Talk:Jesus/Archive 51

message: Many interpret the Gospels to suggest that Jesus opposed strict and literal observance of traditional Jewish law, advocating more the spirit than the letter of the law. Some contend that Jesus preached a "higher level" of morality than in Jewish law, preaching love for not only one's "neighbor," but for one's "enemy" as well
*First of all, by saying "many interpret" and "some contend," we are moving beyond the Gospel accounts to particular interpretations of the Gospel accounts.
*Secondly, we should say who the "many" and "some" are.
*Third, I recognize these as particular Christian doctrines, but they don't cover all Christian doctrines. Christian views on the relationship between OT law and NT Gospel range from antinomianism to legalism, to those who see Jesus as a second Moses in fulfillment of , to the Lutheran and Reformed doctrine on uses of the law found in Law and Gospel.
*Fourth, doesn't this really belong in the Christian Views section?
Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 07:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 2nd sentence can stay if we remove "Some contend". Actually anyone who can read would contend that - it's the plain meaning of the Gospel text. The 1st sentence I would disagree with completely. rossnixon 10:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think qualification of what "traditional" here means might help as well, as if it means the OT there might be somewhat of a clarity problem, but if it was like the "foolish traditions" Jesus spoke about then that probably needs some explanation too. But all your points seem correct. Homestarmy 12:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Homes, I think this is referring in particular to Jesus' commentary on Mosaic law in , which Wikipedia strangely calls antithesis of the Law. I say strangely because only antinomians really believe that this passage is antithetical to the Law! A plain reading of verse 17 disavows any claim of antithesis: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 14:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to have been renamed "Expounding of the Law" on Wikipedia :/. Homestarmy 14:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Codex Sinaiticus renamed the page on April 15, some time after the last time I clicked the link. Much better! You can probably tell how much that "antithesis" thing was bothering me. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 14:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Ross, I half agree with you. IMHO the second half of the second sentence is supported by a plain reading of the text (it is also properly sourced). Jesus did, of course, say "Love thy enemy." Whether or not that represents a "higher level of morality" is a particular theological viewpoint. My own view is that Jesus was telling us what the law really means, but of course that is also POV. I wonder what our Jewish friends would say? Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 14:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I have revised the reference. I've also moved it to the discussion of the Sermon on the Mount, where it belongs. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 22:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The first sentence looks a little awkward to me. How about "Jesus' teachings were in some ways traditional, but in other ways they were radical." Other than that, your revision looks fine to me. However, I am less sure of the various perspectives on Jesus' teachings in relation to OT than I am about James' relationship with Jesus (and even there, apparently, I was wrong). So, what do other people think of Aiden's revision? Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 18:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems a bit vauge to me, what about "Jesus' teachings were both traditional and radical in a sense compared to Jewish law of the time." Homestarmy 23:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really that vague when the next sentence starts "In the area of the Jewish law." Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 13:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then remove the Jewish law part and put it in my sentence and it'll go more quickly :). Homestarmy 13:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: How about using the old wording and adding a footnote to John 13:34? Would that be acceptable to everyone? » MonkeeSage « 15:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as everyone can agree to the meaning of  (although a "new command" seems pretty unambiguous to me, you never know what other people might think). What we're dealing with here is the relationship between the OT law and the teachings of Jesus, and of course there are various interpretations of this even within Christianity (something we might discuss within the Christian views section). To be honest, when I hear the phrase "new covenant," I immediately think of the Lord's Supper—which isn't quite the same thing as the Expounding of the Law. So, I'll let others comment. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 15:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. Seems clear to me also, but you never know. Also . » MonkeeSage « 16:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced statements in [[Jesus#Ministry]]

message: The way the paragraph reads now seems to suggest one coherent picture, where scholars find the differences between the 3 versions (and Jn's lack there of) significant. It seems like the reason Lk and Mt's versions are mentioned are to suppliment each other to paint a coherent picture. This practice seems POV. My proposed solution would be to give Mk's account, and explain in a sentence or two how Mt and Lk differ, but of couse this is just another POV (namely Markan priority). I'd propose something like this. 
:The Gospel of Mark begins with the Baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist, which Biblical scholars describe as the beginning of Jesus' public ministry. According to Mark, Jesus came to the Jordan River where John the Baptist had been preaching and baptizing those in the crowd. After Jesus had been baptized and rose from the water, Mark claims Jesus "saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from heaven, 'You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.'" Luke adds the chronological details that John the Baptist had begun preaching in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, c. 28 AD/CE (Luke 3:1) and that Jesus was about thirty years old when he was baptized (Luke 3:23). Matthew differs from the other accounts by including John's attempt to decline the baptism, saying that it is Jesus who should baptize John. Jesus insisted however, claiming that baptism was necessary to "fulfill all righteousness".
But maybe this is too much. Maybe we could just add "on the other hand" before the narative switches over to Matthew. Maybe this is just a nit pick, but reading that section didn't seem quite right to me.--Andrew c 00:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it Andrew. » MonkeeSage « 01:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really like it, Andrew. Good job. —Aiden 03:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks everyone for your support and suggestions. I have changed the paragraph accordingly. (The anon edit was me).--Andrew c 18:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More concern, this time Baptism

message: I've changed the article to keep it cleaner, and more NPOV. I've erased the B.C.E. and C.E. designation, it is quite unnecessary(especially in this article!). I understand there has been some debate about that, but truly, AD and BC will always remain the standard. No other encyclopedia I've seen has ever used BCE/CE. I know this may be seen as a Christocentric point of view, but in retrospect, we still use pagan names for days of the week, and nobody seems to raise any significant backlash about that.
I also made a little change to make it more clear. Instead of using "/" in between birth and death years, I used a "-" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spotswood Dudley (talk • contribs) 
:The concensus here was to use both notations. » MonkeeSage « 01:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the anon but also feel consensus should be respected. —Aiden 03:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I the only one with a bad sense of deja vu? Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 06:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Aaaahhh the suspense! Homestarmy 12:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calander notation again 

message: I would like to trim down on some of the external links. There are two mormon links, I'd like to remove one. I already moved the "What color was jesus" to the historical column. The wikichristian article is a stub and not that informative. The recently added Who Is Jesus--really?, despite it's great photos of the actual living Christ, should probably be removed (and I wouldn't be hurt if about-jesus.org went away also). The Hindu perspective page is about Christianity, not Jesus. The Notable Names entry seems more like spam that an actual informative EL. "The Words and Life of Historical Jesus by Jesus Institute" doesn't seem that 'Historical'. What do others think? Can we do a bit of trimming? Are there any areas that are lacking/should we look for more links on different topics/pov?--Andrew c 01:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we should avoid a link farm, but people keep adding links. --Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 10:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I just created /Archive 50, and tommorrow I'll be ready to start /Archive 51. Quite a lot of discussion has gone on this year. Arch O. La Grigrory Deepdelver 16:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive update