Talk:Jesus/Archive 77

message: -01.html The Great Mystery] The Great Mystery Phalanxes
:* The first rule of The Great Mystery: You don't talk about the Great Mystery. (At least, that's what the top banner thing seems to basically say.) Homestarmy 23:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External Link: The Great Mystery

message: The inline citations need a vast cleanup - it's all messy and hard on the eyes. LuciferMorgan 20:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free.  A.J.A. 21:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inline Citations

message: Concerning NPOV proportionality, here is the relevant policy statement: Wikipedia:NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views.
I believe that the key words are prominence and popular. Prominence concerns (1) noticeability or (2) popularity. This latter seems to be easier to be objectivized. 
Based on Adherents.com, the trinitarian view is held by around 1.5 billion people (Catholics, Orthodox, etc); Islam by 1.3 billion,  Judaism by 14 million, Latter Day Saints by 12.5 million. 
It follows that the trinitarian view should be given more space, and within that space Wikipedia is supposed to put there the best synthesis to explain why these people who hold this view do hold them. 
In my reading, Wikipedia policy on proportionality is a service to readers: The greater the number of people who hold a belief, the greater the amount of space is dedicated to enable the reader to understand them and the basis of their  thinking and belief. 
As for the specific case of the trinitarian view, its assigned space should contain more ideas from prominent authors, whether the ideas are apologetic, dogmatic, descriptive, historical, etc. And in a proportionate way, this should be done with the other views. Thank you for considering this. Marax 09:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I invite you to my Project page where revision of this section is ongoing. Lostcaesar 10:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, this issue is confusing because we have the spinout article Christian views of Jesus. The question is, how can we represent minority POVs that do not have spinout articles against the majority POV whose section should be a summary of the main article? For example, there is no article on what early, non-orthodox Christians historically thought of Jesus. This section, I feel, is not unnecessary wordy, but even if we could condense, we don't really have a place to move the more detailed content (nor would I suggest creating a spinout for this minor topic). We should be conscious of how much space we dedicate to minority and majority views, but another thing we can do is qualify, with words, the prevelence of each view in the cases where the majority view's section may just be a summary of a much more detailed article. (we could use adherents.com statistics to say Mormons/JWs only make up x% of all people who self-identify as Christian, etc.)--Andrew c 13:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Gah, on top of that, we have Religious perspectives on Jesus. There are too many spinout articles to keep track of. I just think that we shouldn't ignore these spinout articles when we are working up these sections here. I think its important that we have unity, and that we avoid too much redundency.--Andrew c 14:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV proportionality

message: What do people thing about including this image http://www.religioustolerance.org/jesusface.jpg based on a reconstruction of a 1st century Jewish skull. TRWBW 04:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  face of Jesus 

message: Best sellers Holy Blood Holy Grail (1984) and Da Vinci Code (2004) advance
the ancient claim that Jesus was married and had children (before his death on the cross leaving entact all religious views) and those descendants come down to today and are not the single heroine depicted in the Da Vinci Code
but a larger group and include US Presidents (see The Jesus Presidents (2005)).
::Of course, their fictional books, so they hardly matter..... Homestarmy 13:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus Family

message: I see a small spat over British vs American spelling has broken out. American spelling is correct in the US; British spelling is correct among most other English speakers. Given that Wikipedia is an international co-operative effort, spelling should be determined by the original writer of the sentence in which it appears, and left alone by other contributors, unless it is incorrect in both systems. Copey 2 14:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand policy the spelling is to be consistant throughout the article, wasn't it English originally? Homestarmy 14:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest going with the more common spelling, on the internet as a whole. Based on googles's estimated number of returns, 'center' is about 3 times more common then 'centre'. TRWBW 15:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These arguments are not persuasive. Wikipedia has a policy covering this. We don't take sides on which English is better, more proper, more common, etc. We simply use the style chosen by the earliest editor. And we must consistently use that style in the article.--Andrew c 00:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the question was what to do when it's policy versus policy, consistency versus orginal editor, and was suggesting using the more common spelling as a way to break the tie. TRWBW 01:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: centre/center

message: who screwed up the jesus article it only says "lol"
:Sorry about that, there seems to be some dedicated vandal here, look in the history for non-vandalized versions. Homestarmy 18:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to submit a request for protection when the next anon vandalized, but oddly, it stopped suddenly for the last few minutes. Homestarmy 18:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus article messed up 

message: A very important information has recently emerged, at the time of Jesuses birth the romanb province of Jerusalem was being patroled by Illyrian/Albanian soldiers (see Praetorian Guard),the soldiers intermixed with the local inhabitatiants quite regularly and impregnated woman around the empire, so it comes as no surprise that Jesus christ was most born of an Albanian father and Jewish mother. In those days woman were killed for having children without being married so Mary made up some lies that she was impregnated by god or something like this. Anyhow this is vary important informations that need to be in the article As soon as possible. ~~
:That is not new info, it was a story told to slander Christianity in antiquity.  Sorry to break the news. Lostcaesar 20:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And they say his name was Pandera... Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 18:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: This article really has the best Talk page comments.  A.J.A. 20:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: -_o Homestarmy 22:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Just wait, the new "Black Jesus" movie will be coming out pretty soon. Expect healthy amounts of discussion. --Home Computer 16:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an earthshatteringly novel idea! Talk about holy grail.  I think this should be a headline across the top of the page. That must be why he has dark, blond hair with blue eyes.  That Mary, she always was a jokester; sure had me fooled.  However, I am certain that aliens were also tied up with it.  Can you say ready for the funny farm?  Storm Rider (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not until we break out the tinfoil Storm, its not a party until then! Homestarmy 23:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus was Albanian 

message: "Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher ..."
Not good at all, this statement is part tautology, most scholars in the fields of biblical studies are Christians ie you could equally write most homeopathy students think homeopathy is an effective treatment and part POV, who defined the electorate and then took the head count to assertain that most historians believe this. The whole paragraph needs looking at.
:This statement is not tautology (you may want to look the word up in the dictionary).  Frederiksen is not Christian, neither is Vermes.  More importantly, you are implying that a Christian cannot be an objective historian, you are implying that all Christians are fundamentalists or literalists.  There is a wide range of Christian beliefs, some of which leave ample room for modern critical scholarship.  The sentence is well-researched, supported by verifiable sources, and accurate. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The subject of the sentence is not "Christian scholars."  Most members of the US Supreme Court are Christians.  That does not mean that when they vote a certain way on church-state issues, it is reasonable to say "Christian judges decided ..." Moreover, the predicate of the sentence is not Christian dogma.  In fact, the predicate of the sentence is something Jewish Bible scholars mostly believe too, and in fact goes against Christian dogma. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please look at the sources we have supporting the statement. We have Jews, very liberal Christians, moderate scholars, very famous scholars in these fields, and some conservative scholars. It's a very large number of scholars, and very impressive in covering the consensus POV. I also think you do not understand the term biblial scholar. Biblical criticism is a sub-field of biblical scholarship. Keep in mind, there is a difference between theologians and biblical scholars. For all these reasons, I feel strongly that there is nothing wrong, or biased with this paragraph, and if you had looked into the sources, I believe your concerns would have been answered.--Andrew c 01:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: "it is utterly inconcievable that most bible scholars would not believe the Christian dogma/myth."  It is not inconceivable at all.  I can easily conceive of this because I have an open mind and have read a good deal of Biblical scholarship.  If you cannot conceive of it it is not because it is "inconceivable," it is because you personally are not capable of conceiving it, I suspect either because you have a closed mind or know very little about Biblical scholarship. If you want to contribute to improving this article, you need real evidence and arguments, not dogmatic statements like "inconceivable!" Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not inserting my "opinion" in the article.  You say it should be referenced.  Well, didn't you read what I wrote above: "Please look at the sources we have supporting the statement."  The statement in question is sourced.  The references are right there.  No one is preventing you from looking at them. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: First of all, you are misusing the term "biblical scholar". Secondly, I must ask you, have you not read the references provided for the statement in question? Your arguments are strawmen that ignore what is actually in the article, and ignore what we've said on talk. Sorry to be blunt.--Andrew c 18:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no reference to the plebiscite that established that most hisotrians believe, if there is a reference to it that I've missed I would be gratefull if you would point it out to me JohnShep 18:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see your concern. I think there was a previous version of this sentence that may have worked better (I'll have to check the page history). It isn't that all historians (such as 19th century American historians, and Jeulmun historians, and historians who study the pre-history of southern France), but applicable historians, such as those who study the Roman Iudaea Province, or those who study second temple Judaism, or those who study the Qumran community and the DSS, or even those who study early Christianity (orthodox, Gnostic, Ebionites, etc). I agree that historian could be qualified, but then again, does it really read as if we are refering to all historians? In the History of Japan article, when it says "historians believe the first emperor who actually existed was Emperor Ōjin" is it implied that its scholars who study Japanese history, or is it implying all historians, even those who study other subjects?--Andrew c 22:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies  

message: I just wanted to congratuate Wikipedia for including the views of Jesus from several religious viewpoints (and non-religious ones).  I remember this problem several months ago and just want to acknowledge a job well done in strengthening this article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.22.85.43 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 19 October 2006.
Thank you very much! We may still reach FA status yet.--Andrew c 17:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're closer than any previous time. Good job, everyone. —Aiden 05:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations 

message: what is this appendage as pervert? "jesus the pervert". is this not a cause to offend? if you have some other meaning, please cite the source and the etymology, otherwise, please take this offensive appendage off the page. thankyou.
:Wait, what appendage? Homestarmy 18:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, it was some vandal, he was reverted. Homestarmy 18:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pervert!? 

message: I just removed from this sentence the clause relating to their study of biblical and extra-bliblical sources, because it made no sense, because scholars who accept the existence of Jesus also base it on their study of biblical and extra-biblical sources.  I think it goes without saying that whatever any scholar believes concerning the object of their scholarly study, it is based on the study of relevant sources.  But including this clause in this sentence and not the preceeding one made it look like the latter scholars are somehow better scholars, which is not true.  I think that the function of the clause was really to provide a link to historicity of jesus, but that link is again relevant to the whole topic - and I see no problem with providing the link later on.  As far as the people who doubt the historicity of Jesus, what is important is the link to the article on the Jesus myth (which I left untouched). Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The clause is there because, if my memory serves, the passage used to say something like: "because only Christian texts mention Jesus, and these all date to the mid second century...", and it was rephrased so as not to manifest such a biased / contraversial judgements on the texts.  I have no problem with your removal of the material.  I just thought I would answer your question as to how it got that way in the first place.Lostcaesar 10:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: And if we can recall, one of the 'long standing' consensus versions of that sentence had the horrid "citing a lack of extant contemporaneous documents". --Andrew c 14:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  scholars who doubt the existence of Jesus 

message: The other early views section (Marcionites, Ebionites, and Gnostics) is longer than its content deserves. I'd like to condense it to a single paragraph with a line or two for each group. Interested readers can read the respective pages. That will give us room elsewhere in the article to include items that are more relevant, such as the much-debated trilemma. Jonathan Tweet 06:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a bit torn on this.  It is true that current events are possibly of more interest, but gaining an understanding of Christian history remains important.  Concise writing is our goal, but not the deletion of information so that other information may be included.  Space is not a limitation that should guide decisions, but rather the value and quality of the information included.  I would encourage caution.  Storm Rider (talk) 06:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that what we need is a concerted effort to work on the actual articles of each of these groups (though I hesitate to call Gnostics a group), as well as other early Christian sects/heterodoxies.  Once each of those articles are up to our standards, they can be summarized and linked here, more effectively. I am not an expert in early (pre Council of Jerusalem, pre Council of Nicea?) Christianity but I wish a few people who really know the literature, especially the important secondary sources (Ehrman, Pagels) would get together and do a sustained article improvement drive. That would have a BIG pay-off for all Jesus and Christianity related articles. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with everything Rubenstein said (except perhaps his choice of sources). Lostcaesar 14:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well,I know ehrman andPagels are well-enough established and respected that their views shouldbe included in the relevant articles.  Certainly, I did notmean to suggest theat they are the most important sources, let alon only sources.  I hope you, CTSWynekan and others will suggest other notable sources and ensure that these articles represent allmajorPOVs among reputable scholars. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes they (or at least Ehrman) are well enough established and respected that their views should be included.  I did not mean to suggest otherwise, I merely meant to reflect that I do not jump at those sources.  =)  Lostcaesar 17:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Jon, what one considers "the most important in history" is itself a POV.  I certainly can understand why Christians would find these groups less important.  But if you deminish their importance, the rise of Christianity in the form it came to take by the fifth century (let alone today) appears natural and inevitable.  This is precisely why most professional historians in fact think these groups are very important - by giving us a clearer view of what people were thinking and debating in the second century that is not distorted or misinterpreted through the lense of forms of Judaism and Christianity that became established later, and by giving us a clearer view of how Christianity came to take the form it takes today by looking more clearly at moments when it could have gone in other directions.  You do not have to agree with me, what matters is that this is a valid point of view that has to be included. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not claiming to know what's most important in history. I'm just saying what's not most important. That's different. The idea that the early Christian community contained various conflicting views of Jesus is important. That the ebionites think Jesus was a vegetarian is not important. And this section doesn't even mentions Arians. I volunteer to give this section a good trim, add in the Arians, and stick in a lead paragraph. Jonathan Tweet 23:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure I would add Arians, and I agree that the claim that Jesus was or was not a vegitrairan may not be important, but that is very different from what you original said which was that these groups themseves are unimportant. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that the information should not be removed unless it is already contained in the main articles.  In other words, I would think moving preferable to removing.  I will say that I think the groups are historically relevant to the history of the Church; however, I am not sure if the history of the Church is entirely relevant to this section.  These ancient heresies are "views of Jesus", but ancient views that vanished at a historical point. Lostcaesar 11:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LC, I'm embarrassed to reread my posts and see that I'd never made it clear I'd make sure that this material would be present somewhere, perhaps on the Early Christianity page as well as in the sects' resepctive pages. Jonathan Tweet 14:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this section is important because there isn't a spinout article "Early Christian views on Jesus". I don't believe there is enough content to warrant creating one either. And while each sect's article page could be a place to discuss their views on Jesus, I think its important for this article to show the varying views of Jesus that arose withing the first couple decades of Christianity. Maybe it could be more concise, but because this section is sourced and fairly well written, I personally would like to focus more on the section, which I feel, needs the most work, the historical view section. (also, I feel that sections that have spinout articles such as the NT, Christian, Muslim, and Jewish views would be better canidates for being condensed.) I just think we should make sure that the views being expressed are about Jesus, not about their belief system in general. (so by my criteria, the vegetarian bit would be important to include, but the stuff about the demiurge and Sophia is less relevent).--Andrew c 23:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: In substance I agree with Andrew.  My point is procedural.  I think that it makes more sense to work on individual articles first, and then summarize their main points here, rather than try to work on subsections here and linked articles at the same time, or subsections here and then linked articles. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I completely agree with Rubenstein. When LC was reworking the Christian views section, I suggested working up the main article first (and when it was suggested that more about the last supper be added, I suggested making sure that information was first also included in the NT views article and the Last Supper article). Sorry if my view on procedural matters wasn't clear, we are in agreement.--Andrew c 16:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other early views -- condense