Talk:Jesus/Archive 25

message: Using all suggestions and while maintaing a NPOV, I feel the following will please most:
:Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene (circa 4 BC/BCE – 30 AD/CE), is the central figure of Christianity, in which context he is known as Jesus Christ (from Greek Ιησούς Χριστός) with "Christ" being a title meaning "Anointed One" or "Messiah". 
:Christian viewpoints on Jesus (known as Christology) are both diverse and complex. Most Christians, affirming the Nicene Creed, believe Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for humanity's sins, and acceptance of Jesus as Savior saves one from sin (John 3:16). Christians generally believe Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides at the "right hand" of God the Father until the Second Coming. Other Christians do not recognize the Nicene Creed as correctly interpreting scripture.
:In Islam, Jesus (called Isa) is considered one of God's most beloved and important prophets, a bringer of divine scripture, and also the Messiah. Muslims however do not share the Christian belief in the crucifixion or divinity of Jesus. The Qur'an states that Jesus is alive in heaven and will return to the earth as Messiah in the company of the Mahdi once it has become full of sin and injustice. Jesus is also considered a manifestation of God in the Bahá'í Faith. 
:The main sources regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament, which are believed to have been written in the latter half of the first century. While most scholars agree there are references to Jesus and Christians by first and second century writers, a minority of scholars, citing lack of extant contemporary documents, question the historicity of Jesus.
Please discuss. —Aiden 00:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we do all this talking and then "rob" goes immediately and puts in text that was never discussed here, and not even what he repeatedly copied, what's the point? --Oscillate 15:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well if we can agree on this introduction as consensus we can certainly out-revert Rob. Homestarmy 16:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fair and balanced to me. SOPHIA 17:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: 5 for, 0 against, where's Rob? :/ Homestarmy 18:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He already changed the intro to his own version, which was even different from what he had posted in here. --Oscillate 18:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Why did we even bother to have a discussion? --Oscillate 18:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I've removed Rob's version which minimalizes extensively the majority view in flagrant violation of WP:NPOV's clause relating to weight. In its stead I've included a modified version of the above--which there was a consensus concerning--and I feel any reasonable person would regard this as an excellent working and NPOV compromise. —Aiden 20:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It looks top rate to me, now let's work on getting this thing back to a featured article. Do we need inline citations again, and what happened to them before if they even existed? Homestarmy 22:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise Part III: The Return of the Intro 

message: Hello
:# Is this article supposed to be an article about the historical Jesus? I am asking since I do not see any results included which have been achieved by modern scholars such as say E.P Sanders. If that article is mostly thought to be a religious article then I propose to write one about the historical person Jesus of Nazareth, taking into account those results..
:# In any case I recommend to extend the passage about the Arrest, trial and execution. For example it is not even mentioned that the Gospels do contradict themselves in their narrative. (John vs Snynoptics), nor that the events of the trial carried out by the Sanhedrin seem to contradict the information of the Talmud, about how such processes had to be carried out.
Oub 17:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'd actually read the comments above, you'd see this is exactly what is being discussed. And there is already a Historical Jesus article. Aiden 18:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I tried that..., anyhow thanks for the information (funny to note that the German Wikipedia articles about that subject are the other way around. There is a long article about the historical Jesus and a short one about Jesus from the "Christian" point of view. In any case I thought about the question of the trial. The contradictions between the 4 gospels are too numerous to be ignored. So I will submit to the talk page a more elaborated description taking into account John vs Synoptics etc. Oub 11:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: User Oub, there actually used to be just such a paragraph in the beginning of the article, which someone deleted.  Like you (and many others) I believe that a brief summary of their findings is necessary (not least of all for NPOV reasons) for this article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If critical arguments about supposed contradictions are in the article, then popular apologetic rebuttals would have to be inserted as well. This is about Jesus, not why many people think Christianity and the Bible is wrong. Homestarmy 16:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical Jesus and the Discussion of the Trial 

message: Jesus is just a graecicized version of a common Hebrew name, Joshua. There have been many people of this name in history and in the Bible. This is like filing Gaius Julius Caesar under Julius. It would be more appropriate and unambiguous to redir Jesus to Jesus (disambiguation) and rename this article Jeshua ha-Nozri or Jesus of Nazareth (Jesus [the] Christ ist only the name given to him by one religious tradition, thus POV.)
