Talk:Jesus/Archive 74

message: If I really had my druthers ... We would totally abandon both "AD" and "CE", and instead just write "Year 1" or "Y 1" (= 1 CE), "Year 0" (= 1 BCE), and "Year -1" (= 2 BCE). I cant stand this crazy archaic BC/AD system that was formulated before the discovery of the number zero! --Haldrik 21:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? So you also hate the days of the week in English because they're archaic? What's wrong with traditional systems? If we keep changing things we won't have a history anymore.— OLP 1999 16:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I hate the lack of a "Year Zero". --Haldrik 17:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, today is Wednesday, but I don't worship Woden. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 06:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *- and calling it Wednesday does not actually mean that Woden is the/your Lord either. In other languages, you would not be worshipping the planet Mercury either --JimWae 07:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Verdad, no adoro Mercurio en el miércoles. Ni uno ni otro es Mercurio mi Hidalgo. No en España tampoco. ¿Pero, tan qué? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 07:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *Vérité, je n'adore pas Mercure dans mercredi. Ni l'un ni l'autre est Mercure mon Gentilhomme. Non en Espagne non plus. Mais, tellement que?  Wahrheit, verehre ich nicht Quecksilber in Mittwoch. Auch nicht mein Hidalgo ist Quecksilber. Nicht in Spanien auch nicht. Aber, so was?   Αλήθεια, όχι adore υδράργυρος στην Τετάρτη. Κανένα Hidalgo μου δεν είναι υδράργυρος. Όχι στην Ισπανία ούτε. Αλλά, έτσι τι;   Правда, я не обожаю ртуть в среде. Никакое мое Hidalgo не будет ртутью. Не в Испании также. Но, так?   Verdade, eu não adore o mercúrio em quarta-feira. Nenhum meu fidalgo é mercúrio. Não em Spain tampouco. Mas, assim que? Never on a Sunday? --JimWae 07:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, you win. I only know a little Spanish (es-1) and can't follow the other languages. (German, Portugese and what else?) Especially when you leave the Roman alphabet. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 07:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Babelfish helps. Hmmm... French, German, Greek, Russian, Portugese. Did I miss one? Mittwoch=midweek? BTW, Portguese also translated Hidalgo (=fidalgo). I also see the "quarta" in the Portugese. Perhaps we should stick with Fourthday? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 08:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Smirk

message: Why can't I edit this page?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.203.190.135 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 2 September 2006.
:Please read the notice at the top of the page. We are temporarily blocking anonymous IP users. To edit the page, you can request changes here on talk, or simply sign up for a free account. Also, when using talk pages, "sign" your comments by typing four tildes (~~~~). Hope this helps.--Andrew c 14:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Greasysteve13, does the scientific community include Einstien? Einstein believed in God. He is also widely considered to be the greatest scientist that mankind has ever known. Also, there's lots that the scientific community doesn't know and it admits it. It has no evidence for or against the existence of God -- or of Jesus having supernatural powers. Whiskey Rebellion 21:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "greatest scientist" was probably Sir Isaac Newton. Yes, he believed in a personal God. rossnixon 01:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the things I get from the Christian religion and Quantum physics is that the 'powers' of Jesus and his disciples may in fact not be "supernatural" but rather, utterly natural and available to everyone.  I don't see a great gulf between science and religion.  Science is full to the brim of unexplained miracles. User:Pedant 16:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh? 

message: Can we have an actual article Evidence of the existence of Jesus? Because while I know he didn't have super powers (no offence) I certainly do not know whether he did or didn't exist.--Greasysteve13 13:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just out of curiosity, how do you know he didn't have superpowers? 2nd Piston Honda 13:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know personally but since the scientific community bases its self on facts, I tend to side with the scientific community. Now forget about this unfortunate and unendable debate about the devinity of Jesus and start talking about whether or not the acticle idea is a good idea.--Greasysteve13 13:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, wait. There is an Article of sorts: Historicity of Jesus.--Greasysteve13 13:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, i was just about to post that. Also, there's Historical Jesus. As for the other topic, if you (or the scientific community) truly base yourself in fact, then you'd have to admit that supernatural forces could exist, and that we just don't know if they do. 2nd Piston Honda 13:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Greasysteve13, does the scientific community include Einstien? Einstein believed in God. He is also widely considered to be the greatest scientist that mankind has ever known. Also, there's lots that the scientific community doesn't know and it admits it. It has no evidence for or against the existence of God -- or of Jesus having supernatural powers. Whiskey Rebellion 21:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A few quotes does not a believer make.  Einstein's a difficult one to figure out religiously, but I certainly think a statement like "Einstein believed in God" is taking some unjustified liberties. Peyna 23:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: To Whiskey Rebellion. Einstein may or may not have belived in God (), but He certainly didn't revere Jesus and It isn't known if he belived Jesus existed so I don't know what point you are making. And if he did belive in God we can far from assume it was a biblical God and not some sort of generic binding force.--Greasysteve13 01:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any anyway, Sir Isaac Newton was the greatest scientist ever; and he believed in a personal God. rossnixon 01:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: <sarcasm>Whoever said that either Newton, Einstein or Darwin was God? Now imagine that Jesus returned and we could just ask him. (BTW, he's smaller than the Beatles.) Or we could just go to Africa and ask His father.</sarcasm> Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 02:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You must understand that the vast majority of religious people don't claim to know with certainty the things they believe. It is simply a choice to believe in something that no one can or has disproven, therefore it's not an error in logic or factuality. That said, we do support our beliefs with logic (ie starting with the truth of "I exist" and going from there; see Summa Theologica). The popular misconception that religion is the opposite of science or logic couldn't be further from the truth.  2nd Piston Honda 04:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I wasn't saying science is the opposite of religion I was just implying that religion usually isn't based from what we now know about life, the universe and everything. While the vast majority of religious people don't claim to know with certainty the things they believe in, they still hold it in a higher regard to the alternative(s)... it is for this reason that belief can not be chosen... although belief can change based on absorbing in various information though living life etc.--Greasysteve13 07:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Try Historicity of Jesus. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 02:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks--Greasysteve13 07:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We have an article called "[[Evidence of evolution]]" but... 

message: ...since the scientific community bases its self on facts, I tend to side with the scientific community," I was referring to its proceeding question "Just out of curiosity, how do you know he didn't have superpowers". So this discussion of scientists (especially Einstein) believing in God is irrelevant. Especially as there is no-consensus defining God. 
I was just reasoning that the general consensus of the scientific community is not to hold a book that could have been written by anyone thousands of years ago as fact. And if you consider what the scientific community already knows about physics, it easy to put two and two together to suggest that the scientific community do not consider Jesus to have superpowers. You also have to consider that many in scientific community are not Christians. --Greasysteve13 01:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You must understand that the vast majority of religious people don't claim to know with certainty the things they believe. It is simply a choice to believe in something that no one can or has disproven, therefore it's not an error in logic or factuality. That said, we do support our beliefs with logic (ie starting with the truth of "I exist" and going from there; see Summa Theologica). The popular misconception that religion is the opposite of science or logic couldn't be further from the truth.  2nd Piston Honda 04:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I wasn't saying science is the opposite of religion I was just implying that religion usually isn't based from what we now know about life, the universe and everything. While the vast majority of religious people don't claim to know with certainty the things they believe in, they still hold it in a higher regard to the alternative(s)... it is for this reason that belief can not be chosen... although belief can change based on absorbing in various information though living life etc.--Greasysteve13 07:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Try Historicity of Jesus. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 02:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks--Greasysteve13 07:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: When I said:

message: Thanks everyone who helped with the overhaul of the Life section. Now, I believe the weakest link is the historicity section. I have voiced concern in the past the wikipedia doesn't have an article about the historical Jesus, despite names. And this section fails from not covering the topic at hand, being wordy, and being all over the place. I would urge editors to look it over and post here the biggest problems, while being bold and fixing whatever they come across. Maybe after examining the section, we can set goals and focus our efforts into creating a better historicity section.--Andrew c 02:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Historical Jesus article is among the most important of all the Jesus articles. --Haldrik 05:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, would you like to read my proposed overhaul outline and maybe work to improve the article so it talks about the scholarly quest for the Historical Jesus, as opposed to the cultural background of Jesus? I just got Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz's The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide which should be an excellent source for content, however my writing skills and time commitments aren't up on taking on the whole overhaul.--Andrew c 19:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: J: "Josephus' account of Jesus gets removed"? Ummm... wrong Jesus. In 1st-century Judea, approximately 10% of the Jewish male population was named Jesus (Yeshua/Yehoshua). There were many many people whose name was Jesus. (Josephus himself mentions many different people called Jesus.) You seem to refer to another person that Josephus mentioned, called Jesus, who was alive around the time of the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. This is not the same Jesus who Pilate put to death around year 32 CE. --Haldrik 15:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree the concerns. The "reliability of the Gospels" belongs in the Historicity of Jesus article and is for the most part OFF TOPIC in the Historical Jesus article, unless there's a point that is relevant for sorting the evidence to reconstruct the actions and scenes of Jesus himself. --Haldrik 02:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still agree with Arch. I think the historicity section in its current form is more a historical look at the NT than of Jesus. I think a cleanup is in order. —Aiden 04:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that the vote is over, we can return to discussing this point ;) Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 00:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we ready to discuss yet? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 16:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next steps? 

message: Well, I have just be[EN] locked out as per the upgraded pertection [=PROTECTION], so if someone would please change the translation of Ante Christum Natum from "before the birth of Christ" to the correct "before Christ was born", as per the mainpage 
Lostcaesar 08:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Before the birth of Christ" is a correct translation of Ante Christum Natum. "Before the birth of Christ" is also a correct translation of "before Christ was born". Good translation does not slavishly match parts of speech... Copey 2 10:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected, please change this for me 

message: It probably says this somewhere in the article but I figured it would be easier to get a straight out answer from here. Could someone tell me which demonination of Judaism Jesus was part of, or at least some equivalent? Some kind of Jewish subdivision or grouping or something of the sort? VolatileChemical 12:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm surprised that i had never even considered this question in my entire life. Thanks for asking it, and i too would like to know the answer. 2nd Piston Honda 12:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: There were no denominations in the modern sense. Josephus speaks of four main groupings, the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and Zealots. Apart from the fact that everyone agrees that he wasn't a Sadducee, there is no agreement about the degree of his similarity to the other groupings. The Gospels are particularly keen to dissociate him from the Pharisees, but some commentators think he had significant similarities to them. You reads you commentator and you takes your choice. Paul B 12:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It's also worth noting that the Pharisees themselves were divided into two "denominations", the followers of Shammai and the followers of Hillel. The followers of Hillel, such as Gamaliel, are portrayed in the NT as sympathetic to Jesus, the followers of Shammai are not. The "Shammaites" (Beit Shammai) were the ones in control at the time. So the Pharisaic "bad guys" in the gospels may simply be the Beit Shammai. Paul B 13:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Typically the closest groups hate each other most. Like Trotskyites and Stalinists.  A.J.A. 19:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true. Paul B 21:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: According to the Talmud, while the followers of the school of Hillel and Shammai strongly disagreed with each other on practically every point of law, they still treated each other with great respect. In fact, in Yevamot it points out that even though they disagreed on what constituted a valid marriage, they still married into each other's families. Pirkei Avot 5:17 says "Which controversy was for the sake of heaven? That between Hillel and Shammai". The sources present them as having the opposite of hate for each other. Jayjg (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course that's true. But scholarly disputants are different from the powerless semi-literate fishermen, subject to the judgement of the "experts", who made up most of Jesus's followers, and who may have seen things as a stark conflict between sympathetic admirers and "evil" opponents. Paul B 22:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting stuff. Thanks. VolatileChemical 23:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denomination 

message: While many relegate it to lore / fiction, the Don Brown best seller Da Vinci Code popularized the idea that Christ had a family via wife Mary Magdalene.
And that his descendants survive down to today.
This information is readily available and discussed in depth in the book
The Jesus Presidents setting out the facts including tthe descent form Jesus to today which includes USA Presidents descending from Jesus and includes
many readers who also descend from Jesus.(Noting the fiction in the Da Vinci
Code that 2,000 years later, there would be only one descendant from Jesus 
lines being silly.) 
These facts, then being established, do not in any way detract from or change the traditional religious beliees of Jesus Christ as God incarnate, when the birthdates of the children are before he died on the Cross. 
And almost all the apolexy in regard to this subject are rants that are off point and do not consider any of the actual facts.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.101.10 (talk • contribs) 
:Then let's stick to the facts. The daVinci code is a work of fiction and is mentioned in Jesus#Cultural_effect_of_Jesus. The REAL Jesus family is explored in the Desposyni article. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 21:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: just as aside and a related note, that may be interesting as other legends or tales of what happenned to jesus after he escaped see the [The Japanese Jesus trail http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/5326614.stm]. It was rather amusing. Though this may actually warrant a seperate article, thoughts?--Tigeroo 15:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so, Jesus visited England, Kashmir, Japan, and the Americas, not to mention Heaven and Hell. The guy really gets around. No wonder, when you consider who his travel agent is ;) Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 02:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus' Family

message: It's been a week. Are we ready to request that the page be unlocked, and move on? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 16:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locked page. 

message: Hi,
Can the page be unprotected so that the vandalism on this page can be deleted?
Thanks,
Emmanuel
Emmanuel.e 10:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know where this is, but our original dispute is pretty much over, and there's not much reason I can see to leave this page protected. Homestarmy 19:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Slrubenstein protected the article. You might leave him a note on his talk page asking him to change the article's status back to semi-protected. If by chance you can't get a hold of him, I'll check back in six hours or so and change the status to semi-protected. —Wayward Talk 22:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Ahh I see now; it was vandalism to the Jesus template. I was wondering how the page was locked without anyone noticing. It has been reverted. But yes, the page needs to be unlocked so we can get back to work updating the Historicity section. —Aiden 20:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can the page be unprotected so that the jESUS is gAY comment can be removed? 

message: Someone just readded the "blasphemy" charge to the 2nd paragraph, apparently without discussing the change first.  Shouldn't it be deleted? Grover cleveland 03:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for noticing it. Done. --Haldrik 03:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What was wrong with it. It was true! rossnixon 11:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems if you claim Jesus was put to death for anything other than being a nice, ordinary guy, you run into skeptics.  I suspect it comes from doubt about the historicity of John.  Lostcaesar 11:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I didn't spot the note about not editing this paragraph without discussion.
I have looked into some of the archives but can't find the page where this was discussed. I do have some recollection of the discussion, but as there is no obvious link to the discussion and no reference in the article; perhaps this should be discussed again.
What happened was that the scribes and Pharisees wanted to put Jesus to death because of jealously and his apparent blasphemy. They could not do this themselves as only the Romans were currently allowed to put people to death, so they attempted to have Jesus charged with sedition. rossnixon 11:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This is what the Gospels claim and what most Christians believe and if we have a paragraph on what most Christians believe it should of course state that Jesus was executed for blasphemy.  The major critical bible scholars and historians however reject this explanation for Jesus´execution ans highly improbable if not flat out wrong.  Since the paragraph is on what the manjority of historians think, blasphemy is inappropriate.  Remember, every view is the view of some particular person or group of people.  "What happened" is always what happened according to a particular view.  There are varying views as to why Jesus was executed, not just one view.  But almost all major NT historians claim he was executed for sedition and not blasphemy.  Rossnixon, you should know better than to claim "It was true!"  Please abide by our NPOV policy. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What happened is not always contingent upon a point of view, at least not any more than any other statement, like "without food or drink a human will die".  You can call that a pov all you want, but try not drinking or eating.  Besides, if what you say is true, then every statement in the article is pov and the whole page should be removed.  At the end of the day we have to accept some statement and reject others based on facts. Lostcaesar 12:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Lostcaeser, you are taking my words out of context.  They were meant for this specific context, and in this context remain valid. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording of my sentence said what he was accused of; then said that He was executed. It did not say why He was executed. It could have been because of one of the accusations; then again it could have been for an entirely unmentioned reason. rossnixon 04:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Ross, above you wrote, "the scribes and Pharisees wanted to put Jesus to death because of jealously and his apparent blasphemy"  and then you asserted that it is true he was accused of blasphemy.  What I wrote is simply in response to this claim you made. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And all this time I thought there would be a good reason that some scholars didn't accept the charge of blasphemy.  In my understanding of the accounts, which is all we have, we need not think the trial was anything more than a show, an attempt to trap Jesus into saying the wrong thing, the result of which would be the same whether he did or not.  The plot was in place because, according to our only sources, the Jewish leaders were offended that Jesus described himself as equal to God.  Lostcaesar 12:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, most historians accept that Jesus was crucified and note that crucifixion was the punishment for sedition.  Most historians I have read have argued not that the High Priest observed "that Jesus's self-enthronement is political "blasphemy" against the Roman emperor" (´know of no historians who have used scare-quotes around the word blasphemy in this context) but rather that Jesus's self-enthronement was Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean "scare quotes". I just meant to call attention to the fact that it's not the English definition of "blasphemy", but the Greek definition which is relevant. The Greek word "to blaspheme" (blasphemeo) can mean "to speak against God", but it can also mean "to speak against, to insult, to slander", generally, without a religious connotation (Greek New Testament, with dictionary, UBS). Likewise, the Hebrew word "to blaspheme" (na'ats) means "to condemn, to spurn, to dispise" (Klein) and "to abuse, to taunt, to insult" (Melingo), so that the verb's religious connotation is only a secondary application of the wider general sense of to speak contemptuously. --Haldrik 20:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blasphemy in 2nd paragraph 

message: Talmud view of Jesus --unsigned by User talk:81.52.163.8
This external link has a strongly pro-Christian and slightly anti-Jewish (certainly anti-Talmudic) POV. For balance, there should also be an article or external link on the Talmud and Jesus from a Jewish POV. Das Baz 17:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to add one that you feel is acceptable.  Storm Rider (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: there already is an article about jesus and the talmud called Yeshu.  Yeshu refer to a person or many different people one of whom may have been Jesus.  perhaps a small section summarizing the article (and linking to it with a ) would be apropiate.  Jon513 11:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  THE TALMUD & JESUS CHRIST 

message: Isnt Jesus' real name Yoshua Ben Yosef? Also, this article should list his names in each religion such as Isa in Islam
:We have had multiple discussions about the "real" name of Jesus.  Names are important and many have been listed in the historicity section; please review that section.  There are other editors that feel it is absolutely necessary to spell the name in various languages:  Greek, Hebrew, etc.  My personal feeling is there is not a single English speaker who does not understand the topic when the name "Jesus" is stated; thus, our current introduction is ideal.  If you think the Historicity section should be expanded, you are encouraged to concisely do so.  Cheers.  Storm Rider (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yoshua Ben Yosef