Talk:Jesus/Archive 78

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

youth in white

I think Mark's account of the angelic appearance is misrepresented by this short phrase "youth wearing white"... it does make it sound like Mark is contradicting the other gospels by having the herald be some random guy wearing white. If you read the original text his appearance was a bit more dramatic than that.

cultural effects

Here's something where maybe I'll get some back-up from the Christians in the house. The "cultural effects of Jesus" section is anemic. I want to add something like this: 'Jesus preached love for the unfortunate, transcendence of ethnic divisions, and the Golden Rule. He founded or at least inspired a religion that has helped shape Western civilization. Western civilization has been at the forefront of establishing government that concerns itself with the unfortunate (the "welfare state," etc.), abolishing slavery worldwide, and instituting universal human rights. Critics of Jesus consider this a coincidence.' Can we get something like this in "Cultural effects of Jesus"? Jonathan Tweet 05:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, Johnathan. These aspects of Jesus' teachings, while certainly significant today, were not really given widespread consideration until the 20th, or perhaps the late 19th, century. History tells us that prior to the economic successes of the post-colonial period, there was little or no concern within Western governments for the poor--this was viewed as the province of private charities (churches being prominent among these). On the issue of slavery and human rights, Christianity's legacy is divided. There were Christian abolitionists, to be sure, but there were also Christian proponents of slavery, many of whom argued that slavery was God's will. Unfortunately, the radical segregationists of the last century and a half also considered themselves "Christians," though I personally doubt the claim that their version of Christianity is anything Christ would recognize.
But as far as critics, I've never heard of anyone who claims that Jesus' concern for the unfortunate was a coincidence. Do you have a citation for this? Justin Eiler 12:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Justin, I mean that critics say it's a coincidence that Jesus taught love (basically) and that Western civilization has been at the forefront of the social justice and human rights movements. In other words, skeptics say that Jesus doesn't get any credit for (say) concept of universal human rights. Jonathan Tweet 14:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Which critics claim it is a coincidence? Please provide a verifiable source. Also, who says that Jesus' influence was a significant factor to the movement for universal human rights (off-hand this seems wrong to me, Jefferson was a deist, the French revolutionaries were profoundly anti-Christian ... it seems to me that the antecedents to the notion of universal human rights were anti-Christian or non-Christian) and the establishment of the welfare state? I think if you make your claims more narrow (e.g. perhaps some of the Settlements were founded by Christians) you will be on safer ground but we still need verifiable reputable sources for this - who makes these claims? PS raising "transcendence of ethnic divisions" opens a can of worms since one could link that to the Christian role in genocide. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to claim it's a coincidence if you're saying that Jesus' influence wasn't a significant factor in the establishment of universal human rights. Jefferson makes my point. Like me, he had no great affection for the Christian religion, but he admired Jesus' ethics above all others. While Christians might have conducted genocide, we're talking here about the cultural effects of the man Jesus, not of his self-identified followers. Maybe I should just stick in this quote from H. G. Wells (someone else with no great love for Christianity), from his history of the world: "The personal teaching of Jesus does seem to mark a new phase in the moral and spiritual life of our race. Its insistence upon the universal Fatherhood of God and the implicit brotherhood of all men, its insistence upon the sacredness of every human personality as a living temple of God, was to have the profoundest effect upon all the subsequent social and political life of mankind." [1] Jonathan Tweet 02:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Johnathan, the crux of the issue is this: while I quite agree that Jesus' teachings of universal rights was a significant factor in our 19th and 20th century emphasis on social welfare and equality, and while I agree that Jesus' teachings have been a profound influence on Western civilization, I cannot justifiably state that Jesus was the sole source of the emphasis on human rights that we see in Western culture today. Additionally, I have never even heard anyone claim that our modern human rights ethos is somehow only a coincidence with Jesus' teachings.

What we need here is reliable sources who make these claims in an unbiased, academic context. Neither Christian apologetics nor atheist responses are terribly useful for this purpose--we need solid, scholarly history, and the claims you make above, while well intentioned (and something I agree with on a personal level) are simply not verifiable. Justin Eiler 03:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan Tweet seems to think I am claiming something. That misses the point. it doesn't matter what I think. it doesn't matter what Jonathan Tweet things. We do not put our own views in articles. What verifiable reliable sources do you have that say Jesus was an important cause of European social reform and human rights? Find the sources and we will put them in (Wells seems to be expressing his own opnion, it is not like a historian saying "Much of the initial legislation passed was promoted by Christian social activists...") Of course, Jesus was not a European, and many of his earliest followers lived in the Middle East. Muslims to this day consider Jesus a prophet. So you would think that if Jesus influenced Western Europeans, many of whom did not know about Jesus until the eight or ninth centuries, he woul dhave had a far more powerful impact on Christian and Muslim Arab calls for social reform and universal human rights ... Slrubenstein | Talk 09:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

For those people who don't understand the world

You can communicate with God by sounds. God makes the sounds (if he wants) and he knows what you are thinking. Please listen carefully to all kind of sounds!!! (www.jesusadore.de soon there will be more in English on this page)

A bit more fair would be nice

I can't help but notice that this sort of refers to Jesus as a fictional character. I completely understand that we have to be fair to others that believe differently but since (most) of us know that God and Jesus are indeed quite real, couldn't we somehow lightly introject that somewhere in here? Maybe not use so much, "According to" and such?

Just a thought...—Preceding unsigned comment added by XXJesusFreakXx (talk • contribs)

This article seems to be okay according to Wikipedia: NPOV. It would actually be unfairly written if it did not contain words such as "According to" because contrary to your statement most people do not believe that Jesus is God. According to recent polls, of the approximately seven billion people in the world, there are only about two billion who claim to be some-sort of Christian. Let us not forget that many people who claim to be of a certain religion actually are not extremists or completely devoted to that particular belief. There are also those whose beliefs greatly differ from yours and mine, but still call themselves "Christians."

After all, the article does say "A small minority of scholars question the historical existence of Jesus." In my opinion, if you want to find a bias article, type "evolution" into the Wikipedia search bar. I'm not sure if Christians, or anyone who doubts the Theory of Evolution for that matter, will be able to do anything about it since so many people accept the belief that people evolved from single cell organisms as a fact.

- JNeal 05:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

JesusFreak, the Holy Spirit ensures that the Word of God is true, but not Wikipedia. If Wikipedia editors could state who Jesus Christ really is, then other editors who either don't know the truth or who know it but are in Satan's thrall would be able to state who Jesus Christ "really is" (from their false point of view). I think you and I both know that there are some so-called Christians out there who would love to use Wikipedia as propaganda for their mistakes and lies. The safer course is to make everyone refer to their sources. That's why we say "according to," and so on. Then readers will be directed to the Bible, where the real truth lies, rather than relying on another of man's inventions (Wikipedia) to tell them the Truth about Jesus Christ. Jonathan Tweet 17:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
JNeal - you seem to say that all Christians doubt evolution. This is not the case. Thanks, JPotter 20:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

- Yeah, I guess I do understand where you guys are coming from. And Tweet, that is right, the Holy Spirit does ensure us that the Bible is true.

Carry on guys. I hope I wasn't a bother.—Preceding unsigned comment added by XXJesusFreakXx (talk • contribs)

Jason Potter, apparently that is indeed what I was unconsciously implying. I know that not all Christians doubt evolution; I used to know someone who tried to combine the Bible and Darwin’s Theories. I bet some “Christians” do not even believe Jesus was a real person! With billions of people, it is quite obvious that there will be extreme doctrinal differences. Also, when I said “Christian,” I meant specifically those who believe in what I know to be the truth, and not just those who say they are “Christians.”

XXJesusFreakXx, you were no bother at all. In fact, it brings me joy to know that I am not the only one who deeply cares about preserving the Scripture. Stay strong in the Faith, and may God bless you.

- JNeal 01:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No editor

I wonder what the editors here are doing. Why this article doesn't mention anything about Jesus's great achievements of this loving person; how he changed the world; and about the new ideas he brought. Isn't there any devote editor here who is willing to do research and gather pieces of information from here and there? --Aminz 04:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

We are encyclopedia articles, not Christian missionaries. I am sure the WWW has plenty of cites that mention lots about what Christians think of Jesus and why. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
He's talking about the impact Jesus the man had on the world and on philosophy. How is that not appropriate for an encyclopedia? 2nd Piston Honda 10:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up. We have a brief section and it ought to be linked to a larger article (only because this article is already too big). As long as the article complies with our core policies especially NPOV and using verifiable sources, i am all for it and encourage anyone knowledgeable about the verifiable sources to work on that article. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
"I wonder what the editors here are doing" - Aminz, you have such a way with words; I trust you will never be accused of overly charming others with flattery. Lostcaesar 11:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Aminz, I think we can work together on this project. Our obstacle is that lots of Christians emphasize Jesus' death and its role in the cosmic history of the universe over Jesus' life, his teachings, his ideas, and the influence he has had on world culture. Just look at the Nicene Creed, which never even mentions that Jesus opened his mouth and said a single word.

Jonathan Tweet 17:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You are definitely right Jonathan. It is not only the case with Jesus but also with Paul the apostle. --Aminz 08:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I started a section in Christianity article[2](just a start; not a very good one though). We can start it here as well. Sure there is too much to find. I want to see these articles in a situation that when someone sees it becomes fill with esteem and respect. --Aminz 08:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Got it. An Introduction to the New Testament and the Origins of Christianity, Cambridge University Press by Delbert Royce Burkett is what we are looking for. p.250-263. There is a section on "Differing Pictures Of The Historical Jesus". There it explains what Jesus did from different prespectives, social, etc etc. --Aminz 10:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

more information

People, if anyone knows how many days after his death was jesus resurrected. Please write it down a a title with the answer. thank you

Err, three? Homestarmy 04:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes Jesus rose on the third day (hence we get the Christian perspective and celebration of Easter) For Christians there is palm sunday when Jesus rode into Jerusalem and at the end of that week is black friday which is when Jesus was crucified on the cross and on the third day (always the first sunday after black friday) Jesus rose again (that sunday is Easter)and from the dead he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of God.

(Minor adjustment of this section was performed by me, PureRumble 20:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC), so that it wouldn't screw up the talk-page like it did. I have NOT written anything (besides these two sentences) in this section). PureRumble 20:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Outsider perspective

Although this article might be very informative for people who are already familiar with Christian theology, it uses a lot of theological jargon without explaining it. Outsiders will be confused at many points becasue the article presupposes a lot of knowledge. Good effort though. The article is on its way to becoming better, and it has many positive qualities. HeBhagawan 15:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you have examples? Lostcaesar 15:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Judas, etc.

Current text: "According to the synoptics, Judas Iscariot, one of his apostles, betrayed Jesus by identifying him to the guards with a kiss. Another apostle used a sword to attack one of the captors, cutting off his ear, which, according to Luke, Jesus immediately healed.[20]"

This could be shorter and could mention the Devil's role in the whole affair. I propose: "The apostle Judas Iscariot, swayed by the Devil [verse], betrayed Jesus to the soldiers. He identified Jesus with a kiss. Simon Peter fought back with a sword and cut off the ear of the high priest's slave, but Jesus healed it. [verse]"

Jonathan Tweet 04:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Err, on my screen, that only saves about three or four words...? Homestarmy 04:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, "This could add a mention of the Devil's role and still squeak in a few words shorter." That better? Jonathan Tweet 15:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

If there are no objections to adding a reference to the Devil's role in Judas' betrayal of Jesus, then I will. Jonathan Tweet 14:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The Jesus Extraterrestrial Connection

I propose adding something like this (but am totally open to revision):

"Some proponents of ancient astronaut theory and other believers in alien visitation of Earth speculate that Jesus was an extraterrestrial or extraterrestrial agent. They cite the mysterious lights over the site of his birth (the Star of Bethlehem), performance of 'miracles' beyond human technology, alleged physical ascension into heaven, etc. as typical of alleged extraterrestrial phenomenon."

Yes, people who believe this are a minority (albeit a fairly large one), but that's why all I'm asking is a single paragraph to briefly mention the idea. To those who believe in UFOs the idea's a natural fit.

Supporting references:

In short, this belief seems popular enough to warrant the very brief mention I'm trying to give it.

Thanks.

P.S. The paragraph would be inserted in the "Other views of Jesus" section, beneath the New Age bit.

--Irrevenant 20:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

When you say "a fairly large one [minority]", large in proportion to who, people who believe in UFO's, or the general population? Homestarmy 23:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the term "fairly large majority" is a bit too risky in terms of different interpretations of what it means to be included. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 23:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, I could see mentioning the space-alien tie-in, but this way. "The New Age movement proposes an array of viewpoints on Jesus, at times associating him with Buddha, Eckankar, Atlantis, UFOs, Richard Bach's idealism, etc." Here the very rareness of this viewpoint is part of the reason to mention it, to show how far out some viewpoints can be. You should definitely edit "Religious perspectives on Jesus," too, because there would be even more room on that page to explore the topic. Jonathan Tweet 23:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Deskana, the text about minorities was part of my supporting argument for inclusion ; it was not intended to be incorporated into the article. I agree with Jonathon Tweet's suggestion, but for clarification I've italicised the original suggested text. Homestarmy, according to this poll 24% of Americans believe extraterrestrials have visited Earth. It seems highly unlikely that many of those people wouldn't have speculated in that context re: the Bible and it's stories of ascension into the heavens, flying chariots, medical miracles etc. And, of course, a number of individuals have explicitly suggested a connection between Jesus and extraterrestrials (see citations plus here's another one). --Irrevenant 08:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I vote not to add it, but if added, to be (like Tweet said) listed within the same sentence with other fringe beliefs. 2nd Piston Honda 01:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Should not be added per WP:V and WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. —Aiden 05:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I would be happy with Jonathan Tweet's suggestion; it successfully addresses the "undue weight" issue (one word hardly constitutes "undue weight"!). Re: WP:V, I've already given you references to four different published books that discuss the idea ; what more do you want? Verification is required for the fact that a significant number of people have argued the position (which I've given you) . Verification of the position itself is not required. --Irrevenant 08:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that The Life of Brian makes it crystal clear that the UFO connection was with Brian, and not Jesus himself. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Noone's citing The Life of Brian as a source. --irrevenant [ talk ] 19:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Irrevenant, just because there are four books about something doesn't make it notable enough for an article like this, its supposed to be very general in nature. We can't possibly list every tiny theory about Jesus here. --User:Homestarmy 13:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
There are considerably more than four - surely I don't have to cite all of them!?! Another example is (link removed) the Jesus is an Alien idea in a song of the same name (Yes, they were mocking the idea but they listed it alongside other hugely popular conspiracy favourites like Elvis sightings and JFK, which demonstrates its popularity). I'm asking for one word to be added (as per Jonathan's comment) and I've demonstrated the belief's popularity to a much higher burden of proof than anyone else has been asked for. I'm beginning to feel that some people are just opposing this incredibly small change because they don't like the idea itself. --irrevenant [ talk ] 19:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's another reference supporting the idea's popularity of the idea, from Strange Secrets: "one of the pamphlets contains an article by Van Tassel claiming that Jesus Christ was born of space men and the star of Bethlehem was a space craft that stood by while Jesus was born". Today such claims are part and parcel of UFO lore" [emphasis mine] --irrevenant [ talk ] 20:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, meaning that you'd have a case to add this to the UFO page. To add it to this page, you'd have to have a significant percentage of the general population, or at least the Christian community, profess this belief. 2nd Piston Honda 20:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
This is a view about Jesus entertained by a significantly large number of people. The Gallup poll indicates that 24% of Americans believe in alien visitation. The publications I cited above make it clear that speculation as to a Jesus extraterrestrial connection is common in the UFO community. Some people outside the UFO community are also familiar with the idea (eg. the Matchbox 20 song, which would also have propogated the idea). Therefore, a large number of people are familiar with this view. In addition there is a sizable number of explicit published references (5 cited) and a large number of internet sites on the topic. It's obviously hard to obtain a precise figure, but it appears to be in the millions. There is no requirement that the people in question fall within 'the Christian Community' especially since we're talking about adding it to a section titled "Other views of Jesus". --irrevenant [ talk ] 08:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
First you need legitimate sources that discuss this, then you need to show it is a significant view. And you statement that, according to a poll, 24% of Americans believe in alien encounters in not entierly relevant. Other than that it is one poll, and that it only applies to America, it does not actually say anything about people who think Jesus was an alien. Some Americans think that JFK was killed by a government conspiracy, but it doesn't follow from this that they think the shooter was Richard Nixon. Lostcaesar 07:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
(1) 24% of Americans believe in Extraterrestrial visitation (ie. ~ 72m people), (2) numerous UFO publications agree that the idea of a Jesus Extraterrestrial connection is common amongst UFO believers. In conjunction these two facts indicate a large number of people (in the millions, just within the US). (3) The number of books and websites covering the topic suggest a large number of people who entertain the idea. (4) For a person who believes in extraterrestrial visitation Jesus is an obvious figure to speculate about, given the number of Biblical beings descending from and ascending to the heavens, mysterious lights in the sky heralding his birth etc. Unfortunately, there isn't a direct poll on the matter, but the supporting evidence is certainly strong enough to warrant one word in this article. -- irrevenant [ talk ] 08:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand your extrapolations, but I would not use such logic to prove a hypothesis. I would not support adding this tidbit of fantasy for not other reason than balance. Making the leap from how many people believe in extraterrestials visitors to Jesus being one is too broad a leap and is not logical. We can not possibly cover every fringe concept that exists in the world or in the minds of mankind about Jesus. We necessarily cover only the most significant issues here. I suggest a blog for this quality of idea and research. Cheers. Storm Rider (talk) 09:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I might post this idea in a blog if I was a proponent of the idea, but I'm not. I just wanted to help Wikipedia represent all significant perspectives on the issue, not just the standard ones. I expected Wikipedia would want to include all significant alternative views in this article, as it does for others. I'm disappointed to find that this is not the case and that a major alternative view will not be allowed one word in this article, but cede the issue as I am outvoted. --irrevenant [ talk ] 07:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I second Storm Rider's comments. —Aiden 05:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be added. I have heard of this before and it warrants one word in the other views section. That is exactly what the other views section is for. Iffykid 08:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we add the following categories?

1. Category:People claiming to have psychokinetic abilities 2.Category:Psychics 3. Category:Purported telepaths 4. Category:Supernatural healing(I particularly support adding this category) Andries 20:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I would no support such a thing. Jesus did not "claim" to have such abilities, was not a purported telepath, and was not a Psychics. As for the last one, "Supernatural healing", maybe, but I still would not do it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that Jesus fits the definition of a psychic i.e. "A psychic is a person who has the abilities of extra-sensory perception, such as clairvoyance, psychometry, premonition and precognition, or other paranormal abilities such as psychokinesis." After all he changed water into wine. Andries 20:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that Jesus did not claim to have such abilities. Andries 20:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
What does that mean? If yoiu have an argument to make, make it. Saying that you do not agree is irrelevant. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that you're dealing with a category which is generally applied to semi-ordinary people, whereas here we have a person who ultimatly founded a world-wide religion on the premise that He was both man and God and died for the sins of all humanity. The supposed powers of "Psychic" don't really compare to this level of power. Homestarmy 20:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The correct statement would be "whose followers ultimately founded a world-wide religion." There is no indication that he formed a religion while he was alive. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
"Upon this rock I will build my Church", "Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you", "And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." The list goes on. 2nd Piston Honda 00:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
So you think that the category is wrong for people like Jesus and Sathya Sai Baba? Andries 20:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I would need to learn more about that person before deciding that. Homestarmy 21:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Adding Jesus to any of these categories would be very strange indeed, in particular given the historicity of Jesus. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Why strange? If the historicity of Jesus is a reason not to put him in the categories then he should removed from the categories Disputed convictions | People executed by crucifixion | Jews | 0s BC births | 1st century deaths. Andries 06:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I have another thing to add on the first one. That category is in two other categories itself, "Confidence tricksters | Pseudoscience". This isn't a scientific topic to begin with, and there certainly is not some consensus that Jesus was a "Confidence trickster". Homestarmy 13:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, Category:Psychics is also in Category:Entertainers, of which Jesus certainly is not. Homestarmy 14:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, you convinced me that that the category pscychics is wrong based on your argument. Andries 22:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Lastly, purported telepaths is also in the "confidence tricksters" category. Homestarmy 14:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I removed the category confidence tricksters from the category purported telepaths. Andries 22:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

2nd paragraph

Someone had added information to the second paragraph about what the vast majority of scholars agree upon. Every single part of that sentence is supported by all the cited sources. We cannot simply add information to that very heavily verifiable and sourced sentence, without going back to EVERY source and making sure they agree with it. Will all the scholars agree Jesus was a prophet? Will they all agree he attracted a following? and that it was large? Maybe, maybe not... but the fact of the matter is we are putting words in the mouths of these scholars every time we change this sentence without refering to the cited sources.--Andrew c 23:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. My mistake. However, I just think we should include more general information in the intro. I think getting into who baptised Jesus is much too specific for the introduction. —Aiden 09:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Mandaeanism?

It seems rather odd weight-wise in the article that the other views section jumps from a group with a population of around 6 million to one with around 60,000. When exactly did Mandaeanism get included here, was there a discussion about this? Because they seem like far too small of a group to me to warrent inclusion. Homestarmy 15:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Cristo Velázquez lou2.jpg

The peer review bot just picked up something I think might be important, this image apparently isn't tagged, it supposedly is a cropped image of something else, is this even fair use? (It's the picture where Jesus is crucified) Homestarmy 21:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It might be fair use. Not taggest just means we don't know where it came from, I believe, so we don't know if it is fair use or not. The image is readily avaliable online and so I am sre a fair use version is avaliable somewhere. It seems rather technical then, though we could upload one and tag it just to cross the t's and dot the i's. PS, if it is cropped, its not cropped much, because the painting is just Jesus on a Cross with a black background - its very famous. Lostcaesar 22:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The artist died in 1660, thus the painting itself is in the public domain. The photograph of the painting is in the PD under Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. I updated the licensing info on the image. —Aiden 05:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Intro, para 2

"A small minority of scholars and authors question the evidence regarding the historical existence of Jesus." "historical existence of Jesus" is piped to Jesus as myth, which does NOT question the historical existance of Jesus. This will confuse readers about the JesusMyth article more than they already are! That article is NOT about, and does NOT dispute, the historical existance of Jesus, so what possible reason could there be for such a bad pipe??? Strongly suggest NOT linking "question the evidence", and instead linking "historical existance of Jesus" with Historicity of Jesus. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to strongly disagree with removing the link toe Jesus as a myth. The whole point of this minority sentence is to represent the Jesus mythers. Historically, that has been the purpose of the clause. It isn't a question on what are the sources on the historical Jesus, and how reliable they are (which the historicity article covers), but it is about the hypothesis that there was never a living human named Jesus. I would say that linking to the historicity article is much, much more misleading when we are talking about this minority position that scholars hold. Maybe we could reword the sentence in a manner where the piping makes more sense, but I strongly oppose deleting the link to the Jesus myth article.--Andrew c 22:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the problem is we have a couple of words and a link that dont seem to match. The context and the link do match, but not the words. Some have sought to make the words and the link match, but this makes the two together wrong in the given context. Why not change the words to match the Jesus as myth link. In other words, say "a small minority consider Jesus to be ahistorical and therefore a myth" with the JM link therein. Those words are just a suggestion but you get the idea. Lostcaesar 22:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree, I was thinking something along the lines of "A small minority doubt the historicity of Jesus, and thereby positing the stories about Jesus are syncretisms from older myths" or more simply "A small minority question the historicity of Jesus (see Jesus as myth)." The problem is, just about every scholar questions or doubts some aspect of the historicity of Jesus. The mythists outright deny the whole thing. There is a difference between questioning aspects of the sources, and denying a historical figure which isn't really made clear in these or the current wording. LC's version addresses this but leaves out the historicity link. Maybe we should add another sentence that talks about historicity? hmm...--Andrew c
Well, I think it depends on what one means by "historicity of Jesus", or, more specifically, what the inherent historical dimensions are of what one means by "Jesus". So, perhaps we could sidestep that. Here is another stab: "A [very] small minority of scholars doubt the historical existence of Jesus [link HoJ], arguing for a purely mythical Jesus [link JM]." I think that needs some improvement but maybe its a step in the right direction. Lostcaesar 00:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's getting there. Only problem now is that the HoJ pipe seems a little off because the HJ article seems more appropriate. I agree that some of the problems here stem from what exactly one means by 'historicity', which we have encountered on the HoJ page recently as well. The page currently is a list of the written sources, and a brief overview of the HJ and MJ positions. I think the article doesn't really deal that much with historicity, and that maybe that isn't the best title. But I'm still thinking things over. any other ideas?--Andrew c 00:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, its a little after midnight here and I am about out of ideas. I agree the HoJ pipe is a little off, but I need to think on it more before I get a better idea. I think the HJ article needs a lot of attention, and the HoJ article is maybe a little raw, though the material it does have about the sources seems relevant enough, since that's what the matter is decided upon. My first thoughts are, the "historicity of Jesus" is about whether Jesus existed historically or not, but doesn't say what Jesus was like historically. Basically, it says that Jesus is (or is not), but not what he is (or is not). The "historical Jesus" article should be about the views of what can be known about Jesus based on historical methods (and takes his existence as a given). It might seem like a subtle distinction, but it is a distinction nonetheless that frees up the articles a bit. The article here is a much broader overview of Jesus. The article on Christian views of Jesus, which needs much work itself, should be about what is claimed to be known about Jesus based on historical and religious methods (or, if some religious methods either ignore or preclude the historical methods, then for those views the religious methods alone will suffice). I think the firse sentence, and the dab headers, should make this all very clear. Right now I know the dab is an issue over on HoJ but, well, I guess that's just how it goes. Lostcaesar 00:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for Semi Protection

I just requested that this page be semi-protected; there have been 30 or so of the last 50 edits have either been vandals or vandal reverts. standonbible 20:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Historical Jesus, skeptics, and NPOV

There is a debate going on over at Talk:Historicity of Jesus. Because this debate deals with saying "Most scholars accept a historical Jesus", and cited information that was copied from the second paragraph of this article, I felt editors here, who put countless hours of research and debate into phrasing this section, should be involved. Please join us, especially if you were here half a year ago and helped with that research and debate. I feel like the debate could easily be solved if we could simply convince the editors that "most scholars accept a historical Jesus", but they are throwing out old arguments like the gospels are completely useless historically because they are "Christian", that scholars who are Christian cannot actually do secular scholarship, etc.--Andrew c 23:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, Slrubenstein I think was the best editor then and now for making the case, because he seems really familiar with scholarship in this field and knows how to defend Biblical scholars from the "Their ALL Christians, they must be liars!" accusations. Homestarmy 18:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"Useless because they are 'Christian?'" Alllrrrriiight. They got away with that? Ignorance is deadly, you know. Anyway, I suggest it at least be mentioned the historical reality of Jesus Christ wasn't challenged until the 18th and 19th centuries. The fact is, there were really no grounds on which any people of the ancient world could base the belief that Jesus Christ didn't exist on ... Even the pagans and Rabbinical writers of the age admitted to His reality, though certainly denying His Divinity. MrLigit

Jesus WASN'T born in 0AD?

Wait, I thought the whole calendar system was based around his birth? How could he have been born before? PureLegend 22:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

What happened was back when the AD system was created, there wern't really exact records as to how long ago precisely Jesus had been born. So the people who got together to create the system sort of made a guess as to Jesus' approximate birthday, which as most historian type people now agree, appears to of been a couple years too late. But the people who made the system probably deserve at least some credit, I mean they were pretty close, and they wern't exactly using 21st century standardized historical analysis techniques. Homestarmy 00:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Also there is no 0 AD or 0 BC. Instead 1 AD follows 1 BC Jooler 00:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
And if you even happen to need to discern the date of events using recordes that predede the AD system, you will be most thankful to the change. Lostcaesar 08:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the calculations are credited to one specific monk: Dionysius Exiguus. See his article and Anno Domini for more. --Midnite Critic 15:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

What about an athiestic viewpoint?

This whole article is slanted towards the view that Jesus was legitimately representing God in one way or another. Now this may well be what many people believe. However, in the spirit of NPOV it should not be put without question. If there is no God then Jesus was either mad or bad. This at least deserves a mention and there has been serious argument based on this that generally concludes that he was divine. If Albert Schweitzer had to provide an argument that Jesus was not mad then what has happened to discussion of this?