And it should definitely be merged with Historical Jesus. It's absurd to try to flatten out conflicting views on a matter by allowing more than one article on the self-same subject. Wikipedia should try to present different POVs (PsOV?) in a synoptic way. --84.188.143.210 23:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're free to suggest a vote for both. --Oscillate 23:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just curious, but how many people in the entire world would think to look up an article by the name Jeshua ha-Nozri?  Conversely, how many people in the english speaking world, the world that reads this site, who might be curious about Jesus would just look up Jesus.  Don't you think 99.99% of the people know exactly who is being identified by the term Jesus?  Take it to a vote may be one solution to your delimma and the other just might be to accept reality.  You are choking on a gnat; let it go.  Storm Rider 00:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia policy encourages using common names (which is why if you search for Sting you get the singer not the professional wrestler, etc.) —Aiden 01:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lemma 

message: Is it about "jesus" or is it about what various people believe about "jesus" and what he may or may not have done?
It sounds to me like the German is a lot closer to an appropriate article putting the fact before the unverifiable. Maybe this article should JUST be the intro (eithe mine of SOPHIA's) with links to all other options? Robsteadman 20:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about Jesus.  It addresses both the historical and the religious perspective.  Given that most of the information is found in books of scripture, the article will focus on those sources and will necessarily have a "religious" focus.  The historical side of the article with true historical perspective is welcome and needed.  Storm Rider 21:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Surelyy the historical side is more than wlercome but essential? Robsteadman 07:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Isn't that already at Historical Jesus ?Homestarmy 22:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this page about? 

message: Is there anyway this article can be permanently semi-protected? It is a magnet for anonymous vandalism that takes way too much time to constantly revert and does not seem like it will never end. At least when it was sprotected, it did stop. --Oscillate 15:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-Protect

message: Much better, starting to reduce the POV leanings, a great improvement. Robsteadman 17:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is not "much better." You've made huge changes NOT discussed and completely ignored the consensus we came to through extensive discussion. I've implemented the version we agreed on, not your version which minimalizes the majority view. Please see WP:NPOV as it is evident you are not familiar with said Wikipedia policy. —Aiden 20:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Much better

message: Despite hundreds of hours of discussion re; a compromise measure for CE/AD, someone has reverted to CE.  Can somene please just revert these abck to what was agreed upon. We've dicussed this issue to deatha dn that was the compromise, so we shouldn't alow someoen to unilaterally jack with it like this.  Unbelievable...Gator (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AD CE....man....

message: Hello, everyone. I am in support of the anno Domini terminology personally, but I have a different proposal that may just satisfy everyone who reads Wikipedia. This proposal would remove the edit wars, as well as all problems of "confusion" and the extreme likeness of BCE to CE. Also, it would stop confusing pages like this one from referring to years like 164 BC/BCE. I got this idea from the customs of the History Channel. Here is the proposal:
Years from 1 forward will be abbreviated with CE (Common Era; can be interpreted as Christian Era).
:This ensures that nobody is acknowledging that Jesus Christ is God, and it also leaves Christians with the Christian era option.
Years 1 BC and previous will be abbreviated with BC (Before Christ; can be interpreted as Before Current).
:Although this method would acknowledge Jesus (Christ) directly, noting this era as Before the Common Era simply masks the reasoning behind the Gregorian/Julian calendars. Unlike using AD, using BC does not acknowledge Christ as a god, simply as a historical figure, which most scientists agree that he is. It is basically the same as saying the days of the week, such as Wednesday, because it only acknowledges the historical meaning behind the word, not that the historical meaning is a god. It can also be difficult to speak BCE in dialog, and also, it has three letters. When we drop the "E" and use just BC, it has no grammatical similarities to CE, meaning the terms cannot be confused with one another easily. (One of the reasons of support given for the use of AD and BC on the common era page). Finally, using both BC and CE in a sentence also roll off the tongue easily (e.g - It was ongoing from 2 BC to 5 CE).
:The best part about this proposal is that it will not be required that we change the current Wikipedia policy. The current Wikipedia years pages use BC, but they use neither CE nor AD for years after 1. Also, like the History Channel does, we can use AD in replacement of CE for exclusively Christian pages, and we can use BCE rather than BC for exclusively non-Christian religious pages. However for religion-neutral pages, meaning all pages other than those associated with religion, will use the proposal above. How does this sound? Darwiner111 04:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *At the very least, a consensus could be applied to this article.  If the idea proves popular, I suggest that you post it as a formal guideline proposal.  —David Levy 05:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have already released this proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Eras. Apparently there were alot of disagreements concerning the fact that BC is POV for some reason, but in the end there was no concensus. I also posted it at Jimmy Wales' talk page, but if there's anywhere else I could present it that I'm unaware of, David, I'd be happy if you'd let me know. Thanks. Darwiner111 05:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style is a good place to solicit feedback, as is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) — the section of the MoS that stands to be revised.  You might even want to create a dedicated proposal page within the Wikipedia namespace (such as Wikipedia:Era proposal).  If you do, be sure to place the  tag at the top, and also add notifications to as many relevant talk pages as you can think of.  —David Levy 06:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) would be a good place to announce the discussion as well. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Untrue - they have only been used for 1500 years and that still doesn't mean it isn't POV and offensive. Robsteadman 10:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *Sometimes I just think you people don't take the time to look this proposal over. This proposal is by far better than anything Wikipedia has come up with yet, and it's way better than writing something like "140 BC/BCE" everywhere. Also, this is the second time I'm saying this, I didn't intend BC to stand for "Before Current", but that is an alternate possible meaning that could be applied by non-Christians that for some reason do not want to acknowledge that Exiguus created the Gregorian calendar to be about Jesus! Yes, Jesus. The same goes for CE, which although really means "Common era", could be interpreted by Christians as "Christian era" (as noted here at the very page for Common Era at Wikipedia). Darwiner111 20:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *Sheesh, you don't think writing "40 BC/BCE" and "20 AD/CE" is confusing?? If I didn't know what the common era was (like most average citizens) and I came to this page, I'd have no idea what that means. At least if it was 40 BC and 40 CE, I'd be able to click on the "CE" link which would explain that CE is a NPOV alternative to AD. Darwiner111 20:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Patrick/Darwiner/whatever other account you use - as has been pointed out to you over and over, BC is POV because it asserts that Jesus is the Messiah, AD is POV because it asserts that Jesus is God.  CE and BCE describe that POV as per the NPOV policy.  NPOV policy does not allow Wikipedia to assert a POV, merely to describe it.  If you actually read all the discussion around this issue, before digging it up again you would realise that what you are saying is false.  Guettarda 20:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's ridiculous, Guettarda. Can't you see that there is obviously an anti-Christian sentiment in all of this? If you say that Wikipedia can only "describe" AD/BC, then wouldn't you also find it logical to have Wikipedia rename all the days of the week from Monday to Firstday; Tuesday to Secondday; Wednesday to Thirdday, etc?? Saying "Wednesday" is asserting the POV of believing that this day belongs to the God Woden (i.e. Woden's Day). I've never had a reasonable excuse by anti-Christians like yourself as to why the days of the week are left alone in all of this. They are just as POV (which isn't very POV anyway) as AD/BC but nobody cares. Why? Because some people find it amusing to single out Christianity when it comes to these pathetic euphemism labelings. Leave AD/BC alone. Darwiner111 20:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You really need to read the policy against personal attacks.  What right do you have to say "anti-Christians like yourself"?  Who do you feel you are to insult me like that?  What right do you have to libel me like that?  At the very least you could try to avoid such brazen lies.  Guettarda 09:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia isn't asserting anything, if AD/BC was asserting something, then every time someone writes down AD or BC, they would have to have the overwhelming feeling that they should become a Christian. Such a feeling would have to be self-generated, otherwise the world would probably be far more influenced to be Christian. Homestarmy 20:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Even in the PC melting pot of American media, CE/BCE are rarely used. Take the History Channel for example, where they do use BCE/CE for religious articles that are not Christian, however they use BC/AD for all other articles (including articles that have nothing to do with religion). So obviously it seems that the media still acknowledges BCE/CE as a method preferred only for other religions besides Christianity, not the other way around whereas BC/AD is preferred for only Christianity. So BC/AD is still the norm, even in a country where we call Christmas "Holiday". Darwiner111 00:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: We have this little policy called NPOV.  