Talk:Jesus/Archive 20

message: Do we really need the note at the top saying the article is becoming "too long"?  Doesn't a topic this important deserve a long, extensive article? rvinall 01:21, 07 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: too long?

message: "The preceding paragraph verges on redundancy in its frequent rewordings of what could easily be a three-line paragraph without all the "However, some scholars..." waffling. Its attempt to be 100% NPOV verge on the ridiculous; stuff like "and some also suggest earlier dates for the entire New Testament than those typically proposed" doesn't merit opening-paragraphs mentioning and should be moved to Historicity or Chronology."
I removed this becasue this is an article not something to post your opinion about. Now, I don't really agree with this above. The NT dates are highly debated and while there is a "Main stream" there are also signficant followings for earlier and later dates. The waffling should be avoided, but it should not leave them out either. Many prominent scholars have differing opinions on Jesus. Despite what I said above, I do believe that the introduction is in poor condidtion, lacks clarity, and doesn't go over much about his life which is what an introduction to a biography is supposed to have. Newbie222 01:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro sentence

message: Is the introduction's greek stuff, and sentence on some scholars vandalized or is it just my comp not seeing it? Newbie222 01:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I fixed it in the first few para's but it seems broken throughout. Do we know the reason whey these things happen and an efficient way to fix? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 04:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken Unicode

message: How is Satanism point of view relevant with this article? It looks like its added for a more mischevious benefit.
I request for comments and suggest to remove it
Yohajohn 05:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Satanism is too minor to merit that much cpverage, and it's an incomplete description of Satanistic views anyway; many Satanists believe Jesus was a normal man, or even that he never lived. Move it to religious perspectives on Jesus and leave at most one line in "other perspectives" on this page for Satanism. -Silence 05:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I don't agree with satanism either, it is still another perspective and should be kept as is Mandeaism and new age movement. But it does not need its own "Religious perspectives" section in the article. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 18:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't list every religion's view of Jesus; I say we stick to the majors (Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, maybe a couple of others...the major "world religions").  KHM03 18:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Satanism still counts as an "Other Perspective" even if it is not given an own religious section. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 19:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Gain consensus for its addition - if you cannot gain any support then it does not add to the article and should not be included. - Tεxτurε 19:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: And we simply can't list everything, or the article would get way too long, unwieldy, and out of hand.  KHM03 19:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What are the chances that satanism will gain support on the Jesus page? :) I don't agree with satanism views of Jesus either, but it does not mean they don't count. We should clarify the section rather than remove it. Other perspectives are listed in the section, such as the New Age movement; how is adding satanism any different. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 19:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing here is about supporting satanism.  Article on George Bush have criticisms as do articles on the Catholic Church.  However, the view of Jesus by satanists does not add to this article.  I'm glad to hear that it is covered in the satanism article.   - Tεxτurε 19:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't see what the George Bush article has to do with this. Iif other perspectives are listed in the section, such as the New Age movement; how is adding satanism any different? --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 19:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal: Satanism

message: I'll accept the removal of the Gandhi image, though we should keep our eyes out for some non-Christian imagery related to Jesus. Whenever things have simmered down a bit, the following changes should be made:
#Because it breaks flow of the Islam section to add in details, because we go into no detail on, for example, the Book of Revelation in this article's very brief overview of Christian beliefs, and because the paragraph is already more than large enough, the Islam section should be changed back to:
::In Islam, Jesus is known as Isa and is one of God's highest-ranked and most-beloved prophets. Like Christian writings, the Qur'an holds that Jesus was born without a biological father by the will of God, that he could perform miracles, and that he will one day return to the world to rid it of evil and defeat an Antichrist figure (Dajjal, translated as "Deceiver"). However, unlike Christians, Muslims do not consider Jesus to have been the son of God, and do not believe that he died on the cross; instead, the Qur'an states that his death was only an illusion to deceive his enemies, and that Jesus ascended bodily to heaven. Muslims also believe that Jesus received a gospel from God (called the Injeel) that corresponds to the Christian New Testament, but that it and the Old Testament have both changed over time such that they no longer accurately represent God's original message to mankind.
#Because the article never stated that "jesus was ideal" is supremacist, but rather that the "ideal race" part of that statement was, this information should be re-added to allow people to do further research on the subject more easily, though to clarify what's being referred to as "supremacist" I suggest the wording of:
::Jesus was most likely a bronze-skinned man of Middle Eastern descent, based on the area in which he lived; see Race of Jesus. However, this surmisal is more controversial; there is sparse information from the time on what Jesus' racial background was, and many argue that Jesus was white, black, and dozens of other possibilities. These conflicts have been a significant aspect of racist doctrines; some Christian racial supremacists have argued that Jesus would have been of the "ideal" race, based on the belief held by some Christians that Jesus, as the son of God, would have had the ideal body type and physical characteristics.
If anyone has any problems with these changes, let's discuss them here; edit wars are boring. -Silence 00:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I only have a small problem with your Islam paragraph, but ofcourse nothing that we had an edit war over. It needs to be mentioned that the Islamic and Christian conceptions of the anti-Christ like figure and what happens next are different. Islamic belief is different especially concerning Imam Mahdi. I will however accept your paragraph provided I am able to make some minor changes. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 00:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that such details would not really relate to "religious perspectives on Jesus" so much as on "religious perspectives on the end of the world" or "religious perspectives on the Second Coming", I'd really prefer it if we could reserve such details for Religious perspectives on Jesus#Islam, Isa, Second Coming#Islam, End_of_the_world_%28religion%29#Islam, Dajjal, Islamic eschatology, etc. There are so many good articles on this matter to include this information on, that I don't see why it's so vital to include it on a general-purposes article that has to cover such a huge number of topics so quickly like Jesus. If we had a Jesus#Second Coming section on this page that explored all the views on this matter in more detail, I'd be fine with adding that information; if not, I'd prefer that we just left it to other articles to explain those fine differences between Christianity and Islam (which wouldn't be a bad sister page to make for Similarities between the Bible and the Qur'an, if you're that interested in the subject!), though if you insist, I won't contest future re-addition of those facts to that paragraph as long as you can fit them in smoothly. -Silence 00:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I will leave you solve the racial issues edit war problem with Paul Barlow now. Thanks a.n.o.n.y.m   t 00:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Post-protection changes

message: If you search for this:
These is little consensus concerning how and when any of these documents were circulated, if they were at all.
and chage the first word 'These' to There, it would make more sense to me. 
203.102.190.87 02:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Simple Gramatical Error

message: Like so:
Like many other celebrities, Jesus has become a popular figure in fan fiction. The vast majority of fan fiction featuring Jesus accepts as its basis not only historical details about his life, but also numerous speculations which originated in other fan literature, such as the notion that he was born of a virgin, or rose from the dead. Christian fanon is called "canon". 
Many crossover stories have Jesus meet other fictional characters, such as Satan or God. Left unmoderated, discussions of their precise relationship, or "Which is stronger?" disputes, can consume entire message boards as well as continental European battlefields.
Several organizations claim Spiritual Property Rights to Jesus.
:Mmm, gotta love a good satire. You might want to consider posting this to Uncyclopedia. Especially consider putting spoiler warnings there above any details of his death. -Silence 05:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Add "Jesus in Fan Fiction" category

message: Please edit with courtesy and to address concerns that are had by various people (myself included). - Ta bu shi da yu 06:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection removed 

