Talk:Jesus/Archive 7

message: This is not intended to be inflamitory, but to reflect the wording I removed from the article.  It is my understanding (and please correct me if I am wrong) that the Mormon belief in the person of Jesus is very different from the rest of Christianity.  Therefore, in the interests of NPOV, I have removed the phrase "...like other Christians do" from the article.
It's late, I'm tired, and this is not intended to be inflamitory.  If something I wrote here sets you off please accept my appologies in advance.
Respectfully - DavidR (was David) 04:13, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mormons do not believe in Jesus "like other Christians do" 

message: The theory that Jesus travelled to India as a youth is proposed by some scholars. I added this as a note, as well as marking that Jesus' childhood and adolescence is little testified in the Gospels. I also noted the belief stated in the Syriac Acts of Thomas that St. Thomas (called "The Twin") was actually the twin of Jesus himself. I tried as best as possible to keep these NPOV (I'm not a proponent of either theory), and I tried to state them as beliefs and put sources to those beliefs. I realize that this is an extremely "hot" page, so I wanted to note the changes here. --ESP 20:28, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly enough, there are other stories about Thomas going to India after Jesus' death and resurrection. Coincidence? Hmmmm.  Wesley 03:10, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding Thomas going to India, an extremely old Christian sect existed in India dating from at least ~2nd century AD; they claimed to be those proselytized by the apostle Thomas. Unfortunately, when the Portugese showed up they decided this was a heresy and wiped them out. Graft 17:29, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not quite...there are still remnants of the Mar Thoma church in India, which claims descent from the Apostle Thomas. There are a few in the US, too. Pollinator 21:24, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apostle Thomas, Jesus in India 

message: Hey, Kennethduncan, you have some problems with your edits:
Jesus is rarely called "Jesus of Galilee."  Probably not important enough to state up top, and definitely not before the much more common "Jesus of Nazareth."
Since all crucifixions under the empire were performed by Roman soldiers, it seems rather redundant to have to state that.  Are we trying to say the empire wasn't involved?
Is Christianity the world's largest religion or isn't it?  Can someone point to some numbers?
** Yes, it is: 2.1 bn followers compared to roughly 1.1 bn each for Islam and Hinduism (see Major world religions). Marcika 04:14, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
Why was the entire section on relics removed?  It was perfectly NPOV.  If you have a problem with a section, discuss it and/or reword it.  Don't take out information.  I don't believe in relics either, but this didn't state the relics were authentic.  Please see Wikipedia's NPOV policy.  This was my biggest problem with your edits; I will probably put this section back.
Some Jews do consider Jesus a great teacher, but that's a less significant Jewish view than the belief He was a false prophet (measuring significance by number of Jews who believe it and what they are likely to say first).  I'm thinking of rewording as follows:
Jesus Christ is deemed a false prophet in most sects of Judaism, and religious Jews are still awaiting the arrival of the Messiah. Christianity originated as a sect of Judaism, but developed into its own religion.  Some Jews consider Jesus a great teacher, and many hold to the belief that Jesus' teachings were distorted after his life by his followers in a way incompatible with Judaism.
Not sure why we had to say "like other Christians" about the Mormons; are we going to fight over whether the Mormons are Christians are not?  Does this really add any information to the article?
The phrase "the account may be found in the book of Mormon" is not trying to say "you might find it or you might not; we're not sure if it's really there."  That's a way of saying, "If you'd like to see this you may do so by consulting the book of Mormon."  There was no need to change the wording to "is," although it's really a moot point either way.
Not sure why I felt the compulsion to critique this in such minor detail.  Just had a lot of thoughts I wanted to share, I guess.  Keep boldly editing, and please accept the merciless editing we will all receive here. :)
Jdavidb 14:07, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kennethduncan 

message: Facts: 1. There are two Wiki pages with similar names, "Jesus Christ" and "Jesus as the Messiah" 2. More people will visit the "Jesus Christ" page by a huge margin, as typing in "Jesus Christ" is the natural thing to do in search engines. Therefore, whatever is written on the Jesus Christ page will be the most seen. 3. Material on both the historical view of Jesus, and the Christian view, are present on the Jesus Christ page,  BUT, material on the historical view takes up most of the Jesus Christ page, while only a brief paragraph about the Christian view exists. Both topics have page links to their own seperate pages entirely devoted to each respective view. 5. The material on the historical view was listed first on the Jesus Christ page, and the introduction used to mention it first. 6. Most people will visit the Jesus page, which is dominated by material on the historical view, and see that viewpoint, but have to go look for the others. 7. The material on the historical Jesus tried to impress the reader with its truthfulness, by making it appear the material was all from Professors of History.  Conclusion: Article needs changes to meet the NPOV policy. ChessPlayer 04:56, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So now you acknowledge that the historical view is not pro-Christian, and you're concerned that the historical view is far more prominent than the Christian, so that the Christian view gets short shrift?  I thought you were concerned that the page was "reeking" of pro-Christian bias?  Which is it? Jdavidb 18:32, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "historical view" that is on the page right now, is pro-Christian in that it supports at great length the position that Jesus existed. It is not pro-Christian if one expects more from the page than simply that; then its anti-Christian. It all depends on your point of view.  ChessPlayer 21:00, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  historical view vs. Christian view 

message: I really don't think it has to be stated that the New Testament is a theological document. For comparison, should the article also say "... Christianity, a religion, ..."? Most readers will know what it is, and the few who don't can easily follow the Wikilink to find out. Fredrik 10:34, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, perhaps its clutter. I'll delete it if it is still there. ChessPlayer 11:11, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: New Testament

message: Edit histories are not matching up with edit comments. For example, Chess was reverted to a version of my text that I didn't write (er, huh?). Is this article being gamed?  Ronabop 11:38, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Something is wrong

message: I can't comment for LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc., but I am a member of the church of Christ, and we hold to the view that Jesus was God.  I wouldn't class any of the groups in that paragraph as Restorationist, anyway, except possibly LDS. Jdavidb 14:49, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restorationists 

message: Here are some links to online dictionaries that offer to define what a historian is. Even if these definitions are not written by PhD's of History by professors of history, they should nevertheless reflect how the word is commonly used in the English language.
* http://www.occupationalinfo.org/05/052067022.html
* http://www.math.chalmers.se/~hallgren/wget.cgi?historian
* http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/historian
* http://www.bartleby.com/61/85/H0218500.html
* http://www.occupationalinfo.org/05/052067022.html
These links were found via this Google search on the terms "dictionary" and "historian": http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=dictionary+historian&btnG=Google+Search . As anyone can easily see, the general consensus definition is that a historian is anyone who chronicles events, or anyone who studies past events using whatever primary and secondary etc. materials they can find. In general usage, "historian" is understood in this broad sense, and so referring to the people in the article simply as "historians" rather than as "professors of religion" or "cab drivers" or whatever else they may have been, is entirely besides the point if they have studied and written about history. While "professors of history" may not like it, most people don't assume that every historian has a PhD in history, the way they do assume that every medical doctor has an MD for instance. In fact, historians have been around much longer than universities have, and there will probably be historians long after universities have been replaced by something else. Wesley 16:18, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well and aptly said, Wesley.  You really are a marvel to me, sometimes -- able to remain perfectly calm through just about anything.  The above is exactly what I've been trying (and failing) to say for several days now. :-)  Thanks for taking the time, Jwrosenzweig 16:40, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: I agree. DJ Clayworth 18:06, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: John, thanks for your perspective.  I'd like to ask you to look at Slrubenstein's post above (goodness, things are getting hard to find) where he notes that the departments that the disputed scholars come from are closely aligned to history, and that they have been published in peer-reviewed history journals.  You're right that the definition of historian is changing, but when religious studies professors have an academic background in history, publish works of popular history, and also publish articles in respected peer-reviewed history journals, then I think they may be called historians.  This is an old argument in history graduate schools (or at least, I remember having it when I was in one), and I know there are some camps that want to define historian as strictly as you and Chessplayer suggest.  I believe, however, that (especially in fields like the history of Christianity) most professors of history consistently consider people to be historians who are in departments such as classical studies, humanities, religion, and related fields (perhaps even some anthropology and archaeology).  Do you really feel that referring to such scholars as "historians" is misleading about the opinions and judgments of professors of history?  Just curious... Jwrosenzweig 19:57, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Having read your recent remarks, John, I do see your point, and agree that it might be more accurate to say scholars.  My only concern is that ChessPlayer seems to want us to redefine people like Crossan so that we can then assert something like "most historians deny that Jesus ever existed".  That's why Wesley, Sl, and I have been a little too intransigent, I think -- certainly I agree with you that Crossan isn't necessarily _best_ described as a "historian", but rather that he can legitimately be.  And I wholeheartedly agree that the main points here should be Jesus's role in the gospels and in Christianity -- after all, unless we establish why Jesus is considered important, why should the reader care whether or not he "actually existed"?  Thanks, John, for being very amiable about the whole thing -- I shouldn't have disagreed as strongly with you, as I think you're actually saying essentially the things I want said about this article! :-)  If I was a little too brisk with you, I certainly apologize -- what kinds of changes, then, would you envision for the article's structure?  I'm curious. Jwrosenzweig 23:36, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Well, the problem I see is that qualifying them as religious scholars or professors of theology implicitly calls into question their credentials as historians. It should not matter what their background is if their research is sound and supported by evidence. If the positions are not historically sound, then they should be challenged on the facts and not on the basis of their qualifications or academic discipline. If there are competing positions which are also based on sound research and evidence, then they should also be presented. The cases should not hinge on an appeal to authority (e.g., my credentials are bigger than your credentials). It is irrelevant whether they are a professor of history or of theology. Or are you are making the claim that there is an implicit bias simply due to one's academic discipline? I'm not saying that every professor of religion or theology is equally qualified as a historian, but if their methods and research are sound, it should not matter.  older ≠ wiser 00:58, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: No, I certainly don't think they are any less valid a field of scholarly endeavor. But I think identifying them as theologians or religious studies scholars does convey an implicit questioning of their credentials as a historian. I think if the research they do is sound by the standards of acadmic historical studies, then it is a distraction to point out their academic pedigree. If what they say does not meet the standards of historians, then challenge it on that basis, not with an implicit diminution of their credentials as historians. older ≠ wiser 02:20, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article readers might not think the views presented are right unless we make them think its from Professors of History, so lets fool em? Not acceptable editing policy, I believe. ChessPlayer 03:03, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: I have no problem with referring to them as simply "scholars". If that's all this has been about, then as John and ChessPlayer have pointed out, there are bigger problems with the article that need to be addressed. I only hope a correspondingly larger amount of verbage is not needed to address these more substantial issues. older ≠ wiser 10:10, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: I as I pointed out before, you have not used the works of any Professors of History as the basis for this section, and changing from "historians" to "historians and other scholars" only makes the error I have pointed out at length on this page, even more egregious. Leave the historical profession out of this, unless you are using them specifically as a source, in which case, cite the PhD's in History you are using. ChessPlayer 17:06, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its not a matter of including the broad term "scholar"; its about your insistence to take the works of scholars in academic fields other than History, and pass them off as the works of Professors of History. I am more than willing to compromise in general, but its not "compromise" to allow an intentional deception in an article. You are falsely creating an issue that this is a matter of asking for "evidence", when this isn't a dispute about competing historical views, the dispute is about your misuse of a word; and other people here have begun to agree that it has been misused. ChessPlayer 17:50, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: ChessPlayer, I believe you've missed the point.  Several of us have admitted that there are labels _besides_ historian which can be wisely applied to these scholars, but no one (that I've seen) feels that historian is a "wrong" label.  Saying "historians and other scholars" is a very apt wording.  Your insistence that only "PhDs in History" may be called historians has been essentially rejected here, unless I misunderstand everyone badly.  Even john, who in a number of respects agrees with you, would reject (if I understand him well at all) such a narrow definition.  I do not understand why this is such a huge issue for you.  These people (we can all agree) do, in fact, write works respected by PhDs of history, published in history journals peer-reviewed by those PhDs, etc.  Whether or not we can agree that this makes these writers _best_ identified as "historians", it certainly isn't bizarre at all to call them "historians", and Sl's note wisely opens it up to make sure that even authors who some would reject as historians are still scholars who concur.  Why has this become such a point of contention for you?  It really seems trivial to me, unless you have decided that you want to discredit the idea that any historian takes seriously Jesus' actual existence (Note: I want to be perfectly clear.  I am not saying you DO want to discredit this idea.  I am saying I can understand no other motive for such an otherwise inexplicable crusade against the reasonable usage of an admittedly ambiguous word.).  And historians do (in large numbers) take it seriously.  So I hope you can agree that there isn't much point in continuing to argue about this.  I certainly don't see why it's still an issue: please explain to me why it is important, if you still find it so. Jwrosenzweig 18:14, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of a historian 

message: I think the overall intro to the page needs attention. Anyone object to me having a go? It's not a POV thing, and obviously can be reverted if it doesn't gain consensus. Moriori 21:52, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)
:Be bold :) Fredrik 21:54, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that motion. :-) Jwrosenzweig 21:56, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  On a different matter, can I interupt? 

message: The header of this section has been changed by adding "according to the Gospels."  But the material in the section was not also changed. The very first sentence starts, "Jesus was possibly born in Bethlehem..." and that's not what the Gospels say. If I am not mistaken, Matthew 2:1 says Jesus WAS born there, not "possibly" was. So, either the entire section is re-written to be "according to the Gospels," or this change is wrong. Therefore, I am deleting the new addition based on the reasoning given here. ChessPlayer 03:01, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the contents of the section needs to be modified?  The point is, we are not exactly sure what Jesus' life and teachings were.  Anything about Jesus is a reconstruction based on various documents.  A later section has "the historical Jesus" meaning the life of Jesus as reconstructed by historians, without regard to religion.  But most of what is in this section follows the traditional Christian reading of the canonical Gospels pretty closely, so I feel there is a need for some qualification.  By the way, the reason I make this point now is that someone switched the order of sections.  Personally, I feel that the historical Jesus should come first, but if others prefer this order I have no objection.  But if this is going to be the order, there ought to be a more specific, precise heading. Slrubenstein
"In the Christian Tradition" does not describe what the section says either. There are no "Christian Traditions" to my knowledge that say things like "Jesus was 'possibly' born anywhere, or that he "may have been assigned this birthplace by early Christians based on that city's status as the presumed birthplace of King David." I don't think it is a "Christian Tradition" that accuses Mary of having sex with a Roman soldier, but I could be wrong. The addition "in the Christian Tradition" should be deleted in my opinion, but since I removed the last addition to this section header, I will leave it to someone else to remove it this time. ChessPlayer 18:52, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Is a summary of the gospels the topic of the Jesus as the Messiah Page?.   ChessPlayer 19:35, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus' Life and Teaching