Talk:Jesus/Archive 13

message: suggested to add section on Jesus's Family / Descendants
either as part of this section on life of Jesus
or new major subsection
to include ref to Wikipedia' pages
* Holy Grail
* Holy Grail Family
* Da Vinci Code
* Mary Magdalene
that suggestion was in the main article, i'm moving it here where it belongs. 63.227.176.210 01:30, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: moved

message: This article is garbage. It is presenting as scientific facts a set of far fetched speculations (recognized in the cited source as a pure slightly possible alternative) from the weblink "Nizrael". The active users delete all mentions and arguments about the  historical references. Given the huge set of reverts and deletions, and the nerve with which they are done, it is expected that peace cannot be done (at least not more than in Jerusalem). Moreover, the page contains sacrilegious text that repulse readers from large classes of people (perhaps meant to keep them away and allow exclusivity to a set of people with an agenda).
I recommend to transform this page into a really neutral page (i.e, containing only links to original sources, i.e., gospels, etc...). The interpretations of different groups will then go into corresponding pages (so that one no longer needs to delete each other with no explanation and such bitterly). I already copied the current content into Jesus: the Jewish POV. User:I834
:I strongly object to the changes you are trying to make.  You have not indicated which specific statements in the article you dispute; "a set of far fetched speculations" and "sacrilegious text" do nothing to identify what your actual concerns are.  Which past reverts and deletions do you find objectionable?  What aspects of the article are not neutral, in your opinion?  Please give concrete reasons for wanting to restructure this article, and you might overcome my objections.  Also, you seem to be very familiar with Wikipedia policy, lingo, etc. despite your recently created user account.  What other user accounts have you edited under?  (I'm not necessarily accusing you of being a sockpuppet; I know sometimes people have legitimate reasons for switching to a different account.) Alanyst 23:33, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Restructuring

message: Please discuss deletions before doing so. They may contain valuable information which needs to be cleaned up or expanded instead. - Amgine 21:18, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletions 

message: I see you are determined, as per your latest edit, to put in this nonsense about Koans.  Is it absolutely necessary that you use "some" though, and not be specific?  It seems to me like you are trying to write your little POV as official history, to be honest. --Alterego 00:34, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: ATTN: CheeseDreams

message: I am getting REALLY SICK AND TIRED of seeing you try to insert this Koan crap with misleading edit reasons.  YOU CANNOT REWRITE HISTORY. --Alterego 00:06, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Alterego, I have added the two edits with misleading edit summaries to the request for arbitration against CheeseDreams -- hopefully there will be consequences for this sort of thing very soon. Jwrosenzweig 00:40, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you *calms down* :p --Alterego 19:33, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: While this is irrelevant, could you leave information - or links about this - on my talk page? I've never heard this, and I'm genuinely interested. thanks.--Josiah 00:34, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
P.s. to those who do not know, Christos Pantocrator is supposed to look annoyed. CheeseDreams 22:41, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Perhaps there is a compromise possible here.  There ought to be an article specifically about Jesus' teachings where various theories about what he might have meant, how he presented his teachings, and their relation to similar literature could be presented.  The theory of "Jesus koans" could be appropriately mentioned on such a page, I think.  There is a category on his doctrine and teachings already, but apparently no main article.  We could create such an article and link this disputed section to it.  In any case, I will continue to object to the mention of koans in the main Jesus article. Alanyst 23:22, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: I understand your point, Slrubenstein, but differ with you a bit on this.  In my opinion, it's not so much a question of who is making the claim (although that is not wholly unimportant), but more a matter of how appropriate it is for this particular article.  In an article devoted to how Buddhists interpret Jesus' teachings, it might be very suitable, even if the equating of koans to his teachings is still a minority view.  For this reason I proposed creating a new article, because adequately treating the subject of his teachings while including perspectives such as CheeseDreams's would seem to require more space and have a different focus than the current article can accommodate. Alanyst 23:54, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Slruenstein never tolerates the existence of views opposed to his. See Talk:Cultural and historical background to Jesus, pay particular attention to the archives (and their summaries) CheeseDreams 14:07, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text:  From what I've read so far just about descriptions of some of the books mentioned, people have drawn analogies between some of Jesus' sayings and koans, or have composed koans that Jesus might have said had he been familiar with them. I haven't found anyone who says Jesus actually, deliberately used koans as a teaching guide. This doesn't mean no one has by any means, but it does mean that finding lots of google hits or book titles that include "Jesus" and "koan" in the title by itself does not establish the point. Koans are intended to help the listener towards 'enlightenment', a concept and goal that as far as I know was foreign to any of the religions or sects in the Roman Empire in the first century. I welcome further education on this subject. In other words, I have no problem with presenting minority views, provided that they are in fact the views of a real minority and not just the pet theory of one or two wikipedians. Wesley 01:35, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text:  I really doubt Zen Buddhists would equate Jesus' parables with koans.  They really aren't anything alike.  --ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 19:46, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course not, thats why they would say "parables AND koans". Koans are tiny little phrases like "you must die to live" and "he who is first is last" not "there was once a Samartan and he crossed the road one day when someone was suffering...." CheeseDreams 14:07, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Those are paradoxical statements, not koans.  There are substantial differences between paradox and koan; a Buddhist would most likely consider these statements irrelevant.  --ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 18:49, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Wesley—I agree, and for the sake of fairness I would observe that CheeseDreams's phrase (at least in its latest incarnation—no pun intended) does not appear to state that Jesus used koans in his teachings, but rather draws an analogy between some of his teachings (specificity regarding which teachings would be nice) and koans.  If there are others besides CheeseDreams who perceive a similar relationship, and we have references to what those people have written, then perhaps this idea has a place somewhere on Wikipedia.  Just not in this article. Alanyst 02:58, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it would be nice to do it where the idea could be fleshed out a little more. If some Buddhists have written about a similarity, maybe it could go in Religious perspectives on Jesus in the Buddhist section, for instance? Wesley 04:55, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you'd need to be very careful about breaking the no original research rule. Also, I am particularly wary since CheeseDreams has said it is her intention to rewrite history. I still haven't seen anything quoted from reliable scholarly sources drawing any serious analogy between koans and Jesus' sayings. jguk 14:59, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: I googled on Jesus and Koans, and three of the five sites I looked at were Christians drawing the link. Furthermore, the Buddhist site didn't say that Jesus used koans; it only identified him with the Buddha. (The fifth site was just the I-K page of a religious glossary.) Ben Standeven 22:52, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: The only source of historical knowledge about Jesus is the Christian Gospels, which Christians believe to be the word of God. Most secular historians agree that the source documents on which the Gospels are based were written within living memory of Jesus's lifetime. They therefore accept that the accounts of the life of Jesus in the Gospels provide a reasonable basis of evidence, by the standards of ancient history, for the historical existence of Jesus and the basic facts of his life and death. They take the view, however, that since there is absolutely no evidence for any aspect of Jesus's life and work outside the Gospels, which were written or compiled by his followers, no detailed account of his life can be accepted as historically verifiable. This applies in particular, of course, to events such as the resurrection and the miracles of Jesus, which contradict the scientifically accepted laws of biology and physics and thus require a higher standard of proof. Belief that such events occurred must remain a matter of faith and not a matter of history. Adam 09:07, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  For other sources, see Josephus on Jesus, Tacitus on Jesus, the Gospel of James, and others. Also, calling into question the miracles solely because they contradict the laws of biology and physics is a metaphysical claim, not a scientific one. Science assumes that it can explain all via science, but it makes no attempt to prove this; indeed, by definition it is incapable of doing so. Once you say that only science is "real", you are stepping outside of science and into philosophy. Hence, this widely held philosophy of materialism is important and deserves prominent mention, but as one POV among others. Wesley 06:50, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: It may seem this way to you, but that is precisely why this view does not belong in the article.  We don't put our own views in articles.  It is a fact that some believe Jesus never lived and of course the article should acknowledge it.  But it is not a fact that the only people who believe he existed because of their faith.  It is a fact that historians and critical (meaning, not religious or Christian) scholars of the Bible believe Jesus existed.  This fact must also be in the article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  16:53, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On that point, we could also mention the possibility of historians having their lives and livelihoods imperiled if they dare suggested otherwise.  There's a certain pressure Christians put on the rest of us to stay in lockstep with their views... I think this is obvious. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 20:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ATTN: CHEESEDREAMS

