Talk:Jesus/Archive 22

message: It would seem to me to be deceptive to only present Luke's version of the Ascension, given that the other gospels describe something quite different. A neutral point of view would seem to demand a summary of all four accounts:
    MK 16:14-19 The Ascension took place (presumably from a room) while the disciples were together seated at a table, probably in or near Jerusalem.
    LK 24:50-51 It took place outdoors, after supper, at Bethany (near Jerusalem).
    AC 1:9-12 It took place outdoors, after 40+ days, at Mt. Olivet.
    MT 28:16-20 No mention is made of an ascension, but if it took place at all, it must have been from a mountain in Galilee since MT ends there.)
TrumpetPower! 17:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree Jakken 18:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different accounts of the Ascension 

message: I have removed this to talk for discussion; perhaps my skepticism goes further than Jayjg:
:, but some scholars point out that details of the entry, such as the Hosanna shout, the waving of palm fronds, and the proclamation of a king, are more consistent with the Feast of Tabernacles, or Sukkoth, than with Passover.
First, I have never read any scholar make this claim.  Second, although there may be some similarities between how Sukkot is celebrated today, that in no way suggests that the entry didn't take place around Pesah.  Moreover, the Macabees were holed up in the mountains and missed Sukkot (thus, they created Hannukah as a substitute, when they did return to Jerusalme).  And who claimed that Judah Macabee was a messiah?  Let's not delete it outright, but let's leave it here until we can find a source. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hyam Maccoby is one scholar who points out that "details of the entry, such as the Hosanna shout, the waving of palm fronds, and the proclamation of a king, are more consistent with the Feast of Tabernacles, or Sukkoth, than with Passover." Jayjg (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Here's another scholar who does so:  - other links can be provided if necessary. Jayjg (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: SLR, I think you're falling into a trap here of Christian construction.  The dichotomy between "mashiach" and "hamashiach", not such a big deal in Hebrew, has come to us in English as "annointed" and "the Messiah".  Yehuda haMakabi was annointed king, and was, therefore, hamashiach of his day.  If the story about the woman who broke the alabaster box and annointed Jesus with its contents is true, then technically, he was annointed as well...whether or not that makes him king or not is really an unrelated matter...the thing is, it is accepted by Christians as Gospel truth that Jesus was annointed and that he's the Messiah (although what they think that means is a matter for further study).  That said, I don't know where the idea comes from that waving the lulav and shouting hoshi`a-na is associated with the king entering Jlem riding an ass.  Tomertalk 04:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: No, he doesn't.  I'll restore the information to the article now. Jayjg (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Priests were annointed as well as kings.  My point above was this: I am skeptical as to whether Judah Maccabee was greeted as "messiah" in the sense of "legitimate king."  I would not be surprised if he was "massiah" in the sense of an annointed priest (though I'd still ask for the source). Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this whole business about the 'sukkoth' passage is ill-evidenced, confusing, far-fetched, etc. In any case, digression like this one should be, at best, moved to other pages, such as historicity of Jesus or historical Jesus. Furthermore, all four gospels agree on the Passover and only one (John's) mentions the waving of palm fronds. Mullerb 22:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sukkot? 

message: Regarding the link Jesus's Secret Message which has been added by User:JoeMystical and removed by others several times today; does anyone else find this link a bit too tangential? There must be thousands of essays floating around about philosphical approaches to Jesus; it seems to be that this one is more about promoting Neo-tech than anything else.  Jasmol 05:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; I suggest that JoeMystical makes his case here for inclusion and we can get some kind of community consensus.  KHM03 19:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I've asked JoeMystical to make his case here for the inclusion of the link.  KHM03 20:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't like it, just delete it. No problem. I'll just put it back later when I get around to it. That's how Wikipedia works. If there's no consensus, things don't stay. JoeMystical 02:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus's Secret Message link

message: I spent seven years developing this website.
It is:
- not a spam
- not commercial in any way, not trying to sell anything
- low-key concerning the author, therefore not self-promotional
- presented only as A reconstruction
- fully researched and utterly documented
- the size of a small book
- covering many related topics affecting our understanding of Jesus
- posted on about 20 websites, some Christian, others not
- strictly about Jesus, the one credited to start Christianity
- under "historical Jesus", on the top 10 on Yahoo! and Google for years
- without hate against anyone
- hotly recommended among some of my readers (see below), including a few scholars (from different sides).
- offering a different approach, between "historic" and fully fictional earthly Jesus
Here is the link of the front page: judge for yourself: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/index.html
I also noted on the link list a posted website called the "Jesus puzzle", which is highly controversial, and against the existence of Jesus. It is strongly promotional towards the author, who uses it to sell his own book (I do not). Another link "Overview of the Life of Jesus' advertises book for sales (I do not) and carries Google ads (I do not). Another website selling stuff is "Complete Sayings of Jesus Christ" (I do not). Several sites promote a religious faith or atheism (I do not). So I am very perplexed about the criteria used for rejection or acceptance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now here are excerpts from my readers (complete texts in "my best review" and "... readers' comments" pages)
"Congratulations! ... easily the best documented & most objective piece of Jesus research that I have found on the internet in almost a year of surfing. ... independent evaluation of the historical evidence that you demonstrate so well. ... such historical clarity ..."
"I really appreciate your efforts to your homepage. It's great and informative."
"I am fascinated and impressed ... This is a fantastic effort."
"You have done a very thorough job researching your material."
"You are to be commended on your extensive study of these matters."
"I have just stumbled across your work, and have spent a few hours reading it. Most impressive!"
"I was researching some information ... and sifted through 10 or 20 documents before finding yours. The others were not helpful in the slightest, and your site was clearly and concisely organized and had the information I needed."
"I have visited your website on the historical reconstruction of Jesus and I have found it very interesting. You have done an excellent work on it ... Your website has helped me understand a great deal of Jesus and life of early Christians."
"Your work is impressive, and valuable to those like myself ... but have immense difficulty accepting all the add-ons ... Again, thanks for your work, and for sharing it with others who care to explore the truth of religious matters."
"This is where your rational approach is most helpful ... by using historical research and factual information. It really takes a careful eye to spot these things, some of which are buried under layers of "over-familiarity". This is not a criticism, rather more a compliment, but I do want to say that your site is demanding careful attention."
"Good Work. I have been reading your account of the life of Jesus, and I find it very insightful."
"I have just finished reading Jesus a historical reconstruction ... What I found in your online book is something very believable ... Thank you very much for your dedication to these matters."
"You have an excellent site. It's obvious you have put a lot of work/thought/effort into its construction."
"Bernard D. Muller provides a beautifully presented picture of the historical Jesus ... he brings to the table, mostly, a lot of common sense. It's a deep site, with a lot to think about and ponder over. Highly recommended ..."
"Your history of Jesus is fascinating! Very thorough and impressive. I was just surfing through the net and came upon your site, and I must say, I spent a lot of time going through everything you wrote ... Again, congratulations on your work!"
"The author clearly writes with a great deal of knowledge ... Furthermore, Bernard does not break any academic rules ... The amount of valuable resources available at the site is exceptional and should not be ignored ... this website should not be overlooked in any study on Jesus."
"I recently found your site and I am very impressed, you did a lot of work! I never read about the events at Cesarea before and I can see how they could inspire John the Baptist and Jesus to do what they did. ... I find your reconstruction very believable ..."
"... the eloquent cases you make for a later (and real) 'Q', 'Thomas' and the like have given me pause over taking John Crossan's opinions as the last word ... I really think you are closer to disentangling the NT mess than most."
"I just read your website about "The epistles of Ignatius: are they all forgeries?". I was absolutely impressed. Zwingende Argumente! Great work! Will this be published in a "Fachzeitschrift"? ... I appreciate good scholarship - as you call it: "highly inquisitive" ..."
"... what I found most refreshing about your work is its objectivity and impartiality. I've been searching for some time for someone who could help fill in the gaps and mostly have found Jesus bashers full of the same sort of hate and prejudice I see in the world religions. These people are no better than those they criticize. Thank you for bringing me closer to the truth without inciting bad emotions. And thank you for providing such a gold mine of information. Your site is at the top of my bookmarks! ... Keep up the good work."
"Here he does a good job of logically reconstructing the life and ministry of Jesus. It's a fascinating read whether you are a Christian or non-believer."
Best regards, Bernard
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mullerb (talk • contribs) .
:It certainly looks like a thoroughly researched link.  KHM03 20:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to "Jesus, a historical reconstruction" 

message: As soon as we add this to the front page, it will be vandilized 900 times more than it is now. I think when it is MainPag'ed it should be LOCKED for editing. The Fox Man Of Fire 20:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is locked now by the media hyped semi-protection. If you REALLY have new stuff, post it here Tronicum 09:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism (semi-locked) 

message: One posted website has "Under the direction of our Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ created the earth". Go figure, this one is not deleted. That one and other posted religious sites are hardly about the historical Jesus, but use wikipedia to propagate their beliefs. Go figure, those are not deleted, but mine is. Maybe it is time to sort out what websites should remain posted on that page and not kick out automatically the last one to come. The later seems to be the major criteria for some deleters.
(Mullerb 06:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus, a historical reconstruction (part3) 

message: My link is off for good mostly because of two editers:
- The first one, who cannot be accessed, because, I quote: "If every personal page about Jesus were included, this would be a link farm.". But the links, on the 'Historical ans skeptical views' side, point to mostly personal websites. They are: "The Jewish Roman World of Jesus", "Historical context of Jesus' time", "Jewish sects during Jesus' time", "Christ and the Other Religions", "The Jesus Puzzle", "Skeptic's Guide to Jesus". No wonder so many personal pages appear here, because the author of critical study on the matter usually does not benefit of an umbrella organization, such as, for the other side, Christian organizations, churches, denominations or sects. Therefore, that rule, if applied, would quasi-eliminates the skeptical side of things. Going back to my deleter, it seems he/she therefore follows this: it's OK to have links to personal pages, as long as they are posted early. If done later, too bad! No way, you are too late.
- The second one refers to a wikipedia's rule stating the author of a website cannot himself post it (but somebody else can do it!). I demonstrated already how easy it is to circumvent that policy (see part4). Actually, that rule makes wikipedia rather naive.
PS: recently, a new website has been linked "Jesus Christ at WikiChristian". No problem here, no deletion. More, the site is preliminary, very incomplete. Who cares?
OOPS, I blinked and did not pick up still another entry in the link section (the left side) "Jesus in the Jewish Tradition", a personal website, pointing at 'Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.'. No deletion so far. 
(Mullerb 22:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus, a historical reconstruction (part5)

message: I want to address this comments:
"Hi, and welcome to wikipedia! You may be a tad confused about WP:NOR. It's not that a random stranger, or an original author, or masses of faithful folks aren't allowed to edit... the problem is that *new* research on a subject, which hasn't been looked over by many other scholars, experts, and laypeople, is generally considered to be not encyclopedic."
Most links on the right side ("Historical and skeptical views") point to websites which can be argued to have "*new* research on a subject, which hasn't been looked over by many other scholars, experts, and laypeople". Therefore, I do not see why my site should be deleted, while others are in. Also, my site is more popular on Google or Yahoo! than most of the posted others. I also got rave reviews from readers, including scholars. And most sites on the left side cannot be considered encyclopedic either. They are only statement of faith from a denomination or sect.
"I've actually scanned over some of your stuff, and you might be interested in the works of various authors on the evolution of the gospels based on Q and sayings, and the historical arguments and revisionism suggested by those arguments."
I have been interested, and read a lot about it already, on the making of the gospels, "Q", parables, sayings, etc. I commented on that all over my website, and I have special pages dealing with gospel making & dating, "Q", parables, etc.
  
"In addition, we have a totally separate pair of articles about historical evidence both for, and against, Jesus. See Historicity_of_Jesus and Historical_Jesus. Those might be better places for links about scholarly arguments based on textual analysis."
OK, the first page has links to websites, but my site is not squarely about answering historicity by yes or no. It definitively deals with it, all along, and leads to firm conclusions. But it is a lot more about what kind of historicity we are talking about. You must know by now, by scanning my pages, I stand for a "historical Jesus", with that Jesus not really historic and certainly a huge lot less as described in the gospels. In conclusion, that page does not seem to be right for a posting of my website. The other mentioned "Historical_Jesus" would be appropriate, but has not a link section.
(Mullerb 23:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus, a historical reconstruction (part6) 

message: First, I want to thank KHM03, OwenX and Johann Wolfgang for their help and appreciation for my work. However, my anonymous opponent, 64.12.116.70, twice within 24 hours, again took off the posting without explanation. I looked into his files and learned a) His main interest on wikipedia is SpongeBob b) He has been accused many times of vandalism, including into the Jesus page (through outrageous insertions: see the evidence for yourself) c) He has been threatened repeatedly to be blocked.
I sent him a message: "To anonymous, Stop taking off the link to my website. Your position cannot be defended, because you allow the posting of new websites and you do not delete the existing ones, except mine. Why mine, and mine only? Explain yourself and be specific."
I looked at the websites which are posted in the link section and I noticed: some of them offer openly things or/and books for sell (I do not know yet about wikipedia policy, but I was accused once to be "commercial"). Many are obviously faith driven, some are not from religious organizations or collectivities, and therefore personal (but so what if they are relevant & of decent quality!). But right now, the section looks like a link farm (and growing), and could use some work. I'll come back to that.
I want to float two ideas here:
EITHER we remove the whole link section, which looks certainly not encyclopedic (mainly because of the nature of the topic). There are other pages where the sites can be posted: historical_Jesus, Jesus-Myth, historicity_of_Jesus, etc. Also, it looks that each faith denominations have their own sites (i.e.), such as mormon(ism).
OR we organize the postings we have per categories, such as "Christian views", "other religious views", "scholarly views", "skeptical views" and "mythicist views", with a short (10-15 words or less) of presentation for each website. There are many examples of structured link section in wikipedia. But, as I just remember, there is a space problem for the Jesus page!
(Mullerb 02:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It would probably be better to just have good quality links for the general subject on this page, pruned to standards of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links. I'll go do some pruning. Ronabop 05:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus, a historical reconstruction (part7) 

message: I apologize in advance for bringing up what likely has been discussed at length. Being new to this article, I was not a part of that discussion and do not even know where to look in the archives for it. 
This paragraph expresses the consensus of both critical and conservative scholars on the life of Jesus. Is there any reason why we can't take the list of scholars into a footnote and add others such as Paul L. Maier, D. A. Carson and other more conservative historians to the list? Since I work in a theological library, I could even look in the works of each of these and provide exact citations for them (after the first of the year, of course) that establishes this. --CTSWyneken 11:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No apologies needed. Read over our relevant guideline, Wikipedia:Cite sources which explains important criteria and lays out the options (I assume most will be familiar to you, but go over it just to be sure) and then do wha you think is best, complying in a reasonable way with that guideline.  Also, you are welcome to add more views, both conservative and radical, religious and critical, and so on, just make sure you comply with Wikipedia: Neutral point of view and Wikipedia: No original research.  From what you wrote, I do not have any reasont o think you would violate those policies - but if you are new here it is worth reading them carefully; it might help you avoid conflicts in the future (and might help you feel more confident about parts of articles you think need to be changed). Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you! Yes, of course I'll follow or exceed the rules. --CTSWyneken 15:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Paragraph Summary of agreed points 

message: If you take a look at the link to King Herod's death, there is new data that pinpoints the exact year and possibly the exact day of Christ's Birth. cheers, parkfoto/dan onischuk --Parkfoto 20:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christ Birth - new data 

message: I really liked the Greek image of a living Jesus at the top of the article. Now we have an image of a dead crucified one. I say show a depiction of Jesus the teacher at the top of the page, not of Jesus the dead meat (which could grace the top of Crucifixion. Just my opinion, of course, no offence. dab (ᛏ) 23:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure that can be arranged. Does anyone have a reason not to go back to the image that was there before? Was there a particular reason the change was made? Wesley 23:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: True accuracy isn't possible in the absence of any acceptable photographs. All we have are best guesses, and certainly some guesses are more likely than others. As to why bad guesses are tolerated, even the transliteration "Jesus" may not be the best version of Ιησους, but it's been around long enough and used widely enough that there's not that much point in arguing for a different one. Frankly I'd prefer an older icon of Jesus in the lead, or perhaps no image at all as JimWae suggested. Wesley 20:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: image

message: I find this statement rather erroneous. I am not contesting that 3 years is normally accepted, but that it is a consensus view. How can we be sure? That would required voting by anyone on this planet, with not one vote against, to be considered a consensus. I personally disagree with 3 years, so would Malhon Smith and Dominic Crossan, two liberal Christian scholars (and probably many more). So it cannot be a consensus.
Now this is what shows on MSN Encarta, for "Jesus Christ":
"All three Synoptic Gospels (the first three Gospels, so called because they present a similar overall view of the life of Christ) record Jesus' public ministry as beginning after the imprisonment of John the Baptist, and as lasting for about one year (See also Mark, Gospel According to). The Gospel According to John describes it as beginning with the choosing of his first disciples (1:40-51), and as lasting for perhaps three years."
From "Chronology of the Life of Jesus Christ", Catholic Encyclopedia:
"the year of my redemption" (Isaiah 34:8; 63:4), appear to have induced Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Philastrius, Hilarion, and two or three other patristic writers to allow only one year for the public life. This latter opinion has found advocates among certain recent students: von Soden, for instance, defends it in Cheyne's "Encyclopaedia Biblica"."
From :
"Scholars variously argue that Jesus's ministry lasts as little as one year or as many as four." 
I would like the change from "consensus" to "generally believed".
Mullerb 22:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:   "the Synoptic Gospels suggest a span of only one year. The consensus view remains three years however." 

message: Section 1.1: I only saw punctuation errors
Section 1.2,
-paragraph 3,
--sentence 3: "... go into these details, some ..." would be better as "... fill in the details of this time, some ..." or "... go into the details of this time, some ..."
: Agreed, more so because "these details" assumes the word 'details' has been used before, which is not the case. I will attempt to make the change. Mullerb 21:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed (somewhat), but I would replace "the Luke" by "the gospel of Luke". I'll try to make the change Mullerb 21:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Not agreed, because removing 'also' may suggest beatitudes and Golden Rule are not part of the 'teachings'. With or without 'also', the present sentence is awkward. I would propose: "Some of the most known teachings, including the beatitudes and the Golden Rule, are to be found in the Sermon on the Mount." But I will hold on that one, more so because the authenticity of parables, Sermont of the Mount and many teachings is contested by some critical scholars (& myself). Something should be done about the two "famous". Repetition is not good writing. Mullerb 21:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Agreed with your first point. Yes there is some redundancy with sentence 3 and rewording might be called for. I do not plan to do anything on that one for reasons explained above. Mullerb 21:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Agreed, but I would like to put that after "According to the New Testament" and start the next sentence by "And he performed ...". I will not implement anything yet. Mullerb 21:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Agreed Mullerb 21:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Agreed Mullerb 21:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammatical corrections and style suggestions (sections 1.1-1.3) 

message: Other articles onChristianity	Other articles onChristianity
                             	
History of Christianity
Ecumenical councils
Great Schism
Crusades
Reformation
Inquisition·Witch-hunts
Fundamentalism	
Christian theology
The Trinity
Nontrinitarianism
Salvation	
The Bible
Old Testament
Ten Commandments
New Testament
The Gospels
Apocrypha	
Major Personages
Paul of Tarsus
Augustine of Hippo
Thomas Aquinas
Martin Luther
John Calvin	
Christian denominations     	
Here is a more appropriate template - and relevant to the Legacy section --JimWae 21:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I agree: The existing template is so POV that it's inclusion here is disturbing.  This version would be much better.  --Nigelj 22:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep. Looks OK. (I assume we are voting here). RossNixon 22:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What was I going to say... oh yeah... GNAH! NO VOTING! Atleast not yet. No reason to turn to straw polling just yet.--Tznkai 22:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion should be taking place at Template talk:Christianity.  KHM03 14:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No-no-no-no! Baaaaaaaaaaad idea. multiple versions of templates tend to cause bad things and reduce consistancy, and I'm reasonably sure our MoS has something to say on it.--Tznkai 18:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed more NPOV template

message: #Gator (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tag

message: # Tag means template? I explained myself above. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 01:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the place to propose changes to the template. The template was agreed to after much discussion and consensus has been reached. 69.22.42.35 01:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No Tag

message: How long have people been trying to fully NPOV the Jesus article.  It is kind of funny.  What on earth do regular encyclopedias do?  fischersc 07:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You could probably add Hindus, Buddhists and Taoists to that list too. --Fire Star 08:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I am sure that you are right! Not my subject, but I would have thought that most Christians would not object if the putting on record of the fact that you actually don't have to be a Christian to have positive views of Christ! PaddyBriggs 08:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Jesus 

message: "Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem at the end of his ministry is usually associated with the Passover Feast, as stated in the New Testament, which indicates that the waving of palm fronds and other greetings from the crowd were intended to hail Christ as the Messiah (John 12:13)."
I would remove "usually" and (because appearing only in John's gospel), "waving of palm fronds".
I would change "triumphal" to "kingly". "Triumphal" is not used in the gospels, and at this stage, what was the triumph? But there are references, in the four gospels, that Jesus was seen as a (future) king or/and a ruler in the line of David. 
I have a problem with "entry into Jerusalem", because in the four gospels, the demonstrative welcome occurs outside the city (in the countryside) and not inside.
"hail Christ as the Messiah": the crowd hailed a human person, so "Jesus" instead of Christ is more appropriate (and neutral, with no prior assumption).
So I would rewrite: "Jesus' kingly welcome outside Jerusalem at the end of his ministry is associated with the Passover Feast, as stated in the New Testament, which indicates that the greetings from the crowd were intended to hail Jesus as the Messiah."
I'll wait for feedback on that one.
Mullerb 00:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: seems reasonable to me.  Let a couple of others weigh in, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 01:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds about right.--Tznkai 22:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Triumphal entry 

message: "some interpretations of the Synoptic Gospels suggest a span of only one year"
Is the suggestion dependant on interpretations? I do not think so. What interpretations are required to enable the suggestion?
I would rewrite: "the Synoptic Gospels suggest a span of only one year"
PS: Here is a word from the competition:
MSN Encarta, for "Jesus Christ": "All three Synoptic Gospels (the first three Gospels, so called because they present a similar overall view of the life of Christ) record Jesus' public ministry as beginning after the imprisonment of John the Baptist, and as lasting for about one year (See also Mark, Gospel According to). The Gospel According to John describes it as beginning with the choosing of his first disciples (1:40-51), and as lasting for perhaps three years."
I'll wait on that one also.
Mullerb 00:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion based on interpretations? 

message: Is there really a series on Christianity? SERIES implies something with continuity. Is there a single group looking after this continuity? Are they the same people who are looking after the series on Islam, for which there is now also a template attached to this article?  Isn't Other articles on a more accurate description of the purpose of a navigational link? --JimWae 06:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part of a series on ... ? 

message: I'm not going to get into an edit war over this and have already reverted twice, but 24.106.140.254 has repeatedly removed information from the article that was thoroughly discussed here and Ithink a good compromise was reached and I realy don;t want to get into this all over again.
I've politely asked 24.106.140.254 to stop this and take it to the talk apge but he refuses.  Can somene reverty this and encourage him and others to discuss it if they really feel that we need to talk about this all over again?  Thanks.Gator (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  24.106.140.254 reversions 

message: Why do allusions to Nazarene. Of Nazareth is by no way the common accepted meaning of the term. Why keep removing it? Jus cause you don't agree? Or it doesn't agree with your particular favorite version of christianity? Get over yourself...--Tombombadil 16:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jesus of Nazareth is a commonly used title of Jesus, also called Christ, the Jesus of Christniaty, Jesus, Son of Mary, etc etc etc etc when one is trying to avoid both religious titles and ambiguity. I think its a commonly enough used title--Tznkai 19:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what its worth, Jesus of Nazareth is pretty common. A bit short of 2 million google hits 
Tombombadil is right to distinguish between "Natzrat" not "Notzri."  Notztri is usually represented in English as Nazarite, not Nazarene.  However, Tombombadil is wrong that this is the same thing as the Essenes.  It is possible that some Essenes were Nazarites.  But non-Essenes could be Nazarites as well.  Samson for example was a Nazarite and not an Essene. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: o contrar Slrubenstein, I have lookedall over the net and all info that I came across stated that Essenes and Nazarene were part and parcel. i even contacted sveral self proclaimed Essenes and Nazerenes(not the christian church) and they bothe stated that they were the same. Several rabbis stated the same or were non-commital. Like to know where why you think differently. Please. --Tomtom9041 16:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, including original research. Jpers36 17:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: since when, heve you read the Darwinism article?--68.85.27.47 15:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nazareth/Nazarene

message: I don't understand the most recent edit.  I thought Christians believe Jesus is the messiah.  The most recent edit suggests that there are three members of the trinity: God, Jesus, and the messiah.  I am confused. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the Trinity is God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost. The previous version isn't much better. Perhaps you should reword it? Deskana (talk page) 22:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Has been reverted. Never mind. Thought actually, it seems that version says the trinity is Jesus, God and the Messiah? Weird. Deskana (talk page) 22:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tweaked it a bit.  KHM03 23:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Is it possible that the person who made the edit — and it was a very recent edit — was just plain wrong? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the edit (I think)...what I meant was to clarify that the Trinity is not God, Jesus, and the Messiah (which is how it read to me), but rather Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit...and Jesus is also the Messiah.  Obviously, it needs a bit more tweaking!  KHM03 01:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  trinity 

message: It says that some interpret the Gospels as attributing divinity to Jesus... the definition of divine is godlike or being a diety. Since it already says that the Gospels claim Jesus is the son of God, they thereby necessarily claim his divinity, so saying he is the son of God and saying he is divine is redundant. What I think that sentence really means to say is that the Gospels can be interpreted to claim that Jesus is the Divinity (with the word the and with Divinity capitalized). But this really isn't even quite accurate since the common interpretation is that Jesus is part of the Holy Trinity. So better than this would be to say that it has been interpreted that the Gospels claim Jesus is equal to God the Father. I am going to make this change and if anyone disputes it please explain why on here. TheTruth12 09:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This sentence: "Since it already says that the Gospels claim Jesus is the son of God, they thereby necessarily claim his divinity, so saying he is the son of God and saying he is divine is redundant" is false.  It may mean that Jesus is divine.  And it is verifiable that many believe that it means that Jesus is/was divine.  But it does not necessarily mean that Jesus was divine.  "son of God" was a colloquial phrase used by Jews in the Second Temple Period to mean "righteous person" and did not mean that someone was divine.  And it is verifiable that some historians acknowledge this and have suggested that the Gospel appelation of Jesus as "son of God" meant that he was righteous, or that (because of his righteousness) was adopted by God - but adoption did not change his essense which was fully human and not divine.  In short, we can say no more than: "some believe that in identifying Jesus as the son of God, the authors of the Gospels were claiming that he was divine." Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You are welcome.  By the way, there may be other verses in the Gospel that claim that Jesus was divine, it is worth looking. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divinity vs equal to the Father 

message: The section on Jesus' preachings/teachings is weak and largely misses the mark. 
The Golden Rule was not really taught at the Sermon on the Mount. The Golden Rule comes from the Old Testament, but on the mount Jesus expanded it to include not only your "neighbor" but also your "enemy." This is a very significant Christian teaching. Later on, when speaking with the Pharisees in Jerusalem, Jesus stated that the Golden Rule is the second greatest commandment.
The current entry says Jesus preached "resurrection of the body." He in fact only preached the resurrection of his own body, so this phrase doesn't really belong in here. Beyond that, the paragraph is very misleading because it makes it appear as though the main focus of Jesus' preachings were the apocalypse, and it leaves out two concepts he preached most about - Christian love and faith. Again I will make the changes, though my wording may not be perfect. Let me know what you think. TheTruth12 09:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: TheTruth12: I agree with you that Jesus's call to love one's enemies is a significant extension of the commandment in Leviticus.  It seems to me thaat by changing (well, adding to, at least) the object of love, Jesus is also suggesting a different kind of love, or a different function of love.  Could you look at this  and see if more can be said about the Christian view of love, and how Jesus's call to love one's enemies implies or creates a difference between the Jewish and Christian understandings of love?  I am satisfied that the section on the Jewish view of love is pretty complete, but your comment here makes me wonder that perhaps the section on the Christian view is incomplete.  Thanks. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus' teachings 

message: According to a contributor just above
:"I think religious articles need to be told from the point of view of the religion." 
* There are plenty of wiki articles on Jesus from a religious perspective, such as:
** New Testament view on Jesus' life
**Christian views of Jesus
**Religious perspectives on Jesus
*:This article is about a person who is both a religious & a historical figure. No POV should be condoned or allowed. 
* The template is NOT about Xty in general, but about Christian religion(s) and Xian theology. This article is NOT "part of a series" on any religion or theology. It is about a person who has greatly affected history.
* Headings are NOT statements and are easily overlooked. How does it benefit the reader to omit the sources for claims about the Resurrection? Stylistic preferences do not override NPOV on wikipedia - particularly not for bald-faced assertions that "Jesus was raised from the dead on the third day after his crucifixion." Many other, less controversial portions of the article are qualified by giving the source. Even the religious articles mentioned above have the good sense to qualify statements about the resurrection.
* Looking at the article now, I am ashamed that I ever put my time into it --JimWae 02:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this a religious article? 

message: I changed the reference, referring to Mormons and JW's as examples of groups which reject the Nicene Creed and the Trinity (which pretty much comes to the same thing;  I can't think of any group which accepts the Creed and rejects the Trinity, although many groups, among them trinitarian restorationists, would reject the notion of the binding nature of the creed while accepting the Trinity and therefore, the creed's contents, at least with regard to the statements concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) and dropping the reference to restorationists.  Most restorationist groups, such as the Churches of Christ, Christian Churches, Disciples of Christ, et. al., are in fact trinitarians.  However, the Latter Day Saint strand is not, at least the Mormon Church and its offshoots are not (Not sure where the Community of Christ, formerly the RLDS Church, stands;  they may be). The SDA Church is trinitarian, if not exactly creedal, and not restorationist.  JW's are not trinitarian, creedal, OR "restorationist".  --Midnite Critic 05:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me neither, but there are non-Nicene trinitarian formulas, so they're not exactly the same thing. (This is why I proposed "Nicene" rather than "Trinitarian.") However, thank you for clearing up the introduction. As I said above, I must plead ignorance. More specifically, I may have misunderstood the Restorationist concept of the Great Apostasy. archola 06:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow. Good job, and nice summary. Ronabop 08:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-trinitarians and restorationists 

message: On another subject, this talk page is 205 kilobytes long. Are we ready for another archive? archola 12:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive?

message: I propose that since nobody seems to want to use either solely the AD terminology, or solely the CE terminology on the Christian page of Jesus, we should at least alter the manner in which is is presented. 
-----
100 BC/BCE looks just plain stupid and too long.
100 BC(E) is much better suited.
-----
20 AD/CE isn't too bad but for consistency with the above change maybe it should be;
20 AD (CE), note the brackets.
-----
Any against this proposal please state so here. If no one is against this, I'll post the changes. 24.222.79.90 21:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd give it a day or two to get some feedback...just my two cents.  KHM03 21:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agh, don't you see what I'm trying to do? Look at the Jesus page right now, the constructions currently in use are even more ridiculous than the ones I'm proposing, I'm just trying to help. Nobody will let me showcase AD alone or CE alone, a recent vote declared that both shall be used. 24.222.79.90 22:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding JimWae's comments; firstly, I'm sure the (BC/BCE) manner of writing is not understandable for a good chunk of the English-speaking public that read Wikipedia, plus it takes too much space. At least if we have (BC(E)) with only the "BC" linked, people who don't understand the BCE term will be satisfied, and those in support of BCE will also have that satisfaction. Also, CE/BCE doesn't have enough currency to be used on huge Wikipedia pages like this, especially when this very Christian article is all about the man who actually influenced the creation of the original, anno Domini system/terminology. And finally, the link should be to Common era, not Common Era. What makes you think "era" is to be capitalized? "Domini" is capitalized because it refers to God. 24.222.79.90 21:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm against using anything other than BC and AD or BCE and CE. Anything longer is clumsy. Why don't we go with the first good faith edit we can find, which appears to be in 2002 and uses BC and AD? There is a similar convention with spelling - the first author's usage (British or American English) should be retained throughout the article. RossNixon 08:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common Era / Anno Domini reword 

message: Please visit my User subpage which details and outlines a suggested Era notation policy that was created by myself. Please, visit my page. Thanks, Darwiner111 02:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Era guidelines 

message: There are 18 pages dedicated to tea, it's forms and uses, and only 12 pages for Jesus. 
Even if you are not a believer you have to admit he had an impact on the history of our world.
Why is there an arguement about the size of this article?
:And there are 40-odd pages devoted to SpongeBob SquarePants. We can't censor that on the basis that status distinctions must be maintained. However, I think that there are probably a great many more pages that the 12 you refer to. Paul B 12:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has anyone else noticed 

message: The Golden Rule wasn't really from the Sermon on the Mount. It comes from the Sermon on the Plain in Luke's Gospel. I already edited that out before, and someone put it back in. Owell, i guess it doesnt really matter if it was on the mount or in the plain he still said it so i'll leave it there but now you know and if somebody else cares to change it go ahead. TheTruth12 00:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Golden Rule 

message: There has been an EXTENSIVE discussion between me and Robsteadman on his user talk page. Read if you're interested.  -- Deskana (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Robsteadman, Wikipedia edits are not judged based on facticity, but rather verifiability.  While it may or may not be 'fact', in a restricted sense of the word, that no 'contemporary' accounts of Christ exist, it doesn't matter in terms of Wikipedia acceptability.  Cite a verifiable and reputable source that claims this and explains why it matters. Jpers36 19:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's been, correctly, blocked for violated the 3RR.  Not soon enough for me.  Classic POV warrior.Gator (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Are we now going to go through every ancient historical figure and add a line that there are no contemporary historical sources for their existence?  Otherwise, this conversation is ridiculous.  pookster11 02:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would suggest that the scholarly viewds in the intro=(naming the names) makes the intro too long and cumbersome. They have a place, later in the article, but not there. As for NPOV - I think to not include a statement that there are no extant contemporary documents gives the article a POV that cannot be justified and is unencyclopedic. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08375a.htm It  seems a very biased article at the moment and contrary to even accepted "chrsitian" scholarship. Robsteadman 19:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I've added a sentence to point interested readers to the Historicity of Jesus article where there is more room to discuss this. SOPHIA 19:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I think this debate is ridiculous, I agree with your edit.  Rob....STOP REVERTING.  That's what got you in trouble yesterday.  it had nothing to do with the substance of your edit, it was that you broke the 3RR.  You're halfway there AGAIN after JUST coming off a completly justified block.  Stop.Gator (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No one likes to have their edits referred to as "ridiculous". Rob is bound to get frustrated if he thinks he's not being taken seriously. Don't use the 3RR rule to get round the fact that he had a valid point but no one was interested in helping him find a way to add it that did not offend anyone. The joke in all of this is that the burden of proof should be required to show Jesus did exist - proving a negative is impossible.SOPHIA 20:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm making the point that emotive words such as "ridiculous" have no place here. They raise the temperature of a discussion and cause people to entrench their positions. We don't need to agree, and it is not "compromise" to not revert an factually correct edit that links the interested reader to other relevant articles. SOPHIA 20:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I got your point and I stand by what I said.  You're being far too sensitive if I can't say that I happen to think a debate is ridiculous.  I think it is.  We're going way out of our way and wasting a lot of time to accomdoate a fringe minority view.  We do it all the time here and it's getting old.  I compromised plenty when I didn't revert what you edited which (by the way) was very different han what Rob wanted.  I felt it was a good compromise edit and I agreed with it.  That's a fine compromsie I think and lpease don't dismiss anotehr person's work here so casually, we're all working hard an a very conroversial article.  Finally, I dont where this "keep it calm" stuff is from, everyone has been very civil so far.  We're now talking about nothing important, let's move on to something else, shall we?Gator (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scholarly views 

message: Jesus' legacy is mixed.  I have no objections to including the positive parts of his legacy.  But NPOV requires that we include the negative as well.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Off topic? No. SLrubenstein's text is entirely appropriate. Indeed, it is an essential aspect of any minimal account of Jesus' impact on the world. The grammar could be cleaned up, however. — goethean ॐ 16:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah I'll keep that in mind.  Thanks.Gator (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the paragraph is appropriate under NPOV. In what sense do you feel it's off-topic, Gator? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not opposed to it now.  Thanks.Gator (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus' legacy 

message: ~ Pattersonc 19:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time for archive 22?

message: You seem to be out to protect the content and not allow anyone to edit the page. This is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. My second version was grammatiucally correct and factual correct and verifiable.Robsteadman 19:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goethean