Talk:Jesus/Archive 97

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

Removal of spurious representations of Jesus' appearance

These images are a wasteful distraction. All images of this figure are irrelevant, bar scientific approximations of what a jewish male from this area may have look like at the time, (nothing like these artists non-contemporaneous imaginings).

trilemma

There were two paragraphs about the Trilemma in Majority Views, and I cut them both. This is not the place for singling out one proof of Jesus' divinity (there are plenty) as if it has pre-eminence above the others (it doesn't). Maybe there could be a "Proofs that Jesus is God" section under majority views, and more than just the trilemma would go there. Leadwind (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the "trilemma" paragraph from the "Names and titles" subsection of the historicity section. Clearly, this section isn't the place to discuss the trilemma. Let's discuss why we need a reference to the trilemma in the first place, and discuss where, if anywhere, it fits in the article before trying to throw it in any random section. We can work this out here on talk, so there is no need to be trigger happy with the editing ;) -Andrew c [talk] 21:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
For those of you new to modern Christian apologetics, the trilemma argument seems to be the current favorite proof the Jesus was God, or at least the favorite one that can be quickly summarized. Christian WP editors sometimes try to slip the whole dilemma into a page in order to get it in front of more people. Leadwind (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Mandaean views

can we varyfie this part of the article? it doesent make sence due to the fact that they were related and that St.John the Baptist literaly LIVED for Jesus after He babtized him? and we need records to see whay that they think Jesus is evil after all all the other religions see him as a good figure(exept for satanics and somewhat ethiest) and that the Mandaean religion is a religion for peace and that there are no records of Jesus ever sinning?--Sonicobbsessed (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to the Gospels the Pharisees thought Jesus sinned. But that doesn't matter - most historians do not believe that the Gospels are reliable historical documents ... important historical documents to be sure but not ones that can be considered completely reliable. The Gospels present one set of closely related views of Jesus. Remember, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. We do not assume any source is true. Wo do look for sources that reflect a notable POV. The Gospels represent a notable set of closely related POVs. But just because one POV exists does not mean it is somehow less likely that another POV exists. That said, if you are not really arguing about the veracity of the Gospels, but just asking for more reliable sources concerning the Mandeans, well, yes, I would like to see some work by notable historians concerning the Mandeans.Slrubenstein | Talk 10:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
SLR is right. The Mandaean stuff sounds weird, but there you have it. The religion seems to be a Gnostic sect that latched onto some of John the Baptist's followers, while most of his followers probably switched to Jesus. When a group splits like that, they make up lies about each other, so I could see Mandeans giving Jesus a good grilling. Leadwind (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

scripture removed from historical Jesus section

This information is about the gospels, and it was in the historical Jesus section. It's all primary sources. There's already another section with the gospel accounts. Do we need this information at all? Leadwind (talk) 06:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

YesAndycjp (talk) 06:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the New Testament, Jesus accepted worship (Matthew 14:33; Matthew 28:9), was accused of assuming God's authority by telling people that their sins were forgiven (Luke 5:20-21), and made claims about himself including that:

"Yes" is not really a compelling argument. I think in the context of the broader discussion of the names and titles of Jesus, finding out what various sources use for names and titles is important, but if to be presented in a historical context, need to be filtered through a scholarly source. That said, I believe since there is an entire article devoted to this topic, we don't need to have such extensive quotes (especially ones not associated with scholarly commentary) to be in this top tier article. I would support removing this content, but making sure it has a proper place in the spin out article. -Andrew c [talk] 04:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree, this is not the place for primary sources without scholarly interpretation, especially as this appears to be a POV selection of quotes. --Rbreen (talk) 09:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Andrew c and Rbreen. The issue is compliance with NOR. Historians do use the Gospels as sources so we should not be surprised if the section on the historical Jesus refers to passages in the Gospels - but it should be because historians refer to those passages, not because we happen to decide they fit our own views. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

We need it in that section because that section is about Jesus words about himself. I did make the quotes less extensive. I am not sure if Andrew is propsing an alterative but if he is I do not understand what he is asking for.--Carlaude (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned about violating WP:NOR. No one contests that this is what Jesus says in the Gospel, but there is always a danger that in taking quotes out of context we imply an interpretation that is not universally shared. This violates NOR because it is our or an editors' selection/justapposition, and it violates NPOV because it suggests one reading of Scripture when there are others. I wonder if there is another article in which these verses could be quoted and all the various notable POVs concerning their meaning be presented? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
You may disagree that Jesus himself is claiming to be God, but Jesus claiming to be God is certainly not a new original thought. The fact they sayings can (or should) be interpreted in a strait-forward way is exactly why they should be included. An alterative view is already strongly expressed as a counterpoint. If you think they lack of context is misleading somehow then feel free to quote them with more extensive context.--Carlaude (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Carlaude, is there any verse where Jesus says "I am God?" I am not being sarcastic nor am I trying to be provocative - this is a sincere question because I certainly do not know the Gospels as well as you do. Speaking as a non-Christian, all I can say is, it is not clear to me from the quotes provided that Jesus is claiming that hs is God. Please, i am not trying to be argumentative; I certainly understand why Christians interpret these verses the way they do. Talk 16:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Jesus never said, Good morning folks. Welcome to Capernaum. I am God. and for a very practical and historical reasons. Jesus did not wish to be stone on the first day of his ministry. Jesus also lived in a culture that, unlike most today or then, made the idea of a human being God in human form anathema. Yet he talks as if he thinks he is God (e.g. able to forgive those who have not harm himself but offended God) and makes statements that both his friends and enemies took to be claims to Divine status. In John 8:58 Jesus answers a question not with a I was but using a title for himself (from Exod 3:14) that is only for God, I Am. --Carlaude (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
But I know that there is some debate among historians as to how to interpret at least some of these verses. Is some compromise possible? Is there a way to incorporate some of these quotes into the section of the Gospel accounts of Jesus, without making any unequivocal claims about what they mean? Talk 16:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure I am open to compromise. But if people but want to delete them over and over, then that is not compromise—it is just censorship. Make edits.--Carlaude (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is that Andycjp's original issue was the placement of these quotes in a different section; surely we can at least all agree that they belong in the "According to the Gospel" section? Talk 16:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
As I recall they began in the Christian View section and they moved here along with the comments and references just below them. I do not see ANY reason to put them in the According to the Gospel section. If that followed then we could put anything from the gospels in the According to the Gospel section. We could include the Gospels in their entirety. The quotes are about Jesus words regarding himself.--Carlaude (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
And my understaning of Andrew C's issue is that the quotes were presented as if making an unequivocal claim. I don't object to some inclusion of at least some of these verses, as long as it is in some way that acknowledges these issues. Talk 16:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure what unequivocal claims you want more equivocating on but it is considered good style to avoid weasel words. Again, it may be something that can be a compromise, but I am not sure where you are looking.--Carlaude (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
My understanding of Christian history is that Christians themselves debated Jesus's humanity/divinity for a couple of centuries before reaching an orthodox agreement - I agree with Andrew's point that this debate, that is to say, the divinity or humanity of jesus, merits its own article where these issues, starting with Gospel quotes and debates over their interpretation, can be addressed in full. Talk 16:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
No. I can go into more detail that I expect you want but let me sum-up. Statements by the church (in councils, etc.) were almost universally made only in opposition to various new claims that needed refuting-- but that had never needing refuting before. What is often missed nowadays is that there is more than one way to conceive that so-and-so is Divine. None of the councils debated if Jesus was Divine but debated in what way he was God, or also debated in what way he was human or in what way he was unified (in Divinity and humanity).--Carlaude (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
New article is fine if it does not exist and someone wants to write it. Even if it was written this is a relevant topic to discuss here.
*To the question "Are You the Christ?", Jesus gives the direct answer, "I am": Mark 14:62; cf. Mark 15:2, Matthew 26:63-64, 27:11, Luke 22:70, 23:3, 23:9, John 18:20, 18:33-37. That is from the Gospel of Mark and seems to be the closest Jesus gets to offering conclusive confirmation of his divinity/special identity. Kalindoscopy (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
So the answer is "no," since "the christ" means a human descendent of David and rightful king of the Jews. Simon bar Kokhba also claimed to be "christ" and was accepted as such by many Jews; for a few years he actually ruled Jerusalem until his final defeat by the Romans. Is there any quote of Jesus saying "I am God?" Slrubenstein | Talk 19:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, he calls himself 'the Son of Man, sitting at the right hand of the Father'. You should really be asking a Christian theologian though... or reading up on Christian theology yourself. There's got to be some basis for the 2,000 years worth of Christology, whether it's beautiful theories or scripturally supplemented 'fact'. Find a chatty Catholic, they're the wordiest of the bunch. Not sure who the Simon bar Kokhba character was.... but having failed to attract gentile adoration, I think it's a safe bet he's not going to be accosted with claims of divinity any time soon. Kalindoscopy (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure what your point is, now. You still haven't answered my question. Calling himself "son of man" also is obviously not the same thing as saying "I am God" (in 1st century Aramaic, "son of man" meant "one's self," the way some people using formal English use the phrase "one." As to bar Kochba, I never said he was divine, I said he was the christ. Nor did I suggest he attracted gentile adoration - if he did, obviously he would not have been the christ, right? Slrubenstein | Talk 06:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey rubenstein: I'm pretty much done with this. There seem to be a few people willing to take a much more active role in debating whether Jesus called himself God or not, why he may have chosen not to, what significance that has... etc etc ad infinitum. But yeah, no gentiles following bar Kochba makes it more likely he'd have been considered some sort of Messiah... rather than the son of God. Kalindoscopy (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

First, the issue is simple WP policy. We can't use scripture to describe historical Jesus, except insofar as historians tell us we can (e.g., he really was baptized and crucified). Leadwind (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no WP policy issue here. If it really was a simple WP policy I think you would be able to find where the issue is recorded on WP.--Carlaude (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Second, even when the author of the gospel of John puts words in Jesus' mouth, Jesus still doesn't say that he's God. Leadwind (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone speaks like an encyclopedia article see comments above.--Carlaude (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Carlaunde, at this point we now all agree that nowhere does Jesus actually say "I am God." Your further add that (1) he communicated this to his followers indirectly and (2) there were good reasons for him communicated this indirectly. Fine, But points 1 and 2 are interpretations. They are points of view. You may consider the evidence and reasoning for this interpretation very persuasive. I imagine others consider it persuasive. But it is still and interpretation and should be presented as such in the section on the Christian point of view (ideally with a citation of a secondary source), especially since others - non Christians, and historians - have other interpretations they consider at least as persuasive. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's more scripture removed from the historical Jesus section.

According to the New Testament, Jesus accepted worship ({{bibleref2|Matthew|14:33|NIV}}; {{bibleref2|Matthew|28:9|NIV}}), was accused of assuming God's authority by telling people that their sins were forgiven ({{bibleref2|Luke|5:20-21|NIV}}), and made claims about himself including that (1) he is ("[[I am that I am|I am]]") before [[Abraham]] was ({{niv|John|8:58|John 8:58}})(2) he and the Father "are one" ({{niv|John|10:30|John 10:30}}) (3) he has "all authority in heaven and on earth" ({{bibleref2|Matthew|28:18|NIV}}) (4) he is the only way to God the Father ({{bibleref2|John|14:6|NIV}}).

This page seems to collect stuff. Leadwind (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I gather what you (e.g. Slrubenstein) want is
  • (a) goselpel/jesus text(s) without any interpretation
  • (b) text(s) with a NPOV (or more NPOV) interpretation or
  • (c) no text
I have said above why (c) in unacceptable. As for (a), everything is an interpretation. That leaves us with (b) and as I said above. I am open to editing but I am starting to think you do not really want a NPOV-- or at least you do not want to make any suggestions.
Do you object to part (1)? part (2)? part (3)? part (4)? Some more that others?--Carlaude (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Carlaunde. For the section "Life and Teachings, as told in the Gospel," I want the minimal amount of (a) so that no one feels the Gospel's are being distorted (for example, I have no objection to this line in the section, "During the Sanhedrin Trial of Jesus, the high priests and elders asked Jesus, "Are you the Son of God?," and after he replied, "You are right in saying I am," they condemned Jesus for blasphemy (Luke 22:70–71)"); for the section "Christian Views" I want as much (b) from secondary sources so as to represent all notable Christian view as necessary. And linked daughter articles that expand on these issues. I hope my own views are now clearer! But this exchange began with a concern by Andycjp and also Andrew c was involved ... I think their views matter too (as well as Leadwind and others) Slrubenstein | Talk 18:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Carlaude: "We need it in that section because that section is about Jesus words about himself." You have a point. We should explain what Jesus said about himself. So go find a reliable source that tells us what Jesus said about himself. Summarize what that RS says, put the summary on the page, and cite it. The rules of WP are that primary sources, such as The Bible, don't count as reliable sources. You can't quote the Bible to demonstrate what Jesus said, any more than you can quote the Koran or the Book of Mormon to demonstrate what Jesus said. Leadwind (talk) 05:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Carlaude: "Jesus never said, Good morning folks. Welcome to Capernaum. I am God. and for a very practical and historical reasons." This is an important insight and one worth documenting on this page. After all, lots of holy men have pretended they were God, but the one holy man who really is God kept it hush-hush. Find a reliable source for why Jesus didn't proclaim his own divinity, and we'll owe you one. Leadwind (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Jesus didn't proclaim his divinity because he was a first century Jew, similarly the first Christians didn't proclaim Jesus' divinity because they were Jewish Christians. Ref: Raymond E. Brown, "Does the New Testament call Jesus God?" in Theological Studies, 26, (1965) p. 545-73. 75.15.202.250 (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Here, I'll even throw in a free quote, why not?:

"The most plausible explanation is that in the earliest stage of Christianity the Old Testament heritage dominated the use of the title "God"; hence, "God" was a title too narrow to be applied to Jesus. It refered strictly to the Father of Jesus, to the God whom he prayed."

75.15.202.250 (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone put back the scripture in the historical Jesus section, with two citations, one of them about the gospel of John, not about Jesus, per se. So I cut the primary source information and the citation that was about the gospel of John. I summarized the citation that was actually about Jesus. Leadwind (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Vanadalism

I see a lot of:

At the end of Chronology and before Life and teachings, as told in the Gospels. Can this be fixed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.51.228 (talk) 09:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't hesitate to remove such things yourself when you see them. This page is closely monitored and vandalism is typically removed in two minutes or less, but if you are the first to find it, then you can look at the article's edit history and undo the last change which was made. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 00:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Pictures of Jesus

I think that we should erase all pictures that depict Jesus's Face. It is too controversial, and is not neccesary. If the Captions help tell his biogarophy, then you can find a way to add it. Please Remove it!!!!!!!!!!! Obaidz96 (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Possibility A (You are serious): No. WP:NOTCENSORED... along with the vast importance that depictions play in relation to the subject.
Possibility B (You are trying to prove a point in relation to the Muhammad article): Desist. WP:POINT.--C.Logan (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Assuming Possibility A: Not going to happen. You might want to read the archives of this page and check the result of the discussion at Talk:Muhammad/images. Okiefromokla questions? 01:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
What I gathered from the Talk:Muhammad/images link that Okiefromokla posted is that WP:CENSOR is extended to images that may be offensive to entire religions. It appears that C.Logan's B scenario applies in this case; the user simply wanted to make a point about something in relation to the images of Muhammad, and used images of Jesus to make this point. Even if an entire religion finds an image offensive, but it adds context and understanding to a notable article, then the image should not be censored. Wikipedia exists for the distribution of information. Censorship does not allow that to happen. scetoaux (talk) (My contributions.) 02:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, seeing how he hasn't been involved in the Muhammad article or the relevant discussions by glancing at his contributions, we should probably just assume good faith here. Hopefully he'll check out the archives and the policy, so all is well. Okiefromokla questions? 02:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The Truths About Yeshua

I am here to tell the truth that you people have covered up. First of all on the article put thet Yeshua is His REAL name not just a name he is called by. Secondly Yeshua's birhtday is sometime during The Feast Of Tabernacles which goes on in September His birthday is not during Christmas. This is the truth you people have hid and you have been decieved by lies (I have too) but now it's time for the truth to be known!! The K.O. King (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:V Slrubenstein | Talk 16:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:NPOV, specifically Undue weight. adriatikus | talk 17:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't get what either of you are talking about. The K.O. King (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear K.O. King. You must be new to Wikipedia. We welcome your contributions but you need to follow our policies if you ant any of your contributions to last. Your concern with the truth, and the implication that you know the truth, violates two of our core policies. None of us care about the truth, and no one cares what you think. if this does not make sense to you, then it must be because you have not read and understood our core policies, which is why Adriatikus and I kindly provided links to two of the core policies, so you could understand our rules and values. Indeed, your comment also violates WP:POINT, so you should review that policy as well. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ehrman on harmonies

We have previously established Ehrman as worth citing. I have a sneaking suspicion that the following text will press someone's button and get reverted.

Each gospel portrays Jesus' life and its meaning differently.<ref name ="Harris">[[Stephen L Harris|Harris, Stephen L.]], Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985.</ref><ref name="MisJ">[[Bart D. Ehrman|Ehrman, Bart D.]]. [[Misquoting Jesus]]: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. HarperCollins, 2005. ISBN 978-0-06-073817-4</ref> To combine these four stories into one story is tantamount to creating a fifth story, one different from each original.<ref name="MisJ">[[Bart D. Ehrman|Ehrman, Bart D.]]. [[Misquoting Jesus]]: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. HarperCollins, 2005. ISBN 978-0-06-073817-4</ref>

Honestly, this is the only scholarly information I have on the validity of massaging the four gospels into one account. If there are contrary scholarly statements, I'd love to see them. Leadwind (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

We may want to qualify it with "According to Ehrman..." and perhaps also mention the early Christian tradition of gospel harmonies (such as Tatian's Diatessaron). It may also be valid to point out that many Christians believe the gospels tell a singular, cohesive story (if we can find a citation to support that, which I don't think will be hard to do). -Andrew c [talk] 01:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Andrew, that's fair. I am always happy to qualify a statement with "According to so-and-so" once it has been established that there's at least one RS that disagrees. As soon as someone finds an RS that says, "The four gospels cohere into a single account of Jesus' life and its meaning," we should immediately add "According to Ehrman" to my lines. Leadwind (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be difficult or impossible to add "many Christians believe ..." unless there has been a worldwide poll to indicate this. I could accept "many or most Christian denominations." A recent poll in the United States showing most people can't name the four gospels indicates that if they believe the gospels are in harmony, then it is not worth noting. Burpboohickie (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew. Onbe day we should overhaul the vaious articles on historians' views of Jesus - and perhaps work on the article (or create it?) on the history of the Gospels, meaning, what we know of the history of the texts themselves. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I just removed some mysteriously removed content. I took some time to think aout whether the phrase "Each gospel portrays Jesus' life and its meaning differently." violates NPOV but concluded that it canot. The sentence does not make any claims whatsover about veracity; it does not suggest that the four Gospels contradict one another, or that one is right and another wrong, or that Jesus wasn't real - it only makes the non-controversial point that the four Gospels are different, which must be true otherwise there would be only one Gospel. Slrubenstein | Talk 06:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
SR, thanks for the vote of confidence. How about we summarize how the gospels are different while we're at it. "Different" is really vague, and the Synoptics are different from each other in different way from how they're different from John. Leadwind (talk) 05:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The text was altered and half-deleted, so I restored it. Those of you who disagree with Harris and Ehrman, please find reliable sources to back up your opposition. Leadwind (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The Anchor Bible is an excellent source for showing the different views and motivations of the gospels, as is Asimov's Guide to the Bible. Matthew's is clearly driven by OT prophecy, Mark's is the earliest, John's is geared toward Gentiles and has no virgin birth, etc. Should be no problem backing up the notion that the gospels are different. Burpboohickie (talk) 02:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Anchor Bible is a superb resource (though Christian views (those of noted theologians and clergy, or Ecumenical councils), presented as such, also have to be represented. This article focuses on Jesus; it would be great if we had separate articles on each book of the Bible that went beyond basic outlines to discuss debates among scholars over authorship, history of the text, hermeneutics, etc. - but that kind of detail belongs in articles on specific books themselves, I think. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)