message: Okay, CheeseDreams, I just reverted and want to explain why and perhaps lay the basis for some constructive dialogue.  One reason I reverted is that the record of this article and its talk page [Now in /Archive 12/ -- added by ABCD at 16:25, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps there is a compromise possible here.  There ought to be an article specifically about Jesus' teachings where various theories about what he might have meant, how he presented his teachings, and their relation to similar literature could be presented.  The theory of "Jesus koans" could be appropriately mentioned on such a page, I think.  There is a category on his doctrine and teachings already, but apparently no main article.  We could create such an article and link this disputed section to it.  In any case, I will continue to object to the mention of koans in the main Jesus article. Alanyst 23:22, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: I understand your point, Slrubenstein, but differ with you a bit on this.  In my opinion, it's not so much a question of who is making the claim (although that is not wholly unimportant), but more a matter of how appropriate it is for this particular article.  In an article devoted to how Buddhists interpret Jesus' teachings, it might be very suitable, even if the equating of koans to his teachings is still a minority view.  For this reason I proposed creating a new article, because adequately treating the subject of his teachings while including perspectives such as CheeseDreams's would seem to require more space and have a different focus than the current article can accommodate. Alanyst 23:54, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Slruenstein never tolerates the existence of views opposed to his. See Talk:Cultural and historical background to Jesus, pay particular attention to the archives (and their summaries) CheeseDreams 14:07, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text:  From what I've read so far just about descriptions of some of the books mentioned, people have drawn analogies between some of Jesus' sayings and koans, or have composed koans that Jesus might have said had he been familiar with them. I haven't found anyone who says Jesus actually, deliberately used koans as a teaching guide. This doesn't mean no one has by any means, but it does mean that finding lots of google hits or book titles that include "Jesus" and "koan" in the title by itself does not establish the point. Koans are intended to help the listener towards 'enlightenment', a concept and goal that as far as I know was foreign to any of the religions or sects in the Roman Empire in the first century. I welcome further education on this subject. In other words, I have no problem with presenting minority views, provided that they are in fact the views of a real minority and not just the pet theory of one or two wikipedians. Wesley 01:35, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text:  I really doubt Zen Buddhists would equate Jesus' parables with koans.  They really aren't anything alike.  --ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 19:46, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course not, thats why they would say "parables AND koans". Koans are tiny little phrases like "you must die to live" and "he who is first is last" not "there was once a Samartan and he crossed the road one day when someone was suffering...." CheeseDreams 14:07, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Those are paradoxical statements, not koans.  There are substantial differences between paradox and koan; a Buddhist would most likely consider these statements irrelevant.  --ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 18:49, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Wesley—I agree, and for the sake of fairness I would observe that CheeseDreams's phrase (at least in its latest incarnation—no pun intended) does not appear to state that Jesus used koans in his teachings, but rather draws an analogy between some of his teachings (specificity regarding which teachings would be nice) and koans.  If there are others besides CheeseDreams who perceive a similar relationship, and we have references to what those people have written, then perhaps this idea has a place somewhere on Wikipedia.  Just not in this article. Alanyst 02:58, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it would be nice to do it where the idea could be fleshed out a little more. If some Buddhists have written about a similarity, maybe it could go in Religious perspectives on Jesus in the Buddhist section, for instance? Wesley 04:55, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you'd need to be very careful about breaking the no original research rule. Also, I am particularly wary since CheeseDreams has said it is her intention to rewrite history. I still haven't seen anything quoted from reliable scholarly sources drawing any serious analogy between koans and Jesus' sayings. jguk 14:59, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: I googled on Jesus and Koans, and three of the five sites I looked at were Christians drawing the link. Furthermore, the Buddhist site didn't say that Jesus used koans; it only identified him with the Buddha. (The fifth site was just the I-K page of a religious glossary.) Ben Standeven 22:52, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am really trying to be serious and sincere here -- Explanation for CheeseDreams 