--202.4.49.247 07:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The challenge in articles of this genre is the necessity of writing from the standpoint of why an individual is important. Obviously, the individual known as Jesus is not reknowned for "not existing". He is known for his religious importance in a number of different religious movements.
If you review the archives you will see that the issues you bring up have been brought up before at divers times. Our objective on WIKI is not to prove anything, but simply to write articles that explain what others say, think, or believe. I can not speak for all editors on this page, but if you have a specfic recommendation or, better yet, a specific edit/(s) you would like to add to the article, please make a proposal. I thank you in advance for bringing this issue to the dicussion page, but now is the time for you to be bold with a proposal. I look forward to seeing a proposal. Cheers! Storm Rider (talk) 09:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
On reflection, I do not believe that what I am suggesting is appropriate for this particular article. There should perhaps be an article along these lines somewhere in Wikipedia, and probably it should look at the whole issue of prophets and their motivations. If one accepts that they must fall into one of four categories: divinely inspired, mad, bad, or politically motivated deliberate manipulator (and this may well be a gross simplification) then each major prophet could be examined. Of course, this would incense many people who regard their particular prophets as beyond such questioning. While questioning the motivation and sanity of Jim Jones may not raise many hackles, any article that questioned the sanity of Mohammed would be asking for trouble, even though there was a body of contemporary thought that considered him insane during his lifetime. In relation to Jesus, there are New Testament references to contemporary opinions that he was mad (John 10:19-21 and Mark 3:20-21). Certainly, the Scientologists or the Latter Day Saints would leap into the fray with a vengeance if their founders were questioned. I guess my feeling at present is that this is all too hard and quite possibly people are not really attuned to consider these sort of things in the present world climate of sectarian divisiveness.
Back in the 19th Century such ideas could afford to be considered but right now such views are tantamount to sedition. I am happy to wait until the world is a little more relaxed about it all. Perhaps ignorance is bliss.
--202.4.49.180 04:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)----
I see no problem with such an article. It would be very difficult to keep it NPOV and even more difficult to avoid original research, but I don't really care who gets upset about it. If something can't stand up to criticism it probably should be criticized. standonbibleTalk! 05:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

References or Further Reading?

A book by someone named Fuller was just added into the references, but no content was actually given in the article, so as far as I can tell, it isn't actually a reference at all. This makes me start thinking, just how many of the references actually are references? Because if there's things in there that don't actually contribute to the article in any way, then we should move them to a further reading section I think. Homestarmy 18:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, ref's need almost constant maintence on a site like this. The best thing perhaps is to wait until an article is basically stable, which this more or less is, and the do a cleanup. Lostcaesar 22:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

one correction

I'm not attempting in anyway to start trouble here, I am just asking you to state a fact within one correction: to place a label on the opening of the page that reads: "Caution: May contain fiction"

I appreciate your kindly asked request. Thank you. However, it is a loaded statement for a topic that is both historical and faith-based. Do you think that readers do not understand that Jesus is also a topic of faith? Assuming that anyone capable of reading understands this, it is hard to imagine that a warning would need to be given.
When my young children read about Budda, we did not need to caution them that this may be fiction. When we talked about other figures of faith and distant history, we never began with, "boys and girls, this may be fiction". I have always believed that the obvious should never be stated; in fact, doing so is the first sign of a feeble mind, IMHO.
In closing, I feel your concerns are understood, but please consider your request is overkill. Cheers. Storm Rider (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


Hebrew Jesus Logo?

The little logo picture of the name "Jesus" has ancient Hebrew lettering in its background, but in my extensive research this name was not written in Hebrew in any of contemporary (or for the next several hundred years) source. Perhaps a fish or something would be more appropriate. 216.189.146.156 16:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It is Aramaic, not Hebrew. —Aiden 03:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Race of Jesus revert war

I am currently in a revert war with an editor who wants to add a transparently spurious (and seemingly anti-Semitic) document called the Acta Pilati to the article, because it "proves" that Jesus was a blonde white guy. This is one of those supposed letters sent by Pilate to Rome describing Jesus. If anyone has any inmformation about this document that may help convince the editor (User:CSArebel) that it is spurious, I would be grateful. User:CSArebel seems likely to be persistent about re-adding this. Paul B 17:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, for starts, just relying on that document may violate NOR; the question is, what do historians say about the document? The burden of proof is on CSArebel NOT to do original research and instead see how current historians and Bible scholars interpret the document. That said, I think this is still a fundamentally silly issue. Even if we had proof that Jesus was blond, it reveals nothing about his race since people back then used the word race, and categorized races, differently from today. Slrubenstein | Talk 06:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
See Acts of Pilate. It is apocrypha dated by Eusebius of Caesarea to the fourth century. —Aiden 03:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. CSArebel appears to have stopped. The version of the text he was using seems not to be the original, but a revised form that circulated in mid-19thC America, in which observations on "racial" differences between Jesus and Judeans are attributed to Pilate. Paul B 08:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Jesus is the Son of God

Based upon the eye witness testimony of Simon Peter as recorded in the Four Gospels, Christians emphatically believe that Jesus is the Son of God and the Second Person of the Godhead or Trinity that Includes; God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.181.196 (talk • contribs)

Third Day

I just thought that you should mention in the opening paragraph about Jesus that he was resurected on the 3rd day (hence forth we get the Christian perspective of Easter) and also with all respect could you please edit this sentence also in the beginning-- Christians typically believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that he was sent to provide reconciliation with God and salvation by atoning for the sins of humanity by his death on the cross.--> It is not that christians TYPICALLY believe...we [[DO]] believe...so if you could please change that sentence with respect it'd be appreciated. Otherwise good article and some interesting info and diff. point of views of what others have to comment about. Some comments have nothing to do with the article, just people want ot fit their own belief in there but hey! It is what it is...thanx again, Jesus Loves You! <3

"...was handed over by Pilate the Roman governor to be crucified."

This line is from the intro. Who did PP hand him over to?

One could say it was to the Roman soldiers. But I don't see what was wrong with the earlier statement that he was crucified "on the orders of" Pilate. rossnixon 07:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Neither do I. Change it with my blessings. PiCo 04:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Ross, this is embarrassing, but I just went back and actually read the four Gospels, and they all msay, more or less explicitly, that Pilate handed Jesus over to the Jews for crucifixion. Just shows how we can think we know something when we don't - I think my preconception on this was formed by childhood images of the Cros surrounded by Roman centurions, but the Gospels definitely have the Romans giving the leading role to the Jewish priests and the Jewish mob. Anyway, what to do about this I do't know, but this is a more sensitive and nuanced affair than I'd imagined. If we say that Jesus was crucified "on the orders" of Pilate, it seems to imply that the Jews carried out the order, which is absurd. If we say Pilate "handed Jesus over," we need to say who to - and we're back with anti-Semiticism. Oh dear! PiCo 04:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The Gospels give some blame to the Jews and some to the Romans. Even after Pilate handed Jesus over to the Jews, it was Roman soldiers who beat and mocked him, and nailed him to the cross. I don't think it's antisemitic to include the gospel's claim that the Jews were partly responsible -- with proper attribution of course. Wesley 04:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This subject has been discussed numerous times in the past. If you review the archives you may find some helpful information. Who had authority to do what? Who arrested Jesus and who first interviewed him? Who turned him over to Pilot? What did Pilot do in judgement? Finally, to whom did Pilot hand Jesus. After answering these questions then answer a few other questions: does it really matter? What did his blood do for each person? Who benefits from His sacrifice? Who sins and thus needs that sacrifice?

My advice is let it go. It does not serve any purpose but to assign blame where it does not belong. In truth, the responsiblity belongs to everyone. I mean that literally. I have often thought if He returned today, the result would be the same. We are just as prepared to crucify the Christ again because our hearts are so hard as a society. This is one of my pet issues and I need t be quiet. Peace. Storm Rider (talk) 08:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing anti-Semitic about it. Its just an account of what happened. The safe thing to do is to stick with what the sources say. Lostcaesar 08:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'm going to let it go - I really am at a loss to understand just what the three Synoptics in partiuclar are saying, exactly. They all use the phrase that Pilate (not Pilot!) "delivered"Crist to be crucified. This sounds like something you do with a parcel. John goes further and says Pilate "delivered" him "to the Jews" (or the chief priests? - I don't have the book in front of me). I wish I knew what the Greek says. PiCo 13:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The Jewish authorities wanted Jesus dead, ostensibly for blasphemy. They lacked imperium, i.e. the authority over life an death, and so they needed Pilate's stamp of approval. They took him to Pilate and accused him of sedition (something that, unlike blasphemy, was a matter of concern for a Roman governor). Pilate thought the charge unwarranted but decided to give his approval anyway because of the mob (though not without an ironic gab, having "King of the Jews" written over the cross). So Pilate gave the Jewish authorities his approval and a contingent of legionaries to perform the crucifixion (probably specialists in this specific task); later, upon request, he gave another contingent to guard the tomb.
Now, some scholars doubt that the charge was blasphemy, and other things, the sum total of which leave us no way to make sense out of what happened, but they would rather hold their preconceived axioms and force history to match their theory than actually change the theory (or at least its axioms). Any scholar who so much as whispers this, however, becomes the subject of ridicule (you fundamentalist!). Thus why I am not endeavoring to enter the field of biblical scholarship, and instead am studying medieval history.
Lostcaesar 13:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Pilate hands Jesus over to the soldiers to be crucified: Mark 15:15-16, Matthew 27:26-27; Pilate hands Jesus over to the crowd: Luke 23:24-25, some soldiers made fun of him Luke 23:36-37 but the officer said "this man was completely innocent" Luke 23:47; Pilate hands Jesus over to the Jews/Judeans: John 19:14-16, but "the soldiers crucified Jesus" John 19:23 and the "high priests" objected to the sign: put instead, this man said he was King of the Jews John 19:19-22. See also Who Killed Jesus?, Crossan. 75.0.11.24 09:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Encyclopedia: New Testament: The Different Versions: "To begin with the crucifixion story, the older version knows only that the chief priests and scribes constituting the Sanhedrin condemned Jesus to death and handed him over to the Romans, who mocked, scourged, and killed him (Mark x. 33; Matt. xx. 17-19; comp. Mark xiv. 14; also Matt. xxvi. 45, where the term "sinners" is used for "heathen"). Later on (see Mark viii. 31; Matt. xvi. 21; Luke ix. 22), the reference to the Romans as the crucifiers has been altogether omitted, while in Mark ix. 31, Matt. xvii. 22, Luke ix. 44 the general term "men" is used instead. With the older version tallies the story according to which the cause of his condemnation by the Sanhedrin was Jesus' hostility toward the Temple (Mark xiv. 58; Matt. xxvi. 61; comp. Mark xi. 15-18, xiii. 2, xv. 29, and parallels; comp. also John ii. 19; see Wellhausen, Commentary to Mark, 1903, pp. 131-133), a crime termed "pashaṭ yado ba-zebul" (he stretched out his hand against the Temple; Acts vi. 13; Tos. Sanh. xiii.; R. H. 17a; comp. Yer. Sanh. vi. 23c—"pashaṭ yado be-iḳḳar"). It was at a later time and in contradiction to facts showing their friendly attitude (Luke xiii. 31) that the Pharisees were represented as having conspired against the life of Jesus, either with the Herodians or high priests (Mark iii. 6, xii. 13; Matt. xvi. 6, 11; xxii. 15-16; but comp. Luke xx. 19, where the Pharisees are not mentioned, and Matt. xxvii. 62; John vii, 32, 45; xi. 47; xviii. 3) or without them (Matt. xii. 14 [comp. vi. 7], xvi. 11; Luke xi. 53, xii. 1). Accordingly, the charges singled out to account for his persecution by the Pharisees were violation of the Sabbath (Mark ii. 23-iii. 6, et al.) and the claim of being the son of God (Mark xiv. 61-64, et al.). Again, in the original version the Jewish multitudes side with Jesus to the very last (Luke xx. 19, xxiii. 27; Mark xii. 12); later on, both Herod, the persecutor whom Jesus called "that fox" (Luke xiii. 32), and Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect (Luke xiii. 1, xix. 1), are transformed into friends and protectors of Jesus (Luke xxiii. 8, 15; Mark xv. 14; Luke xxiii. 4; Matt. xxvii. 17-25; John xviii. 38; xix. 4, 6, 12, 16), and the Jews described as his real crucifiers (Mark xv. 13-14; Matt. xxvii. 22-23; John xix. 12; Acts iv. 10); nay, more, the Jews become synonyms for fiends and bloodthirsty tyrants (John vii. 1, 13; viii. 44; x. 31; et al.)." 75.0.7.56 10:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read all of this, so forgive me, if someone has come up with this before, but my take is that Pilate handed Jesus over to the Jews (i.e. the Jewish authorities that had brought up this case to him, not the Jews in general) in such a way that he handed him over to the judgment they had demanded, which technically means handing him over to his henchman for crucifixion. In none of the four Gospel account are Jews doing the crucifixion. Some Jews are mocking and Kaiaphas stands around complaining about the sign, but it is Romans doing the crucifying. (And, 75, I don't think this piece from the Jewish encyclopedia is very balanced or accurate. Nowhere are Herod or Pilate turned into friends. This seems to be a reaction against Christian accusations of Jews in general being deicides, an understandable reaction against a false accusation, but not accurate in itself.) Str1977 (smile back) 14:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It also ignores that John wrote after the marytrdom of James and after the descruction of the temple, when such a perspective, with the benefit of hindsight, would be clearer. Lostcaesar 14:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The Bible links

In the narrative, are we really supposed to change those to inline format to cite the NIV correctly, someone brought it up on the peer review and I don't think I was involved with creating all that. Homestarmy 18:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Jesus, lol

I do not mean to inult Jesus, so do not get me wrong when I say I'm thinkign about putting a small section at the end of jesus being an internet phenomenon. The most common being Jesus lol joeks and the Jesus-raptor, they are quite common on the net. Typcal Jesus joeks are comics made from original New testament paintings and illustrations.

For example; Jesus on the cross: BRB, Mary: lol

Or raptor Jesus to roman soldiers: I r in the basement killing ur men, lol.

These may not have a liking to everyone, but I think it should be on the page, at least as a minor note, since it undiniably does exist just go to google. [Jesus, lol] [Raptor Jesus]

--Mudel 22:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen any of those things in chat rooms or internet phenominon anywhere :/. Undue Weight is a concern in this article as well, not just whether something may be notable. Homestarmy 22:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
You may be right, there are a lot of them, though maybe not common, But I think it's spreading, when it does enough, let's put it in the article? --Mudel 19:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
First things first, when it becomes notable enough for Wikipedia at all, it should probably be in Cultural depictions of Jesus Christ before its in this article, since we're using summary style already for the section here. Homestarmy 19:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I think that time is comming soon, you knwo how fast an internet fen can spread once it starts. Jesus action figure, oh lol.--Mudel 20:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sanders on Jesus as a Pharisee

Re. note 30: E. P. Sanders is known for arguing in Jesus and Judaism that there were no substantial points of opposition between Jesus and the Pharisees, but I'm pretty sure he's never argued that Jesus was a Pharisee. I checked Jesus and Judaism closely regarding Jesus and the Pharisees and didn't find any argument or claim by Sanders that Jesus was a Pharisee. This is an idea that I have found to have been propagated over quite a number of Wikipedia pages. Ptypes 22:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sanders did not assert in Jesus and Judaism that "Jesus was himself a Pharisee," but, because I am not an established user, I am unable to edit the "Notes" section. Ptypes 21:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've commented the Sanders cite out until we can resolve this, unfortunently, I am not pesonally familiar with the book, but I think some other editors who frequent this page are. Homestarmy 01:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I can't find anything on the web, except for Wikipedia pages, that say that Sanders asserts in Jesus and Judaism that "Jesus was himself a Pharisee." I do believe that Sanders said, there, that he thought that Jesus had little contact with Pharisees. That seems to be borne out by this New York Times review of the book, IN HIS TIME AND IN HISTORY - New York Times
"How well has Mr. Sanders argued his case? Most of the elements in his portrait of Jesus seem to me well grounded in the available sources and supported by common sense. Some scholars, no doubt, will want to contest Mr. Sanders' interpretation of the Temple incident or question his confidence that Jesus had no significant contacts with Pharisees. Many will find excessive his concentration on Jesus' acts, to the virtual exclusion of his teachings and parables." Ptypes 21:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The following excerpt from Jesus and Judaism can be relied upon as a brief summary of Sanders' view of Jesus' relationship to the Pharisees. Sanders (pg. 291) says: "But leaving such exaggerations of the role of the Pharisees aside, can we determine whether or not they constituted a significant element in the opposition to Jesus? Our discussions of the sinners, the law, purity and legalism all point towards finding little contact, either hostile or cordial, between Jesus and the Pharisees. The reader will have learned that I think that each of the common generalizations just above is wrong. The Pharisees did not dominate Judaism. If Jesus disagreed with them over laws of purity which were peculiar to them, he would have been only one more 'am ha-arets among many. He seems not to have committed any substantial breach of the law. But, if he did, there is no reason to think that only the Pharisees would have been offended. Thus I find no substantial conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees." Ptypes 16:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

another excerpt from pages 264-269, Sabbath, handwashing and food:

"I think that further consideration of the evidence, however, will lead to the conclusion that there was no substantial conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees with regard to Sabbath, food, and purity laws." 75.0.11.24 08:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

help

some idiots has deleted everything and replaced it with penis. can someone restore it. i have no idea how do to do it

Link to German Wikipedia

Please check and edit the German link!!!