Talk:Jesus/Archive 82

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.

Muslim view on Crucifixion

Currently the article says 'Muslims believe that Jesus' crucifixion was a divine illusion' when Muslims have numerous views concerning it. Other common interpretations include the Swoon hypothesis (like in Ahmed Deedat's 'crucifixion or crucifiction?'); that the crucifixion is nothing more than an orally spread myth (such as Imam Al-Alusi or Muhammad Asad); that the Romans crucified Judas by mistake as well as that the crucifixion was a 'divine illusion'. It's not very encyclopedic for one interpretation to be given credence over others when this is far from an agreed point. It would be better for the article to just say Muslims don't believe Jesus was crucified and leave it at that. Kadaveri 19:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Notes section may need clean up.

I noticed that the notes section of this article is inconsistent in two ways: It has extremely long notes for some and short notes for others; and secondly, it has long notes at all: most of the other articles on Wikipedia have neat and short notes for each note, in a uniform fashion.

I propose a cleanup in the notes section to conform to de facto standard. Scifiintel 01:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, the sources could be improved if they used the template: cite style. Some sources also use "ibid" - that's fine in a printed book, but not in a Wiki, where other authors may introduce material that makes the reference unclear. Better use full references every time. --Stephan Schulz 00:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There are sometimes good reasons for extended footnotes, when the flow of the article would be disrupted by digressions, but content is relevant. Paul B 01:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

A Torrent from "Thepiratebay.com"?

Ok, I thought this God Who Wasn't There movie link was going to be a relatively textbook case of removing links which were clearly advertisements, but now we're linking directly to the download off of a torrent site (of file extension that I don't even know about) which is called "thepiratebay.com?" I don't think it counts if you switch from advertisement to a site which, if the title isn't trying to be misleading, seems to be hosting pirated DVD's for download via torrent. How many readers even have the software to download and run things off of a torrent site anyway? If the External Links policy discourages videos from YouTube or Google Video and the like, I really don't see how torrent downloads from sites of questionable legality are a step up in acceptability. Homestarmy 01:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Plus to be "encyclopedic" it would have to have the author(s) and other metadata in plain text with the link so that we could examine the likely level of scholarship. ^ross ^nixon 02:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. The user's clearly just trying to find any way possible to include it. --Deskana (ya rly) 02:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Why shouldn't I be allowed to include it? Why are links to both the official site and the move itself off limits? This film provides compelling critical information about the history of Christianity. Why do you feel the need to censor skeptical views. Are you a Christian or something? Delirium of disorder 02:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

And trying to look up the actual site itself caused my comp to blue screen, spent like an hour checking for viruses or something, not funny, but I didn't find anything. Homestarmy 02:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely that links to direct BitTorrent downloads from pirate/warez sites is a terrible, terrible idea. However, we may want to discuss the merits of the original link. I believe that a) the claims that the site is an ad aren't strictly valid but b) the documentry isn't that notable, is poorly made, and doesn't focus that much on Jesus (it is equally about Brian Flemming's disdain for his catholic school upbringing). And while we are on the topic of links, as homestarmy mentions regarind Google Videos, can we remove the link to the Google video of Jesus:The Movie?-Andrew c 03:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

On the Jesus film, perhaps linking directly to the studio's site which made it would be better, unlike the film that started this mini-revert war, it is listed for download plainly.[1] Plus, i've seen it before, and if the claims i've heard about it are true, then its one of the most widely translated films in the world, that's pretty notable...(Ok, yea, and I liked it too) Homestarmy 03:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The God Who Wasn't There is not the same film as the Jesus movie that you linked to, Homestarmy. I don't know what wikipedia editors have against torrents. Software to download torrents is included by default in most working (ie not Microsoft) Operating Systems. The fact that the pirate bay made your computer bluescreen makes me laugh. Visiting a website should never be able to crash your operating system. You are foolish for using such broken software. Bittorrent is a great way to distribute large files without incurring expensive hosting fees. Out of the box, ubuntu downloads torrent files just fine. You don't need to install any extra software to get it to work. The film is creative commons licensed and perfectly legal to download. The fact that the site that hosts it also hosts material copyrighted by assholes (the MPAA) shouldn't be a strike against my link. I would convert the film to a free format (ogg theora) and host it at wikipedia, since people here have some irrational fear of the pirate bay, but when I tried that with other video clips, wikipedia failed to complete the upload. Delirium of disorder 02:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I was on the subject of a different link that Andrew c wanted to talk about, while we were on the discussion of the External Links section in general. As for the bluescreen, deciding that I would try to ascertain the type of website this was, I typed in just the URL torrent.thepiratebay.com, (or .org or whatever it was) and about 10 seconds later, my computer bluescreened. But, as I said, I didn't find anything like a virus or something that would of been behind it. Of course, if thepiratebay.com had been a spyware distributing website for real, a mere solitary system crash would of been the least of my worries....but that's another topic. When a reader comes to the External Links sections of our articles, statistically speaking, the chances of them currently using any open-source OS at all, much less a Linux distribution, is extremely low. I clicked on your link and got some crazy file extension that there's no way Windows XP can handle out of the box, and I seriously doubt Vista would know what to do with it either, and those are probably the two major OS's that readers will be using as they look up stuff on Wikipedia. Having the readers of articles in mind is quite important when deciding what to present to them, and sending them off to download torrent files from sites of questionable legality with files that they probably won't be able to run anyway isn't in the best interests of our readers. Homestarmy 03:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

suggestion

I suggest to add the following in Judaism's view: Judaism has no special or particular view of Jesus, and very few texts in Judaism directly refer to or take note of Jesus. One of the most important Jewish principles of faith is the belief in one God and one God only with no partnership of any kind,^[1] and belief in Jesus as deity, son of God, or Christ, is incompatible with Judaism.

There are many sects in Judaism, and I'm sure they all have their own distinct opinions of Jesus. The same could be said of different sects within Christianity. Perhaps a better idea would be to source quotes from the opinions of the different Jewish sects about Jesus. As for the second point, I don't think it is necessary to add that quote. Christians sprang from a branch of Essene Judaism (the Nazarene's) and all Christians subscribe to belief in one true God (even misguided one's). Some Roman catholic derived denominations hold the belief that Jesus was God incarnate. In which case, they would still only believe in one God. Other Christian groups believe Jesus to be an enlightened powerfull human whom attained miracles through the will of God, still others say Jesus was a Prophet and teacher whom did no miracles. Either way, Christians believe in one true God, and do not subscribe to the idea of Jesus being another rival or co-operating God. I think anyone whom serves 'Gods will' is accepting a partnership with God, although there is no question of who is the server and whom is being served. Christians believe Christ was serving God and thus he accepted willing loving subserviance to God.86.4.59.203 15:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Pharisee.

judgment, etc.

copied from archives:

LC says, "the position of the divine judge. . . doesn't seem to [be] well represented." LC and I couldn't disagree more about the Truth, but we agree that this page's depiction of Jesus is missing something. Here's my suggestion for what to add, hitting the highest high points while being mercifully brief and emphasizing niceness (because everyone wants to think Jesus was nice). "Jesus taught that he would return to judge people by their deeds, especially by how they treated the vulnerable. He warned the wicked that he would damn them to hell." This would, of course, be backed up with Bible quotes. I'm sure those of you familiar with the NT can already think of quotes that back up these two sentences. If this page had a fair depiction of gospel Jesus, it would provide more of the "woe" and "Gehenna" material, to balance the extensive "niceness" and "forgiveness" material, but I'm resigned to having a slanted view of Jesus in this section. That said, there ought to be at least a passing reference to Jesus as the guy that's going damn me to eternal torture. Jonathan Tweet 16:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"Jesus taught that he would return [at the end of time] to judge people by their deeds, especially by how they treated the vulnerable. He warned the wicked that he would damn them to hell."

If this page had a fair depiction of gospel Jesus, it would provide more of the "woe" and "Gehenna" material...'

I concur with the spirit of these edits. To talk about salvation entails mentioning what one is being saved from - the second death. To tak about forgivness entails mentioning what one is being forgiven of - sin, and why that matters - because sins are punished. Lostcaesar 18:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, you concur with the spirit. How about with the letter? I like your addition "at the end of time." Is the result OK? "Jesus taught that he would return at the end of time to judge people by their deeds, especially by how they treated the vulnerable. He warned the wicked that he would damn them to hell." The reference to Jesus damning people to hell is a little harsh, but anything else would be euphemism. If this addition is not going to get deleted out of hand, I'll provide the refs for it. Aiden? Slrubenstein? Andrew c?Jonathan Tweet 21:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There being no objections, I'm going to add this text to the page, and we'll see who deletes it. Jonathan Tweet 15:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Although i've been away for a day or two, i'd like to have something to say about this. On the quote you suggest Jonathan, (and the one I assume is in the article now) I think that its much too general and seems to miss the entire point of, well, Christianity for one, and the point of Jesus' death (and, really, by extention existance) for a second. Just saying "He warned the wicked that he would damn them to Hell", read by someone with only a mediumish amount of Biblical knowladge, would probably lead someone to conclude that the article is trying to say that Jesus will condemn everyone who has ever lived, lives now, and ever will live to Hell, since of course, the Bible is quite clear about all men being wicked in a way. While I certainly don't support mere euphamisms when detailing a subject matter as serious as this, I don't think its very fair (Or, more importantly, accurate) to just say that Jesus warned that He would damn the wicked to Hell, without mentioning that Jesus also said that those who believe in Him, despite their wickedness, would explicitly not be condemned to Hell, quite the opposite actually. Secondly, on the "especially how they treated the vulnerable" part, that sounds unusually supportive of the message of Social Gospel preachers. I know it may seem silly that i'm criticizing this, but it seems to me like Jesus would come back to judge people for everything, why "how they treated the vulnerable" in particular? Homestarmy 16:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Homestarmy, thanks for the respectful questions. I surmise that you agree with me that this information should cleave to scripture. Without the wikilink, the text doesn't explain the "vulnerable" part. I'd link this to a very explicit account of Jesus judging the people at the end of the world, The Sheep and the Goats. As for the "wicked," I honestly don't know what to call the class of people that Jesus damns. They're not "sinners" because we're all sinners. They're not "unworthy" of heaven because none of us are worthy. Matthew 25 says that those who turn their backs on the vulnerable are damned to hell, but that's rather specific, and the verse has already been mentioned. The following suggestion avoids the issue.

Jesus taught that he would return at the end of time to judge people by their deeds, especially by how they treated the vulnerable. He promised to welcome some into eternal life and to damn others to hell.

I can understand how this solitary group of verses would indicate that Jesus will condemn the wicked to hell, (because, you know, its kind of obvious, and I don't care how many cites people claim I need to read English....) but by simply using this one bit of Jesus' message to make a definitive statement like yours that seems to exclude any possibility that wouldn't involve sending people to Hell, it seems to me like its pretty much taking this one group of passages and presenting a contradictory message with any parts of the article dealing with salvation. Salvation was kind of an important part of Jesus' message too, certainly just as important as the things Jesus' talks about here, without the message of salvation, the message in question would make no sense. (Where's the love? Seriously.) If the entire sum total of discussion in this article over Jesus' role as judge is derived entirely from these few passages and summed up in your sentence and ones like it, it appears to ignore the why of Jesus' words on this subject. While you may be interested simply in "a passing reference to Jesus as the guy that's going damn me to eternal torture", I don't think its very fair to just give a little reference without mentioning any sort of explanation for it that may be elsewhere in Jesus's statements. In summary, I think your sentence is mis-representative of Jesus' message through omission of explanations. The thing I feel about the social gospel thing might fit a different discussion however, its quite a different issue. Homestarmy 01:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

....Actually, it appears I may very well have to eat my words, as it seems that the sentence in question was amended to read that some would be condemned and some would be saved, though that might be a different sentence, it looks like the Sheep and the Goats one to me :/. Could still use some background though in my opinion, doesn't answer the "why" much as to why Jesus condemns some and saves others, at least in this sentence.... Homestarmy 01:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Please expand this material with a scriptural explanation of why. Jonathan Tweet 01:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Here you enter a very touchy area, which is why I believe the subject of 'damnation' has been left out of the section up-to-now. Whether or not Jesus actually damns someone is quite questionable to many Christians, as most Christian denominations see the default status--due to sin, both committed and original--as eternal separation from God, beginning with Adam and continuing up to the present day. Thus, salvation is presented as a gift, which can either be accepted or rejected. The choice lies with the person; it is he who damns himself. Only by accepting the 'gift' does one's status change--from eternal separation from God, to one of eternal life. Secondly, at first glance it can seem that there are many contradictions (or nuances) in the gospel accounts of salvation, so it is best not to cherry-pick one example and say, "This is what Jesus preached." For example, to say people will be judged by their deeds--sure it's in there, but so is John 3:16 which mentions only faith. —Aiden 09:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I had planned to slightly expand the sentence in question with, as JT asks for, a slightly more scriptural way of writing it, but the pollen count has been murderous, and its hard to read things x_x. Homestarmy 15:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought my change to the sentence was rather well planned out, and adequatly addressed both JT's requirement that I provide a scriptural explanation, and plus, I was really trying to make that sentence work out nicely. What was wrong with it? Personally, I think Jesus' role as judge should definently be mentioned, and that place in the article seems like an excellent place to put it, and with the way I changed the sentence, I feel it fully highlights Jesus' role as the judge of mankind, yet doesn't leave out the idea that Jesus' judges people because they are, well, evil. Plus, I really worked hard on finding just the right verses for that sentence :(. Homestarmy 23:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry! There were a couple things wrong with it in my opinion. For one, it made two references to Jesus being in judgment of the world: "Jesus taught that he would return at the end of time to judge people by their deeds... He promised to give those who believe in him eternal life, and remarked that he would also be in judgement of the world..." In my opinion, this sounds a bit redundant. I combined the sentence on the end of the world with the judgment part to render, "He preached that the end of the current world would come unexpectedly, and that he would return to judge the world...", which IMO is more straight-forward. Now, about using the word 'damnation', I again think it is important to recognize that many Christians view the default as separation from God, i.e. one is already damned by sin, and that salvation is a change in the status quo. Thus, Jesus does not damn anyone; one damns oneself. This is backed up by scripture, "This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed." So I think it is best to recognize that Jesus sits as a judge (which everyone agrees with), but leave who damns whom out of the discussion so that we don't advocate one viewpoint over another. —Aiden 04:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I figure that having both references to judgement makes it easier to refer to two things that many verses seem to indicate about Jesus' role, the first being that Jesus will judge people according to what they've done, and the second that Jesus will be the judge of the entire world. I think the sense of Damnation that JT was going for is that Damnation means to actually send someone to Hell, and while of course its true that one's sins already basically guarentee the journey if you're not saved, if Jesus wasn't there, nobody would be sending you to hell. (Since, of course, Jesus is God, so without Jesus there's no God, and without God there's no existance and no people in said lack of existance) I used the verse you cited so that I could make it clear that Jesus judges people and sends some to Hell because they love evil, whereas before in JT's version, it just said He'd send them to hell with little explanation of why. The verdict is in to be sure, but the judge in this case will be enforcing it in the future. I don't think this is a viewpoint that anyone besides Universalists would think is invalid, it's quite clear that Jesus is the judge, and quite clear that Jesus has said what the verdict is, and quite clear what Jesus has said the punishment will be, and since this section is supposed to be based on what the Gospels say, that knocks out the LDS from commenting since i'm pretty sure their afterlife is almost entirely dependent on non-Gospel related works, and probably knocks out any other groups that base their theology concerning judgement on non-Gospel sources, so I don't see what the problem is. Since we're in the middle of an FA nom, I really don't think people are going to like that fact tag. Homestarmy 14:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Would it help if we tried to stick as closely to the Gospel account as possible? I realize that much (interesting) theological ink has been spilled over this issue. We ought not go into the different views different Christians have had of Jesus' view of judgement (and heaven/hell). Nor should we try to present a consensus or lowest-common-denominaotr Christian view. I think the only question is: do the Gospels provide a uniform and crystal clear account of Jesus' view, or do the Gospels present seemingly distinct views that later became objects of interpretation? If the latter, all we need to do is report that the Gospels provide several views and list them. It is for an article on Christianity to go into how Christians have interpreted these views. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think my version or JT's version really got into a problem about different views concerning Jesus' views though, sticking closely to the gospel account, its sort of literally there that Jesus was concerned with judgement, considered Himself to be judge, and considered that those who are judged guilty and aren't saved through faith in Himself are heading for hell, that part of the verdict explicitly includes that those who are heading for hell love evil, and after that, well, I don't think either of us wrote much beyond that. Just to look at a few different major things that separate many churches or groups concerning Hell type stuff, I don't think Purgatory matters here because our versions didn't indicate that Purgatory wouldn't exist, I don't see any works righteousness problems because the sentences primarily dealt with hell rather than heaven, as I said above Mormonism doesn't matter because Mormon afterlife beliefs don't have very much to do with the Gospels or any of the verses being quoted here anyway, (Even if they just said "Yea, that's all corrupted", it doesn't matter, because this section is just on what the Gospels say) and I don't remember if it was mentioned if hell would be eternal, but if it wasn't, then that means the Watchtower and even tiny little Universalism probably wouldn't matter. But really, I consider what I wrote at least to be representative of several views Jesus expressed in the Gospels, was how I or how JT used the verses given wrong? Homestarmy 02:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I was just making a general point - if you and everyone else are satisfied, it is fine by me. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem, as it normally is, is that everyone else isn't satisfied :/. Homestarmy 18:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Christianity and the abolition of slavery?

I noticed that the section of Jesus states that "For others, Christianity has often been linked to [the] Atlantic slave trade." While that is the truth it is not the whole truth. It is good that the section balances this by asserting the good things as well but the words on the Atlantic Slave trade is slightly misleading.

It is true that Christians were involved but it was not the Christians as if to suggest that there was a conspiracy. In fact, the British ended their participation in the slave trade because of Christian convictions. (A good source of apologetics on this subject can be found here. [2] [3] I admit, Answers in Genesis can be looked on with some suspicion, but in this regard, they are mostly accurate. After all, we must not let pre-existing bias color our judgements because critical thinking affirms that "even a broken clock right twice a day.") For example, the film Amazing Grace retells the story of how devoted abolitionist William Wilberforce was moved by his Christian convictions to abolish the slave trade in his native Britain.

I suggest that the phrase "For others, Christianity has often been linked to [the] Atlantic slave trade" be modified to "For some, Christianity has often been linked to the Atlantic slave trade yet for others it was Christians, who due to their Christian faith, ended the Atlantic slave trade." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Juangarcia1982 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

How about "On one hand, Christians initiated the herditary slavery of Africans by Europeans. On the other, they later abolished slavery across the globe." Christians have done more to eliminate slavery than they did to expand it. It's not just the Atlantic slave trade that they ended. But they also started it in the first place. Yes, the British ended the slave trade for religious reasons, but they first perpetrated a system of slavery unparalleled in its horror (Caribbean sugar plantations). They also used Christianity to justity slavery while they were up to their eyeballs in it. Jonathan Tweet 00:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the "British" as such were responsible for slavery, or even a particular type of slavery. Are you aware of what the Spanish, Dutch, Portugese and Belgians did? It's also rather misleading to refer to the Atlantic slave trade as "Christian". Yes, Biblical arguments were used to justify it, but they did not motivate it. Imperial economics motivated it. In so far as Christianity was involved it was just that they needed excuses! Slavery has existed under numerous religions. I don't think there is any evidence that Chritianity as such was responsible for - as it were - "industrialising" it. However, there is very good evidence that Christianity was a powerful force in stopping it. So were Enlightenment humanist ideals, of course. Christianity was not the only factor. Paul B 00:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

p.s. Saying that "Christians initiated the herditary slavery of Africans" is like saying "Christians invented the steam engine". It's just using "Christians" as a synonym for "Europeans". It's misleading unless Christianity itself is seen as a factor. Paul B 00:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Slavery was abolished during the Medieval West. It returned after the Renaissance and Enlightnment, only to be abolished again. A proper discussion on the matter (and I'm not sure this article is the place) would have to present a more complete historical picture than just colonialism. Lostcaesar 00:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Some time ago, I actually deleted a line on Christian complicity with slavery. Now, most of you know I fought long and hard to include as part of Jesus' legacy negative things, so it should be clear to people that the reason I think slavery does not belong is NOT becuase I think Jesus' legacy is entirely positive or the section on Jesus' legacy should include only positive things. But Christianity's relationship wiuth slavery is just too complex; most historians would say slavery supported an emerging European imperial system that coincided with the decline of Christian political dominance in Europe, and that as many people appealed to Christianity to argue for the abolution of slavory as those who appealed to it to argue in support of slavery ... I think the whole thing at best cancels itself out, at worst is real misdirection. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

My bad. It's the Christianity page that should own up to Christianity's promotion of slavery (e.g., a Pope's establishment of hereditary slavery of Africans, with OT precedent backing it up). Even though the Roman Catholic Church is Jesus Christ, the Jesus page doesn't need to refer to what Popes have done in Jesus' name. The abolition of slavery worldwide, however, is an unprecedented advance in human society and morality, founded more or less squarely on Jesus' teaching. Can we reference that somehow? Jonathan Tweet 14:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone heard of "The White Man's Burden"? Probably doesn't belong in this article,but the idea that Christian philosophy is superlative was often used as a justification for cultural imperialism and slavery. For an example, although a work of fiction, read Robinson Crusoe.

POV tag?

I'm apparently coming in late. Why is there a POV tag on this page? I mean, it's way POV, but it's been way POV since forever, and it hasn't always had the tag. Jonathan Tweet 00:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I was going to ask about it myself, I don't even remember when it was added.... Homestarmy 01:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that it's a fine article. I compared it with that of the 1911 Britannica, and both of them show an acceptable amount of neutrality. [4] bibliomaniac 1 5 02:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I do believe I have discovered the cause: [5]. It appears its over that ridiculous atheist views section, I can't tell if this was just a blatantly lazy blanket revert or not though, because it also removed JT's addition with the sheep thing. Homestarmy 12:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The rejection thing

Now that we're basically having two edit wars at once in between the sheep thing, might as well start this topic too, over the Rejection of Judaism category. What does "Rejection of Judaism" even mean? Judaism isn't exactly the World's Most Monolithic Religion (tm), I barely even understand it myself because its so complicated with the social aspect being tied up with it, and where in the article is it discussed that Jesus explicitly rejected Judaism? This seems very confusing. It's like adding a Homosexuality category to a famous figure without the article actually discussing Homosexuality at all, and quite frankly, the category in question here looks downright unjustified. Now, on to the policy considerations, WP:CAT is (or was the last time I read it) quite clear that controversial category listings shouldn't be used if there's a disagreement over it. Let's get real folks, is somebody really going to read this entire article and really care at all that in the list of blue words at the bottom there is "Person who Rejected Judaism" or whatever? Homestarmy 13:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Christians rejected Judaism some time around Paul. Some Christians may believe that Jesus rejected Judaism (I do not know, I only mean that I cannot speak for Christians). Some Jews may believe this as well. But it is certain that many historians do not think Jesus rejected Judaism. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Christians were pragmatic after the fall of Jerusalem 70AD. At that time, they were still being persecuted by the romans for being associated with Jesus whom was convicted for decension againgst rome. For the Christians of that time, it was expediant to distance themselves from the Jewish revolt.86.4.59.203 16:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Pharisee.

I removed the tag because it is a controversial new addition that wasn't in the long standing version of the article. Edits of this nature need talk page consensus before adding. I also agree with SLRubenstein. This claim is disputed by more people than just some of the editors of this page. It isn't NPOV to present something as if it were definate, when there is legitable, notable dispute. -Andrew c 17:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew; there is no basis for that category in relationship to Jesus. It is not only inappropriate, it is incorrect. There is no evidence that Jesus ever rejected the House of Israel; to the contrary, there is significant evidence he lived and died as what we would recognize as a Jew. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back Lisboa

So, now can we discuss the changes and build consensus before starting another edit war? Please list the POV issues with the article. Please make a proposal regarding an athiest view section. Thanks.-Andrew c 21:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it appears Lisboa is in no mood for debate on the subject. Homestarmy 15:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The biggest POV issue on that page that I see is the gospel narrative section. Who thinks that the four gospels are where you should look if you want to know who Jesus is? Christians. In fact, the implication that two very different sources (synoptic gospels and gospel of John) combine meaningfully to present a unified image of Jesus is Christian POV. The gospel section should be replaced with "Jesus (as reconstructed by historians)." Then the gospel section can be summarized for those who want to know what the Christians' holy book says about their God. I've never suggested this change because it'd never happen. But you asked about POV issues. Jonathan Tweet 22:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Lisboa doesn't appear to of asked at all, just repeatedly reverted to his own special little version which apparently took precedence over any other edit made to the article after his edit. Homestarmy 02:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Lisboa is banned for sockpuppetry.Slrubenstein | Talk 11:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What the???

Some redlinked name appears to of somehow deleted the history of Jesus, redirected the article to the new compleatly undiscussed title which will most likely skew search engine results all across the board and mess up links to this article, and done the same deletion to the talk page. I can move the content back to the original title, but the history will be lost in the redirect, can anyone somehow revert this name change? Homestarmy 18:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, the page move was reverted, though he's apparently a page move vandal. Homestarmy 18:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Featured article nomination.... maybe

Hey this article is amasing, and i really can't find anythign wrong with it, and it's got one heck of a lot of inline citations. so with all that i think that we should nominate it for FA status. Any Thoughts????

peace out-Three waysround 21:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Depending on how FA voters consider whether or not the article adequatly covers the topic, it shouldn't be terribly difficult to solve FA style concerns. However, many of the far-reaching debates concerning this article have to do with scope, and what precisely it should focus on, or how much certain things should be focused on, etc. etc. . I'm just saying, make the FA nom if you want, but some reviewers may find extremely far-reaching objections which deal with content that may not be simple to solve in the time frame of an FAC. Plus, I think one or two of the other perspectives sections still have citation needed tags.... Homestarmy 21:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

i couldn't find those citation needed tags, so i'm gonna nominate. I get what your saying about the debate and everything, but i don't think the debate will ever settle down. so it's better to push forward, plus i don't think it should be that much of a problem.

peace -Three waysround 22:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I just removed all of the citation needed tag problems, my explanations are in my edit summaries, mostly all I did was remove the sentences for various reasons, dunno if people will be happy with that....However, I shall, barring some increadibly inconvienent happenstance, take a close look at all FA type comments. Homestarmy 23:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I wish you would have waited until we could discuss this before you nominated, but oh well. We've been working for over a year since the last FA nomination and have developed a worthy article. There are still a few rough edges to be polished, but nothing that should prevent this article from achieving its deserving status. I encourage everyone to continue following the to-do list, and most importantly, help clean up some of the few citation issues remaining on the article. Also, please voice your opinions, both supporting and opposing, to the article's FA candidacy. (The link is at the very top of the page.) —Aiden 05:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the first two deficiencies located in the nom stem entirely from the lack of, well, scholars that warrent idenfication as "some", since at most I think there's like two that have been found across various pages. At best, the first sentence is not defended adequatly to remain in the article in its present state, even if a citation was provided, it would at most be "a couple of", not "some" scholars. Quite frankly, that seems very silly to me to make at most two people be the only "scholars" explicitly named in the article at the expense of all others, especially because, as far as I can tell, the scholars in question propose things which are hardly considered serious by almost every other scholar. Ordinarly, I wouldn't force the issue, but since this is an FA nom, if nobody can cite the first sentence identified in the nom with enough scholars or something that indicates enough scholars that are greater than "some" scholars, i'm going to remove it. Homestarmy 13:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for being so rushed. I just found this article and was amased at how good it was. so i kinda got really really over-excited. Sorry bout that, but hopefully it will all turn out good.

