Talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate

message: User:Codex Sinaiticus has added a "citation needed" tag to the charge of sedition in the second paragraph. This is in spite of the citations provided in footnote 2.
Is there yet another Paragraph 2 war brewing?
Oh, and why are we not semi-protected? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the "citation needed" tag because the sedition charge is already verified by the given sources; it's also consistent with the Gospel accounts. I think it's better as is, without contracting the sentence. Wesley 20:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes indeed, we had a long discussion over the crime of sedition. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 20:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then you should be able to tell me where this teaching comes from. All I read in all 4 Gospels is that he was charged with blasphemy, and the Roman official found him innocent and had him executed only at the repeated insistence of those who were accusing him of blasphemy. Why are you presenting a teaching that is at variance with all four Gospels? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The paragraph is about the views of critical scholars. As for sources, try: Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave (New York: Doubleday, Anchor Bible Reference Library 1994), p. 964; D. A. Carson, et al., p. 50-56; Shaye J.D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, Westminster Press, 1987, p. 78, 93, 105, 108; John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, HarperCollins, 1991, p. xi-xiii; Michael Grant, p. 34-35, 78, 166, 200; Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, Alfred A. Knopf, 1999, p. 6-7, 105-110, 232-234, 266; John P. Meier, vol. 1:68, 146, 199, 278, 386, 2:726; E.P. Sanders, pp. 12-13; Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew (Philadelphia: Fortress Press 1973), p. 37.; Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness of Time, Kregel, 1991, pp. 1, 99, 121, 171; N. T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, HarperCollins, 1998, pp. 32, 83, 100-102, 222; Ben Witherington III, pp. 12-20. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 20:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Then it needs to be made clearer that these are the views of modern day sources who contradict the Gospels, because I for one found it confusing. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dear Codex: The gospels read both charges; the Sandhedrin found him guilty of blasphemy and then charged him with sedition before Pilate (remember the "we have no king but Caesar" line?) Pilate found no basis for the charge, but executed him as if he were guilty of it. That's the meaning of the Titilus. All the scholars listed in the paragraph say this in some way or another. You'll notice that the sentence says "...scholars agree..." I'm not sure how the latter can be clearer. --CTSWyneken 20:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would you mind giving me the chapter and verse number you are referring to, so I can look it up and follow along? Thanks ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Certainly. Sanhedrin: Matt. 26:62-66; Mark 14:60-64; Luke 22:66-71; Charged with being the King of the Jews, executed as King of the Jews: Matt. 27:11-26, 37, Mark 15:1-4, 26, Luke 23:1-25, esp. v.2, John 18:33-19:16, esp. v. 12. --CTSWyneken 21:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: All good points. Please remember to sign using ~~~~. It also helps to register an account. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 01:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for quoting that, I was well aware of what it said but had not made the exact connection with "charged with sedition against Rome" since that language does not appear in the text, it seems more like an inference. But it is in keeping with what he said about the ethnarchs. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Codex Sinaiticus is raising a red herring and should be ignored. This issue was discussed at length before and he should review the archived material rather than raise inappropriate and irrelevant and groundless objections that we have already discussed at length. The paragraph in question does not state that Jesus was charged with sedition - NO Wikipedia article will police the truth of what did or did not happen. The paragraph says that this is what scholars believe, and it provides a note listing the sources. This paragraph is accurate, complies with NPOV, and follows our cite sources guideline. Codex Sinaiticus has absolutely no grounds for saying that scholars do not believe this. Whether CS thinks it happened or not, and whether the authors of the gospels think it happened or not, is utterly irrelevant. Let's move on. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not raising any objection, you've proved your point; I just said that this is perfectly in keeping with what he said about the "ethnarchs"... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, I am sorry I misunderstood you. I Do think it is importasnt to keep different points of view separate. Those scholars sho believe he was charged with sedition have evidence, some of which comes from the Gospels, and that evidence should be described in a linked article (on the historical Jesus or Jesus in context). In this article, I just think it is important to disctinguish between the views of (1) the gospels (2) Christians (3) historians, even if there is some overlap or if they draw on some of the same sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Christians have views, as they are people. Historians have views as they are sort of like people. The gospels have no views, as they are not people. Drogo Underburrow 15:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think Slr meant the views of the Gospel writers (who were obviously early Christians). Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 16:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sedition charge citation challenged. 

message: I am brand new to editing. Why does the 2nd paragraph state the resurrection followed the crucifixion when John 11:25 quotes Jesus: "I AM the resurrection..." (present tense)? Sahansdal 19:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resurrection