Maybe you have heard of it?  Asserting that Jesus is the Messiah/God violates that policy.  Guettarda 09:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Asserting that the most impacting opinion on Christ is that He is the Messiah is not a violation. Furthermore, you could theoretically have a Messiah from something without him being God, though the only one so far in history was reported to be God and did everything from the perspective of being God and impacted history the most due to the widespread belief that He was God, this is not merely conjecture I assure you. Homestarmy 14:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BC does not assert that "that the most impacting opinion on Christ is that He is the Messiah".  It asserts that He is the Messiah.  Messiah ("Annointed One") has a specific meaning.  Asserting Jesus is the "Annointed One of God" (which is what the phrase really means) asserts (a) that Jesus is the one promised in the Bible and (b) that there is an Abrahamic God to promise and select Him.  The assertion is not NPOV.  Describing the impact (which is what "Common Era" does) is highly compatible with what is called for by the NPOV policy ("describe POVs, don't assert POVs").  Guettarda 21:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Do most people even know that the word Christ means Messiah in Greek? Nextly, BC means "Before Christ". Not "Before THE Christ", many people have very different opinions on what does and does not constitute a messiah, I even recall asking a question on an Islamic article about this very subject and asking why the article said that Islam considered Christ the Messiah when I knew they did not, the reply I got was that I had a point, but the article Messiah shows that there are very different opinions on what Messiah means. Homestarmy 23:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Era Solution: A Proposal 

message: #Strong support.  Speaking as someone from the CE/BCE camp, this seems like a highly logical and well-formulated compromise.  I'm actually startled by how much sense this simple plan makes.  —David Levy 05:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *At the very least, a consensus could be applied to this article.  If the idea proves popular, I suggest that you post it as a formal guideline proposal.  —David Levy 05:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have already released this proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Eras. Apparently there were alot of disagreements concerning the fact that BC is POV for some reason, but in the end there was no concensus. I also posted it at Jimmy Wales' talk page, but if there's anywhere else I could present it that I'm unaware of, David, I'd be happy if you'd let me know. Thanks. Darwiner111 05:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style is a good place to solicit feedback, as is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) — the section of the MoS that stands to be revised.  You might even want to create a dedicated proposal page within the Wikipedia namespace (such as Wikipedia:Era proposal).  If you do, be sure to place the  tag at the top, and also add notifications to as many relevant talk pages as you can think of.  —David Levy 06:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) would be a good place to announce the discussion as well. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Untrue - they have only been used for 1500 years and that still doesn't mean it isn't POV and offensive. Robsteadman 10:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *Sometimes I just think you people don't take the time to look this proposal over. This proposal is by far better than anything Wikipedia has come up with yet, and it's way better than writing something like "140 BC/BCE" everywhere. Also, this is the second time I'm saying this, I didn't intend BC to stand for "Before Current", but that is an alternate possible meaning that could be applied by non-Christians that for some reason do not want to acknowledge that Exiguus created the Gregorian calendar to be about Jesus! Yes, Jesus. The same goes for CE, which although really means "Common era", could be interpreted by Christians as "Christian era" (as noted here at the very page for Common Era at Wikipedia). Darwiner111 20:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *Sheesh, you don't think writing "40 BC/BCE" and "20 AD/CE" is confusing?? If I didn't know what the common era was (like most average citizens) and I came to this page, I'd have no idea what that means. At least if it was 40 BC and 40 CE, I'd be able to click on the "CE" link which would explain that CE is a NPOV alternative to AD. Darwiner111 20:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Patrick/Darwiner/whatever other account you use - as has been pointed out to you over and over, BC is POV because it asserts that Jesus is the Messiah, AD is POV because it asserts that Jesus is God.  