message: Silence writes:
:But we never address what race Jesus would have been classed as at the time, we address what race he would be classed as now. Both facts have some degree of importance, but if we have to choose one or the other (which we do, as long as we only have one paragraph to discuss the issue), explaining what Jesus would be classed and understood as today is by far the more useful thing to explain, and then we have a whole other article to explore the complications involved in the very concept of "race". 
Silence, can you explain to me why "what Jesus' race today" is a useful thing to write about, and to whom it would be useful?  This is an article on "Jesus," either a man, god, or legend (or all three) who appeared on earth two thousand years ago.  How on earth does discussing his race add anything of value to the article, especially when
* people do not agree as to whether race is biological or cultural
* people today disagree over the definition of racial categories 
* we know for a fact that the meaning of race and racial categories today are different from in Jesus's time
* any attempt to identify Jesus according to today's racial categories is both speculative and contentious.
I for one do not see the point.
That said, you must comply with our Wikipedia: No original research.  IF there are people who have made claims about Jesus' race, we could certainly have a section providing an account of these claims.  But to comply with policy, it would not be what you think Jesus' race is or was, nor even what I think.  What you think does not matter.  What I think does not matter.  What matters is that others, in verifiable sources, have made claims about Jesus' race.  Okay, list the different people who have made the claims, provide an account of their claims, and then provide sources. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't even understand what you're arguing here; how could it be possible for there to be a "universal standard" for any of this? Anyone who even knows what the words we're using mean on the most basic level should understand that race is not a hard science. However, that certainly does not mean that we can't write about it or use terms that weren't in use two thousand years ago; 
You are correct that we can write an article.  But that article must comply with our NOR policy.  In other words, if there is no universal standard for race or races, then we need to do research before writing about Jesus' race, and try to find out how people identified Jesus in particular of Jews in general back then.  And you are even correct that nothing stops us from using modern terms &mdahs; but again, we must comply with NOR.  This means that the only reason we would use modern terms is if others &mdadh; typically people who have published, providing us with verifiable sources — have used modern terms. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'll recommend now that you write up on Race of Jesus the new section about what people would have classified Jesus' race as way back then, and how understandings of race has changed, and all that, and after we've got all the information down in its expanded form, it'll be much easier to summarize that information somewhere on the Jesus page, and moreover we'll have resolved any disputes over the expanded form before moving on to inserting the basics of it here. 
Silence, I will not write up such an article.  Do you want to know why?  I have no interest in the topic.  Then, you may ask, why am I writng all these complaints?  Because I do care that edotirs and articles comply with Wikipedia policies.  I do not want to write an article on the race of Jesus.  I do not object to someone else writing an article on the race of Jesus.  But I insist, as any editor can and should, that the article comply with our policies.  This (and I am not speaking to you personally, now, I am speaking in general) is not a chat room where we just spin out our own ideas.  This is an encyclopedia.  We do research.  We write research-based articles.  We provide verifiable sources.  That is my main point.  As a secondary note, I think it is poor research to write about history using anachronistic terms.  This is something history professors teach their graduate students right away, and good historians avoid the practice.  Of course, if you have a source that uses anachronistic terms, we can include it in an article, as long as we cite the source and make clear that it is this source's view. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear, hear! I could not have put that any better myself! We are focussing on this article, not another one. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Race redux

message: I had hoped my edit summary was enough of an explanation.  There was nothing about my recent edit that violates our NPOV policy.  If you haven't noticed, this article is twice as long as Wikipedia articles should be.  So the last thing we should be doing is wasting space.  This article has a section: The Gospel account of Jesus.  It goes without saying that
* the purpose of this section is to provide the Gospel account
* the contents of this section will therefore represent the point of view of the Gospel
* the section should not provide other accounts
The article actually has space for other accounts.  Other accounts should be in those sections, not in this section — otherwise, we are just wasting space.  Moreover, there are sections for debates over how to interpret the Gospel account. Debates should go in those other sections.  This is a complex article on a controversial topic, and many points of view are represented — in different sections.  To try to represent every point of view in every section would not only make the article a zillion bytes too long, it would be pointless.  What do you think we have different sections for? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your edit. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  explaining my revert 

message: ... one-million times better! Great edit, whoever did this! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section... 

message: What is an extant text? I see this in the article, but no explanation for what this might be... - Ta bu shi da yu 15:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extant text 

message: Should the titles of gospels be italicized? — goethean ॐ 21:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  gospel titles 

message: I just saw this interesting documentary raising questions about if Jesus was a real person or if he is a mythological figure.  I came to this page to find out more, but I don't see anything that talks about Jesus in any way other than if his existance as a person is 100% guaranteed.  I wonder if it would be appropriate to add something to this page or a subpage about questions surrounding Jesus' existance?  --Quasipalm 00:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Update, I found Historicity of Jesus and Jesus-Myth under Historicity (although I had no idea what they were about until after finding links to them elsewhere).  --Quasipalm 00:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:   [[The God Who Wasn't There]] 

message: This article goes to painful and excruciatingly irritating lengths to complain that the exact historicity, calendar dates and times of Jesus Christ's birth and death are 'inexact', and 'in doubt'. Okay; I get it. But, is this the most important aspect of Jesus' life? Get ON with it! In fact; all of you skeptics have your own worthless "heroes" to trumpet, that you think are so great. Why don't you go contribute to an article on Bob Dylan or Mick Jagger, or someone like that that you guys "worship". In fact, why don't you dig up some old, phony-baloney pagan "religion" from thousands of years ago, like you like to do, and "explain" to us how it's real; and show us the concocted "proof" that supposedly 'exists' for it. Why don't you leave this article alone; and let people who BELIEVE in Jesus write it? Really. Your "sour grapes" comments are quite annoying. You guys are free to worship your "sacred cows", if it makes you happy. ```` (Oct.)
:Sorry, I don't follow. Fredrik | talk 19:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The "Exact" Date of Jesus' Birth and Death

message: Coming to a biographical article, I expected to see an infobox at the top of the article.  I know that there is a lot to be disputed and there would be no photograph available, it would be useful to put this information in a biographical infobox anyway.  Perhaps something like, "Jesus / Central figure of Christianity / Born: About 6BC to 6AD / Died: About 33 years later".  There would be considerable dispute over what image to use, but some image would be better than nothing.  Val42 17:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any point in duplicating the information in the first paragraph. On the other hand, anything is better than the second table of contents which is currently floated at the top. Fredrik | talk 20:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Why do people keep taking down pictures of Jesus? Is it because somebody objects to images, or because of the race controversy? Or because somebody doesn't like Eastern Orthodoxy? I think a picture would make it look better, and people wouldn't get confused any more than they do with Buddha (who didn't really have blue hair and gold skin). 
Anybody want to pick out a better one from http://www.jesusoftheweek.com ? Or we could just put up a photo of some other hippy-looking dude! Dawud 09:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You've hit the nail on the head. Unless it is illustrating a fact the article lays down, then really it's not neutral to add any one picture. Lead sections don't always need an image, incidently. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it biased to use a particular picture, any more than presenting a particular view in text? The motive and its origin must be described in the caption, but that's also all there is to it.  Fredrik | talk 15:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Buddhists really don't get their knickers in a knot if someone doubts the historicity of their leader. I might note that noone really does doubt this, even though they really don't have any better sources than Christianity. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus pic? 

