Talk:Jesus/Archive 19

message: Why have Bahá'í so close to the top, Bahá'í worshippers would denounce Christ as the only path to God which is what most all Christians believe, and if they don't then can they say they are? Also I don't believe Islam should be mentioned too close to the top. This creates a kind of advertisement for these faiths, and should remain at the bottom just like all the others. If you are going to talk about Christ, talk about Christ, don't try to put advertisements for faiths and denominations at the top.. An Advertisement, adverts people elsewhere, that's what it is.. Secularists tend to want to make everything the same for fear that if there was any dispurportion or bias it would create riots.. Note in the bible Christ says he would bring brother against brother, the purpose for that is that there would be disagreements, you can't make everyone agree.. Christ says his way is the narrow path.. If you go through every prophet, its not narrow is it? Either represent Christ correctly or don't represent him at all!! If you remove this message at least give me your reasons for removing this text, if you have no other reasons and feel it would be upsetting, then why post Christ here if its upsetting, having Christ here on Wikipedia isn't going to release him from existence, he exists whether you want him to or not, he is not just a man, he is God. But you have complete control over what you do until death, after death who does?
--Kiernan Holland 1:01, 27 July 2005 (MST)
It doesnt matter what christians believe jesus said. They could be wrong as well. Maybe jesus never said the only way to god is thru him. Nobody knows. Tell me one thing, how can you put all but one religion at the bottom? Unless you make 20 headings called "Christianity", almost half of the religions have to be closer to the top than the bottom (if you think logically). Why are you so passionate about this anyways? What's wrong with having an article about jesus on wikipedia? We can't write about jesus from the catholic POV only as that would be against wikipedia policies.--81.60.81.89 20:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Attention!!

message: Hello, Mr. Wae,
I see your edit summary about an edit of mine, and I have a question. (You actually reverted, and maybe should include "rv" or "revert" in the comments, as I noticed you reversed my spelling correction.)
I make reference to your comments here: Revision as of 07:12, 23 July 2005 JimWae (Talk | contribs) Off topic here - already dealt with in Christianity section of this article - and what's there is a bit different from the view removed
1 - First, regarding your comment, "Off topic here", I understand your first concern to be that you think I placed my clarification in the wrong section. At the time of my edit, this seemed an appropriate section, because these quotations of Jesus were His teachings, however, I think you may have a good point. These views would also be Christian beliefs also. Before you would edit and reverse my edits, please review my three points.
2 - Next, you state that my clarification was "already dealt with in Christianity section of this article." You seem to be correct, but I felt that this clarification seemed necessary to highlight a distinction in the "faith vs works" in their Christian beliefs. I still feel that way, and I hope you consider this in your review of my more recent edit.
3 - My main question revolves around your comments above that "and what's there is a bit different from the view removed." This would seem to imply either one of two things.
* I think you mean that my comments that you removed differ or contradict the views held or claimed. If that is so, please help me understand this point. I think I was correct in my interpretation of the Christian beliefs, and I cited some sources in their scriptures.
* The less likely meaning of your comment would be that another editor placed comments on a prior occasion, and they were removed. You don't refer to a previous editor's edit do you?
Thank you in advance. I do not have time for protracted "edit discussion" or "edit wars." I am hoping to add clarification on points that are not easily intuitive or understood and would hope that you would concur to provide this useful information to the readers on the subtle shades and points of the beliefs systems. If I have erred, please make clarifications or corrections, but please include as much useful information as is possible. ~ For example, if you think that the view I stated is not held by all Christians, please make distinctions and clarifications on which Christians do not hold these beliefs, and change the article to reflect the current information.
I hope I was helpful to your page.--GordonWattsDotCom 08:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thank you for your review and assistance, Jim. I think that the final result is improved, even though I couldn't find a spot for all the elements. While I am not an expert on the Catholic views, I will trust your distinction here. As far as "good works are expected," that is probably easily understood that God, who is the alleged author of the scriptures, expect us to have good works, but that is a good point. Probably, it could also mean that other Christians expect good works, and that would not be untrue. This is passive voice, but as opposed to active ("God expects..."), but still probably OK. ~ Oh, when I said in reference to hoping to help "your page," yes, I should have known. You're right, but I was just being informal and colloquial, or even careless: This is Wikipedia's page for all of us. Oh, one more thing that I notice: Yes, I "recogniSed" (vs "recogniZed") many British spellings (joke, ha ha), and did not purposely change them to American English. (Both are correct.) The few spelling corrections that I did (particularly "centred") may actually be British, but I am not sure so I changed them. I'm American, but I don't have any problems with using British spellings if the article can use both or is not specifically related to one English-speaking country. It seems that the article is acceptable and in capable hands, and I thank you all for your attention.--GordonWattsDotCom 00:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question to JimWae about edit summary 

message: I tried to get the two sentences to say exactly what they mean, perhaps it could be done in a better way.  Here is what I tried to say in these two sentences:
: (sentence 1) The somewhat controversial non-canonical Gospel of Thomas also provides source material for much speculation about the possible early teachings of Jesus. 
::If the G of T is dated as many believe, then much work needs to be done to revise popular teachings about what Jesus taught, so that it might be harmonious with these teachings.  Thus, I use the phrase ‘much speculation’ as an attempt to summarize this 'much work' that may need to be done.
: (sentence 2) This is the only relatively well preserved non-cononical Gospel believed to quite possibly predate the canonical Gospels themselves.
::This tries to say exactly what it says.  Any suggestions to say this in a more succinct way would be appreciated.  The phrase here, ‘quite possibly’ is the best way I could think of to summarize the 'near even split' on the G of T's dating into two words.  Again any suggestions for how to be more succinct would be appreciated.
(you wrote) The lead is discussing Jesus & whatever we know about him. We "know" very little about Jesus from the GoT - (only partly because it is read by few) - but likely we would "know" little more anyway - though we might have a few more things to speculate about. It adds to speculation, but does not improve what we "know" about him.
:We can only speculate in any event.  Given two documents, if one predates the other, the earlier one, in so far as I can see, whether or not it was canonized by an emperor directing some bishops 300 years later, is probably the one with the most pertinent historical information in it.
(you wrote) The G of T will not likely ever become a primary source.
:Popularity usually has little or nothing to do with historical accuracy.   Even in religious questions.  I know that it may be a bit uncomfortable to some Biblical scholars to think that they might have to go back to some basics all over again in order to find out what our best guess is about what really happened, but if that is what must be done, that is what must be done.
Thanks,
Scott P. 21:15, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
===Less is more===
You do not have to say it all in the lead. I had introduced the topic in the lead (which you deleted). I have tried again - but doubt other editors will let specific mention of Thomas stand in lead, but if "the dozen" stays, you have an opening to discuss it in the main body -- Actually you do not even need that in the lead to discuss it in main article--JimWae 21:23, 2005 July 23 (UTC)
:Thanks, 
:Scott P. 21:39, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
::While looking at talk and the article about my own concerns, I could not help but notice the debate about the G of T. (I paged through the successive edits on talk and in the article and saw all the diffs.) I am glad you all got resolution on this. Since I am not an expert on the G of T, I would suggest that if any one has concerns over its emphasis (how important is it as a "non-Canonical book?), then you could find some sources the verify any claims. Of course, if there is a debate, I hope y'all are able to provide the various points of view with sources. Well, that was bland and dull advice, but I hope it is helpful. In the end, recalling how I was satisfied that some elements of my edit are in the article, even if not in the intro, my own acceptance of the edits should be a good example or role model for how to deal with questions about edits. What a coincidence, since that was the subject of my edit itself. Well, I'm out of words, but I hope y'all the best. Take care,--GordonWattsDotCom 00:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trying to describe G of T in two intro sentences.... 

message: You do not have to say it all in the lead. I had introduced the topic in the lead (which you deleted). I have tried again - but doubt other editors will let specific mention of Thomas stand in lead, but if "the dozen" stays, you have an opening to discuss it in the main body -- Actually you do not even need that in the lead to discuss it in main article--JimWae 21:23, 2005 July 23 (UTC)
:Thanks, 
:Scott P. 21:39, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
::While looking at talk and the article about my own concerns, I could not help but notice the debate about the G of T. (I paged through the successive edits on talk and in the article and saw all the diffs.) I am glad you all got resolution on this. Since I am not an expert on the G of T, I would suggest that if any one has concerns over its emphasis (how important is it as a "non-Canonical book?), then you could find some sources the verify any claims. Of course, if there is a debate, I hope y'all are able to provide the various points of view with sources. Well, that was bland and dull advice, but I hope it is helpful. In the end, recalling how I was satisfied that some elements of my edit are in the article, even if not in the intro, my own acceptance of the edits should be a good example or role model for how to deal with questions about edits. What a coincidence, since that was the subject of my edit itself. Well, I'm out of words, but I hope y'all the best. Take care,--GordonWattsDotCom 00:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Less is more

message: In the opening section, it is stated that most scholars believe two things
# That the early NT writings date from the mid-1st century
# That these writings are therefore of disputable reliability.
In contrast, I maintain the following:
:# There is no real dispute that the early NT writings date from the mid-1st century
:# That only a few (or some) scholars say that these writings are therefore of disputable reliability. For ref; see www.probe.org/content/view/678/77 especially the comment that "Historians agree it takes about two generations, or eighty years, for legendary accounts to establish themselves." RossNixon 11:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical Reliability

message: *The lead is not the place to make the most extensive explication of a point. The lead is to introduce points that will be discussed more fully later. Your extensive additions need to find a place in the historicity section. 
*You also use the term "handed down to us" - that is not writing for a universal audience, First person rarely, if ever, is appropriate within an article --JimWae 04:24, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
:Strongly agree - I think few, if any, of the recent additions have been neutral and encyclopedic. Jayjg (talk) 04:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portress' extensive additions to lead 

message: The article, Georges Rouault, has an image that I would prefer over the Walleij.  If there's no objection, I'm using that. If there is objection while the page is still protected, let me know and I'll revert it to bring the issue back under discussion.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the old one better personally, but this one is more notable, so I have no prolem with it.--Tznkai 18:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy with the Rouault. Mark, the website with the Rembrandt had a copyright notice on the front page and especially as they want to sell posters, I don't suppose they'd be very happy about us using their photo! (I tend to assume that unless they actually say we can use the images we can't, but I'm probably being too cautious). Whilst we're on the subject of images- has anyone got any non-Western images of Jesus we can use? --G Rutter 10:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rouault replacement

message: Add Emmet Fox The Sermon on the Mount: The Key to Success in Life and the Lord's Prayer : An Interpretation
Add Swami Prabhavananda Sermon on the Mount According to Vedanta
Actually, Sermon on the Mount would cover them both plus provide more info.
:Who wrote this? Can you please sign your comments? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed change to Section 9: Interpretations of Jesus

message: I'm not sure that it's appropriate to add a fourth Eastern Orthodox icon, especially under the "Other Perspectives" subsection. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Ushakov Nerukotvorniy.jpg]] 

message: "although he is also reported in the New Testament to have heard Jesus ask why he was persecuting him on the road to Damascus and to have had scales on his eyes which fell off when he met the person he was foretold to meet".  This is placed in the opening paragraphs, but it seems slightly OTT for the article on Jesus to be placed there.  And what is the point--is it inserted to lead the reader to a conclusion, or is it irrelevant?  I suggest moving the facts contained to another section of the article or another article altogether (one on Paul?). --Peter Kirby 00:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "clarified" by Kdbuffalo 

message: I believe in the principle of total evidence.  Paul did not reportedly only see Jesus in a vision but he also reportedly heard Jesus and was told to meet a man and which point the scales fell off of his eyes.
* I have no problem with the statement itself, but I question (and am not the only one) its relevance in the very opening paragraphs of an article on Jesus.  Reportedly, Paul prayed to Jesus Christ that a woman would be miraculously saved from fire and she was (Acts of Paul and Thecla 6:7).  That's well and good to note somewhere on Wikipedia, but not in the opening paragraphs to the Jesus art.  So I suggest a better place be found for it.  That Paul also, reportedly, heard Jesus does not imply it to be false that Paul's only seeing of Jesus was visionary (as opposed to during His earthly life).  There has to be some way to word this, perhaps just "Paul did not see Jesus during his lifetime." --Peter Kirby 00:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: to: peter kirby

message: Someone removed this sentence:
At the other end of the spectrum are historians which have been very favorable to the Christian claim of the resurrection and did not believe the Christ myth was plausible - scholars such as Thomas Arnold , A. N. Sherwin-White , and Michael Grant. 
Why is someone like Doherty who denies the existence of Jesus mentioned which is a extremely minority position but opinions/arguments  by  noted Professors/historians opinions deleted.  I strongly object to its removal.
ken 00:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: objection to removal 

message: I made the sentence more concise.
It now reads:
At the other end of the spectrum are historians which have been very favorable to the Christian claims regarding Jesus such as the resurrection.  Historians which were favorable to a historical resurrection of Jesus include: Thomas Arnold , A. N. Sherwin-White , and Michael Grant. 
I also restored the mithraism footnote so readers can see where it is located in relation to the claim made in the body of the text.
ken 00:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: sentence made more concise

message: I just deleted:
:Benjamin Urrutia, a modern scholar, contends that Rabbi Yeshua Bar Abba was the historical Jesus of Nazareth and was the leader of the successful nonviolent Jewish resistance to Pilate's attempt to place Roman eagles - symbols of the worship of Jupiter - on Jerusalem's Temple Hill. This episode is found in Josephus, who does not say who the leader of this resistance was, but shortly afterwards, in a passage which, some scholars have argued, may have been slightly but significantly altered by later editors, states that Pontius Pilate had Jesus crucified. (See articles Josephus on Jesus - especially the section "Arabic Version" and "Rabbi Yeshua Bar Abba")
which comes from an unknown and as far as I can tell uncredible author. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent cut 

message: http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-18.htm
CHAPTER 1.
HOW CYRENIUS WAS SENT BY CAESAR TO MAKE A TAXATION OF SYRIA AND JUDEA; AND HOW COPONIUS WAS SENT TO BE PROCURATOR OF JUDEA; CONCERNING JUDAS OF GALILEE AND CONCERNING THE SECTS THAT WERE AMONG THE JEWS. 
"1. ...Moreover, Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance, and to dispose of Archelaus's money; but the Jews, although at the beginning they took the report of a taxation heinously, yet did they leave off any further opposition to it, by the persuasion of Joazar, who was the son of Beethus, and high priest; so they, being over-pesuaded by Joazar's words, gave an account of their estates, without any dispute about it. Yet was there one Judas, a Gaulonite, (1) of a city whose name was Gamala, who, taking with him Sadduc, (2) a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty; as if they could procure them happiness and security for what they possessed, and an assured enjoyment of a still greater good, which was that of the honor and glory they would thereby acquire for magnanimity. They also said that God would not otherwise be assisting to them, than upon their joining with one another in such councils as might be successful, and for their own advantage; and this especially, if they would set about great exploits, and not grow weary in executing the same; so men received what they said with pleasure, and this bold attempt proceeded to a great height. All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men, and the nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree; one violent war came upon us after another, and we lost our friends which used to alleviate our pains; there were also very great robberies and murder of our principal men. This was done in pretense indeed for the public welfare, but in reality for the hopes of gain to themselves; whence arose seditions, and from them murders of men, which sometimes fell on those of their own people, (by the madness of these men towards one another, while their desire was that none of the adverse party might be left,) and sometimes on their enemies; a famine also coming upon us, reduced us to the last degree of despair, as did also the taking and demolishing of cities; nay, the sedition at last increased so high, that the very temple of God was burnt down by their enemies' fire. Such were the consequences of this, that the customs of our fathers were altered, and such a change was made, as added a mighty weight toward bringing all to destruction, which these men occasioned by their thus conspiring together; for Judas and Sadduc, who excited a fourth philosophic sect among us, and had a great many followers therein, filled our civil government with tumults at present, and laid the foundations of our future miseries, by this system of philosophy, which we were before unacquainted withal, concerning which I will discourse a little, and this the rather because the infection which spread thence among the younger sort, who were zealous for it, brought the public to destruction.
2. The Jews had for a great while had three sects of philosophy peculiar to themselves; the sect of the Essens, and the sect of the Sadducees, and the third sort of opinions was that of those called Pharisees; of which sects, although I have already spoken in the second book of the Jewish War, yet will I a little touch upon them now."
In conclusion, Josephus says there are three sects, Essenes, Sadducees, and Pharisees, plus a fourth sect, founded by Judas of Gamala (in Galilee) and Sadduc the Pharisee in 6ce, later called Zealots.
Thus the claim that the 2nd Temple Pharisees were relatively apolitical is very misleading. No doubt Hillel was relatively apolitical, but Shammai? Obviously Sadduc the Pharisee was relatively political.
"6. But of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, Judas the Galilean was the author. These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord. They also do not value dying any kinds of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man lord. And since this immovable resolution of theirs is well known to a great many, I shall speak no further about that matter; nor am I afraid that any thing I have said of them should be disbelieved, but rather fear, that what I have said is beneath the resolution they show when they undergo pain. And it was in Gessius Florus's time that the nation began to grow mad with this distemper, who was our procurator, and who occasioned the Jews to go wild with it by the abuse of his authority, and to make them revolt from the Romans. And these are the sects of Jewish philosophy."
:Anonymous editor, please sign your contributions.  Now, Josephus is a primary source.  Are you engaging in original research? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anonymous editor, please sign your contributions.  Now, Josephus is a primary source.  Are you engaging in original research? what is your point? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Josephus' fourth sect

message: Aug 23, 10:22PM CST
This is the page text I am getting for this article:
removed disgusting filthy paragraph RossNixon 10:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Funkiness observed may be due in part to cache, in part to changes to the page, and on the whole to vandals. --Peter Kirby 03:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

text: The text you saw was actually in the article for a very short period (1 minute) about 4 hours ago. I guess the vandalised version was then cached somewhere, and that was what you were still seing. Shanes 03:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHAT is going on here??? 

message: If the cartoon image (Cobb_jesus.gif) must be included (and I have serious doubts), must it really be the primary image?  At least move the images around so that the relevant ones are at the top.  It'd be like using a political cartoon as the primary image of George Bush.  Ataru 09:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On the subject of images, is it really necessary to have the same image twice on a single page? :Image:Jesus and the doctors of the Faith dsc01783.jpg -Silence 15:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Placement of images

message: I'm proposing to reorganize this article. 
Life and teachings
I. Introduction (see here Its not done, feel free to edit, and add input)
II. Cultural Backround
III. Life of Jesus according to New Testemant
A. Birth(merge from Birth, death, and resurrection chronology)
B. Life and teachings(move and organize)
1. overview
2. teachings and parables 
C. Death and Resurrection(ditto to Birth)
1. Gethsemane and trial
3. Crucifixtion and Resurrection
IV. Christian Movment(probably a better title)  
V. Religious Views
A.-H. same as now 
VI. Names and titles
VII. Historicicty(reason for it being so late, is that you need everything else before you can determine if its historic, could also be placed in front of Religious Views)-also add a relic section underneath here.  
VIII. Artistic Potrayals 
IX. Interpretations of Jesus(I originally thought this was duplicating Religious views but have changed my mind as this is almost like a Trivia section)
What do y'all think? Newbie222 23:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Reorginazation

message: I'm probably missing it but is the date given for the Gospels 150 AD if so it should be mentioned that many christians and non-christians hold the Gosples to be compiled by 90 AD as is in the Columbia encyclopedia article. I'm probably just missing the actual date given .  http://www.bartleby.com/65/ne/NewTesta.html
12.220.47.145 02:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New Testement date?

message: I have removed the above section - it was clearly un-referenced riginal research. Besides which, I recall an artcle by similar title was afd'd some months ago and deleted for the same reason. Please watch for reinsertion. If the original author is reading ths, please make a case here before reinserting. --Doc (?) 12:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  #Jesus as a leader of non-violent resistance 

message: First, and seems most importantly: Maimonides said, "It is certain that he is not the One whom the Torah has promised": (No one can be the Messiah, if they died; and Jesus died, therefore, he could not have been the Messiah). What about the Scriptures that prophesy that the Messiah would be "cut off"? These are mentioned in Isaiah, where the (singular) "Servant of the Lord" would be extensively mistreated, rejected by His Own (people; His family, the religious leadership, and most of the nation and people of Israel), and would be "cut off". This historically happened to Jesus of Nazareth, not because He was a false prophet, but because He was and is the Jewish Messiah. Whether the gentiles would have accepted Him or not (which they didn't; the pagan Romans executed Him), Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. Also, not only did the prophet Daniel prophesy that the Messiah would be cut off, he predicted the exact year it would happen (in Daniel's famous prophecy about the "sevens/weeks of years"). Yes, I'm saying that Maimonides was wrong. The question is: "How can a dead man be the Messiah?" And the answer is: His resurrection. Some, but not all, of Israel missed it; that the Messiah would be divine/Yah Himself. Jesus rose from the dead. No human could do what Jesus did. The Messiah, being Yah incarnate, could not be held by the power of Death; but instead, Jesus looted and emptied Hades, leading the righteous dead, including the Hebrew patriarchs, etc. (those who had looked forward to the Messiah, and the resurrection, and had believed and trusted God during their life-times) into Heaven. 
* The apostle Paul was a major authority within the Jewish-Christian church, but he wasn't the only one. The Jewish leadership of the Christian church in Jerusalem (where it was known as "the Way", or as "the Sect of the Nazarene") was led by Jacob (or "James" in English), "the brother of the Lord" (Jesus), as well as by Simon "Peter", and John. But, most importantly, read what Jesus Himself said, and see for yourself if it is incompatible with Messianic Judaism.
* If Jesus was not even a prophet, then how do you explain His prophecies, and all of the many, and various miraculous signs that He worked? These signs were meant to accompany a true prophet. The prophetic sign that Jesus was the Messiah, is the virgin birth, given to the King Ahaz by the prophet Isaiah. Other signs include: the visit by the Magi (probably the spiritual descendants of Daniel among the Medes); the Star over Bethlehem ("the City of David"), the appearance by the "heavenly host" of angels all at His birth; and the descending of the Holy Spirit "like a dove" upon Jesus, at His baptism by John "the baptist"; the "shining" of Jesus on the mountain, the death, burial and resurrection of the Messiah (which Jesus fulfilled); and Jesus Ascenscion into Heaven, which was witnessed by His followers.
* the objection that "Jesus' Father is YHWH, but the Messiah must descend patrilineally from King David", is explained by the fact that the Messiah would be "the seed of a woman" (Genesis); and that His descendance from David is therefore traced physically through Miriam (Mary), not Joseph. (In most Jewish lines of birth, the mother is not mentioned. This explains the prominence of Mary in the New Testament.) Joseph was Mary's husband, and Jesus as his son inherited from Joseph his "name", titles and property, but not his physical seed. This avoids the curse which Yah had placed upon the line of Jehoiakim. ("No descendant of his would sit upon the throne".)
* The only other objection mentioned, that the promised Messiah would "lead the Jews to Israel", is slightly distorted; God Himself promised to "restore the captivity of Israel", and to end the Jewish Diaspora by "bringing the remnant back into the land". This is difficult to respond to: of course, one meaning has been fulfilled: Israel has become a nation since 1948, and the Jewish people are once more in the land. But, the Scriptures point out that they would return in un-belief (that Jesus was their Messiah); and that the Messiah would bring "peace on earth, bringing back the dead (Israelites), having all people know God/YHWH, and ruling from His throne in Jerusalem have not happened"; no, not yet. But this does not make a prophecy invalid, simply because it has not been fulfilled: never in the history of modern Israel has the nation been in so much danger, and never have the Jewish people been in more dire need to turn to YHWH with all their hearts, than they are now, and in the years to come. Can anyone deny this? "But, when My people Israel turn to Me with all their hearts; then I will hear them and answer them" I believe was God's answer. Read the Book of Revelation, with an open mind, and look what is coming upon Israel. After God Himself appears to save Israel from her enemies (paralleling the book of Esther), "all people willl know God". 129.24.95.218 18:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is this post here?  KHM03 18:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rebuttal to Judaism's Claim that Yeshua/Jesus of Nazareth Was Not the Messiah

message: Here's my current chief to-do list for improving the Jesus article:
#Fuller range of images. Find some non-Christian images of Jesus for the Religious perspectives section; of the 9 images of Jesus on this page, all 9 are specifically Christian depictions of Jesus the Messiah, Son of God, praised by His Name, amen. Having a majority of the images here be of that subject is fine, since that's how he's best known in the world, but we shouldn't have all of them be from the same viewpoint. In fact, the only non-Christian image I've found of Jesus on all of Wikipedia so far is :Image:RFJesus.jpg, which we may want to add to the "Life of Jesus" section to help at least slightly ground that section in secular scholarship.
#Trim down the religious perspectives section.. There's a reason we have a whole article on it at religious perspectives on Jesus, and all but the most important information should go there. Specifically, trim down the Christianity section by moving information to religious perspectives on Jesus and Christian views of Jesus, including replacing the Nicene Creed block quotation with the sort of descriptive text any real encyclopedia should provide for the basic Christian views on Jesus. We may also want to move "Ahmadiyya Movement" information to religious perspectives, leaving one paragraph to explain the movement in brief at the end of the Islam section. No other religion on the Jesus page is given subsections for noteworthy branches or offshoots (at least, since I removed the "unitarianism" and "binitarianism" sections as belonging on Trinity), so why is Islam given one? If we give every noteworthy subset of another religion its own section, we'll need dozens of new sections—instead, put stuff like that on the "religious perspectives on Jesus" page, where there's a lot more room to grow than this article has. We may also want to add a bit to "other perspectives" if there are any other noteworthy religious views on Jesus; there are surprisingly few religions mentioned. I also removed a few, such as gnosticism, which didn't even come close to actually touching on Jesus. We may, of course, want to remove a few more, depending on significance. Whatever works best.
#Broaden chronology. Move the article chronology of Jesus' birth and death to chronology of Jesus' life so we have somewhere to put other details regarding the dating of events in Jesus' life. Accordingly, rename the "Birth, death, and resurrection chronology" section to just "Chronology", reworking the timeline summary in the process (for example, "Suggested resurrection" should be removed, for obvious reasons!). Additionally, make "Chronology" itself the first subsection of "Life and teachings".
#Make sections on Jesus' life more organized and less POV. Either rename "life and teachings" to just "Life" (the course I recommend; we could also possibly make a separate section for "teachings", though really that label is too easily contested and may not be necessary...), or include more of his teachings—or what people think were his teachings—in the section. Do a heavy copyedit on the whole section, adding more important details and removing the less important ones or the ones that work much better on historical Jesus or New Testament view on Jesus' life, and either add more of a historical view to the section or rename the section to "Life according to the Gospels" or something awkward like that. Additionally, I recommend changing how the article is divided, making it divided into the following sections: 1. Chronology (i.e. attempts at dating the events); 2. Birth and early life; 3. Later life (his active period of preaching); 4. Trial and execution (probably include "resurrection and ascension" details here; giving them their own section in "life" makes it sound like Wikipedia is explicitly saying that Jesus came back from the dead and ascended to heaven, so either put them in a section on his death or rename the overall section to "life according to gospels" or that sort of thing); 5. Legacy.
#Discuss the analysis and responses to "Jesus' life" after discussing Jesus' life itself. After the "life" section has reached a high enough level of quality, I suggest we consider moving it above "historicity" and "religious perspectives". Newbie222 made a lot of sense when he pointed out that someone unfamiliar with what people believe happened in Jesus' life would find the section on "historicity" (how can you discuss whether events occurred or not before you know what the events are?) and "religious perspectives" (how can you discuss the reactions and responses to an individual before you know what anyone thinks that individual did or was?) meaningless. The introduction solves some of this problem, but when you look at other pages of a similar nature, you'll realize that the vast majority of similar articles would go into a figure's life before anything else—for example, Gautama Buddha starts off with his life and waits until almost the end of the article to address religious perspectives (other than Buddhism, because that religion's association with Gautama's teachings is much less disputed than Jesus' original teachings with Christianity); Abraham too begins with the Biblical accounts of his life before going into things like "historical criticism"; even Santa Claus begins with a section called "the story" before delving into "origins", etc.
#Deal with overlong link lists. Consider merging "Interpretations of Jesus by influential leaders" into "See also" or otherwise dealing with the information, as it's currently little more than a list of links.
#Fix up references section. Make "Sources and further reading" more consistent and change it to the style guidelines at Wikipedia:Cite sources—i.e. name the section "References", make them all read like the examples at Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style....
#Deal with excess external links by considering other articles they may belong in. An excellent solution to the "link farm" problem some have found with Jesus: if we need to cut down on the number of external links here, but almost all the links are really excellent and helpful, rather than removing them from Wikipedia altogether, consider moving the ones with specific subjects to other articles where they fit better! For example, the sections on "The Mistaken J" and "Missing J" could easily fit in the article names and titles of Jesus. There, isn't that the perfect compromise? ... Though actually, upon checking the article, I see that those two links are already on Names and titles of Jesus anyway. So I guess that gives us more reason to remove them from Jesus to avoid linking redundancy. See, one way or another, keeping the other Jesus articles in minds will be a huge help in trimming down the external links!
#Discuss articles to add to or remove from the Jesusbox. And speaking of the other Jesus articles, it may be time to give the  template an updating. There are quite a few large and informative articles directly dealing with Jesus that aren't listed there currently, and several of the ones that are listed there are little more than brief, stubby lists, clearly just overgrown sections that were prematurely given their own article to help shorten the Jesus article—I'm looking at you, relics of Jesus and dramatic portrayals of Jesus! See list of Jesus-related articles or :Category:Jesus for some articles we may want to consider adding to the Jesus link-box.
#...
#Profit.
That's all I can think of right now, other than going over and copy-editing the last few sections and adding an image or two. -Silence 18:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What would be done to Jesus?