CE and BCE describe that POV as per the NPOV policy.  NPOV policy does not allow Wikipedia to assert a POV, merely to describe it.  If you actually read all the discussion around this issue, before digging it up again you would realise that what you are saying is false.  Guettarda 20:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's ridiculous, Guettarda. Can't you see that there is obviously an anti-Christian sentiment in all of this? If you say that Wikipedia can only "describe" AD/BC, then wouldn't you also find it logical to have Wikipedia rename all the days of the week from Monday to Firstday; Tuesday to Secondday; Wednesday to Thirdday, etc?? Saying "Wednesday" is asserting the POV of believing that this day belongs to the God Woden (i.e. Woden's Day). I've never had a reasonable excuse by anti-Christians like yourself as to why the days of the week are left alone in all of this. They are just as POV (which isn't very POV anyway) as AD/BC but nobody cares. Why? Because some people find it amusing to single out Christianity when it comes to these pathetic euphemism labelings. Leave AD/BC alone. Darwiner111 20:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You really need to read the policy against personal attacks.  What right do you have to say "anti-Christians like yourself"?  Who do you feel you are to insult me like that?  What right do you have to libel me like that?  At the very least you could try to avoid such brazen lies.  Guettarda 09:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia isn't asserting anything, if AD/BC was asserting something, then every time someone writes down AD or BC, they would have to have the overwhelming feeling that they should become a Christian. Such a feeling would have to be self-generated, otherwise the world would probably be far more influenced to be Christian. Homestarmy 20:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Even in the PC melting pot of American media, CE/BCE are rarely used. Take the History Channel for example, where they do use BCE/CE for religious articles that are not Christian, however they use BC/AD for all other articles (including articles that have nothing to do with religion). So obviously it seems that the media still acknowledges BCE/CE as a method preferred only for other religions besides Christianity, not the other way around whereas BC/AD is preferred for only Christianity. So BC/AD is still the norm, even in a country where we call Christmas "Holiday". Darwiner111 00:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: We have this little policy called NPOV.  Maybe you have heard of it?  Asserting that Jesus is the Messiah/God violates that policy.  Guettarda 09:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Asserting that the most impacting opinion on Christ is that He is the Messiah is not a violation. Furthermore, you could theoretically have a Messiah from something without him being God, though the only one so far in history was reported to be God and did everything from the perspective of being God and impacted history the most due to the widespread belief that He was God, this is not merely conjecture I assure you. Homestarmy 14:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BC does not assert that "that the most impacting opinion on Christ is that He is the Messiah".  It asserts that He is the Messiah.  Messiah ("Annointed One") has a specific meaning.  Asserting Jesus is the "Annointed One of God" (which is what the phrase really means) asserts (a) that Jesus is the one promised in the Bible and (b) that there is an Abrahamic God to promise and select Him.  The assertion is not NPOV.  Describing the impact (which is what "Common Era" does) is highly compatible with what is called for by the NPOV policy ("describe POVs, don't assert POVs").  Guettarda 21:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Do most people even know that the word Christ means Messiah in Greek? Nextly, BC means "Before Christ". Not "Before THE Christ", many people have very different opinions on what does and does not constitute a messiah, I even recall asking a question on an Islamic article about this very subject and asking why the article said that Islam considered Christ the Messiah when I knew they did not, the reply I got was that I had a point, but the article Messiah shows that there are very different opinions on what Messiah means. Homestarmy 23:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: Surely, as there is doubt that"jesus" existed it is a nonsense to include dates in the first sentence. His "possible" dates are discussed later. I would favour their removal from the first sentence which gives the POV that he DID exist - as that cannot be verified it is unencyclopdeic. Robsteadman 19:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for those - hadn't heard of most of them! But you can't PROVE that "jesus" really existed either - there is no evidence that says he was anything more than a concept, there is no eviudence that he really existed. Robsteadman 08:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And you can't prove he didn't exist. The lack of documents that were completed during his lifetime is not in any way evidence that he didn't exist. You're making a huge logical leap based off your overriding POV. Saying there are no "extant contemporary documents" is one thing, that's true, but postulating as you continue to do that 'therefore there is proof he didn't exist' does not belong here. --Oscillate 15:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That assumes there was an historical "jesus" for which tehre is no evidence. You assume I am not qualified and use that as a personal insult (very good, well done) but I am just as qualified as enyone else to look at evidence and reach a NPOV conclusion. Robsteadman 08:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly there is evidence for a historical Jesus!  