability of the article, and Aiden's solution is both effective and comprehensive. I feel that it will significantly improve this article. With respect, I just as strongly disagree with Andrew's objection. Each Gospel (heavens! nearly each verse!) has a separate article. I see scant reason to delve the nuances of the various narratives here. Treating the canonical Gospels as separate sources to produce a single narrative thread, IMHO, is both valid and necessary. The objective is an encyclopaedic article on Jesus; let us leave the John said, but Mark claimed to the vast sea of articles devoted to that subject. Kevin/Last1in 18:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ack, strongly disagree? Jeez. Read through the Nativity and baptism and tempation sections. And read the relevent topics in archives 50/51. I personally feel that these two sections are perfect examples of the way to properly do the sort of thing I was talking about above. If you feel that these sections are unencyclopedic, or too much he-said, she-said, ,I'd appreciate a comment. But at least from the process that reached the current wording there, I got the notion that the community supported my idea and changes. So I feel like perhaps I have conveyed them incorrectly here. --Andrew c 20:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we give a couple more days for comments and other proposals and then begin cleaning up the existing references in the article. —Aiden 23:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

OK I think it's safe to begin. Comments? —Aiden 18:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Headers

IMHO, the header changes on this page are nothing more than flamebait intended to distract excellent editors (like Aiden & Andrew) from improving this article and others in the "religion sphere". What possible difference does it make what the talk-page header says, other than as a stick with which to stir ant mounds? May I suggest that we simply ignore the page after page of header (something most of us do anyway)? Kevin/Last1in 20:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Two things. 1) I really think that Talk:Jesus header should be at the very top. I mean, why have the template that introduces you to this actual page burried 4 templates down. and 2) I think the header list is getting a bit long. If any more projects claim this article, I'd suggest creating a subpage just for that sort of thing. I think the top is starting to be cluttered. And I agree, we should worry more about the content of this article than trivial stuff like that, but I'm totally guilty of being caught up in it on occassion. --Andrew c 02:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Telugu Translation of this page

I want to translate this page to 'telugu' language. Can you help me to start off?

-Sudha.

user:harappa is a Telugu speaker. He may help if you contact his talk page. Paul B 13:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Mormonism on Jesus

The section on Mormon's views of Jesus under "Non-trinitarian" needs some revision. It currently stands: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) maintains that Jesus is the very same as Yahweh of the Old Testament. The single Godhead consists of three distinct personages: God the Father, his Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost." I don't know Mormon theology very well, but this as it stands is solidly and indisputably trinitarian. The traditional view is that the trinity has 3 distinct persons (or what is oddly called "personages" here) in one unity. The wiki entries on Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Christian views of Jesus do make more clear the non-traditional views of Mormons regarding the trinity. Here's what's at Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: "LDS theology maintains that God the Father (Heavenly Father), Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct beings who together constitute the Godhead. Though the LDS sometimes use the word Trinity to describe this belief, it is different from the traditional doctrine of the Trinity, which maintains that the three are one being. All three members of the Godhead are eternal and equally divine, but play somewhat different roles. While the Holy Ghost is a spirit without a physical body, God and Christ do possess distinct, perfected, physical bodies of flesh and bone. Although Mormon theology sees the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost as separate beings, they are considered to be "one God" in purpose."

Someone one should clean up this with something more in line with the other entry. It should be made clear here that Mormons do not believe that Jesus is "of one substance" with the father, to quote the Westminster Confession. The bit about Jesus being "the very same as Yahweh" would seem to need to go, or be revised. --Aithon 20:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't Mormons believe that Jesus is one and the same as Yahweh, and that God the Father is one and the same as Elohim? Where's Storm Rider? I'll go fetch him. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 21:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Yea, Storm Rider should probably be able to clear this up. Homestarmy 21:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Archo and Homestar, thank you for thinking of me. I will look at the passage and edit it to conform to LDS doctrine and to differentiate the two beliefs.
You are correct. LDS believe that Jesus is Yahweh or Jehovah and God the Father is solemnly referred to as Elohim. These are sacred terms and we do not use them in common speech, but we are also comfortable using them; they are just reverenced.
The distinction between Trinitarianism and LDS belief is that though they are one in purpose and in virtually all things, God the Father and Jesus are separate beings. When Stephen looked into the heavens and saw Jesus on the right hand of the Father; we understand that literally. They are eternally separate beings or personages.
The concept of "substance" is foreign to LDS. To put things in common terms: Is a son the same substance as his father? Is "god"ness found individually? I would enjoy talking about these things further, but they are not discussed formally as doctrine. Sometimes you will hear the comment that these are concepts of man developed to explain or understand God. As such, they are thought of as doctrines of man. We have nothing other than what is in scripture and we have not received further clarification.
I have always felt I was a strict monotheist. I worship God the Father through His Son, Jesus. The Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost is the second comforter, He who brings inspiration and uncovers the will of God to us. This is exemplified in prayer. When I pray I pray to the Father in the name of Jesus Christ and my heart and spirit rejoice in the sweet Spirit that comes.
Jesus is eternal with the Father, but we also believe that all beings are eternal fundamentally; however, that does not mean that God is not our creator; he is. I don't know if I sufficiently answered any questions or engendered more. Storm Rider (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Storm Rider, your comments do clarify somewhat the LDS position vis-a-vis the trinity. Even though LDS uses this terminology of "substance," "personage," and "being" somewhat differently than the traditional Western creeds, I would hestitate to frame this section in LDS usages of terminology when it differs from the traditional understanding. So I mean to say, the traditional terms of "substance" and "being" refer to the Greek terms of the nicene creed, monogene and homoousion to patri. The nicene creed states that Jesus and the father share one "substance" (monogene), or origin or anscestry, perhaps, and share one "being" (homoousion to patri). But, it is traditional to understand the father and the son as being separate "persons." Sorry, I don't have the time now to look up a source for that, but that is the traditional understanding of the distinction between father and son. Therefore, it would be confusing to use in this section "personages" and "being," as Storm Rider has, interchangeably. Some mention must be made of this LDS belief in different "substances." --Aithon 15:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Klausner on Jesus

Joseph Klausner and other great Jewish scholars of the 20th century firmly believed that Jesus should be seen as a great Jewish teacher of the first century. Das Baz 16:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Where to put the data? cf. Jesus#Judaism's view, the 2nd and 3rd paragraph of Jesus#Forensic reconstructions of Jesus' day to day life, Judaism's view of Jesus and Cultural and historical background of Jesus. Keep in mind though, that the Jesus article is a little crowded as it is. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 16:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

PS: Not to mention Historical Jesus, but that article needs a lot of work (as it stands, it's more Q & A/FAQ that encyclopedic.]] Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 16:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Jayjg seems to of been in a slow edit war about this person, I see no reason why this one scholar can be seen as exemplifying Judaism's view of Jesus as a whole. Homestarmy 17:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, not as a whole. This info can be categorized as much as an historical view as a Judaic one. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)