Talk:Jesus/Archive 90

message: This paragraph under genealogy and family needs to be removed:
"Jesus seems however to have promoted his followers to break with their families. According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus said: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace but ..."
Many religious scholars believe this verse is not a literal message about family, but a metaphor. But that's off point anyway, because it is not Wikipedia's place to make any kind of judgment about what this scripture means. Scripture in this article should be focused on Jesus' life, not spiritual meaning unless the most accepted, prevailing views on a certain scripture are outlined (which would be ridiculous and long in most cases). Long story short, remove this paragraph please, it's not appropriate to speculate on what Jesus meant, that's for religious scholars to debate, not us. Plus, it's really irrelevant to the subject of the section. Thanks! Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 06:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have requested unprotection. Vassyana (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it.  Sophia 10:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 03:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for edit

message: Could someone add this to the article?
"According to the Raelian Movement, Jesus was born to the virgin Mary, although through in-vitro fertilization, made possible by the advanced technologies available to 'Elohim'(those who came from the sky), an extra-terrestrial race of 'Creators'. He was their 'messenger' of that time, much like Rael in this time. In keeping with Raelian belief, Jesus is alive on a distant planet, as well as all 'prophets', such as Moses, Mohammed and others. " 
It probably needs more, but s'all I'm writing for now... Thanks! MarioT (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid that this is such a minority view that to include it in this top level article about Jesus would give it undue weight.  Sophia 22:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Sophia; this view is just so narrowly held that it would be best to be mentioned in the Raelian Movement's own article. There are over 32,000 different Christian denominations in the world today; it is only possible to cover the more significant beliefs in this article. Cheers. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh... Ok, then. Thanks anyways! =) MarioT (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raelian view of Jesus 

message: Has there been any thought recently trying to get this article featured... again? I realize it has been tried over and over but I think it is closer now than it has been. We should set a goal here and compile a specific list of what is needed based on the comments of reviewers in the last FAC (more specific than the one in To-do). I think the editors most familiar with this article can probably contribute to such a list... Sophia, maybe? If there is interest, I may be able to put in some extra hours here. Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 01:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently not. Well if I get time I'll put some hours into it anyway :P Lack of sources appears to be the main issue. Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 19:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Feature?

message: I take issue with the first sentence of this article:
"Jesus (7–2 BC/BCE to 26–36 AD/CE),[2] also known as Jesus of Nazareth, was a 1st century Jewish leader who is the central figure of Christianity, and is also an important figure in several other religions."
I take issue with the word 'was' in this sentence (Jesus of Nazareth, was a 1st century Jewish leader...).
The use of the word 'was' is an unambiguous statement of actual fact. Since there has never been a verified occurrence of a virgin birth, the word 'was' in this context suggests that Jesus actually was the result of a virgin birth.
This article is deemed a Wikipedia "good article." The second stated attribute for a Wikipedia good article is factual accuracy. Since it is an actual fact that virgin birth is not physically possible, the use of the word 'was' in this sentence violates the standards for a Wikipedia good article.
Therefore, I would like to suggest the rewording of the first sentence to be:
Jesus (7–2 BC/BCE to 26–36 AD/CE),[2] also known as Jesus of Nazareth, is told to be a 1st century Jewish leader who is the central figure of Christianity, and is also an important figure in several other religions.
The edit suggested is to replace the word 'was' with "is told to be" in the fist sentence of this article. 
Bubbabobb (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but you make no sense. The article does not state virgin birth as a fact, but rather as a belief. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Stephan is right.  Nowhere does the article state that Jesus was born of a virgin, I defy you to show us the sentence.  The article only says that according to some, he was born of a virgin.  The article identifies a point of view, not a fact Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only instances are "Other Christian beliefs include Jesus' Virgin Birth..." and "According to Matthew and Luke, Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea to Mary, a virgin..." and some further reaction of others to this claim. Bubbabbobb: it's part of having a NPOV in this sensitive article that we don't directly endorse as fact either the virgin birth or regular birth claims, we just report of them. Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 18:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1st paragraph of article 

message: Christianity was not the official religion of the Empire under Constantine I. A large number of amatuerish articles and sources, including some video documentaries are stating this hilarious, incorrect suggestion. It was Theodosius I who made it the official religion. I changed this in the article. Tourskin (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have always thought it to be Constantine that made Christianity Rome's official religion, and college text books that I have come across say this, at least for general courses over Western history (at least, as I recall). I did a little looking just now and found that Theodosius did accept christianity as his personal religion but did not find anything stating that he made it the official religion of the roman empire, though some sources I have looked at say he convined some meetings with christian leaders. There are, however, sources that say Constantine actually made christianity rome's official religion. Do you have any reliable sources that say otherwise? Does anybody? Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 03:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Any decent textbook claims otherwise. I think you misremember. Constantine was the first emperor who personally was a Christian (or at least was claimed to be one ;-), he ended the persecution initiated by Diocletian, and he returned much confiscated properties to the churches and families. But he did not make Christianity the official state religion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I probably do misremember :P Can we get a source for this nonetheless? I did some looking myself and didn't find a good one. But many people do believe it to be constantine who made it the official religion, so a source would be useful to set them right ;) Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 19:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the source I currently have available is Georg Ostrogorsky: Byzantinische Geschichte (324-1453), page 28 of the 1996 reprint. This is certainly a reliable source, but not very accessible to most users of the English Wikipedia. John Julius Norwich describes Constantine's baptism only on his deathbed in The Middle Sea (2006), and Theodosius submitting himself to the judgement of the church in A Short History of Byzantium (1997), but does not make an explicit statement. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At that time it was common for Christians to wait to be baptized, for some it was because they were not willing or able to completely follow the teachings of the churches and/or they did not want to sin after baptism. By this time in church history the right of baptism had become very formalized and required a renounation of all sin and many put off baptism until later. Hardyplants (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Maybe apropos: Gibbon writes inDecline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Book 2) about the Edict of Milan: The two emperors (Constantine and Licinius) proclaim to the world, that they have granted a free and absolute power to the Christians, and to all others, of following the religion which each individual thinks proper to prefer, to which he has addicted his mind, and which he may deem the best adapted to his own use. In other words, it's the opposite of establishing a state religion.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Constantine did not make Christianity the state religion, paganism was still the "state" religion, But its a remarkable turn around, in a very short time Christianity went from a prohibited religion, to one especially favored by the government.  The populations of the empire were still overwhelmingly pagan and many regional governments were still getting request to persecute Christians right up to Constantine's official proclamations showing favor on Christians.  Hardyplants (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Well any source is better than none, even a book that isn't very accessable. There are books cited at Theodosius I too. Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 19:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official religion of Roman Empire