Give me some authors that say otherwise, namely that there is no evidence.  And the qualification reference was, once again, a reference to your lack of knowledge as to how the study of ancient history is conducted.  Not that thats anything to be insulted about of course, but when you make the statement that you're just as qualified as anyone else, the fact is that no, you're not.  There are degrees by which this scholarship is weighed, compared, and clarified, a process that you are not familiar with, and presenting one or two websites as proof of a point does not an argument make. pookster11 08:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems with "rob" here, this will never end. We keep going around and around and around. I will repeat myself again - lack of contemporary documents is not proof of non-existance. The documents that were written/completed later were written by people who are claimed to have been eyewitnesses, and certainly could have been. The lack of documents written during Jesus' lifetime is not proof he didn't exist, it simply means there are no documents completed from his lifetime. Saying that is proof of non-existance is a poor logical leap. --Oscillate 15:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At no point have I asked for anything stating that "jesus" was fictitious to be included in teh article only that there is sufficient doubt. The article must be NPOV which means it must hedge its bets. There is no evidence that he existed and, as any scientist knows, its not possible to prove a negative existence. The dates in the intro are misleaing because they give a slant that suggests he DID exist contrary to available evidence which shows neither wayu though rational thought would support non-existence. You are, as several others have done, putting words into my mouth and reading more into my ediuts than is actually there. NPOV is the way for the article to go  and that means truly balanced on the basis of evidence - not guess work, hope, supposition. Robsteadman 15:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading more into your edits? You have continually stated "there is no eviudence [sic] that he really existed" in many different forms. What extra reading is there to do? You seem to not even understand the word "compromise". You will have to understand that here on Wikipedia. NPOV means that all sides are presented, not just "rob's". Again, it is absolutely fine, as has already been done, to state that there are no contemporary documents. But that does not mean there is no evidence, just no contemporary documents. The intro already states that some question the existance of Jesus, does every single sentence have to mention that? I think you believe so. --Oscillate 16:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: "rob", please learn to indent. Regarding your incorrect statement "NPOV means that all should be based on verifiable evdience NOT that all points of view are represented.", I quote from WP:NPOV: all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias...NPOV is one of Wikipedia's four content-guiding policy pages. The other three are No original research, Verifiability and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. NPOV is not verifiability, it most certainly is that points of view are represented and represented fairly, according to consensus and with respect to the weight of the view given the topic. Your statement "the article is made NPOV an that means verifiable and factual" is incorrect. --Oscillate 16:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Verifiability is most certainly important, but you are equating two differnent things. There have been many scholars who assert that those dates are the estimated dates of Jesus' birth. The intro already states that some doubt his existance, again I ask you, does every single sentence have to have a disclaimer? --Oscillate 16:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps every time a statement suggests that he existed and tehre is no doubt there needs to be a discalimer pointing out that there is no evidence to support this. It is hope, "faith" and guesswork based on non-contemporary biased documents. NPOV - make it clear.Robsteadman 16:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any statement about "there is no doubt", I see "about...by most estimates", and later that some people doubt he existed. I also see similar things on many other pages, just having a "circa" statement or something similar. Again, I think the most you can hope to have stay is to put "supposedly" there and see if it sticks. Non-contemporary documents do not mean that the person never existed, otherwise there would be many historically-accepted people whose articles you should also be starting edit wars in. Do you believe Muhammed existed? --Oscillate 17:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: And you are not also a biased source because.....? Homestarmy 17:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates in intro