Talk:Jesus/Archive 49

message: ===Progress===
*1. I've started to do this.
*2. Still discussing. See subpage /2nd Paragraph Debate.
*3. This is the focus of the Article Improvement Drive. /Historical Jesus.
:*3.1 I added a paragraph to the historical reconstruction section about four different models: Jesus as Pharisee, Jesus as Essene,  Jesus as new movement (Apocalyptic Prophet or Messiah). The very last model deals with the emergence of Early Christianity. The Seminar is mentioned in the "moral teacher" paragraph under "other modern ideas". Other points might be discussed in the historicity section. See subpage.
:*3.2. I've copied the data about the historical background that used to be in this article to a personal subpage. It should be condensed (preferrably to one or two paragraphs), but I feel some of the data should be worked into the historicity section.
:*3.3. Pending; I haven't had much of a chance to look this over.
*4. I've started to do this; see suggestions below. The article is currently 77KB long. Please, be concise! However, we must do this in a way that does not compromise quality.
:*4.1. Jesus#Chronology could be condensed. We have a whole article for the details! (namely Chronology of Jesus.) 
:*4.2. Jesus#Name: Isn't there a way to summarize this information? We have two other articles, Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament and Yeshua, to develop this further. Not to mention that this section is essentially a duplication (not a summary) of Historical Jesus#The Names of Jesus and his Family.
:*4.3. We might also reconsider the long quotes in Jesus#Judaism's view. We could just summarize those quotes here, and give the full quotes in the subarticle Judaism's view of Jesus. 
:*4.4. Condensing the Gospel summary as per Andrew C.
In addition, I've made the AID request, and Homestarmy has made the peer review request. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 14:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still have a stack of about 8 books on Jesus sitting around my apartment, one of them The Acts of Jesus. I'll see if I can't find some relevent JS information for the historical Jesus section. I'd also propose trimming down the gospel summary section. I mean, we have main articles for that, and sometimes this page is just as detailed as the others.--Andrew c 00:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We do need to be careful about any section getting too long. The stuff I added was: 1) From Luke: John the Baptists' ministry beginning in the fifteen year of Tiberius, Jesus' baptism when he was about thirty, and Herod Antipas' involvement in the trial 2) From all four gospels, Jesus in relation to Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots and Samaritans. I tried to be concise, and I'd hate to see this information removed. Aiden did a lot of work on the whole life and teachings section, so he may object if we're not careful with his babies. I'm sure there's some bathwater that we can move, remove and condense. Just as long as we don't throw out the babies with it. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 01:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't forgot about the Jesus Seminar. It's hard to find the right place to put this information. The historicity section doesn't talk that much about probable events in the life of the historical Jesus. Maybe I could suppliment the reliability section. I feel like the whole historicity section needs to be reorganized and overhauled.--Andrew c 01:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for all the work you've been doing on the article Archie. By the sweat of thine brow shalt thou increaseth the quality of the article! You rock. :) --MonkeeSage 08:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To do list (round 2)

message: *1. I've started to do this.
*2. Still discussing. See subpage /2nd Paragraph Debate.
*3. This is the focus of the Article Improvement Drive. /Historical Jesus.
:*3.1 I added a paragraph to the historical reconstruction section about four different models: Jesus as Pharisee, Jesus as Essene,  Jesus as new movement (Apocalyptic Prophet or Messiah). The very last model deals with the emergence of Early Christianity. The Seminar is mentioned in the "moral teacher" paragraph under "other modern ideas". Other points might be discussed in the historicity section. See subpage.
:*3.2. I've copied the data about the historical background that used to be in this article to a personal subpage. It should be condensed (preferrably to one or two paragraphs), but I feel some of the data should be worked into the historicity section.
:*3.3. Pending; I haven't had much of a chance to look this over.
*4. I've started to do this; see suggestions below. The article is currently 77KB long. Please, be concise! However, we must do this in a way that does not compromise quality.
:*4.1. Jesus#Chronology could be condensed. We have a whole article for the details! (namely Chronology of Jesus.) 
:*4.2. Jesus#Name: Isn't there a way to summarize this information? We have two other articles, Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament and Yeshua, to develop this further. Not to mention that this section is essentially a duplication (not a summary) of Historical Jesus#The Names of Jesus and his Family.
:*4.3. We might also reconsider the long quotes in Jesus#Judaism's view. We could just summarize those quotes here, and give the full quotes in the subarticle Judaism's view of Jesus. 
:*4.4. Condensing the Gospel summary as per Andrew C.
In addition, I've made the AID request, and Homestarmy has made the peer review request. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 14:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Progress

message: :I still have a stack of about 8 books on Jesus sitting around my apartment, one of them The Acts of Jesus. I'll see if I can't find some relevent JS information for the historical Jesus section. I'd also propose trimming down the gospel summary section. I mean, we have main articles for that, and sometimes this page is just as detailed as the others.--Andrew c 00:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We do need to be careful about any section getting too long. The stuff I added was: 1) From Luke: John the Baptists' ministry beginning in the fifteen year of Tiberius, Jesus' baptism when he was about thirty, and Herod Antipas' involvement in the trial 2) From all four gospels, Jesus in relation to Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots and Samaritans. I tried to be concise, and I'd hate to see this information removed. Aiden did a lot of work on the whole life and teachings section, so he may object if we're not careful with his babies. I'm sure there's some bathwater that we can move, remove and condense. Just as long as we don't throw out the babies with it. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 01:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't forgot about the Jesus Seminar. It's hard to find the right place to put this information. The historicity section doesn't talk that much about probable events in the life of the historical Jesus. Maybe I could suppliment the reliability section. I feel like the whole historicity section needs to be reorganized and overhauled.--Andrew c 01:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for all the work you've been doing on the article Archie. By the sweat of thine brow shalt thou increaseth the quality of the article! You rock. :) --MonkeeSage 08:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: An anon added this in, so I put it under the skeptical viewpoint area, however, I feel there is a case for simply deleting it, as it is really quite a poor effort at examining the issue, and I would think is more embarassing to the Jesus-myth side than helpful. First, there are some unreferenced statements about "Clearly the NT is a mythical account in several key areas", indicating a value judgement on Christianity and happenance which cannot be explained by science, the issues the article raises take the Jesus Seminar out of context to mean that it "Was instrumental in exposing the flaws of the NT", when all they did was vote on whether Jesus did or did not say something. The same old tiresome arguments about relations to other myths also comes in, in addition to a wonderful piece if I recall about the NT "Being our only source on Jesus' existance" which is entirely innacurate, so therefore, I ask you, my fellow editors, should this link stand, or is what we already have sufficient? Homestarmy 02:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which link are you talking about? Wesley 15:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This one: Who was the real Jesus? It looks like the link was removed. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 16:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, your right, who removed it? Homestarmy 18:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you really want to know, check the edit history. Why should I have to do everything? Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 21:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New skeptical link

message: According to Paramahansa Yogananda, Jesus Christ's last incarnation was Elisha and John the Baptist was Elijah. In the Autobiography of a Yogi, Yogananda also made a claim that Jesus' spiritual teacher was John the Baptist. This is also mentioned in the Bible in a very subtle manner. I am not sure how many Christians are aware of this piece of information but I am sure this revelation is going to stir up some debate. As I personally do not belong to any religious group, my stand is neutral in this respect. But I would like to see some comments about this from a Christian point of view. Self-Realization Fellowship members and disciples of Yogananda have long embraced this view but I do not see this being mentioned in the other Christian sects. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you specify this "subtle manner" of Jesus somehow being spiritually taught by John the Baptist? I mean, Jesus was God, one would think there wouldn't be anything to teach him unless it was part of the duality thing, but I don't remember anything in the Bible about subtle hints of John teaching Jesus anything.... Homestarmy 15:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hebrews 5:8: "Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered." Obedience to whom? Revelation 1:1: "the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him..."; Mark 13:32: "of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." John 7:16: "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me." --Oscillate 15:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You say this is a Christian sect, but it sounds more Hindu to me. The linked articles also say that it is Vedic Hindu. I have added it to Jesus#Hinduism's views. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 15:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and Holy Ganga seems to be pushing a purely Vishnaivite view as if it is the view of "Hinduism" as a whole, even insisting that God is, specifically "Krishna". Paul B 15:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This should probably be clarified in the article section. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 15:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to the Old Testament, Elijah never died, but was taken up into Heaven in a fiery chariot. According to Gospel accounts, Elijah was seen speaking with Jesus at the time of Jesus' transfiguration, some time after John the Baptist had been beheaded. These accounts would appear to contradict the suggestion that Elijah's soul was later reincarnated in John the Baptist. But if this is a notable view among Hindus, I've no objection to adding it to Hindu beliefs about Jesus. Wesley 15:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The type-antitype relationship is fundimentally different from the manifestation/incarnation scheme. One works by analogy, the other works by identity. But that issue aside, it would be very misleading to call a view "Christian" which has never historically been held by any specifically "Christian" group. Historically, synthetic views like the one here have been called "mysticism", "syncretism" and more recently "New Age". --MonkeeSage 16:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused.  I wasn't saying the ideas were the same.  Just that this (apparently Hindu) idea is clearly based on the traditional Christian view of Elijah/Elisha prefiguring John/Jesus.  It has taken this idea which, as you note, is based on an analogy, rather than an actual identification, and reworked it into the Hindu scheme of reincarnation.  All I was saying is that if this Hindu view is significant enough to be mentioned, it cannot be mentioned without providing the context that the Elijah:Elisha::John:Jesus business is not original to this Hindu view, but derives out of Christian ideas. john k 00:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: John, I agree with you. I wasn't trying to "rebut" you. Sorry for the confusion. My comments about type-antitype were just in passing, my other comments were for the original editor. --MonkeeSage 12:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  The Yogi is most definitely Hindu and not at all Christian. His claim is different from the Christian view that John the Baptist was prefigured by Elijah. What Christians mean is the Elijah was a kind of prophecy of John. What the Yogi is saying is that Elijah and John are the same soul or person. If we mention the view at all, it belongs in the Hindu view section. --CTSWyneken 22:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Jesus Elisha in a past incarnation? 

message: Can everyone please check they are editing a valid version when they make changes. I've just had to revert about six vandal comments by hand as they'd got overlaid by valid edits. Ta. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 00:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to keep an eye out. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 12:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: The first paragraph is one long sentence, and is thus (a little) overly hard to follow.  I propose the following change (which I would have made if not for the request on the page to discuss these things first):
Jesus (8-2 BC/BCE – 29-36 AD/CE),Some of the historians and Biblical scholars who place the birth and death of Jesus within this range include D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo and Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992, 54, 56; Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, Scribner's, 1977, p. 71; John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Doubleday, 1991-, vol. 1:214; E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, Penguin Books, 1993, pp. 10-11, and Ben Witherington III, "Primary Sources," Christian History 17 (1998) No. 3:12-20. also known as Jesus of Nazareth, is the central figure of Christianity.  In this context he is known as Jesus Christ, where Christ is a Greek title meaning "Anointed", corresponding to the Hebrew term "Messiah". 
—matthew0028 06:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems fair to me. Homestarmy 00:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Change made —matthew0028 06:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First Paragraph - minor wording change proposal

message: The article seems to be split regarding which version of the possessive should be used, as both forms are used at different times.  For internal consistancy, shouldn't one be used exclusively?  And according to the Manual of Style:
*Possessives of singular nouns ending in s may be formed with or without an additional s. Either form is generally acceptable within Wikipedia. However, if either form is much more common for a particular word or phrase, follow that form, such as with "Achilles' heel" and "Jesus' tears".
This suggests that the form Jesus' is what should be used in the article.  Should I (or someone else) go through and make the necessary changes?
—matthew0028 06:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Change made.  (There were 11 instances of Jesus's in the article, versus 44 instances of Jesus' without the ending "s". —matthew0028 06:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you. I must have missed those other 11 ;) Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 03:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for doing this. I noticed this a few weeks back and tried to 'fix it', but it got reverted. I came here to the talk page and made my case instead of edit warring over Jesus' vs. Jesus's. I guess I eventually forgot about this issue and let it slide. Thanks again.--Andrew c 02:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possessive form