Talk:Jesus/Archive 87

message: I find it strange that the islamic view regarding Jesus is presented in the introduction of this article.   There's a section in the article that adequately deals with views of Jesus from the viewpoint of non christian religions.   Don't you think it makes more sense to present that information down there?   Schicchi (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The introduction introduces the whole article, which is an NPOV article about Jesus. No one questions the importance of Jesus in Christianity, but according to Islam he was an important prophet, and according to many historians he was a man whose life reflected many historical circumstances ... this article should not privilege any one point of view but acknowledge all notable views, in the body but in the introduction as well. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi SLRubenstein, Why revert without discussing?  I am trying to make changes that I believe make the article better, I'm not trying to introduce a POV.   Please refrain from reverting without discussing changes first.   I understand that the paragraph was decided b consensus, but its last sentence just doesn't make any sense at all.  Also, I believe that Christian View should be presented before historical references as Christ is more important as a religious figure. Schicchi (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the second time you have inserted your changes with no consensus. I cannot understand how you claim to not be trying to start an edit war, but you are reverting and editing without consensus multiple times (if that isn't edit warring, then I don't know what is). According to Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (which isn't policy, but is a good guide) it is totally fine to make bold edits. HOWEVER, if you look at the flow chart, no where in it does it say it is OK to put the disputed, controversial content back into the article without consensus. The Cycle specifically says "Do not revert a revert" which you have done twice now. When editing a top tier article (and especially the lead) you have to understand that just about every word of the lead has gone through a fine tooth comb (just look at the size of our archives). The lead has been the productive of the community working together, and it simply cannot be changed by one editor without the support of the community. So please, STOP REVERTING, and build a consensus for your proposal.  -Andrew c [talk] 15:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Andrew, the following sentence : "Very few modern scholars believe that all ancient texts on Jesus' life are either completely accurate[5] or completely inaccurate.[6]"  Does not make any sense as it stands and should not be part of an article in Wikipedia.    Is there a way to make it into something more reasonable?   I read the discussion and I can't believe this is what the entire argument boiled down to.   I will not edit again if you're willing to discuss changing it, but it just sticks out like a sore thumb! Schicchi (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Andrew, sadly from my stand point you are the one that has been reverting my edits.   Seems like the only way to get your attention is to make those edits. Schicchi (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a single revert of your bold changes, and came to talk to discuss those edits (totally in accordance with the BOLD, REVERT cycle). You, on the other hand, have made 3 reverts to attempt to force your way. I find it really had to try to communicate in good faith with someone on the talk page while they are spitting on consensus and trying to force their way though edit warring. If you say the previous wording doesn't make sense, let's discuss how to change it. I said that your proposed wording doesn't make sense either (and if you note above Jstanierm seems to agree with me that the long standing wording makes more sense). I'm open for compromise. I don't like how the discussion has been splintered between this topic and the topic right above, so let's try to keep the conversation in one place (I suggest the topic above because more people have commented there).-Andrew c [talk] 17:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi IFeito, while I can understand you may be attempting to change this article in a positive way, you're acting unilaterally and without consensus.  Wikipedia does need contributors eager to positively enhance pages, and you should perhaps look to other less contentious articles.  This article is the way it is after many long discussions and debates.  Further changes will also undoubtedly require equally long debates.  This is an article where it is not okay to simply come and fire and forget. Jstanierm (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have asked you once before, and I will ask you again now.  Why does the sentence "Very few modern scholars believe that all ancient texts on Jesus' life are either completely accurate[5] or completely inaccurate.[6]" make no sense?  If you do not explain then I will be forced to assume you are a troll. Jstanierm (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic view of Jesus in the introduction 

message: (Because of troll-ish nature of this topic, a majority of the discussion has been removed.)
If user 72.186.213.96 sincerely wishes to improve the article and is not simply trolling (as his lack of user name and dogged persistence might suggest) then I highly encourage him to take advantage of Wikipedia's unique feature which allows anyone to edit it.  Until he does so I don't see any need to fan the flames of this thread.  The points have been made.  Unless he digs up a proper source for his views they will not be included.  No amount of argumentation here will change that.Jstanierm (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blocked. He'll be back in 2 weeks. --Alvestrand (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus was Not a Jew is the Islamic View

message: Well the article didn't let me edit it so I thought I would throw this somewhere else.  Mormons do not consider Jesus Christ as a prophet, but as a Messiah and a Savior.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmackey2 (talk • contribs) 06:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected. Alanraywiki (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus not a prophet according to Mormonism 

message: The genealogy recorded by Matthew differs from the one recorded by Luke. The article claims they contradict one another, but many modern Christians and Church leaders claim this is not the case.
First of all, Matthew, a Jew, wrote to a Jewish audience, presenting Jesus as their promised Messiah – their king from the lineage of David who would sit on the throne of David and rule His kingdom forever. In fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, he often referred to Jesus as the Son of David. 
On the other hand, Luke, a Gentile believer, wrote to everyone else about the Christ, the Son of Adam and the Son of God, because of his beliefe that God’s plan included the entire human race. 
Here are some other comparisons between the genealogies of the two Gospel writers: 
Matthew began his genealogy with Abraham and traced it forward, ending it with Joseph. Luke, instead, launched his account with more recent historical events tracing his account backward from the Son of Joseph to the Son of Adam.  
Matthew wrote of the royal ancestors of Mary, beginning with kings David and Solomon, while Luke recorded the ancestry of Joseph from Nathan, as the Son of David. 
While Matthew wrote the first chapter to bridge between the Old and New Testaments, presenting Jesus as King; Luke began with the ministry of Jesus, revealing His right and legitimacy to serve as the Son of God and High Priest.
Both genealogists provide the reader with historical data from different perspectives. Both traced the bloodline of Jesus to the tribe of Judah and to the lineage of David. However, the most convincing proof that both genealogies were accurate was the silence of the Jewish leaders of the day who did not oppose them.
I refer to a CrossRoads.ca article which details this in greater length.
ESF 22:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The way we have this article organized is that we discuss what the source material says, then we have sections for various interpretations of the source material. What I think you are proposing is to insert a Christian interpretation outside of the Christian perspectives section. What also struck me as a bit odd is that I've heard the argument before the Luke's genealogy is actually Mary's, but I've never heard Mary attributed to Matthew's (and this just illustrates that if we are going to add interpreations, we'll need to include ALL POV. The best place for that is the Genealogy of Jesus article, not here). So I believe the current wording is fine, or at least we shouldn't use space in this article to go into more detail than necessary. (also, you don't have to use HTML code when typing in wikipedia edit windows, there is quite a bit of auto formatting, and we have wikicode to simplify HTML tags).-Andrew c [talk] 23:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification Request For Genealogy Section 

message: Do most ancient texts mention Jesus?  Trivially, no.  This tells us nothing unless we expect most authors in the world at the time to have known of and thought Jesus to be important and worthy of mentioning in texts despite their relevance.  We don't expect to find Jesus in a majority (which is what 'most' means) of texts.  This is patently absurd.  Why should we find Jesus mentioned in a text on selling slaves or a legal text or the majority of other unrelated texts?  The qualifying word must be 'certain' and not 'most' for this reason.Jstanierm (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Certain/Most Distinction

message: I'm not sure that this addition to the Sources on Jesus' life section is accurately representing the quotation from Frederic Kenyon. It introduces the quotation by referring to people who "point out that ... the Gospels were written a short time after the events" and infer historical reliability from that, but then quotes Kenyon as saying that "the dates of the original composition and the earliest extant evidence" are close and that therefore "the Sciptures have come down to us substantially as they were written". I haven't read the original work (the article also seems to be quoting it at second hand), but it seems clear to me that Kenyon is talking about textual criticism, and not historical reliability. EALacey (talk) 11:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you raise a subtle, but valid, point here. The point of introducing this particular quote was to provide pithy text supporting the views of scholars and historians that the New Testament canon is historically reliable (countering the rather lengthy section below it that presents the views of critics). He does seem to be speaking to textual criticism, as you say, this being one of the tools of the historical method, but he is not speaking to internal criticism of the NT itself. I am open to suggestions for improvement. LotR (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kenyon 

message: I think some sort of link ought to be included, because there does seem to be a recurrent theme of such deities throughout human history/mythology, and Jesus certainly belongs in this category.  I believe it would be a disservice to the reader if this connection were not noted in the article somehow.  The current form which uses the word 'deity' seems to work.  Jstanierm 19:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LotR appears to have a problem with "Life-death-rebirth gods", and I can understand on a personal level. His change to "Life-death-rebirth Deity" has no category article, as well it should not (why would you need a category for a singular concept?). I've changed Deity to "deities", which does lead to a category, and sounds a little better to me as well (although it's essentially the same thing...). I suppose it remains to be seen if LotR's issue is with the term "gods" specifically or with the plurality of the categorization (in which case there wouldn't appear to be a solution that would placate that user's distaste).--C.Logan 22:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version is acceptable -- thanks. I did realize that my last edit (an attempt to compromise) created a dead link, but I was hoping someone would do something like this to fix it. Please note, however, that my objection is not a matter of personal taste -- there is difficulty with categorizing Jesus as a "god" because this is also a term for polytheistic deities. For what it's worth, the Wikipedia page discussing the subject is also titled Life-death-rebirth deities. LotR 16:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life/Death/Rebirth 

message: Jesus' existence is no longer taken as fact. We need to update this article so it's known that he maybe existed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.168.218 (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Incredibly few scholars believe that Jesus did not or might not exist.  The overwhelmingly vast historical evidence and scholarly commentary is that he did, in fact, exist.  And not only did he exist, but also he was foundational to the founding of Christianity. Lwnf360 10:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But Jesus didn't found the Christian religion. His words were put in the bible, together with the doctrines in the Councils of Nicaea. Other people founded Christianity, in their own view.Iulian28ti (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The teachings and traditions which Christ taught to the Apostles certainly play an enormous hand in the development of Christianity. Holy Tradition, which ultimately derives from the words, deeds and commandments of Christ transmitted through the Apostles, is the foundational element for nearly 1.4-1.7 billion Christians worldwide (and perhaps much more than that). Additionally, I'm fairly certain that Jesus acts as the focal point of the religion, and in fact is the religion in and of itself- whether or not he acted to found the religion is a non-issue.--C.Logan (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The doctrines of the Council of Niceae (c 325) hardly made it into theNT (written c 50-150, IIRC). Leadwind (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This is covered elsewhere: Historicity of Jesus, Jesus myth hypothesis, and Historical Jesus.--C.Logan (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does Jesus exist? ORLY?