Talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate/3

message: This article doesn't clear when its talking about Christian POV. Can I please ask people make this a lot more clear while working on making this a featured article? Take this edit as an example. ems 16:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem EMS is that it is not a good example.  The cite sentence is speaking of critical scholars, many of which may not be Christian.  Your counsel is good, but the example is bad.  Storm Rider 16:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Storm Rider is correct. The second paragraph is about the historical reconstruction of a first-century Galilean Jew. The third paragraph is about the Christian POV. I admit it may be confusing to those who don't realize that protoChristian writings are our main sources. Outside of that we only have (AFAIK) disputed references in Josephus, Tacticus and vague mentions in the Talmud that could just as easily be about another Yeshua. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 18:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but the second paragraph IS a Christian POV. The bit that makes it so is the term "healer" - implying a worker of miracles which in turn implies an acceptance of JC as a a divine/divinely inspired god/person. That's the reason I was always against using the term "healer" in that paragraph. SophiaTalkTCF 18:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, to be NPOV, Jesus was perceived as a healer by his contemporaries, according to the sources. Christians say this power came from God, while others speculated his power came from Satan. This point has been raised before. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 18:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, Archie, there is no REAL evience - thank you fro agreeing! Robsteadman 18:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Briefly, the Jewish and non-Christian scholars in the set we've cited also see Jesus as a "healer" in the sense of someone who goes around from place to place engaging in healing rituals to invoke their deity to heal people. Think shaman. (spelling?) They observe that many people in the first century ran around claiming to do this and often seemed to be effective. The passage in the Mishnah, whether you believe it refers to Jesus or not, accuse Yeshu of socery, supernatural acts invoked from powers below. In this context, they feel, it is proper to speak of Jesus as a healer. I don't want to debate it here, but would be happy to take it up on talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate --CTSWyneken 19:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, CTSWyneken. Thank you for clarifying. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 19:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have posted a comment on the talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate page as any non religious readers may pick this up. Hi Rob - welcome back. SophiaTalkTCF 19:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: What passage in the Mishnah? Anyone who knows the first thing about the Mishnah would know such a thing would be impossible - because of the very reason what the Mishnah is. ems 03:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The references can be found in the Yeshu article. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 04:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Not to stir the dung, but it just goes to show that there is really no such thing as NPOV in any strict sense...as demonatrated by the later Wittgenstein, Thomas Kuhn, et alii: every belief is based on a whole "woldview" (or "language game" or "paradigm"). The most one can hope for here, in an "ideal" situation, is to present all sides and to try not to favor any one in particular -- though at the same time the fact that the primary source documents regarding the life of Jesus come from the Christian tradition (with all its pursuant baggage) should not be intentionally suppressed. My two Euros. --MonkeeSage 19:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points, but check the subpage. The immediate issue is that some object to the connotation of "healer." BTW one of the reasons the FA failed last December is that many felt the article leaned too far towards a Christian POV. Myself, as a Christian, I just want to be fair: I neither want to be fed to the lions, nor do I want to reenact the Crusades. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 20:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let's end the discussion here and move to the subpage. --CTSWyneken 20:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, Archola! I might not have been very clear there. All I meant to say was that "healer" means one thing to one person (i.e., religious teacher) and quite another thing to a different person (i.e., supernatural miracle worker). I was just saying that its hard to phrase the matter since deifferent people with different worldviews use the same terms very differently sometimes. --MonkeeSage 20:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let's please move to the subpage. --CTSWyneken 20:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry CST! If I feel the urge to make more semi-irrelevant comments, I'll to it on the subpage. ;) This page is is lomg enough without my rambling anyhow! --MonkeeSage 20:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Just to wrap up the "healer" debate - the conclusion on the sub page was that as the term healer is defined without reference to miracles or the supernatural it does not constitute a religious POV. Thanks to Archola for putting me right on that. SophiaTalkTCF 21:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I might suggest clarifying by changing "healer" to "ritualistic healer." I might, but I won't because this is similiar to my "known extant" suggestion, and would likely be shot down for the same reason. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 21:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's leave it be - we have a NPOV definition so that should be OK. "Ritualistic" sounds a bit dodgy - rather Pagan actually! SophiaTalkTCF 21:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! I know there are people who say that about Christianity in general, but then we're back to the Jesus-Myth. I do thank SOPHIA for raising the point, though, because we do have to consider such objections. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 21:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey, even Benny Hinn is called a "faith healer"...if waiving 'holy static' at the crowd is enough for consideration as a healer, Jesus should definitely be called a "healer" :) --MonkeeSage 22:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  I just can't take you all ANYWHERE! *rolling eyes* *storming off in suitable mock huff* --CTSWyneken 23:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, many of us have been writing on both pages. Of course, you could always archive this discussion to the subpage. That's the approach I've been taking to the discussion of the third paragraph. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 23:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lets work on NPOVing 

