Talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate/Archive 2

message: Fellow editors: 
Before the article was blocked, I finished documentation for all but two of the listed historians and Bible scholars who support the majority position. I was only able to verify one of the persons supporting the minority position. Left to do are: Geza Vermes; D. A. Carson; Bruno Bauer; Michael Martin; John Mackinnon Robertson.
From the vague discussions we've had during our ... vigorous ... debate, I recall one or two more we might want to add. Please help me by listing them here. If they are not in the talk:Jesus/Cited Authors Bios subpage, please add them. No matter how the vote comes out, please list only historians and Bible scholars for the majority (the way we have the position described, Voltaire and Bertrand Russell don't count). I'll check Will Durant to see if he has formal historian's credentials. For the second, anyone with scholarly credentials will do, as long as they support the nonexistence hypothesis.
In the spirit of collaboration I hope can prevail here, I am, of course, open to modification of the above, providing it takes into account that these notes are for providing evidence of the majority and minority views.
Also unfinished on the documentary front, are the subpages on Jesus and the Jewish Authorities and the date range for the life of Jesus. This is the hard work, folks. Help us establish what scholarship says. --CTSWyneken 12:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

message: ::Please read above instructions before voting.
However, citing a lack of extant contemporaneous documents making reference to him, a small minority question the historicity of Jesus. (current form AND February 20th consensus agreed by vote)
Without objection, can the above read more simply as: A small minority question the historicity of Jesus, citing a lack of extant contemporary references to him. Haldrik 12:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Final Candidates

message: I've been thinking a lot about the introduction, and if I'm honest I think ot tries to go beyond being an introduction. I'm not going to make any edits to the main page, I never would without dicussing them, but I've tried to look at it from the perspective of a reader and I believe there are a lot of lines that lend themselves better to being discussed later on, in more depth.
You can all totally ignore this and I won't be offended, I realise I'm a little late to the party anyway, but I've edited the text to streamline it. I'm not doing this to upset anyone, just doing it because I thought it might help.
Anyway, here it is...
"Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene (8-4 BC/BCE – 29-36 AD/CE)[1], is the central figure of Christianity, in which context he is known as Jesus Christ (from Greek ??s??? ???st??) with "Christ" being a title meaning "Anointed One" or "Messiah". 
The main sources regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament. These suggest Jesus was a Jewish Galilean preacher and healer who was at odds with the Jewish religious authorities (Sadducees and Pharisees), and who was crucified outside of Jerusalem during the rule of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate.[2] 
Within Christianity, it is believed that Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for the sins of humanity, that Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides with God the Father until the Second Coming. 
There are many other religious and non-religious perspectives of Jesus."
That's it anyhow, genuinely sorry if this usets anyone. Dane Jude 13:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've been fighting over how much should go into the intro since I've been watching this page. There have been debates over "at odds," the non-existence hypothesis, and your characterization of Christianity is limited to Nicene Christianity and it's decendants (for historical reasons it's imprecise to just say "Trinitarian Christianity," which BTW is what the Spanish article does). Other than that, I like your intro. However, what we have here is a case of too many factions pulling in too many directions and spoiling the pot, so to speak. Arch O. La 13:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey, Dane, I appreciate the boldness, but I think we're stuck with the versions we have. There have been quite a few fights over every word in these three paragraphs. If you have no objection, may I move yours (and Archie's) to appropriate subpages to be considered? If we can gain agreement there, we can incorporate it. I'm a bit nervous, as I was above, with even hinting at the subject before we have some sense of direction. Let's clear the deck and move along. --CTSWyneken 14:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: While I like the suggested new intro, considering how long we have spent haggling over a single sentence I oppose any change in the intro at this time.  Let's move on. Rick Norwood 13:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If everyone agrees, we can table this proposed revision...but I'd like to hear from more people first. Arch O. La 13:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  See encouraging note to Dane above. Can we please wait and take these up on subpages? --CTSWyneken 14:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If everyone agrees, this can be tabled. Notice, though, that this approach deals with the intro as a whole, rather than pick at the nits of individual sentences, clauses, phrases and words. It may thus be more progressive than our previous ongoing debate. Arch O. La 14:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, but, in paraphrasing Martin Luther on the way to Worms, it gores a lot of oxen! It also opens a can of... No, I won't type it! 8-) --CTSWyneken 14:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seriously sticking my neck out 

message: "Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene (8-4 BC/BCE – 29-36 AD/CE)[1], is the central figure of Christianity, in which context he is known as Jesus Christ (from Greek ??s??? ???st??) with "Christ" being a title meaning "Anointed One" or "Messiah".
The main sources regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament. These suggest that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean preacher and healer who was at odds with the Jewish authorities, and who was crucified outside of Jerusalem during the rule of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate.[2] Proponents of the non-existence hypothesis disagree (see Jesus-Myth)[3].
Modern Trinitarian Christianity, based on the historic Nicene Creed, affirms that Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for the sins of humanity; that Jesus was born of a virgin; and that Jesus was crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where He resides with God the Father until the Second Coming. Other Christians affirm various forms of nontrinitarianism. Most Christians also believe that Jesus fulfilled Bible Prophecy. Most Christians further affirm that acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from the penalties of sin, based on (John 3:16).
There are many other perspectives of Jesus." 
How's that? Oh, and what about extraBiblical sources? Arch O. La 13:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I like the suggested new intro, considering how long we have spent haggling over a single sentence I oppose any change in the intro at this time.  Let's move on. Rick Norwood 13:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If everyone agrees, we can table this proposed revision...but I'd like to hear from more people first. Arch O. La 13:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  See encouraging note to Dane above. Can we please wait and take these up on subpages? --CTSWyneken 14:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If everyone agrees, this can be tabled. Notice, though, that this approach deals with the intro as a whole, rather than pick at the nits of individual sentences, clauses, phrases and words. It may thus be more progressive than our previous ongoing debate. Arch O. La 14:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, but, in paraphrasing Martin Luther on the way to Worms, it gores a lot of oxen! It also opens a can of... No, I won't type it! 8-) --CTSWyneken 14:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revised Dane Jude suggestion

message: Fellow Editors:
It is time to move on. Here are my proposals. This list will grow as the day goes on. Please comment, but do not vote. I do not want to scream! 8-)
But first, the good news. Nearly forty editors have dropped by to vote. That's about as good as any indication of interest in the topic. Perhaps they will stay around to help us with the hard work aheard. --CTSWyneken 11:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me. pookster11 11:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  I cannot believe this has gone on so long.  Imagine, if we argue like this over every sentence in the article. Rick Norwood 13:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: What's the purpose of the talk-page then? pookster11 11:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The purpose of talk pages is to work with other editors to develop the page. All development here, however, has ground to a halt over handfuls of words and constant voting. A subpage serves the same function, but it keeps high volume discussions out of the way of developing other parts of the article. The only weakness with this approach is that the discussions can become somewhat hidden. A brief note here helps with that by noting the subpage has new material. --CTSWyneken 11:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Then nobody will read the subpage, and we can move on. Rick Norwood 13:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: As far as the Pharisee/Saducee thing, Grant is the current "High ranking" historian on Rome.  I'd defer to him on just about anything (even though I've written works where I disagree with him...).  Maccoby is somewhat dated and considered highly biased, though he would be the next authority on the topic on the basis of the research and work he presented, though it disagrees with most oher works in the field.  Explaining the Jesus- myth is unecessary here; there's at least two other pages dedicated to the topic.  If you want to summarize the arguments, most of them base themselves around the idea of the Jesus-mythos emerging from the general mythos of the Levant and Egypt, Hellenistic and pre-Hellenistic.  As far as why they aren't widely accepted, there are problems and criticisms for each work but the biggest problem is, as I have said, the originator of the hypothesis, Drews.  As all later research, up to about Wells really, bases itself off of Drews' research, which is admitedly flawed and overtly biased, the field really has almost no credibility whatsoever. pookster11 11:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the thoughts. May I move them to the appropriate subpage? I really don't want to actually discuss these issues yet, just see if it works as an agenda item. --CTSWyneken 11:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael Grant may be an important historian on Rome, but that doesn't mean he is in any way an authority on Jewish leadership in the first century.  I'd say Shaye Cohen is the top-ranked scholar today in this regard.  Saul Lieberman is dated, but still important, as well as Morton Smith. For Jesus' relationship with Jewish authorities, Sanders and Fredricksen are probably the top two scholars. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Um, SL, may I move your comment, too! 8-) I don't want to start the discussion here. See points above. --CTSWyneken 11:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes of course Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, we've come to a surprisingly quick consensus on the third paragraph. Since the overall intro revisions have been tabled, go ahead and archive them. Arch O. La 02:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except, of course, for John 3:16. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 03:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving On 

message: # Archive the whole sorry lot Move all of this to the archive and clear the subpage on the 2nd paragraph. --CTSWyneken 11:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me. pookster11 11:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  I cannot believe this has gone on so long.  Imagine, if we argue like this over every sentence in the article. Rick Norwood 13:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal One 

message: # Immediately move all discussion to the subpage Let's get this conversation off the main talk page so that others can work on the rest of the article. If anyone drops by to talk about the paragraph, move their discussion to the subpage with a kind note and link to the page. Perhaps a note on the user's talk page to give a head's up.--CTSWyneken 11:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the purpose of the talk-page then? pookster11 11:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The purpose of talk pages is to work with other editors to develop the page. All development here, however, has ground to a halt over handfuls of words and constant voting. A subpage serves the same function, but it keeps high volume discussions out of the way of developing other parts of the article. The only weakness with this approach is that the discussions can become somewhat hidden. A brief note here helps with that by noting the subpage has new material. --CTSWyneken 11:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Then nobody will read the subpage, and we can move on. Rick Norwood 13:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal Two 

message: # Leave the text as is for now I'm with Archie and Avery on this one. We do not have more than a small majority on this issue, and, seeing my comment above, I don't expect one, even with an RfC. For the same reason why we give the nonexistence hypothesis any space at all, let's just leave it here. --CTSWyneken 11:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal Three 

message: # Apply to Remove the Block Let's get back to work. --CTSWyneken 11:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal Four 

message: # Everyone Revert Unilateral Changes We must have stability. Be polite in edit summaries and point to the subpage. If we can come to an agreement there with most parties, then we change the paragraph to match it. --CTSWyneken 11:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal Five 

message: # Discuss other issues with the Paragraph We have the Saducees/Pharisee thing still out there. Lets research and discuss. We should also find language to explain why the majority rejects the nonexistence hypothesis and find a way to characterize fairly the nonexistence hypothesis folk. --CTSWyneken 11:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as the Pharisee/Saducee thing, Grant is the current "High ranking" historian on Rome.  I'd defer to him on just about anything (even though I've written works where I disagree with him...).  Maccoby is somewhat dated and considered highly biased, though he would be the next authority on the topic on the basis of the research and work he presented, though it disagrees with most oher works in the field.  Explaining the Jesus- myth is unecessary here; there's at least two other pages dedicated to the topic.  If you want to summarize the arguments, most of them base themselves around the idea of the Jesus-mythos emerging from the general mythos of the Levant and Egypt, Hellenistic and pre-Hellenistic.  As far as why they aren't widely accepted, there are problems and criticisms for each work but the biggest problem is, as I have said, the originator of the hypothesis, Drews.  As all later research, up to about Wells really, bases itself off of Drews' research, which is admitedly flawed and overtly biased, the field really has almost no credibility whatsoever. pookster11 11:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the thoughts. May I move them to the appropriate subpage? I really don't want to actually discuss these issues yet, just see if it works as an agenda item. --CTSWyneken 11:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael Grant may be an important historian on Rome, but that doesn't mean he is in any way an authority on Jewish leadership in the first century.  I'd say Shaye Cohen is the top-ranked scholar today in this regard.  Saul Lieberman is dated, but still important, as well as Morton Smith. For Jesus' relationship with Jewish authorities, Sanders and Fredricksen are probably the top two scholars. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Um, SL, may I move your comment, too! 8-) I don't want to start the discussion here. See points above. --CTSWyneken 11:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes of course Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal Six 

message: Discuss the third paragraph, which we're doing. Now, if only we can figure out what to do with John 3:16! Arch O. LaTalkTCF 09:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal Seven

message: I archived a bunch, but still have to copy archie and Dana's proposals to talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate and archive it. I archived that subpage, so it should be ready for conversation. An editor requested the unblock and it has been accomplished. Have to get a life, so I'll check in later or tomorrow eve. --CTSWyneken 23:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we've come to a surprisingly quick consensus on the third paragraph. Since the overall intro revisions have been tabled, go ahead and archive them. Arch O. La 02:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except, of course, for John 3:16. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 03:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Execution of Proposals 

message: Isn't there a better way to phrase the nonexistence hypothesis? All critical thinkers judge the historicity of the New Testament and accepted (by some) Apocrapha against other extant documents (contemporaneous or not) and what is known about the history of the region. The nonexistence hypothesis is just one hypothesis among many that is based on this technique. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 15:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather not reopen it, to be honest. Also, can we please talk about it on the subpage for paragraph two: talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate? --CTSWyneken 18:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess so. The phrase just bothers me is all. Perhaps people can be thinking of this while waiting to reopen further discussion. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 18:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can we talk on the subpage. Please? 8-) --CTSWyneken 18:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Extant Contemporaneous Documents