peace-Three waysround 15:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed most nominations these days often focus heavily on actually improving the article to FA standards, because people find all sorts of little MoS things in most articles. When people respond to people's comments in a timely manner, most articles seem to pass, there's a ton of stuff people find that often need to be dealt with in really any article. Homestarmy 15:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Aiden seems to of taken care of the first thing, now for the second thing, at the moment, the statement in question about "various parties" arguing that everything identifying Jesus from antiquity is useless is so vauge as to be nearly useless in and of itself, and since the first paragraph in the section only has references for people countering that opinion, I think that paragraph might just very well be removed compleatly until someone can actually find real references for the non-cited side. The second paragraph is almost the same, it doesn't give anything from either Wikilinked article showing how people considered every source on Jesus's life to be suspect, and if the hagiography word is being used in the negative sense, this appears to be incorrect, because that article indicates that the word can mean that a work is too reverential about a subject, it says nothing about the work actually containing mistakes or being unreliable in any way. The third and fourth paragraphs seems fine though, but then that's a pretty tiny looking section.... Homestarmy 01:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and can anyone access this site which is used in a reference: [6]. The page kind of loads on my screen, but no text appears.... Homestarmy 02:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The large gap near the top

It looks like the reason for the gap is because the Jesus series template is inside that top box which contains the main picture, in a preview, when its not in the box, the article doesn't get deformed in the same way, but then the box makes a large gap at the top. Why is the image even in that wikisyntax box anyway, its just a bunch of text under the image.... Homestarmy 22:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The page looks fine on my browser (winXP Firefox 2.0). The image and the Jesus template are placed in a table. The reason for this is to avoid stacking vertical templates. If that code wasn't there, both the image box and the Jesus box have a float right applied to them, so they would appear side by side. Forcing them into a table insures that they will be stacked one on top of each other, thus avoiding the stacked/side by side template issue. Please tell me what browser you are using and describe this 'gap' in more detail. Thanks.-Andrew c 22:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

When I preview a version without the table, the result is the same as with the table. I'm guessing that someone has hardcoded a clear tag into the image box template, or figured out some other way to avoid the stacking issue (or my recent browser upgrade renders better than my previous browser). We may be good to remove the table from the top of the article if it corrects the issue you are experiencing, and the vertical stacking issue is no longer an issue.-Andrew c 23:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I just changed the positions around, before, it actually was stacking the templates on my screen, (the chronology and Jesus templates) creating a large space between the Chronology header and the content. I'm using IE 7.... Homestarmy 23:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources on Jesus' life

An issue with this section and its mini-sections has come up on the FA nom. Someone seems to want to know more about how the Apocrypha, which are mentioned extensively in this section, were excluded from the basic canon of today, and some more expanded content discussing it. However, as I read the corresponding articles on some of these books, i'm starting to doubt the relevance of a pretty big chunk of this section. Many of the articles on the books seem like they don't have much important information at all on Jesus' life, Thomas is just a gospel about what Jesus' presumably said about various things, several of the books don't even seem to mention Jesus much at all, and considering how much of the sections seem to deal with the apocrypha themselves in relation to the Bible, i'm starting to wonder just how relevant some of these sentences are in relation to the article subject. For instance, the paragraph "Books that were not included are known as the New Testament apocrypha. These include the Gospel of Thomas, a collection of logia—phrases and sayings attributed to Jesus without a narrative framework, only rediscovered in the 20th century. Other important apocryphal works that had a heavy influence in forming traditional Christian beliefs include the Apocalypse of Peter, Protevangelium of James, Infancy Gospel of Thomas, and Acts of Peter. A number of Christian traditions (such as Veronica's veil and the Assumption of Mary) are found not in the canonical gospels but in these and other apocryphal works." Doesn't seem to have anything to do with Jesus at all, but rather, the Bible, Christianity, and background on Christian theology, and sentences like "It took several centuries before the list of what was and was not part of the Bible became finally fixed, and for much of the early period the Book of Revelation was not included while works like The Shepherd of Hermas were." seem to not belong either, Revelations doesn't really add anything to Jesus' life either except one more sentence, and The Shepard of Hermas appears to have absolutly nothing to do with Jesus at all from its article. Does much of this stuff belong? I don't want to give an answer on the FA nom about this unless I know what really is all going on. Homestarmy 20:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The infancy Gospel of Thomas specifically describe's Jesus' childhood. Its as relevent as the 4 canonical gospels concerning Jesus' life. Many of the books in the NT talk little about Jesus' life either! The non-canonical books have as much to do with Jesus as the NT canonate. 'The teachings' originating from Jesus described in the non-canonical scriptures have everything to do with Jesus, just as my career is part of my life. A person wishing to know more about how the bible was canonisized,, ok thats not for this article but for another.86.4.59.203 21:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Pharisee

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is an apocryphal book. For example, it has some doctrines that are not part of the traditional Christian culture, e.g. pantheism, and discrimination against women, which we know from the 4 canonical gospels and records of the early church was out of character. bibliomaniac 1 5 21:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats one view. However, we don't need to interpret for other people. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas concerns Jesus' early life. One may dispute its validity, individually (and neutrally). We can find all sorts of contraditions within the 4 canonical gospels, that doesn' make them valueless. It is a source on Jesus' life, albeit one that is disputed by the orthodoxy. One can even say so in the article, but one should not erase the Infancy Gospel of Thomas from list of sources because of orthodox views against it.86.4.59.203 22:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Pharisee.

Having a section on Jesus' life as told by non-canonical sources may be a good addition, however, you are clearly overstating the significance of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. It is by far the majority view of critical scholars that the Infancy Gospel is significantly later than the Gospels, and thereby a lot less historically significant when analyzing the historical Jesus. So to say that it holds equal weight is simply giving undue weight to a minority view (BTW, can you name a few scholars that hold that view). -Andrew c 22:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not overstating the Infancy Gospel of Thomas' significance. In fact, I am not judging its significance at all. I don't think there is enough evidence to judge its significance with confidence. The scholars can only form view's using the evidence they have availible to them. That evidence is clearly lacking in the quality required to conclusively prove the Gospel is made up. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the InGoT should be cited as a source upon Jesus' life, but with opinions of scholars clearly mentioned along with it.86.4.59.203 15:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Pharisee.

I was under the impression that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was actually pseudographical or whatever the term is, I know at least one of them is considered a total farce, and if the Thomas one is the one that people consider to of been written in medieval times, well, i'm pretty sure that's the one. I'm reasonably certain the point of all the stuff on the Apocrypha so far in this section is because the Apocrypha is sort of semi taken seriously, I don't think pseudographical works are really appropriate. However, I only named the Infancy Gospel because that particular sentence only talks about Christianity and things which influenced Christianity, which is my primary problem with this kind of thing in this section, I think many of this stuff is off-track, and besides the sayings gospel, do any Apocryphal works actually give much supposed information about Jesus? And even then, the sayings one could only be considered information on what Jesus said, not what He did, if, as I understand it, it's just one big list of sayings basically.... Homestarmy 01:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest that this argument is being poorly framed. The question is not whether we think Thomas is a good source or not. The real question (meaning, the question our NPOV policy forces us to ask) is: According to whom? Inclusion in the canonical Gospels, or Apocrypha, or Pseudopigrypha, expresses the views of the Church concerning the validity of the document. That Thomas is not included in the Canonical Gospels means that from the POV of the Church it is not a very reliable source. this is one POV and it is important and should be included in the article. There is another POV that is important: that of non-religious Bible scholars e.g. historians. My sense of the state of the field is that the major scholars who (regardless of their own religious beliefs) do serious historical research on Jesus and bracket their religious beliefs and use the same methods as non-religious historians are EP Sanders, Geza Vermes, and Paula Fredricksen (I know this is not an exclusive list - any of you can probably think of two or three people off the top of your heads to add to the list - but I think these three would be on any list so let's just consider it a sample). As far as I can tell, none of these three consider Thomas a reliable historical source. So from the POV of academic historians, it is not a reliable source either. So this is a second important POV and should be included in the article. There is one POV that should not be included in the article: our own. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Scholars base their dating upon speculative thinking, they always have. Fact is, there is not enough solid evidence to properly date early texts entirly conclusively. So many opinions have been proferred, most of them based upon a weak assumption of some kind or other. For instance, those whom have dated a text using carbon dating, assume that the text they have is the original copy, the first of its kind. But it is impossible to say with any certainty. Then there are those whom say a texts age can be dated by whether or not it was mentioned in the works of a known early work. Yet that dating method only tells you the latest date the text could have been written. Then there are those whom compare stories within the scriptures and whom speculate which scripture copied from another scripture. Yet because early christians relied on oral tradition, many authors could have written the same story, as stories could travel 1000's of miles without varitation (such is the skill of oral tradition). Then there are those whom try to gramatically place a text by speculating upon the style of grammer and matching it with a time period. Yet their wrong assumption is that the text they have to study is the original first copy (same as the carbon dater's). It is the unreliable nature of these speculations which makes it so hard to access the authority of any of the early scriptures. Whether the infancy Gospel of Thomas is authentic or not, my point is that we have no realiable way of answering that question. Whom are we to make judgements based upon our own limited knowledge of the past. I would rather give individuals (whom read an encyclopeadia) all the information avalible upon the study of Jesus. That way, they can decide for themselves which works (to their rational) make a valid contribution to the story of Jesus.

If majority scholarly speculations wish to critize a text for being made up, then the article should say so, but include the source as a reference anyway.I don't know if I believe the text is genuine. But I do not wish to force my opinion upon the public. I am happy to list the Infancy gospel of Thomas as a source on Jesus' life, because I am happy to let the individual browser of wiki to read the scriptures (without scholarly speculative evidence and bias) and form his own opinions. The church should not be given cart blanche to decide what is; 'authentic', and what is 'made up' based upon speculative judgements of scholars (they and we do not have enough conclusive evidence). The church has a vested interest in protecting its own opinion (and hence its opinion is biased). Historians can only form opinions upon the evidence (and the evidence is not sufficient). The reader can assess sources for themselves, once they have read all the sources availible to them. I agree therefore with Slrubenstein; one should include all sources of Christian scriputure, and to also include a section upon the scholarly research and critique by both Christian and non Christian historians. 86.4.59.203 15:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Pharisee.

Anonymous user, I am glad that you agree with me, although I think you miss my main point. It does not matter - it does not matter - how you think scholars work or what you think scholsrs ought to do. Our NPOV, V and NOR policies make it clear that we editors cannot put in our own views, and we do need to provide views that can be attributed to verifiable sources. If a historian like Sanders holds a particular view the article should include it (and represent it accurately) whether you like it or not. If there is no published verifiable reliable source that holds a view, then it cannot be added to the article - whether you like it or not. As for adding Christian sources, I think you may really misunderstand my point. We distinguish between primary and secondary sources. We should not add primary sources, but should use secondary sources. I most definitely did not say that "one should include all sources of Christian scriputure" because we cannot use primary sources willy-nilly.Slrubenstein | Talk 16:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that one should use unattibutable sources. Never said otherwise. However, from a historical point of view, there is no proof that any of the Gospels were written by the 12 disciples or others whom recieved direct teaching from Jesus. With that in mind, one cannot say that any primary sources (eye witness account) exists. So you can only quote secondary sources. I don't see why you can't include scripture as source (since no historian can reliably judge the authority of a scripture). You still haven't got my point. How can you discount a text based upon speculation by anybody which is without really objective proof? It doesn't matter which historian or scholar you quote, if his views are not based upon rational objective evidence. History is not accurate enough (as a method of research) to be so rationally certain about textual authenticity from the 1st century (for the reasons stated in my last comment). So its not a rational view to say that a text can't be used as a source on Jesus' life based upon the flimsy speculative historical evidence used to discredit them. As an editor, one must judge the quality of evidence put forward by a scholar, otherwise one could quote any source (no matter its popular opinion) that is based on incomplete speculation, lacking certainty. I am not suggesting that general (if some what flimsy) academic opinion shouldn't be included, but I am suggesting balance between two opposing views (neither of which has a smoking gun to disprove the other). Thats not adding my own view of the evidence at all, it is promoting neutrality within the article.86.4.59.203 17:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Pharisee.

"I agree that one should use unattibutable sources." I do not know who you are agreeing with, but you are not agreeing with me because this is not the point I made. "one cannot say that any primary sources (eye witness account) exists." Primary sources can mean many things. In the case of scholarship on Jesus, the Gospels are primary sources. What makes them primary sources is not the relationship between whomever authored them and Jesus, but rather the relationship between these texts and historians today who use them. You say I do not understand your point, but if this is your point - "As an editor, one must judge the quality of evidence put forward by a scholar, otherwise one could quote any source" - then you either do not understand our policies, or you are declaring that you intend to violate them and are asking us to violate them. Sorry, but we are not going to violate our own policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too keen on interrupting this, but I think this discussion is getting off-track, considering the section of the article in question ought to not be really long anyway, I don't think that just talking about basically the Infancy gospels is the way to go here. Right now, the section still has several places here which don't have anything to do with Infancy, yet clearly aren't on topic at all, such as "A number of Christian traditions (such as Veronica's veil and the Assumption of Mary) are found not in the canonical gospels but in these and other apocryphal works."" and ""It took several centuries before the list of what was and was not part of the Bible became finally fixed, and for much of the early period the Book of Revelation was not included while works like The Shepherd of Hermas were."", the first of which has nothing to do with Jesus as far as I know and only relates to "Christian traditions" and the apocrypha itself, and the last of which isn't worth going into I think, since it adds maybe one extra sentence that Jesus said from Revelations. (The Hermas thing appears to have absolutly nothing to do with Jesus at all as far as I can tell from its article.) Homestarmy 18:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Oral tradition

Oddly, the line "Most modern Biblical scholars hold that the works describing Jesus were initially communicated by oral tradition, and were not committed to writing until several decades after Jesus' crucifixion." doesn't actually seem to have an equivalent anywhere in Historicity of Jesus, which seems strange to me, because it sounds kind of obvious. Would this stuff more properly be in Historical Jesus? It might make more sense for the whole section on sources to be summarizing Historical Jesus instead of Historicity of Jesus, or even both articles, since Historical Jesus probably has more material about sources too. Homestarmy 02:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the way we have the articles set up, the bulk of the historicity article deals with the sources (I even once proposed renaming it to something like Sources for Jesus' life or something like that). There isn't much about the sources at the main HJ article (just a note about non-canonical sources). Not sure where I am going with this. The idea in the sentence fits under both topics, but since we discuss sourcing in great detail over at historicity, it seems better suited there. I also agree that the sentence sounds pretty obvious. I'll dig up a reference.-Andrew c 03:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I suspect that more people work on this page than on the linked pages. These linked pages were created not when this article reached a "pretty damn good" state, but simply when this article reached a "way too long" state. This means that linked articles are not always as good as they could be, and unless someone vigilantly makes sure that any change they make here is also made in the linked article, they will periodically fall out of synch. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Balancing questions on reliability

If there is a section on questions on reliability of sources, shouldn't there a a section on arguments on reliability of sources? There are more, much more scholars who support the latter view, isn't it? Kleinbell 05:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What's reference 96?

"Encyclopedia of Islam, Jesus article" Is all that it reads, and its used in three places, what is this supposed to mean? Was there once some main reference at the bottom, because I don't see it anywhere. Homestarmy 21:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That's one of Aminz's references. —Aiden 07:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, in its current form, it doesn't look like a reference at all. What Encyclopedia of Islam? Why "Jesus article"? There's no Encyclopedia of Islam here. Homestarmy 12:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Standardizing references

One hurdle we have hit with the FA nom is the question of reference standardization. The use of citation templates must be subject to the approval of editors here. Since we are only using 4 citation templates, it seems best to just convert them to a non-template based citation. If anyone has any comments regarding citations standardization, or diagrees with removing the 4 template uses, please bring up concerns here. Thanks.-Andrew c 14:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the niv and Qu'ran cite templates are fairly simple to use, I think we should keep those, especially since they are for something unique that is cited so much in this article. Only two of the links use cite web, but i'm not sure if FA nom's expect cite web to always be used or not.... Homestarmy 14:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I forgot about the verse templates. I wasn't talking about them. I like them as well and feel no need to loose them, just the citeweb, citebook stuff.-Andrew c 15:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems easier to convert them than make everything else use those templates. Homestarmy 18:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree we should streamline the references, but I do think we should keep our NIV/Quran cite templates as they are. How we should go about it, I'm not sure. —Aiden 06:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Since there's only two cite webs I think, it seems more reasonable to just convert those to normal, but citebook is different, i'm pretty sure that's used several places, and I don't really know exactly how much information in a book cite there's supposed to be for FA purposes. Homestarmy 12:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Cite book is used once, cite web is used thrice. I think it'd be safe to simply convert them over to non-citation templates. Another thing I have been thinking about, we should make sure that footnotes that reference books that have a long entry in the references section should be in shorthand format. And we should make sure that books that are cited more than once are moved to the long reference section and replaced with shorthand.-Andrew c 13:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think FA's need to be anal about citations. There should be a useful inline reference system (e.g. <ref>Reference goes here</ref>), but wether the actual references are generated via citation templates or by hand is (or should be) irrelevant). I think the citation templates are much easier to maintain, and guarantee some consistency, but for the reader only the result counts. I would certainly not recommend to transform template-cites to handmade ones. That's not an improvement, as far as I'm concerned. --Stephan Schulz 13:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

But they demand that the citation style be consistant, irregardless of what it looks to our readers. Converting every book and website to those templates would not be fun, and then it would be very difficult for other people to just throw in new citations in the future, since the templates aren't exactly self-explanatory to use. Homestarmy 15:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, i'm turning the cite webs into the format of the other cites then. Homestarmy 15:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

New Section

Can anyone answer a question about what it is called during the life of Christ? We have B.C which stands for before Christ and A.D. which stands for After Death. Anyone one knows how this came about?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.165.76.78 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 19 April 2007.

Actually, AD stands for Anno Domini which is latin for "in the year of the lord" and our article Anno Domini goes into detail about how this system, and the names, came about.-Andrew c 03:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

General Respect

No matter what you put into this article please remember to respect Christians and their beliefs. A friend of mine who is Christian recently opened the 'Jesus' page and found slightly disrespectful content.But man! I'm a Christian and didn't see anything wrong with it.--4H 08:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is subject to a high amount of vandalism, and perhaps your friend was visiting the page during a time when a vandal hit, but no one had reverted them yet. If you find issues with this article, feel free to raise your concerns here, or jump right in and fix them yourself. Thanks for your comment.-Andrew c 15:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

translation

Can someone translate the following for me please.

""the Jews intended to destroy the person of Jesus completely; in fact, they crucified only his nasut, his lahut remained alive"

Thanks JHJPDJKDKHI! 07:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Jesus as the first hippy

Jesus had long hair and a beard,wore sandles, was non violent, hung out with the dregs of society and "railed" against the man.In addition, he was a drifter agaist materialism and fed the poor.The other day i was with a freind and we saw a hippy,the simularities of this hippy and the most common pictures of Jesus were uncanny.--Crabsoup 09:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

But did Jesus drive a van? —Aiden 04:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Can't see any hippy vans here [[7]]. ^ross ^nixon 02:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Black Jesus

Based on his parents and the country his parents lived in, would Jesus have been born white like he is in paintings, or more like arab or summat? I know it must have been discussed here before, but the page doesn't mention his ethnicity and I am not looking through 100 pages of talk JayKeaton 08:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

He's only depicted as Caucasian in paintings because the artists were Caucasian. Jesus was born in the Middle East; it's likely he had black hair, and probably slightly darker skin than most Europeans, but there is a wide range of skin tones among inhabitants of that area. He almost certainly wasn't "black" in the sense that we usually think of in America (very dark brown skin, tightly curled hair), although he's occasionally been portrayed that way for artistic purposes. --MatthewDBA 11:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

We have an article on this called Race of Jesus. It's listed in the infobox in this article. Even if you type "black Jesus" you get directed to the article. Paul B 11:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

query

Can people who know much of the history of the canonization of the Gospels comment here? Thanks Slrubenstein | Talk 18:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Historicity or Revisionism?

Hello You Bold Men & Women who have done a lot of good work on Wikipedia's "JESUS."

Under headings of "Historicity" and subsequently, "Reconstructing a historical Jesus" I have several questions. (Please give me a hand on my editing where ever I need it.)

The former heading states,

Scholars have used the historical method to develop probable reconstructions of Jesus' life. This is different than the New Testament view on Jesus' life in that it is not derived solely from the text of the Christian Bible. A small minority of scholars dispute Jesus' existence. Block quote

It doesn't appear very well to me that the Historical Method http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method has been used at all. How could anyone use the Historical Method without the New Testament (NT)? There is very, very little outside the NT which proves Jesus in history. Why aren't the NT books considered primary sources for the historicity of Jesus? In what way do the NT books not meet and exceed the Historical Method?

I just wonder if the disregard isn't from thinking that using the NT would be a "circular argument." That is, many think it wrong to refer to biblical passages in support of biblical claims. But that objection is unfounded for practical, legal and logical reasons. Practically speaking, there is no better place to begin than with what is self-claimed, and there is no other place to begin. Legally, anyone can testify in his own behalf in a court of law. Fairness dictates that the NT should be a witness in its own behalf. Finally, the logical point of departure allows us to study its claims rather than the claims simply supporting themselves. (Nix, William E.: A General Introduction to the Bible. Rev. and expanded. Chicago : Moody Press, 1996, c1986, p. 49).

In other words, how can any Historical Method be employed at all without a NT view? It's substantively the only history we've got.

For these reasons I also wonder why the term "probable" is used in reference to reconstructing Jesus's life. I don't think one would say that Caesar's Gallic Wars has been used to develop probable reconstructions of Caesar's life. In fact, why doesn't such a doubtful word violate Aristotle's dictum:

The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself.

Under the latter heading I have these following questions:

Secular historians generally describe Jesus as an itinerant preacher and leader of a religious movement within Judaism.[28] According to historical reconstruction, Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, taught in parables and aphorisms, challenged expectations of holiness and social hierarchy, and was crucified by the Romans. Historians are divided on whether Jesus led a career of healing and exorcism, whether he preached the imminent end of the world, and whether he intended to be crucified.

Most scholars agree the Gospel of Mark was written shortly before or after the destruction of the Jewish Temple by the Romans under Titus in the year 70, and the other gospels written between 70-100.[29] The historical outlook on Jesus relies on criticism of the Bible, especially the gospels.

Many scholars have sought to reconstruct Jesus' life in terms of contemporaneous political, cultural, and religious currents in Israel, including differences between Galilee and Judea, and between different sects such the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and Zealots.[30][31] and in terms of conflicts among Jews in the context of Roman occupation.

"Secular historians" have exactly what persuasive historical data on Jesus outside the NT? How is the NT supposed to be "reconstructed" historically? Isn't this really revisionism rather than historical methodology? And isn't all of that a violation of Aristotle's dictum? How is an itinerant preacher, leader of a small movement within Judaism, a teacher in parables and user of aphorisms a characterization of this historical man? Doesn't the historical record actually record that Jesus claimed to be God!? Whether we agree with that or not shouldn't shape a revision of what we think the history should have been. We should only report the historical facts and let the reader judge the matter himself, shouldn't we? I think one has to admit those characterizations have a historical source, why then are they are not given their historical place? Finally, is there some blemish on the NT books' history I'm unaware of? I know not of even one historical error mentioned in the NT. In fact, all the sources I know say in all of history there is no greater attestation, not even from the collective works of antiquity, than we have for the NT.

I have never actually taken a count the number of scholars, but it's an error to think very many scholars believe the gospel of Mark was written late. Late dates aid only those who refuse to accept the historical accounts of miracles, and thus those who feel their jobs are to demythologize the NT books. In fact, there is substantial evidence which says all the NT books were finished prior to CE/AD 70. Yes, even the works of apostle John. Yes, even the book of Revelation which has generally been assigned CE/AD 96.

That's a total fabrication. When I discovered the entry for "JESUS" I was astonished as to how woefully lacking the historicity is. There is a lot of work to do, isn't there? Sky 16:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Sky

Well, nobody ever identified the Historicity parts in the recent FAC for any attention, so until you made this comment, there wasn't any indication of any work to do... Homestarmy 17:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed comments and review of the article. It shows that you care passionately about this topic, and that you have a lot to say. Let's start with your first concern. This phrasing has been changed recently, so if it is implying that scholars do not use the NT, then you are correct that that is a wrong implication. The purpose of that sentence is to say that the historical Jesus (a historical reconstruction by scholars using critical methods) is different from the Jesus of faith (a religious figure constructed using theological methods). While some people may think the historical Jesus, and their Jesus of faith was the same person, we are not here to present personal opinions of users. We are here to present what scholars think. And generally speaking, there is a dichotomy. That said, I think we should try to rephrase it to be a bit more clear, and there is another article that has a wording that I like better that I'll try to introduce into the article.

I'm a little confused by your statement: Fairness dictates that the NT should be a witness in its own behalf. What did you mean by that, and in practical terms, how does it affect the article (or what would you change in the article). Next, the term "probable" is a term used by historians to describe their craft. They aren't saying that they know for sure what happened in the past, instead they simply reconstruct likely events to the best of their abilities. This isn't something unique to the study of the historical Jesus.

Again, I am a little confused why you think the article is saying they are ignoring the gospel accounts. In the lead, we have The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Maybe we need to repeat that sentence somewhere further down the article. As for We should only report the historical facts and let the reader judge the matter himself, shouldn't we? I'm going to disagree. We have the "Life and teachings, as told in the Gospels" which gives a plot summary of the gospels. And then we have the historical Jesus section that gives scholarly opinion. The purpose of this section isn't to repeat the "Life and teachings, as told in the Gospels" section and allow the viewer to make up their own mind, but instead to allow the reader to read what notable sources think about the historical Jesus. Finally, the dating of the gospels may be "wrong", but wikipedia isn't about The Truth. It is about accurately representing our sources. And the fact of the matter is that there is a majority view on dating (look in any college level text book you would get at a public university regarding the New Testament to see for yourself). If the majority is wrong, so be it, but we cannot give undue weight to minority views (even if they are The Truth) according to our WP:NPOV and WP:ATT policies.

Thanks for your comment, and I hope I could clear some things up.-Andrew c 17:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives