Talk:Jesus/Archive 28

message: Since there is revision of this article being done, I would like to suggest some minor changes to this paragraph. First of all, it is problematic to state that Jesus was "a part" of the Holy Trinity. One might say that He was a "member" of the Holy Trinity or the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. The Trinity is not divided into "parts." Secondly, mention should be made in this section about the orthodox Christian doctrine of the two natures in Christ. This does not have to be detailed, but it makes the difference clearer between those who affirm the deity of Christ and those who deny it. drboisclair 15:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian views of Jesus 

message: The first two paragraphs both styart with supposed dates. This is very poor writing. Surely, if we are giving the POV that he existed (still dubious),  it should be in one or the other but both cannot be justified? Robsteadman 19:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The precise dates are uncertain according to scholars, but 6-4 BC/BCE seems to be the dominant view.  KHM03 20:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Stating the dates once ought to be sufficient.  KHM03 21:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Now why would the first paragraph be your "logical" choice? Hmm... You were also wanting the statement about some doubting Jesus' existance to be in the first paragraph, why remove the estimated dates of his life? Of course the dates should stay in the first sentence of the first paragraph. --Oscillate 22:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Around and around and around we go again...The dates should stay in the first sentence. The best compromise you could hope for would probably be to add "supposedly" or "most believe" or something similar in the first sentence. --Oscillate 22:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I wish Rob could put things in a way that didn't antagonize people. Reading the article he does have a point however. It does look a bit odd having two sets of dates. Really the mainstream dates should be in the intro (with the others in the more detailed sections) but the way the paragraphs are currently written it's the dates in the first sentence that seem redundant. However, normally you expect to see the dates directly after someones name in an encyclopedia. I don't want this to blow up into an edit war so can live with it as it is but it does look a bit odd. SOPHIA 23:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. This is probably a result of the reorganization that merged the Background section back into the intro. I've noticed such editing artifacts whenever data gets moved. (For another example, see above.) All it needs is a decent copyedit.archola 23:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Please stop making comments like that. --Oscillate 23:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rob you are quite entitled to your views and in this instance I think you were factually right about the dates in the article.  I happen to agree with your view on the non existence of Jesus, accept that most don't agree with me, and then show them the respect I expect them to show me. It doesn't matter what we think or what's true but I do feel the article benefits by being edited by a wide spectrum of editors. It's just easier if we try to concentrate on the actual issue and be clear in a factual way as to what the objections really are. SOPHIA 23:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You will have to learn and understand the word: compromise, "rob", if you want anything other than edit wars on these articles. So far you haven't shown any desire to compromise and others, who have been willing to do so, will regret working with you, and then never repeat their mistake, unless you do (compromise). --Oscillate 23:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You realize that you are coming into all these Christian-related articles with a very huge POV and you are pusing that POV in whatever way you can under the guise of NPOV. You've even used NPOV in ways outside of it's definition as a support for your arguments. If you don't realize that, as SOPHIA said before, you have a POV as well, then you're not going to get very far. --Oscillate 15:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most editors on this page don't really try to do that as can be seen from the discussions we have had over the last couple of days about the intro. I know some have been less that charitable about our view on things but hey - just turn the other cheek and move on. SOPHIA 23:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was trying to use the civilized exchanges over last couple of days as a good example of NPOV editorship but I don't think I put it too well. Obviously time to sleep. SOPHIA 00:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like you're trying to make "rob" look like a victim? You at least have been reasonable and personable. Thanks for that. --Oscillate 15:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: But it must be NPOV - that is one of the principles on which Wikipedia is founded. Articles which are POV (without adequate discalimers) are worthless -  that's why some of the other "jesus" articles are unjustified. Robsteadman 08:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: And remember - we're not here to prove Jesus' existence or disprove it; we're here to reiterate what academia and society say.  They say that Jesus was a real person, with a few folks who question that.  So let's reflect this honestly in the article.  KHM03 00:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But do the majority of "society" (which society?) say he really existed? The problem is that the majority of "Biblical scholars" come from a "faith" POV and are, therefore, naturally, biased. We should be reflecting what is verifiable and factual with NPOV. Robsteadman 08:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're reaching...it could just as easily be said that critical scholars come from an athiest or sometimes even an anti-Christian POV, just like you. --Oscillate 15:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we need a Wikiproject to organize and maintain the information in the various Jesus articles. In the meantime, I'm working on an outline organizing the relevant articles that I'm aware of. archola 00:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS-There apparently is a Wikiproject managing the "Topics related to Jesus" infobox, but the focus seems too narrow. archola 00:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro dates - again

message: After looking at this situation from another perspective I noticed that it is completely ridiculous to have the recent euphemism for anno Domini, common era, have any place on this page. When Dionysius Exiguus created the system, his intent was to base it on the birth of Jesus. When CE/BCE came along, it was intended as a Jewish replacement for these terms when referring specifically to Jewish-related events prior to the 1st century. It was in no way intended to replace AD/BC as the norm. I can understand that the CE/BCE system be used at non-Christian religious pages, and even any other page besides those with strong Christian affiliation. But not the Jesus page, please folks. If there is one page that should include the original system it's Jesus. I have scoured many articles, including the completely religious-neutral Julius Caesar and Augustus, which still reference only AD/BC throughout. Its those articles that should have the pathetically ridiculous X BC/BCE or X AD/CE manneurisms, not Jesus. I understand that this article needs to be POV, but considering AD/BC is used on nearly every part of Wikipedia, including the fact that all years prior to 1 AD on Wikipedia pages are labeled BC (see 1 BCE, 2 BCE, 3 BCE, etc.– they all re-direct to BC), I think its perfectly fine to have only the Anno Domini system present at this page. 
:Does it not make anyone SICK to see an article about Jesus of Nazareth, the figure responsible for the division of time periods using AD/BC, include the politically correct, secular-biased "common era"?? (That hasn't even divorced itself from dividing time by the Nativity, it just divides time by Christ without acknowledging it) 
I hope we can all come to the concensus of removing the BCE/CE references on this site, please vote below. Darwiner111 02:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still the consensus, and this is at least the 4th time Ive seen this argued on this page in the last 2 months.  Getting SO old!Gator (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concensus isn;t necesarily good - particularly when it is pOV or biased - as I've said befoire people used not to blink at the Black & White Monstrel show, Cock Fighting, Public Hangings - now people realise these are wrong. AD is wrong because it is biased and POV. Shall we change all ADs to "In the year of our Lord"? No, that would be nonsense - but that is what some are insisting we retain. Truly pathetic. Robsteadman 15:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the most bloated response, but I'll respond here quickly...while you may not regard consensus [note the proper spelling of the word], as "good", it is, nonetheless, one of the core operating principles of Wikipedia. < signing: > Tomertalk 09:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Then, as I have showm you are wrong - it is not a Jewish invention. I find that comment dangerously close to be anti_semitic.Robsteadman 18:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You do realize, don't you, that both the content and tone in this is completely offensive? The  modern notation is not intended to placate "the Jews" who "don't like the idea of Christ." It is intended to remove a presumption of religious conviction from secular affairs. Insisting on it is like insisting that every business deal has to be closed by attending Catholic mass, or that all public servants in every country must profess a particular faith. --Leifern 18:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not basing this merely on personal opinion or conjecture, the CE article clearly states it was invented so that Christians wouldn't offend Jews when they were evangelizing to them, if you've got a beef with offensiveness, don't look at me, go change the CE article! Just because it doesn't mean that as much now doesn't mean that was not how it was invented, it started POV, Rob says that thousands of years did not remove POV from AD and BC, therefore, I see no reason why I should agree that CE and BCE are also not POV! Homestarmy 18:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that is not what it states. It states that Jews - and this goes for all non-Christians - did not want evangelical content in secular affairs. Forcing someone to say - even with abbreviations - that this is the year of our Lord 2006 is an imposition. The "thousands of years" you talk about a) take place almost entirely in Europe; b) are characterized by religious discrimination and persecution that range from shameful to horrifying. I would think we'd all want to put those thousands of years behind us. An equivalent imposition on Christians would be to insist that we all write that today is the 7th of Shevat, 5766. Though that wouldn't quite rise to the level of imposition, because there is nothing in the Hebrew date notation that explicitly says "since the Creation began." It's just a number. --Leifern 18:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If people want to say BCE or CE themselves, as i've said, that is ok, it is not that horrible. But when you try to thrust your opinion against consensus, which already has undergone an acceptable comprimise on a, quite frankly, extraordinarily tiny and relatively irrelevant issue in an article which really should come above such disputes, then we have a problem, if writing AD and BC was such an imposition, either most of the world would be compleatly Christian, (It isn't.) or much of the world would not of used a dating system before BCE and CE were invented, as there were no other Christ-centric systems which correspond with the system everyone in the western world can understand and knows about. Homestarmy 18:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *????? Are you not aware most of the world has had other calendars & epochs? A brief perusal of Common Era would make that clear! In the last 2 centuries or so, people have tried to develop common standardized measurement systems. If they cannot agree on a common date, they will have trouble fulfilling contracts & meeting appointments. The Western calendar has become the de facto world standard for commerce and information. NEEDLESSLY imposing ALSO the religious context upon which it was begun is not in the interests of international relations  --JimWae 21:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Proposal &ndash; AD/BC ONLY 

message: *Darwiner111 02:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article shall use ''[[Anno Domini]]'' (AD/BC)

message: * Jayjg (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still the consensus, and this is at least the 4th time Ive seen this argued on this page in the last 2 months.  Getting SO old!Gator (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concensus isn;t necesarily good - particularly when it is pOV or biased - as I've said befoire people used not to blink at the Black & White Monstrel show, Cock Fighting, Public Hangings - now people realise these are wrong. AD is wrong because it is biased and POV. Shall we change all ADs to "In the year of our Lord"? No, that would be nonsense - but that is what some are insisting we retain. Truly pathetic. Robsteadman 15:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the most bloated response, but I'll respond here quickly...while you may not regard consensus [note the proper spelling of the word], as "good", it is, nonetheless, one of the core operating principles of Wikipedia. < signing: > Tomertalk 09:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article shall continue with current compromise ([[AD]]/BC/BCE/[[common era|CE]])

message: AD is POV and should not be used. Wikipedia guidelines say we should not be using POV. Another vote - how origianl and how pointless - particularly when ALL the options are not offered - a POV vote and therefore a meaningless vote. Robsteadman 09:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, as I have showm you are wrong - it is not a Jewish invention. I find that comment dangerously close to be anti_semitic.Robsteadman 18:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You do realize, don't you, that both the content and tone in this is completely offensive? The  modern notation is not intended to placate "the Jews" who "don't like the idea of Christ." It is intended to remove a presumption of religious conviction from secular affairs. Insisting on it is like insisting that every business deal has to be closed by attending Catholic mass, or that all public servants in every country must profess a particular faith. --Leifern 18:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not basing this merely on personal opinion or conjecture, the CE article clearly states it was invented so that Christians wouldn't offend Jews when they were evangelizing to them, if you've got a beef with offensiveness, don't look at me, go change the CE article! Just because it doesn't mean that as much now doesn't mean that was not how it was invented, it started POV, Rob says that thousands of years did not remove POV from AD and BC, therefore, I see no reason why I should agree that CE and BCE are also not POV! Homestarmy 18:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that is not what it states. It states that Jews - and this goes for all non-Christians - did not want evangelical content in secular affairs. Forcing someone to say - even with abbreviations - that this is the year of our Lord 2006 is an imposition. The "thousands of years" you talk about a) take place almost entirely in Europe; b) are characterized by religious discrimination and persecution that range from shameful to horrifying. I would think we'd all want to put those thousands of years behind us. An equivalent imposition on Christians would be to insist that we all write that today is the 7th of Shevat, 5766. Though that wouldn't quite rise to the level of imposition, because there is nothing in the Hebrew date notation that explicitly says "since the Creation began." It's just a number. --Leifern 18:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If people want to say BCE or CE themselves, as i've said, that is ok, it is not that horrible. But when you try to thrust your opinion against consensus, which already has undergone an acceptable comprimise on a, quite frankly, extraordinarily tiny and relatively irrelevant issue in an article which really should come above such disputes, then we have a problem, if writing AD and BC was such an imposition, either most of the world would be compleatly Christian, (It isn't.) or much of the world would not of used a dating system before BCE and CE were invented, as there were no other Christ-centric systems which correspond with the system everyone in the western world can understand and knows about. Homestarmy 18:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *????? Are you not aware most of the world has had other calendars & epochs? A brief perusal of Common Era would make that clear! In the last 2 centuries or so, people have tried to develop common standardized measurement systems. If they cannot agree on a common date, they will have trouble fulfilling contracts & meeting appointments. The Western calendar has become the de facto world standard for commerce and information. NEEDLESSLY imposing ALSO the religious context upon which it was begun is not in the interests of international relations  --JimWae 21:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This is nonsensical