message: Since I last visited this article it has sharply declined in intellectual clarity. In particular the section on the historicity of Jesus has been reduced to meaningless cliches. There is now no clear discussion on the historical sources (or lack thereof) for the existence and biography of Jesus. Sloppy and misleading statements have been allowed to proliferate, such as "The main account of his life is the four Gospels" (in fact the Gospels are the only account) and "Debates concerning Jesus as a historical figure center on three issues [the first of which is] the role of God in natural and human history" (they certainly do not centre on this "issue", which presupposes the existence of God and is thus a theological debate rather than a historical one). This article must contain an accurate statement about the attitude of secular scholarship towards the textual evidence for the existence and biography of Jesus. I inserted an attempt at such a statement at one point, but it has been completely emasculated, presumably by Christians. Next time I feel like an argument I will resurrect it (!) and put it back in the article. Adam 08:49, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The only source of historical knowledge about Jesus is the Christian Gospels, which Christians believe to be the word of God. Most secular historians agree that the source documents on which the Gospels are based were written within living memory of Jesus's lifetime. They therefore accept that the accounts of the life of Jesus in the Gospels provide a reasonable basis of evidence, by the standards of ancient history, for the historical existence of Jesus and the basic facts of his life and death. They take the view, however, that since there is absolutely no evidence for any aspect of Jesus's life and work outside the Gospels, which were written or compiled by his followers, no detailed account of his life can be accepted as historically verifiable. This applies in particular, of course, to events such as the resurrection and the miracles of Jesus, which contradict the scientifically accepted laws of biology and physics and thus require a higher standard of proof. Belief that such events occurred must remain a matter of faith and not a matter of history. Adam 09:07, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  For other sources, see Josephus on Jesus, Tacitus on Jesus, the Gospel of James, and others. Also, calling into question the miracles solely because they contradict the laws of biology and physics is a metaphysical claim, not a scientific one. Science assumes that it can explain all via science, but it makes no attempt to prove this; indeed, by definition it is incapable of doing so. Once you say that only science is "real", you are stepping outside of science and into philosophy. Hence, this widely held philosophy of materialism is important and deserves prominent mention, but as one POV among others. Wesley 06:50, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: It may seem this way to you, but that is precisely why this view does not belong in the article.  We don't put our own views in articles.  It is a fact that some believe Jesus never lived and of course the article should acknowledge it.  But it is not a fact that the only people who believe he existed because of their faith.  It is a fact that historians and critical (meaning, not religious or Christian) scholars of the Bible believe Jesus existed.  This fact must also be in the article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  16:53, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On that point, we could also mention the possibility of historians having their lives and livelihoods imperiled if they dare suggested otherwise.  There's a certain pressure Christians put on the rest of us to stay in lockstep with their views... I think this is obvious. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 20:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The historicity of Jesus

message: I don't mean to be TOO facetious, but isn't this:
:Jesus's acts and words, as presented in the Gospels, constitute Christianity's basic teachings.
a matter of considerable POV? I don't find most of modern Christianity to be in line with Jesus's acts and words at all. (insert Nietzsche quote here).  Graft 20:47, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Your observation about modern Christianity doesn't seem to address what the quoted statement says.  First of all, the statement is about Christianity in general, and does not distinguish between modern and ancient Christianity.  Secondly, it only speaks to the basic teachings of Christianity, and does not offer any judgments about how well Christians adhere to those teachings.  In that regard, I find the statement to be very NPOV, and unless you are trying to say that the basic teachings of Christianity are in fact not largely constituted by Jesus' acts and words (which I would find to be a ridiculous assertion), I fail to see how you can find fault with the statement, notwithstanding your apparent cynicism about modern Christianity. Alanyst 22:11, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity's basic teachings 

message: Does this belong in the intro? Or even in this article at all? No mention of other alternative Gospels...
:According to the recently discovered Gospel of Barnabas, Barnabas (who was one of the 12 original disciples of Jesus), said that Jesus is a prophet (not the son of God) and he calls Paul "the deceived". Furthermore, he notified and explained in details that Jesus was not crucified but raised alive to the heaven while the one who got crucified instead was Judas Iscariot the traitor. This belief (that Jesus is a prophet of God, and he was not crucified but raised alive) confirms with the Muslim belief.
Graft 20:47, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Must we have a religious flame-fest here?  I agree with Graft that the quoted paragraph does not belong (and it has been removed since he posted about it), but the statements made immediately above are not consistent with the qualities of mercy, meekness, peacemaking, and loving one another that Jesus taught, and moreover have nothing to do with improving the quality of this article.  Alanyst 22:57, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: This is the wrong place for this debate. Article talk pages are not here for people to try and convert each other, they're here to discuss how best to improve the associated article, including how to best make it NPOV. Haven't looked at the article yet, but no alternative gospels belong anywhere near the intro. Any claims about Barnabas being one of the twelve had better be well documented, to say the very least. Wesley 03:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barnabas 

