Talk:Jesus/Archive 11

message: Just added a links and apocalyptic POV. Hopefully still neutral. But why is the whole titles of Jesus section repeated twice? --Zeeshanhasan 15:37, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Son of man 

message: Why on earth is the whole article duplicated? This is really bizarre. Why doesn't someone just eliminate the bottom half (sections 13-23, which from the table of contents is obviously a copy of the top half)?
Okay, just fixed it. 
--Zeeshanhasan 15:49, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication of whole article? 

message: The article states:  "the Qur'an narrates that God removed Jesus, and replaced him on the cross." This statement is factually incorrect. The Quran doesn't say God removed Jesus from the cross and replaced someone else. The Quran says, "They did not kill him; they did not crucify him; but it was made to appear to them so." There are many different interpretation of this verse. God removed Jesus and replaced him is one of the interpretation.  Some Muslim apologists (like Deedat, Shabir Ally) claim that Jesus was on the cross but he didn't die and was latter ascended into heaven.  Shabir Ally made this point in his debate with William Lane Craig. OneGuy 16:40, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Islam View of Jesus

message: --eleuthero 21:25, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Aside from capitalizing "He" when referring to Jesus, I think this version gives short shrift to the variety of views in the early church.  It wasn't really "the view of the early church" vs many heresies, but rather a number of competing views out of which  the "the view of the late 4th century church" eventually emerged victorious. Also, it ignores Gnostic Christian views.  Finally, the views of the churches don't "demonstrate" Jesus to be anything at all; rather, they are religious beliefs about Jesus. Jayjg 21:26, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  regarding distinction of Christ and Adoptionism 

message: In contrast to the vandalism that caused this page to be protected, I recently created a clean dis-ambiguation page at Jesus (disambiguation). When un-protected, feel free to add a link to this new page. 66.245.112.14 17:17, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A very sensible contribution - thanks -- sannse (talk) 17:29, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dis-ambiguation page 

message: The section on Paul in the intro (the last half of the 2nd intro paragraph) seems a bit too lengthy to be on-topic in this article.  It's certainly reasonable to say that Paul was his most prominent disciple, and to mention that there is a controversy over whether he merely explained or innovated Jesus's teachings, but the more detailed back-and-forth "some people say this, while others say this" I'd say would fit better in Paul's article rather than here. --Delirium 04:31, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. Make the edits and appropriate links. --DannyMuse 04:46, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on Paul 

message: I have removed (for the second time) this anonymously-added section. It was added to the section on other religions, and is more related to the "Historicity" section. Information from this addition would be appropriate in that article, but not where it was added. There are a large number of unsupported statements of "fact", such as that "Nazareth didn't exist in the first century", which would require considerable attribution.
:Some secular scholars of the bible, historians and skeptics do not think Jesus existed as depicted in the bible.  
:They hold it as quite likely, but not definitively provable, that the central figure of the gospels is not based on any one historical individual.  In other words, that not only is the theological "Christ of Faith" an exaggeration and invention of early christians and theologians, but that the root individual did not actually live in Nazareth in the first century CE. 
:Their reasoning varies, but the main arguments are:
:The story and life of Jesus as depicted in the Bible conforms to an archetype of 'Mythic Heroes,' of which there were many and are many.  These stories have recurring themes: The infants birth is divinely/ supernaturally predicted and or conceived; attempts are made on the infant heros life, the child hero is wise far beyond their years, is charged with a task by a divine figure, defeats 'demons,' wins the support of the common people, is hailed as a king/ saviour, is betrayed, loses popular support, is executed (often atop a hill) and ascends, triumphant and vindicated, to heaven.
:Myths, epics and legends with these features are found all over the world.  Scholars usually conclude that the closer the supposed activities of a character, such as Hercules, Apollonius of Tyana, Padma Sambhava, of Gautama Buddha, Mithras, correspond with the heroic 'plot formula,' the more likely it is that the character has been transfigured by myth and legend.
:In the case of the story of Jesus, there is no additional data, no substantiating evidences in the story,  where every part of the story fits the mythic hero archetype, it is held to be arbitrary to claim that there must be a historical figure behind the myth: there MAY be, but it is not particularly probable.  In other words, the claim is that there may have been a historical King Arthur, but there is no particular reason to think so; there may have been a historical Jesus of Nazareth, but there is no reason to assume so.
:The resurrection story is also very similar to other myths dating from before the New Testament, most notably Herakles, Adonis, Baal, Attis, Asclepius, Tammuz and Osiris.  All of these figures were believed to have lived on Earth, been killed and then resurrected some time later.  Mostly their death and rebirth were celebrated each spring, when the world gave forth new vegetation.  The bodies  anointment, disappearance and unfruitful search for by holy women, just before its reappearance alive, is also a feature of most of these myths.
:Popular novels of contempory times also frequently featured lovers seperated by the apparent death of one, who are then reunited after being entombed, where the lover thinks they are ghosts.
:Other reasons given for doubting the veracity of the New Testament is the lack of sources supporting any of the events in it: there are no contempory accounts of any of the supposed events detailled: the census supposedly ordered, the dead rising from their graves, the sky turning black etc.  There are neither any accounts by contempory historians of the period which mention Jesus Christ nor any of the miracles, despite mentioning far less important events and peoples.  Some debate has resulted on these points, but no authentic work mentioning Jesus Christ by name is known thus far.
  
:The reasoning is that all works mentioning Jesus are at best second or third hand 'hearsay' and not eyewitness reports: Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.
:Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.
:Other factors for dismissing the New Testament as a reliable historical are the various errors found in it, from claiming Nazareth existed in the first century (it did not) or for various other errors about geography and such, for which there is no space to go into.
Mpolo 14:23, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
:The section has been added again without coming here to discuss it... I'll leave it there until someone else looks at it (so as to avoid 3 reversions in 24 hours). Mpolo 15:04, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
I think the section in question is actually quite different from the position taken by most historians, and there may be a place for it in the article -- but I am suspicious of the vague attributions.  Who actually makes this argument?  Do any scholars accept it?  I think if this section stays in the article it needs to be edited to express a cogent and identifiable point of view. Slrubenstein
:Agreed. It should also go in the "Historicity" subarticle (with possible sketching in this article), rather than where it is. Mpolo 15:55, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
:: The arguments sound like those made by Earl Doherty. Wesley 17:44, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nazaratus and the hebrew equivalent can both mean either "of Nazareth" or "the Nazarene", is this what he is on about by claiming Nazareth didn't exist? CheeseDreams 01:34, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: While it is certainly true that a majority of non-Christian scholars assume the existance of Jesus. It is certainly not true that the majority of non-Christian biblical scholars or biblical historians/archaeologists do. CheeseDreams 20:33, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Secular perspectives"