message: KHM03 is correct, but just using the word "scholars" doesn't distingish the majority of scholars from the minority of scholars. I also agree with Slrubenstein. Would a Venn diagram help?
A: Bible critics B:Historians C: Other scholars. The majority is in color and the minority is in white. Note that this isn't to scale. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 17:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What can I say after that? I'm happy to accept whatever those in the "know" feel is best. I'm off to tapestry too. SophiaTalkTCF 18:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Wait, so the reason why this topic is so touchy to everyone is because they believe the minorty view (jesus myth or nonexistence hypothesis) is not held by a single biblical scholar or historical scholar (only other acedemics like philosophers...)? --Andrew c 18:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My diagram is a set of cited scholars, which is not the same thing as all scholars (it's a survey, not a census). To be fair, we haven't yet found a Bible scholar or historical scholar that supports the nonexistance hypothesis, and we've looked. That's not to say they're not out there, but for sure we don't know of them. The supporters we have of the minority position include philosophers, scholars of the German language, experts on Gnosticism, and perhaps some other types of scholars. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 18:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: PS: We drew a distinction between the Jesus-Myth and the nonexistance hypothesis some time ago. Certainly there are historians and Bible critics who argue that pagan religions influenced the development of Christianity, but the ones we have still accept the existance of a historical Jesus from Nazareth as described in the second paragraph. In other words, they argue that Jesus has been mythologized, but isn't completely mythical. To draw analogies from American history, George Washington did not chop down a cherry tree and Davy Crockett did not kill a bear when he was only three, but both Washington and Crockett are real historical people. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 18:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: PPS: I don't mean to filibuster, but I thought of another point. If the orange people (higher critics) are the only Bible critics we cite, than Drogo is correct. However, I think we should also cite some of the yellow people (Bible critics who use methods other than the historical) as long as they "bracket their religious conviction," as Slrubenstein said. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 19:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: There once was a man named Venn. 

message: I raised this issue further up and in my proposal above. Slrubenstein seemed to agree with me. Do all scholars claim the exact reason for Jesus' crucifixion is the claim to be "King of the Judeans" or can we generalize some and say he was executed for 'for alleged rebellion against Rome.?--Andrew c 03:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're entering a thorny patch. There is, of course, a two-millenia-long dispute over the political causes for Jesus' death, starting with the question of whether (some of) the Jews or the Romans were more to blame. I'm not sure where modern scholarship comes down on this issue. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 03:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if we aren't even sure where modern scholarship comes down, why are we saying they all unanimously agree on the specific claim? I was trying to present the wording in a more general sense to avoid this dispute.--Andrew c 05:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't confuse "me" with "we." I personally have read enough to be confused with about modern scholarship on the complicated Jewish politics of the time, which is even more complicated by the Roman occupation. However, there are several editors who have a greater understanding of this than I do. Slrubenstein and Haldrik are excellent examples; there may be others. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 06:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I meant 'we' as in you (singular) + I, but I understand your point that neither you nor me are the sole arbitrator of consensus.--Andrew c 16:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I honestly do not know of a case where a historian doesn't make this claim. But then again I don't know a case where one does either. My ignorance of this topic made me stop and consider if the wording was accurate of the vast majority of scholars. I am well aware that there are countless conflicting historical reconstructions on the life of Jesus. Some say he preached the apocalypse, some say he was a social revolutionary, some say this, and some say that. I figured (I guess incorrectly) that they all couldn't agree on the exact reasoning behind the crucifixion. Sorry for dragging out this non-issue.--Andrew c 16:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd really like to finish documenting the claims we have in the paragraph before we add more. The problem is that, to cite it, someone has to see these points on some page of one of the author's works and add the information to the footnote. That's why we have two footnotes there now; I was well into documenting the original set of claims and then we added another. In short, if we say an author says something, we had better prove it. --CTSWyneken 16:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More 2nd paragraph stuff about King of the Judeans