message: I want to explain my recent reverts to this article so people know where I'm coming from.
I noticed this morning that the Jesus article had been completely rewritten and most of the informative content had disappeared.  In its place was this text:
:Jesus is a very controversial figure (and this site had a strong history of reverts and deletes). Here one should keep only links to copylefted first century original source documents. The different POVs should be described in the corresponding sites:
There followed a list of links to such articles as Jesus: the Christian POV, Jesus: the Jewish POV, and so forth.  Then there was a Documents section that seemed to be intended as a gateway to copylefted excerpts and/or full-text versions of the books of the Bible, together with articles about debates regarding their authenticity.  Finally, there was a section titled "Statements accepted by everybody" with a single paragraph below it (perhaps the author intended to add more).
These edits had been made by User:I834, which is a brand-new account, and I have no reason to believe at this point that this user is any other than a new contributor to Wikipedia who's trying to be bold and doesn't yet grasp some of the important Wikipedia conventions or Wikiquette.  However, I think that this user's edits changed a pretty good article into something much less so, both in terms of substance and in style.  (The wiki syntax and link naming convention were just plain wrong.)
I also saw that the edits made before this user changed the article included POV edits, and in fact only one edit (made by User:Cburnett) between the current revision and the latest one by User:Jayjg appeared to be worth preserving.  That one edit, a change of the Ben Hur link to Ben-Hur (book), was also slightly off-target, since the more appropriate destination would be Ben-Hur.
So, I reverted back to the last version by Jayjg and left a note on I834's talk page to explain my revert.  Concurrent with my revert, I changed the Ben Hur link to Ben-Hur in order to preserve the intent of Cburnett's edit.
My first revert to Jayjg's version had an incorrect edit summary link to Jayjg's user page, which I tried (and failed) to correct by making a dummy edit—hence the two apparently consecutive reverts.
Now it appears that we have a revert war on our hands.  I do not intend to violate the 3-revert rule, so I will refrain from touching the article for a little while and hope that somebody else will step in to restore order.
I834, please stop insisting on preserving your rewrites since they are wrecking the article.  If you feel like the article needs major revisions, let's talk about it here before you do it.  Otherwise, you'll probably keep getting reverted. Alanyst 18:27, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by [[User:I834|I834]] and reverts by [[User:Alanyst|Alanyst]] 

message: : I am a follower of Jesus. By language, it is apparent that some of the editors of this article have been christian, while others have not been. I have no qualms with those who disagree with my faith in Jesus Christ. He needs no justification that my lips can bring. Some of the posts that were clearly made by those who believe in jesus were unkind. On behalf of Jesus Christ I apologize.
: Some disagree with the logic of believing in Jesus based upon the fact that he substantiates himself. I believe that the best solution to some of the struggle here would be to have a section that is about "Who Jesus says he is". This could be done using actual blocks of NT Text, particularly in the area of the gospels.
: Placed promonately at the top of the page, the article could sumarize Jesus's story and key points historicaly from Jesus's own perspective as recorded in the gospels. Presemted in this fashion, it should please both christian and non-christian.
: A. As a christian  this would please me, because it would present jesus's words in an arranged fashion, that would allow people to draw there own conclusions. For me, as a believer in christ, I sufficiently trust God to be able to work through such. (In fact I am more interested in smoothing ruffled feathers here, than getting "the kind of jesus page I want").
: B. For non-christians, because the title would be: "Who does Jesus say he is?", it would be unnecessary to disagree with certain historical accuracies as to his resurrection, etc. If you disagree with the realities of Jesus, or disagree with anything that Jesus said, it would be a non-issue in this section. Such disagreemants are understandable and could be confined logically to a different section like: "My gripe with Jesus's teachings".
: I understand that there will continue to be disagreement here. I ask that those who are followers of Jesus would submit to God in whatever manner is appropriate (i.e. prayer, contemplation of scripture, etc...) before they become involved in debates here. Lets stick to Jesus here and let the peripherals get taken care of in person. Believe me, this is not the battle, but a means for us to relate to others and love them.
: I love you all, without knowing you. And because of this I know that God loves you.
: This has been my first post. If I have erred in any way I ask that you bear with me graciously. 
                                                                                       Jonathan Kibler                                                                                Jon.Kibler@gmail.com
: I think something a little like what you describe is at New Testament view on Jesus' life. Wesley 04:22, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate Jon Kibler's effort to propose an NPOV approach to the article.  I must, however, point out that many people are not convinced that Jesus said everything the NT claims he said -- and surely, he said things that were not preserved in the NT.  Thus, as Wesley observes, the relevant article is on what the NT claims. Slrubenstein 19:27, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who did/does Jesus say he was/is? 

message: I deleted this:
: Jesus of Nazareth is uniquely polarizing as a figure in history, as a reader's opinion of the historicity of Jesus is inextricably intertwined with the reader's perception of the relevance and merit of his message to the individual.
because it is not true (even if it is true for some people) and I don't think it is necessary for the article.  There are people who accept that Jesus existed but, because they do not trust the Gospels, do not even now what "his message" was.  And many historians study him because even if it isn't literally accurate, the NT is a very important source from and about the culture of late antiquity Roman Palestine -- regardless of Jesus' message. Slrubenstein 21:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  explanation for deletion 

message: Jews use a lunisolar calendar, true.  But this calendar was established by Hillel II in 359 C.E.  Are we sure that they used a lunisolar calendar at the time of Jesus?
:Hillel II fixed the calendar, but it was lunisolar long before that; the Sanhedrin declared the months and holidays, and added leap months when required. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 03:11, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  lunisolar trivia 

message: This article looked very much like a featured article until all the additions by 203.144.210.225 came on march 5'th. I don't know why it hasn't been deleted before, so I'm somewhat nervous about deleting it all now two days later and in such a prominent article. But I really think it's way too much and shouldn't be here. My appologies if I've been deleteing something that everyone but me thought looked good. Just revert me if that's the case, and I'll leave it alone. Shanes 18:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely with your edit. The article was unreadable before, and the historicity of Jesus can be further discussed in the appropriate page. Luis rib 18:31, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed about 30k from the history of Jesus section 

message: VERY rough draft for addition.
Although debated, the book "A Course in Miracles" is purported to have been "written" by Jesus in modern times. It is a first person account of his teachings, and has a large following. The book was  'dictated' to Helen Schucman, Professor of Medical Psychology at Columbia University. The book is available at Amazon for about $25.......
Comment: This is really a great book imo, and gives a clarification of what Jesus's message truly was. I mean even the Apostles misunderstood a lot of what he said........how are we supposed to understand what he meant from the Bible, a book that was written hundreds of years after his death......Zardiw 14:27, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This really isn't an appropriate comment for an editor of an encyclopedia committed to NPOV (please review our NPOV policy).  After all, how can you -- Zardiw -- know what Jesus' message "really was," especially if you didn't meet him?  If the Apostles, who did know him, misunderstood him, then how do you know that you haven't misunderstood him?  I do not expect you to answer these questions.  My point is, it is precisely because anyone can raise these objections to your opinion that we have an NPOV policy! Slrubenstein   |  Talk  20:24, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I've added a sentence to the "Other Perspectives" section which reads "The New Age movement has reinterpreted the life and teaching of Jesus in a large variety of ways (For example, see A Course in Miracles)." I'd be strongly opposed to any further additions, as I think it's a minority POV and doesn't warrant any more space in this article. --G Rutter 19:51, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zardiw writes, "My point is that if we have something from "the horse's mouth" so to speak, let's at LEAST make people aware that it exists."  You can do this through your own website, or a blog.  Or you can write a book review, or pay for advertisements for the book.  But this is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  21:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Course in Miracles