Talk:Jesus/Archive 60

message: I added this article to Category:Criminals.  This is not an attempt to start a flamewar or to troll; by all contemporary accounts (and even The Bible), Jesus broke Roman laws through His religious teachings. Adding this article to this category is not a justification of his execution, but rather an objective categorization of the page.  Just wanted to clear this up so that my action wasn't dismissed as derogatory. Jeff Silvers 04:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which laws?  A.J.A. 04:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blasphemy, at least as defined by those who persecuted Him.  Once again, I'd like to point out that this isn't an attempt to justify His treatment; I'm merely stating that he did, indeed, break established law. Jeff Silvers 04:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Blasphemy wasn't a crime under Roman law. That's why Pilate "washed his hands".  A.J.A. 05:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I looked into it further and discovered that He was actually accused of what amounts to disturbing the peace, ordering His follows to not pay taxes to Ceasar, and proclaiming Himself to be the Messiah. The Bible claims He was entirely innocent of the first two. I'm an atheist, so for me, The Bible isn't enough to convince me He was innocent (nor do I know if He was guilty), but it's certainly enough to make His conviction "disputed." I've removed the criminals category and replaced it with disputed criminals. Jeff Silvers 05:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Disputed convictions is much better.  A.J.A. 05:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahem...where did you look further, ie. where did you find that he ordered his followers not to pay taxes? Or that he was even accused of that? Are you making up your own "facts?" Pollinator 05:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: "Disputed criminals" seems fair to me :/. Homestarmy 15:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It would seem to me the dispute is over whether Jesus literally broke any laws of the Roman empire or whether it was just a set up of sorts. I mean Pilate seemed really reluctant to execute Him. "Criminal" is a somewhat loaded term, and while I agree that in many contexts the word "Criminal" can have quite positive connotations, im not so certain that the positive connotation is nearly universal or anything. Homestarmy 15:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: In the cases of early religious leaders there are also issues of documentation, the lack of religious freedom, and the definition of crime that would make their inclusion problematic. Hence it seems wise to limit it to founders or leaders convicted or indicted after 1880.
Paul of Tarsus, Saint Peter, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Michael Servetus, Patrick Hamilton (martyr), Jan Hus, Hugh Latimer etc. are not included in the criminals category. Neither is John Bunyan, who was never executed but spent a lot of time in jail for preaching without a licence and preached out the window from his cell. Neither is Martin Luther King, Jr., BTW.  A.J.A. 15:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criminals category 

message: The tag was placed several days ago here, but the editor never came to discuss.  No drive-by tagging.  --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 07:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed NPOV tag

message: sorry about that, archived to archive 57
Spicynugget 18:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was what, 17 minutes? Ah well. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 18:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In principle, we should not archive until the page reaches around 30 kb.  This makes it easier for people to catch up on recent discussions, and also makes it possible for someone to add to a recent discussion.  No one can say definitively when any discussion is concluded, because Wikipedia is an ongoing project and any editor has the right to raise a valid point on the talk pages - even if one other editor feels the discussion is closed.  Thus, we should rely on mechanics (how long a page can a typical browser handle) decide when to archive. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's always been larger than 30K when I've archived. I've archived discussion as recent as 5 days (during the recent arrest, trial or execution discussion) or even 3 days (some time ago) when the page has crept above 100K. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: you are right, and I agree with you, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive, don't delete 

message: Small suggestion, maybe it belongs in the pending tasks box but I didn't want to seem foward. Could the various inline links to Biblical verses use inline citation rather than inline links? It's better style, generally preferred in FACs, and keeps the text looking prettier (just a small [42] or whatever rather than a larger link in the article text). Staxringold talkcontribs 21:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've done both, but we should standardize... Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, that's one of the things that made me think the suggestion is worthwhile. It seems to me like you gain very little from inline links (an eensy weensy bit faster to get to the ref'ing info, but you can be more thorough in inline citation), but they disrupt the text quite a bit. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: Please see: 
1) Its important, to point out at the beginning of the lemma that Since the First Council of Nicaea most Christians are Trinitarian 
Why?: Most people think falsly, our contemporary belief in Trinitary is normal case. But it's important to know, the vast majority of christs in the ancient world shared the perspectiv of Arius. Our today-believ is the exotic POV, not the original. 
2) This is a quite interesting case:
*Luigi Cascoli sues for Proof of Jesus
None the less it was done away too. (My fault, did function up to yesterday, now the clip isn't available any more Foreigner)
Thanks for attention Foreigner 08:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Believe me or not: almost all germanic tribes who were christians were arian. And Arius, for shure, was no Trinitarian. And I didn't say with a single word, Nicaea invented Trinitarianism. Of course not. But Nicea was the crossroad for an official dogma that Athanasius had to bee considerd the right position. Even after this dogma the germanic tribes refused for hundreds of years to change their nontrinitarian belief. Foreigner 12:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This article is primarily an article on Jesus, not Christians.  Certainly it should include the major Christian POVs concerning jesus - but for obvious reasons I think it should privilige contmeporary views.  The article on Christology on the other hand should I think go into great detail about changing views of Jesus, and divergent views of Jesus, within Christianity. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Readers should have the chance to realise at first glance if there's contemporary POV or not. But I shall not wage an edit war for that. Foreigner 13:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not sure I understand you.  I agree readers should know that it is a contemporary POV, e.g. "Currently, most Christians" or something like that. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The seven ecumenical councils (which includes Nicaea) are mentioned in the Christian Views section, as is Arianism. The introduction is in the present tense ("Most Christians believe," not "Most Christians have believed") and thus describes contemporary Christian POVs. BTW, at one point the Nicene Creed was mentioned in the intro; it was removed when it was pointed out that some Christians do not accept creeds ("No creed but Christ") yet still accept the doctrine of the Trinity put forth in the Nicene Creed. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An important detail 
and a link
 got lost - why?

message: The second paragraph used to end with a sentence stating that a minority of schoalrs reject the existence of Jesus.  I thought that was accepted as part of the compromise - I certainly see no problem with the setnence (though I think it should be concise and non-argumentative).  what's up? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is somebody trying to change it, I can't tell through all the anon vandalism -___- Homestarmy 14:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  second paragraph 

message: A current subtitle includes "execution" instead of "crucifiction". The known method of execution was crucifiction, which is simply a more specific term. Also, it is a better known term for the event described. Any objections to changing? 69.136.243.29 23:17, May 31, 2006
:I've moved this comment to the bottom of the page. Sometimes comments get missed when they're added to the top of the page instead of to the bottom. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Execution v. Crucifiction

message: Do we need a separate section for this? It's such a small group of people; I think we should either make a sub-section under the Jewish view or place the paragraph under the 'Other Christians views' section. —Aiden 15:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think so.  As far as I can tell, people who identify themselves as messianic Jews are trying to communicate something about their beliefs and about their Jewish identity.  As for Jesus - I do not believe they hold any views not held by opther Christians.  So if our concern is for listing different views of Jesus, I see no need to add those of messianic Jews. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I placed it in its own subsection under Christian views. —Aiden 15:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Not according to Jews. Also, not according to St. Paul.  In Galatians he explains that one of the main points about Christianity is that in Christ one is neither gentile nor Jew.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 09:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A "Messianic Jew" is just an evangelical Christian who converted from Judaism, and still celebrates  Jewish holidays.  Their views about Jesus aren't any different from those of other Christians. john k 10:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: John is right, Messianic Jews are Jews who converted to Christianity (not necessarily evangelical) but still proactively retain their Jewish identity. I said "proactively" since I'm not sure whether I would call her a Messianic Jew, though strictly speaking she is, just as he was. Of course, some MJs differ from some gentile Christians, but then again: GCs differ among themselves as do MJs. Str1977 (smile back) 10:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not question that there exist a group of people who identify themselves as Messianic Jews.  This is a point of view that (in principle) should be acknowledged as such.  I do however question any claim that presents itself as an objective or universal fact rather than a point of view, which is how I read Standonbible's comment.  I also question applying this concept anachronistically (Peter did not call himself a messianic jew.  he just called himself a Jew, and perhaps a Christian too, at a time when the two were not mutually exclusive).  And of course i share john's view which is, however Messianic Jews view themselves, their views of Jesus are no different from those of other Christians and as such do not constitute a distinct POV that needs to be rpresented in this article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I would agree with John K. David L Rattigan 17:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, most Jewish converts to Christianity are simply known as Jewish Christians or as Hebrew Christians. As the article says, "There are important similarities and differences between "Jewish Christians" (or "Hebrew Christians") and "Messianic Jews"." The latter have always confused me. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Messianic Jews

message: I think that Christology should be added to the topics related to Jesus box that accompanies the Jesus tag.  Does anyone object?  If not, could someone add it? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. —Aiden 13:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  topics box 

message: This article has just been removed from the Article Improvement Drive. I'd like to thank everyone who has helped out over the last few weeks; of course, they are still some pending tasks /to do. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AID drive over