message: ... it read as follows:
:Christians and non-Christians alike generally perceive Jesus as the founder of Christianity. In fact, many scholars--some of them Christians--doubt that Jesus intended to found a new religion.
::Which scholars? Call to authority without sourcing the authority. In other words, using weasel words. 
:Jesus was, as is commonly observed, a Jew. However, the Judaism of his day centered around the Second Temple in Jerusalem, which was destroyed in AD 70, and differs in crucial respects from Judaism today. Historian Donald Akenson notes that in the wake of the Temple's destruction, two successor religions arose that survive today. One replaced the Temple with a book--the Torah--even though many of its commandments could no longer be followed. The layout of Talmudic text, he notes, resembles an incorporeal temple (with several courts). Meanwhile Christians recognized Christ as the new Temple, i.e. a locus of sacrifice and reconciliation with God.
::Jesus is a Jew. Already covered. Pushing a POV... what source is being using to support this, and why is this not incorporated into the main article? Nevertheless, I find a lot of this somewhat pointless and fail to see what point is being made here. 
:Gradually--owing to the combination of missionary activity among the Gentiles, and disputes with the emerging rabbinic Judaism--Christians ceased to regard their movement as Jewish. Anti-Jewish verses from the gospels may have been composed in this context. See anti-semitism for their subsequent history. A "Jewish Christianity" did however continue in Jerusalem for some time, led at first by Yakob ha-Zadik (see James, Brother of Jesus).
::This is not about the Gentiles or anti-Semitism, it's about Jesus. 
:Many Christian traditions resemble those of the Greco-Roman mystery religions, and Christian writings do often refer to aspects of their faith as "mysteries." Elements which seem out of place in a Jewish context, such as Christianity's commemoration of a dying and resurrected God through a festive meal, may perhaps originate in this context.
::This is covered elsewhere in the article. 
:Some historians suggest that the true "founder" of Christianity was Saint Paul.
::Which historians? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need a whole section to discuss this issue. This can be better added into the ethnicity section, or even into the historicity section. I do insist on references. As for garbage lower down the page, no idea what you're talking about. Your section was POV, it got removed. Simple as that. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section removed... 

message: I just now clicked an external link on random, and it turned out to be spam. This list is clearly unmaintainable, and nearly useless to readers due to its overwhelming size. Many of the links are no doubt of questionable relevance or quality. I suggest removing everything except 10 or so of the most general, highest-quality links, adding good descriptions, and keeping things that way. Fredrik | talk 19:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and the "Sources and further reading" section is nearly as bad. I suggest moving it to List of works about Jesus or something similar, and keeping a list of those actually used as references for use with the "Notes" section. Fredrik | talk 19:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I was about to comment on that. What exactly is the goal of the further reading section, to list every book ever written that mentions Jesus? Also, the "Interpretations of Jesus by influential leaders" section seems completely, 100% useless, since it doesn't provide any such interpretations, it's nothing more than links to a bunch of people who apparently talked about Jesus at some point (not even links to their interpretations, just to all those people). That section would be more appropriately called "List of People Who Said Something About Jesus At Some Point," but that is worthless.Tommstein 19:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Totally agree. I think I might have mentioned this at one point... - Ta bu shi da yu 03:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I'm removing the following italicised phrase, but to avoid an edit war with the anonymous editor who readded it after an earlier deletion I will explain:
On the other side of the coin, some scholars believe that Jesus has little or no historical basis despite surviving descriptions in secular Roman annals (e.g., Tacitus).  
This is the introductory sentence to a paragraph explaining the 'Jesus myth' theory. It should simply introduce the theory, not attempt to disprove it before it's even explained. The phrasing of the italicised section is misleading. The expression 'Roman annals' implies a reference to archival material. Yes, Tacitus's  book is usually called "The Annals", but that's not what the phrase implies. It suggests that there are several specifically archival references to the historical Jesus – hence "(e.g. Tacitus)". True, the death of Jesus under Pilate is mentioned by Tacitus, but the obvious explanation for this is that Tacitus is repeating what is stated in Christian sources, not that he is using Roman archives. The reasons for this interpretation are clearly articulated in the article Tacitus on Jesus. Paul B 13:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Roman annals"

message: I think the current lead section is excellent: it focuses on the most important facts, is fairly well structured, and not too long. The rest of the article is of mixed quality, but I wouldn't mind seeing this lead section in a printed edition of Wikipedia. Let's just hope it doesn't start growing cruft again. Any ways it could be improved? - Fredrik | talk 21:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts on the lead section? 

message: Shouldn't we capitalize all pronouns referring to Jesus? While being a Christian myself, I think this 
fits well with the NPOV philosophy, as it is good practice to show respect when talking about other people's religion.  Maybe the practice of capitalization could be briefly explained in the beginning of the article.
JorgePeixoto 12:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Since we refer to living royalty as HRM, HRH etc, we should use the appropriate form of address when referring to Jesus. If no objections will be listed in the next few days, then we should capitalise all pronouns referring to Jesus. Moreover, the Christmas article already capitalises His pronouns, so we have a precedent. Brisvegas 04:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalization

message: Does anyone know where this title comes from? I've never heard it, even though I'm a librarian of a theological seminary. If no comment is forthcoming, and there's no objection, I'll delete it. --CTSWyneken 12:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just some nitwit playing a joke. Sadly this article gets vandalised several times a day. Paul B 12:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus of Germany? 

message: would you like to publish this mean piece of article? -- Zondor 22:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  publication 

message: Made an addittion to a quote in Daniel "Son of Man" as a possible origin for said title.
Also, I find that referring to the theme of Jesus's preaching solely as "apocalyptic repentance" is inaccurate. I'm a Christian, yes, but I'm referring to the portrayal of the character according to the actual texts. According to Jesus himself: "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved" (John3:17). Jesus spent a great deal of time speaking of divine grace and, according to the Gospels, he acted in accordance to this through divine provision (healing, spiritual cleansing, forgiveness, food) as a result of faith, repentance and obedience. He is also known to provide a more merciful application of Mosaic laws than his Pharisee contemporaries. To portray him as a herald of doom is an imprecise character analysis where the actual texts are concerned.  CubOfJudahsLion 03:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  additions 

message: I changed the initial description of Jesus to "preacher and healer" because that is a description a wide variety of people, Christians and non-Christians, religious people and atheists, could agree on.  I think there is no need to go into any greater detail until the body of the article, which of course should discuss what he preached, how he healed, and other things scholars of various stripes say about Jesus.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  intro 

message: The intro says:
Beyond the historical information accepted by most secular scholars, the gospels attest that Jesus was the messiah prophesied in the Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible); that he was God, and the "son of God" ...
But the word attest means to give evidence of. The gospels as factual are disputed so is this the right word? 71.115.24.131 23:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayjg has made I think addressed this concern, dropping "attest" while keeping all the content. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Usage of the word "attest".

message: I added material to the legacy section.  I understand this material may be troublesome to some, but NPOV requires a balanced discussion of Jesus' legacy.  For many non-Christians, Jesus' legacy has been bad.  I have tried to include this in as NPOV a way as I can. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  legacy 

message: I have read more than once that Jesus was a member of the Essene community. What evidence is there of this? (Dec.)
:I have never read that (in a reputable source) although I have read that there are some similarities between the beliefs or rhetoric of the Qumran community and Jesus's teachings as recorded in the Gospels.  There is no evidence I know of that Jesus ever lived at Qumran — but that does not mean he was unfamiliar with their ideas. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What Evidence Is There That Jesus Ever Visited Qumran?

message: Should this article not be titled "Jesus of Nazareth" rather than "Jesus"? It is more in keeping with an encylopedia entry and other wikipedia articles.  --nirvana2013 12:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think either is fine.  Folks know who you mean when you say "Jesus", so there's no problem with leaving it here.  KHM03 12:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move article to "Jesus of Nazareth" 

message: Are we really having an edit war over "possibly" and "possibly not"?  Dang. - Tεxτurε 20:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that didn't last long. Jayjg (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  possibly an edit war? 

message: I do not think that Christology should be defined as "the study of Jesus," because there are studies of Jesus that are clearly not Christological.  Can someone fix that recent edit? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christology 

message: Should this page be archived and a new one started because it is so long? Scifiintel 23:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive ?