Talk:Jesus/Archive 29

message: I know some people are disturbed about the section on anti-Semitism I put in the "legacy" section.  First, I want to make clear that I have no objection to people editing it if they think it makes it more accurate or NPOV.  However, I do believe that anti-Semitism is part of Jesus' legacy.  This does not mean that Jesus himself would have sanctioned anti-Semitism.  But when people object to the paragraph I put in on the grounds that it may be the legacy of "the Church" (rossnixon, my talk page) or "a sad legacy of his followers" (KHM03, my talk page), I see a double standard (and I am not saying this to offend rossnixon or KHM03, both of whom I am sure are acting in good faith).  The first sentence of the section is "According to most Christian interpretations ..."  I think this opening signals a plain and simple fact: that Jesus' legacy extends far beyond what he accomplished in his life, to what his followers centuries or millenia later have said and done.  The first sentence rightly establishes Christianity and the acts and beliefs of Christians to be Jesus's legacy.  If anti-Semitism has at certain times been encouraged by the Church or elements of the Church, or by some of Jesus's followers, who believed that their acts were supported by their reading of the New Testament, that is as much a part of Jesus's legacy as any other Christian interpretation of scripture, or Christian's belief in relics like the shroud of Turin.  Jesus's legacy is about the significant consequences of both his ministry and - especially "and" - the words and deeds of his followers who have claimed to act in his name.  One's legacy is often at odds with one's own intentions.  I don't think that anyone would deny that the current political system in the US is the legacy of the "founding fathers" - while at the same time agreeing that the current political system is not necessarily what they intended or imagined.  
I tried, earnistly and in good faith, to write an NPOV paragraph.  In addition to mentioning anti-Semitism, I note that not only have their been exceptions, but that many Christians and Christian Churches have also promoted mutual respect and reconciliation.  In addition to mentioning Christianity's role in colonialism, I note that many Christians have fought on behalf of the poor and oppressed.  I have striven to achieve balance.  If people want sources, the article on Christianity and anti-Semitism is full of them  and .  This does not mean that all christians have always been anti-Semitic and I truly felt that what I wrote made this clear.  Eduardo Galleano is a good source on Christianity and colonialism but really any textbook on or history of the European settlement of the Americas discusses the relationship between the conquerers and the missionaries.  Paolo Freire and Gustavo Gutierrez would be the best sources on Christians who have fought on the side of the colonized. 
I can understand why a Christian would feel uneasy about mentioning anti-Semitism as part of Jesus's legacy.  But reconciliation is also part of Jesus's legacy, and we cannot honor that part of Jesus' legacy without also stating what it is that led to the need for reconicliation.  Must we add a sentence that explicitly states that Jesus' legacy has been so great as to include Christians whose actions other Christians have deplored and denounced?  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I respect your view and agree with much of it.  But would it be fair to mention terrorism as a legacy of Mohammed on that article?  Truly, anti-semitism is a tragic thing...sinful, in fact.  And Christians need to own this sin, repent, and reconcile.  But while Christians have used Jesus (esp. the Gospel of John) to support anti-semitic thought & behavior, it isn't unique to Christianity, and most modern theologians would claim that this is a misinterpretation of Jesus' words and intent.  I think we just need to be careful here.  KHM03 13:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy 

message: Please stop revert warring over one particular qualifying word.  Robsteadman, in particular, you've personally reverted 9 times in just over an hour.  This is not in the best interest of encylopedia building. You mention you are aware of WP:3RR, so why are continuing to escalate things?  In the interest of encylopedia-building, please take a break and relax and try to discuss without letting your passions get so worked up.  The topic really can be discussed dispassionately and academically and editors can work together on agreed wording. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 16:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Above, in response to my last comment, Robsteadman wrote, "The problem being that there is no evidence. If you have proof...." Robsteadman 14:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have clearly misunderstood my edits and comments. Robsteadman 16:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well stated, slrubenstein.  I believe Robsteadman is a fairly new editor and is not yet fully aware that WP is not a forum for debating personal beliefs (or nonbeliefs).  Many of us have *no* personal vested interest in whether Jesus actually existed.  Our purpose here is to accurately reflect the extant academic and cultural research on the topic.  Btw, I go with "Most critical historians and Bible scholars".  I think that accurately represents the kind of scholars who agree to the generic events about Jesus' life. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 16:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: In response to Homestarmy, you ask a good question.  I think the answer is mixed.  One of the scholars I cite is Jewish and I am certain that he rejects any claims about Jesus' divinity.  I think I read somewhere that Geza vermes used to be religious but over time (and presumably as a consequence of his research, but who knows) lost his faith.  I have no idea about Sanders, but his books make no claims about Jesus's divinity.  Ditto Bartman, and Fredriksen.  I think Crossan and Meier may be religious and if so, you are right to point out that they do not reject Jesus' divinity.  But again, as far as I know they do not make claims, in their academic books, about Jesus' divinity.  So perhaps (if someone wants to reintroduce the clause in question, which someone took out) we should say "in their published scholarly work, make not claims ..." which would leave open the question of their personal beliefs.  Let's be frank: what is at issue here is not what they personally believe, which by our own policy may be unverifiable.  What is definitely verifiable is their published works.  And I have read at least one book by each of the authors cited in which no claims about Jesus's divinity or any supernatural powers were made; indeed, Sanders and Fredricksen and Vermes, at least, read as if they reject Jesus's divinity, but that is my impression from reading them - I do not remember if they actually ever say "I do not believe he was divine."  But Sanders and fredricksen, for example, say things like, Jesus probably believed that God would restore the kingdom in the immediate future, and that he (Jesus) would occupy a privileged place in the restored kingdom - but this kind of claim is at odds with the idea that Jesus himself would cause the kingdom to be established, and implies a very clear distinction between God and Jesus that I think really allows the reader to conclude that these authors think Jesus was a man, and in no way divine. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion about the divinity or not should be carefully separated from the discussion over historicity. The discussion over whether Jesus is God or not is a separate issue altogether. --Oscillate 17:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert war