Talk:Jesus/Archive 63

message: The article concerning Jesus of Nazareth, and indeed all articles centered on Christian topics,  ought to evoke only the BC/AD system of dating.  As a longtime patron of Wikipedia I have noticed that articles relating to non-Christian religions very rarely reference the birth of Christ for setting the hisotrial context.  Articles relating to Judaism for example most frequently use BCE and CE to establish the date of a particular event.  This is most likely done to remove Christ as the frame of reference for a religion that does not accept Christ.  If this is the accepted standard then Wikipedia should maintain the BC/AD standards exclusively when discussing Christian issues. 
I moved the above from the to list page because it's the sort of comment that really belongs on the talk page. Frankly, I've seen AD/BC vs CE/BCE vs both notations argued so many times that I'm getting tired of hearing about it, but feel free to comment if you have anything to add.
:Just to confuse the AD vs. CE debate, since AD grammatically should precede the date, should neutral dates correctly be given as AD 32/32 CE? Joel Bastedo 06:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, the only thing I can really think of at the top of my head that really ultra super obviously needs to be done is reference the "other views" section. Homestarmy 00:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think a larger goal for the whole wikipedia project is to have that option, so a user could choose from a number of different options, more than just CE vs AD. However, I think that should be a cite wide change, not just on a per article basis. So I think we have the best solution for the time being until something that would effect all articles comes along.--Andrew c 16:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To do list

message: I have and addition to the islamic views about jesus miracles because there is no account for this in christianty...if you may think this is valiable you can add it...if you think it may harm....don't...we beleive that he did talk to those around him when he was in the cradle (a newly born baby) stating that he is a gift from god to Mary....and this was a heavenly testmony that Mary was a virgin....it is said that isrealites other than her family were skeptical around his origins.....and this put an end to all the fuzz. --mzkaddah 21:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't some of that in the section already? It's possible we just couldn't find a citation, I remember trying to verify some of those sections awhile ago and I think I might of had to throw out some beliefs because I couldn't find any citations for them. Homestarmy 18:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Islamic views

message: I think cleaning up this subsection should be a priority. There is no consistency in the formatting for references, there's some vague reference to 'other ancient sources' (presumably extra-cannonical?) mentioning Jesus' resurrection appearances, and in general it seems choppy. Joel Bastedo 06:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resurrection and Ascension 

message: I think that the sikh view of Jesus should be added to the other religious views section. It should be something like this, although obviously open to final edit.
::"Sikhs show the utmost respect for Jesus because of the values he has taught and his enlightenment of humanity. However, Sikhs do not accept any one prophet as the savior or the only son of god. In Sikhism every living thing has been made by God so every living thing is the son of God. Many of the things Jesus taught, such as love for fellow Humans, the existance of one God and the importance of belief, are important aspects in Sikhism." 14.16, 24th June 2006 (GMT +1)
:::Hmm, im not exactly sure what Sikhism is myself, is it eastern? How many adherants are there? Homestarmy 22:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try looking it up. I don't this passage adds much. It's essentially no different from a common Hindu view. Paul B 10:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sikh view of Jesus 

message: Up top there's a "Very Long" notice, is that referring to the actual article or just this talk page? Because if it's the article, we might need to do some decision making.... Homestarmy 21:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article (I assume). (Talk pages can always be archived The maximum size suggested is 32 kb, and this one is 87kb.  I don't think we have a real problem considering the necessary breadth of the article, but perhaps we can merge and condense into subject-specific articles (Geneology of Jesus, Baptism of Jesus, etc.) AdamBiswanger1 14:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Very Long notice

message: Obvious questions about the debate (films, books etc)
Why didn't Mary Magdalene and child (if such existed) simply go outside the Roman Empire - there is enough evidence of the borders being porous Silk Road, St Thomas in India etc. Doing this would just mean going across land rather than over the sea to France. Alternatively she could decide to "disappear" into a Jewish community outside her immediate area.
What is the point of protecting the heirs of Jesus - rather than letting them merge into the general population?
Is there any mention of the "siblings of Jesus and their heirs" after the Gospels - who would have some claim to fame.
Given the high death rate, extended familes etc of the pre modern period - an awful lot of records would have to be kept - and thus chances of the information "seeping into the general consciousness."
:I'm not sure I follow all of what you're asking, but there are a number of things about Jesus' brother James, though Catholicism holds that he was more of a stepbrother. Sxeptomaniac 16:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Catholicism holds that he was a cousin. Eastern Christianity holds that he was a stepbrother. As for other relatives, see Brethren of Jesus. I think there are historical records for the grandchildren of one of Jesus' brothers/stepbrothers/cousins/whatever (namely Jude/Judas). After that it gets rather murky. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus' heirs