Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 16

message: The article states that "Gnostic texts show a lack of attention to history", however there is no citation.  This seems like an important point.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.253.206.203 (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gnostic Texts

message: I upgraded the mythicist part of the article because it seems to have been written from a Christian point of view, deriding the increasing number of scholars who now look on a historical Jesus as highly suspect. The bottom line is that there is no reliable factual evidence that Jesus and his disciples existed. Only conjecture. Unregistered. 10:36 17 September 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.9.57.80 (talk)  
:That section, as it is (now that I have reverted it back to what it was before your edit) is based upon verfiable fact - the fact that .  It contains a quote by Michael Grant, who is an atheist, deriding the nonhistoricity thesis, to the effect that .
:You claim that "there is no reliable factual evidence that Jesus and his disciples existed. Only conjecture."  That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it.  I happen to disagree, but to argue on that is irrelevant and contrary to the aims of this discussion page.  This is because the truth of the matter is irelevant to wikipedian policies (like WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:VERIFY)
:Wikipedia is not the place to support 'the truth' (ie ones own opinions), but only the opinions of scholars.  Your argument seems to be that you are right, therefore most experts must support you.  I suggest you name a few - by which I mean people who hold PhD's in the relevant subject areas, rather than .  To be worthy of inclusion on this page, rather than on a fringe page devoted to the subject itself (where these kinds of ideas have a fair bit of space devoted to them), the subject would have to have at least 5-10 recognised scholars (ie AT LEAST PhD's in the subject, ideally in a good teaching post at a research university) proposing it, to counteract the fact that there are many thousands of scholars in the relevant fields who disagree with it.
:Your update not only failed to contain any references to support your claims, it also contradicted the references we have in place to verify truth.  If you wish to update this section to include these views, I suggest you provide references by scholars to support what you wish to say. TJ 00:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mythicist part of the article 

message: I haven't got a source for the Lightfoot claim about Josephus, but my professor mentioned it and I believe that it's out there if someone would like to find it.  If not then I will eventually, but it's not one of my goals right now.  If need be go ahead and delete the paragraph.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstanierm (talk • contribs) 05:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we need to delete the paragraph yet. I just think that it would be helpful for our readers (and in line with out verifiability/attribution policies) if we could add a citation to that section. If anyone thinks that the content is dubious or harmful, we can remove it. But to me, it seems plausible, and just simply would be better with a citation. -Andrew c [talk] 16:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sourcing Lightfoot

message: Source 57, which is supposed to support the claim that some scholars say that Suetonius wasn't speaking about Jesus or Christians does not support this claim in any way. I read the claim myself, and it only repeats the claim written in the writing of Suetonius.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.233.213 (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad Sources

message: I am going to resquest a ban for you from some Wikipedia administrators.  You have very poor statements regarding the history of Jesus, or the possibility that Jesus was a myth; even your websites are very bad resources and do not look at the facts from a clear perspective.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin j (talk • contribs) 20:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, can you sign your comments. The message at the top of every edit window on talk pages explains how to do it: This is a talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Next, could you be a bit more specific about your concerns. It isn't a good way to start off a conversation by accusing other editors of bad faith, and threatening to ban them. Remember to assume good faith. Anyway, try to calmly explain your issues with the article, and try to be specific. As it stands, I do not know who you are referring to, what edits you consider "poor statements", nor do I know what links you consider to be bad resources. Thanks.-Andrew c [talk] 21:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stop vandalizing the page Atheists

message: Andrew c and C. Logan, this quote has had issues over on JM. However, we did get a footnote that Grant got his scholarship from 3 sources from 1967-1971 (I think, might have been 1976). The info is over on Talk:Jesus Myth under Van Voorst I think. This hardly qualifies as a "modern" review of scholarship. I have real issues with blanket statements with no scientific method to back them up. If such quotes want to be characterized within one of the three particular disciplines, fine. But surely there is a way to impart this info more accurately and neutrally. Phyesalis 20:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I was being helpful by giving the references on that particular footnote. It was not anything like a listing of every souce that went in to Grant making that pronouncement. It would be absurd to think so.Peterdgi 00:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You were. Did I imply that you weren't? I'm sorry. I thought I expressed my appreciation when you contributed it. My commentary was addressed to the material as to the aptness of scholarship from the early 70's in representing what is supposed to be the current historical view. Also, apparently you and Grant were unaware of the numerous papers written on aretalogy and divine hero myths that do attest to ahistoricity and historicity. I say this becuase of your last edit summary. Suggestions that they don't address issues of historicity testify to the extreme bias and POV in this article (although this is apparently from a lack of knowledge about other disciplines not by design) that comes from overweighting biblical scholars. Perhaps we should avoid pronouncements of absurdity so early in a conversation. Phyesalis 00:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That some scholars contest the historicity of Jesus does not negate the article's claim that most scholars accept the historicity.  Jesus may be a historical person whose deeds were later conflated into unbelievable stories or adopted tales from other myths.  The two are not mutually exclusive.  I don't know what other disciplines you have in mind.  I don't think it would be acceptable to include other disciplines' opinions in an undue fashion or without giving due weight to the pertinent discipline. Jstanierm 05:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument seems to be inherently biased towards theological positions. The skeptical position (often exemplified by comparative religon/comparative mythology) is completely legit. BTW my intro edits were statements of fact that can be easily verified. They do not require citations. They should not have been removed, particularly as they were staging for a comp. religion section. Phyesalis 06:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this is not a matter of theology, but of history.  To argue for the historicity of Jesus is not the same as taking a theological position.  As historians the Gospels serve as one of the best types of sources available given the time periods in question.  They are perhaps infused with religious overtones in order to portray the central figure as "heroic" or "divine."  Yet, this is hardly a reason to therefore deny some form of historical core to the man Jesus.  CompareThis is the current scholarly opinion as is cited, and all others are minority views. Jstanierm 02:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Grant quote