Talk:Jesus/Archive 18

message: The tag on the article says that both the article's "neutrality" and its "accuracy" are in dispute. I gather that the neutrality dispute is about BC vs. BCE and so on for designating years, but what is the accuracy issue? Which statements in the article are disputed or thought to be false? Anyone have a short explanation for latecomers? Wesley 04:46, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy dispute? 

message: I realize that someone went to painstaking efforts to change every single article on Wikipedia to point to Jesus, and not Jesus Christ, the name of this article needs to be Jesus Christ, not Jesus. 
#"Christian vegetarianism is the dietary practice of vegetarianism based on the idea that Jesus Christ was a vegetarian."
#"Christian vegetarianism is the dietary practice of vegetarianism based on the idea that Jesus was a vegetarian."
From a non-Christian's ear, version one sounds right. Version two sounds informal. There are more non-Christians on the planet than Christians. We should not refer to Jesus Christ in an informal way in Wikipedia. Kingturtle 18:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you are saying this article should be written from a Christian POV? Slrubenstein   |  Talk  18:38, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, Wesley has argued that "Christ" should be seen as a title, and I am sympathetic to that argument.  On the other hand, it seems to me that "Jesus Christ" refers only to the Christian Jesus, since non Christians do not refer to him as Christ.  I respect your view but honestly do not understand it, I mean, I don't think "Jesus" alone is "informal." Many people become so famous that they need only one name (Cher, for example, and I do grant Jesus is more famous than Cher). Slrubenstein   |  Talk  18:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

text: If there were a John as famous as Jesus, you'd be right.  But the reason we could call the article "Jesus" is precisely because he is so well-known.  There is no John nearly as well-known as Jesus (thought John Lennon put in a claim). Slrubenstein   |  Talk  23:59, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Grace Note here - this article should clearly describe all POV's regarding Jesus with links to other specific articles about him (as opposed to one article for each pov). I do think it should be more clear in the intro why he is such an influential historical figure. Trödel|talk 04:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

text: There's no single way to do disambiguation, and in instances where one subject clearly predominates, it's not uncommon for it to sit unqualified. I think Jesus is such an obvious case, unless someone can suggest another party anywhere near as famous or important as Jesus? Graft 15:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The name of this article 

message: This article is ten times the recommended size for an article. It needs to be parsed down dramatically. Sub-articles need to be created. I am happy to help. Kingturtle 18:20, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The talk page is 347 kb (and growing). The article itself is only 45 kb. srs 18:28, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

text: [T]he most heavenly ecstacies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. El_C 23:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do believe the most appropriate quote for this talk page would be: "Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate". Perhaps it should be up the top in bold? --Silversmith 12:07, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  size of this article....347K ?!?! 

message: I would like to recommend that everyone involved in the most heated of debates on this talk page take a 12-24 hour breather.  Re-read everyones contributions, write your responses, and TAKE 23 HOURS and 59:30 MINUTES to CONSIDER them.  Too much bandwidth has already been wasted on this talk-page with people arguing irrelevant points.  Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion.  This talk-page, on the other hand, is being treated as both, by proponents and opponents on both, each, and every side of this question.  Let the steam off, and then come back and let's try to reach a consensus.  Written this 21st day of the Omer, the Sixth day of the Month of Iyar, in the 5765th Year of the Creation of the One and Only Real God.  (NO POSERS ALLOWED!)  Tomer TALK 07:32, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
:Having read over this talk page, I don't see how the talk is not related to the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calm Down Everyone 

message: The third paragraph of the intro contained too much trivia; I've trimmed it a bit.
We shouldn't pretend that the Common Era is something different from the Anno Domini; they're just two different names for the same thing.Ben Standeven 08:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite.  This is precisely the sort of thing Wittgentsein wrote volumes on.  They are two different ways to refer to the same thing, but they are nevertheless different ways used in different contexts and thus have different meanings.  "The United States of America" and "The Great Satan" refer to the same thing, but have vastly different meanings.  "H2O" and "Holy Water" are two different ways of referring tot he same thing, but they have different meanings.  "Sodomy" and "blowjob" and "felatio" are three different ways of refering tot hs ame thing, but they have different meanings.  "Venus," "the evening star," and "the morning star" are three different ways of referring to the same thing, but they mean diffeent things.  Get it? Slrubenstein   |  Talk  13:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Slrubenstein - if you think sodomy is a blowjob then you are very (sorely?) mistaken! jguk 13:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

text: well, I admit sodomy means other things besides (but including) blowjob. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  16:04, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't speak for all English dialects, of course, but all the dictionaries that I've checked say that "sodomy" means buggery, and only buggery.  I'm sure that there's a really funny joke about this — it's on the tip of my tongue, but I just can't get to the bottom of it. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 16:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Err... at least in the U.S., sodomy is now commonly understood to mean "buggery", since oral sex is now rather common and socially acceptable, and people don't want to call it "sodomy" any more. But historically, so-called "sodomy" laws include both oral and anal sex, since both of these are repellent, deviant acts contrary to nature and the Will of God, etc., etc., which is what "sodomy" really means. The definition has narrowed as mores change. Anyway... Graft 17:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oral sex is now socially acceptable? Not in the restaurants I frequent, it isn't! jguk 18:00, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

text: The point is, I think, the same as your rabbi joke above - we probably all need to lighten up a bit here and allow ourselves the odd light-hearted comment:) Kind regards, jguk 18:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, I just found it intriguing, as a nerd. I didn't mean to suggest U.S. law was the source of the definition, merely that it reflected the colloquial understanding of the term. Also, the O.E.D. says sodomy is merely "An unnatural form of sexual intercourse, esp. that of one male with another.", not necessarily specifically buggery. Anyway! Sorry, sorry. Graft 19:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  My comments on the main article 

message: I find the following sentence dubious: "A smaller but still predominant portion of Christians believe that Jesus was the Son of God, and one of the persons in the Godhead of the Trinity." Exactly how many Roman Catholics do we have in the world? And how many Protestants who believe that Jesus was the Son of God? And how many Eastern Orthodox Christians beleive this? I think that would be more than the fringe groups that don't beleive that Jesus is the Son of God. I would urge that this sentence be removed or modified. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally good points, although we don't want to overstuff an article with names, when we can just provide an extensive bibliography.  Anyway, I tried to respond to one of your comments ... Slrubenstein   |  Talk  03:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent! I realise it's in summary form, but we still need to cite the sources of claims. I do appreciate you do doing this Sl. Even if I disagree with the scholars. WARNING parse error! I misread that bit that Slrubenstein clarified... I do in fact agree with the scholars. Oops. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Let me concur w/Ta bu shi da yu; source information is identified yet "critics" like some historians are aloud to remain anonymous (problem on throughout the entire project).  Nobs 19:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious lead section sentence 

message: I was asked by Slrubenstein to comment on this page and the two versions. Firstly, a caveat. I'm an evangelical Christian. However, I do oppose the rewrite of religious perspectives of Jesus. There is nothing wrong with stating what different religions think about Jesus, so long as it is a neutral and factual account. I'll most certainly disagree with them, but it's very useful to know nonetheless, IMO. However, I think it is more logical to put the "Life and teaching according to the New Testament" bit at the top, then followed by "Cultural and historical background". "Religious perspectives should come after historicity... so basically I think that jguk got it right on this one. 
I would like to know why the lead section is so long! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The two versions 

message: Does anyone dislike the main picture as much as me. I mean the one next to the introductory paragrpahs that is cropped in the "topics related to Jesus" box. Isn't there an alternative that doesn't invoke such a negative response? Abeo was User Jesus is the Christ 16:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it fine, personally, though not as much as I like the one from St. Catherine's monastery on Mt. Sinai shown on Images of Jesus labeled "Christ Pantocrater." We'll never reach universal agreement on which one "looks best," but I think we could do a lot worse than what we have now. Wesley 16:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: The introduction is already a full page long, and it seems to be expanding.  It is no longer an introduction, it is a whole article in its own right.  Please make future edits with an eye to making the introduction shorter, not longer. Jayjg (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: I know that some Christian groups believe that other Gods exist, but that only one God is to be worshipped.  Also, not all Christian groups believe Jesus is their God, but instead a member in the Godhead concept.  This same debate goes into subjects like henotheism, Arianism, Council of Chalcedon, Nicene Creed, Mormonism and Christianity, et al.  But to say that all Christians believe no other Gods exist, and to say that all those who believe other Gods do exist are not Christian, is an on-going debate and to establish it as fact when it has not (and probably never will be) settled is clear POV. - Gilgamesh 12:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The words were "Most Christians believe that Jesus is God".  There is no need to complicate the issue with your "Most (though not all) Christian groups believe that Jesus is the one God".  I am unaware of any Christian group who have multiple gods as a tenent of their faith - do enlighten me.  There are groups, such as the JWs, who deny the deity of Jesus (which is why they use bce/ce to emphaise their pov).  I fail to see why "most" does not satisfy you --ClemMcGann 13:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I could be incorrect, but don't some Latter Day Saints claim that there are multiple gods in the cosmos?  That said, I believe it's still accurate to state that "most Christians believe that Jesus is God".  "Most" may be the key term there.  KHM03 14:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree totaly with this "Most, but not all, ..." is redundant Abeo POV: Jesus is the Christ 18:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

text: A couple of days ago, I added this to the intro: "Christians believe that Jesus was "the only-begotten Son of God ... begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father" (see Nicene Creed)..."  I was then informed that some Christians do not believe this.  But I do not understand why this was deleted, rather than just saying "Most Christians believe that Jesus was "the only-begotten Son of God ... begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father."  Don't most Christians accept the Nicene Creed, or use it as a starting point for further theological developments?  Sure with the word "most" added this is a safe quote, isn't it? I am not a Chirstian but my understanding of Christianity is that it does not assert that Jesus is "one god" or "God" but something more complex, which is what I always believed the wording of the Nicene Creed was trying to articulate. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  16:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Defining beggotten as "not made, one in Being with the Father" takes some Christians out and is not from the "canon". Since all christians believe in some way in the New Testament it seems better to use that language here from John 1, and 3 and let the interpretations be discussed elsewhere. Only a few english translations do not use "begotten". Abeo POV: Jesus is the Christ 16:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

text: To say that most Christians believe that Jesus was begotten by god is no more likely to be correct than to say that most Christians believe that Noah's Ark saved two of every living thing.  Many Christians, at least, if they think about such things at all, think of them as allegorical in some way.  Given that "begotten" is archaic, likely to be perceived as "Biblical English", I'd say that it's not only inappropriate for use (though not mention) in Wikipedia, but that it might even be thought of as PoV.  (My suspicion is that if it were translated into modern English, most people would immediately think it odd to include the claim, but I'll leave that as a mere suspicion, unless anyone wants to try the experiment.) Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 17:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking that the use a scriptural quote rather than one from the Nicene creed would be better. Given that the article needs to not go on forever, using a concise quote from agreed text along with a link explaining that text would be best. Are there some Christian groups that do not believe that Jesus was the "begotten son of God?" - with the assumption being that they may define what begotten means differently. How about "Christians believe Jesus is the Son of God in the flesh." Abeo POV: Jesus is the Christ 18:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But if language is to be treated cavalierly in this way, then we could as well say that most Christians believe that Jesus was a pink teapot ("with the assumption being that they may define what [pink teapot] means differently"). Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 20:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

text: You guys should all check with Wesley, who, aside from being knowledgable, some time in the past discussed a Christology article as a place to discuss different Christian views of "Christ."  I do not remember if he was raising objections or arguing for it, but he certainly has ideas about this worth listening to.  In any event, the Christology article exists and we don't need two more (yet); the intro to this article needs a "Most Christians believe ..." and a link to this article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  17:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I think Christology is the right place to discuss different Christian views of Jesus Christ in detail. I think using a snippet from the Nicene Creed as a summary of Christian belief is far better than choosing one or two Bible verses, for several reasons. First, any given Bible verses suggested, including the ones suggested here, can and have been interpreted to mean very different, even contradictory things about Jesus. The Nicene Creed is intentionally much more explicit and less subject to contrary interpretations, and this has the side benefit of being more informative to an encyclopedia reader seeking information. As SLR surmised, this creed is either directly affirmed or at least used as a starting point by most Christian denominations; I think the most notable exceptions to this are the main nontrinitarian groups. As to the Bible being "canon" while the Creed is not, this is true. However the Creed was adopted in 325AD, at least 50 years before the earliest record of our current New Testament canon was listed in its current form. As a tradition the Creed slightly older, and almost as widely accepted. (Of course the individual books of the New Testament were written well before the Creed; I'm talking about the canonization of it.) A few Christians don't entirely agree with the New Testament canon either; the Mormons have added additional to it, and the Jehovah's Witnesses affirm the list of books but translate selected portions of it very differently in order to better support their theology; see New World Translation. And I think the Coptics also include some additional books from the first or second century like the Shepherd of Hermas. And to go back to an earlier subject, the Mormons do believe that multiple gods exist, although you sometimes have to press them a bit to admit it. Sometimes they'll say they only worship one god so the others don't matter, practically speaking; I'm still not really clear on their doctrine in this regard. Wesley 16:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Just for clarification; Mormons worship One God, the Father of all living.  They believe that Jesus Christ was his only, begotten Son; the Savior of all mankind.  They also believe in the Holy Spirit.  In addition, Mormons believe there may be other gods in the universe, but hey have absolutely nothing to do with what Mormons consider as God's creation.  One can think in Old Testatment terms; Thou shalt have no other gods before me.  Who are those other gods GOD was referring to?  The answer:  it doesn't matter as long as you worship the one, true God.  Where ever these other gods are, whatever they are; in this world or on other worlds...they simply do not matter.  Mormons have one faith and that is in God the Father and in His Son and in the Holy Ghost.  I hope this clarifies for those who might be interested.  I also hope it will enable those who hear the next benevelent, but rather subjective, preacher that attempts to expound on LDS doctrine to promptly, quickly relieve them of their misguided understandings of Mormon doctrine. In doing so, you would have at least one, but more than likely the undying gratitude of the more than 12 million other LDS in the world.  Storm Rider 04:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On whether Jesus is the God or a God 

message: I'd just like to point out that the word "most" necessarily implies "not all"; therefore adding "but not all" to the word "most" is at best superfluous, at worst POV-pushing. Jayjg (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you're right...  I made a thoughtless grammatical error. >.< Fix it as you see fit. - Gilgamesh 10:30, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most (but not all) 

message: It is no secret what my feelings about BC versus BCE are, nor how strong my feelings are.  Nevertheless, perhaps a week ago, maybe more, partisans of two extreme positions accepted a compromise to use both BC and BCE.  If only for the sake of peace, I think this is a compromise we should stick with.  On top of that, understanding how important this article is to Christians, I think that as long as  BCE and CE are also used, and as long as we otherwise adhere to our NPOV policy and present multiple points of view, this compromise is quite reasonable.  Much as I sympathize with anyone who favores BCE/CE only, I really do think we have to stick with this compromise.  Perhaps one day we can revisit this debate, but that day is at the very least months away. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  14:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The time to revisit the debate has arrived. Although this proposal affects era designations for all articles on religious topics, not just Jesus. Kaldari 22:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  BC/BCE 

message: I'm somewhat inclined to think that the fact that Muslims and Christians regard Jesus as the Messiah is worthy of noting in the first paragraph, although they seem to differ in their beliefs about the significance of that title. - Mustafaa 18:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is mentioned, but somewhat obliquely, probably because it is obscured by all that talk about his names in various languages.  That's three places in the article which discuss that, when it only really needs to be in one place.  I'm going to be bold and at least try to cut down on that, and we'll see how it goes. Jayjg (talk) 18:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro sentence

message: ;The vote on this move request is now over - see the Decision section below
Jesus → Jesus Christ -- Jesus Christ is the full name. 152.163.100.139 19:28, 31 May 2005 (UCT)
*Oppose. Unisgned request (I added the information from the hisory). I suppose we have to feed this troll, but this is a waste of time. I would ask an admin to close this vote ASAP. Philip Baird Shearer 08:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: --That's Mr Christ--
Someone has slapped a move notice on the article (without the courtesy of discussing it, or even mentioning it, here), on the grounds that Jesus' full name was "Jesus Christ" (! I'm surprised that he forgot to add his middle initial, "H.").  I don't imagine that it will go though, but those who are interested might want to go to the Proposed Moves page in order to register their votes and comments. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 21:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

text: This issue was already debated and decided on long ago. Jayjg (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

text: "Jesus, also known as Jesus Christ...." which happens to be part of the introduction statement in the beginning of the article, should be enough information to show the readers that Jesus is also known as Jesus Christ.--Gramaic 05:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested moves

message: :--That's Mr Christ--
Someone has slapped a move notice on the article (without the courtesy of discussing it, or even mentioning it, here), on the grounds that Jesus' full name was "Jesus Christ" (! I'm surprised that he forgot to add his middle initial, "H.").  I don't imagine that it will go though, but those who are interested might want to go to the Proposed Moves page in order to register their votes and comments. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 21:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue was already debated and decided on long ago. Jayjg (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

text: "Jesus, also known as Jesus Christ...." which happens to be part of the introduction statement in the beginning of the article, should be enough information to show the readers that Jesus is also known as Jesus Christ.--Gramaic 05:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 09:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Decision

message: Jesus → Jesus Christ -- Jesus Christ is the title the article is often titled in encyclopedias. Many encyclopedias see no problem with having the article called Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the full name. Jesus could mean the name that's pronounced hay sooss, but spelled exactly like the Jesus in Jesus Christ. Thus, it's better to have the article at Jesus Christ, because call an article Jesus is like calling  an article John Thia article is about a specific Jesus. It should be titled Jesus Christ. 152.163.100.139 Jun05
:The community clearly feels otherwise. This was previously debated and decided, and reconsidered just a few days ago. If you feel strongly about this, feel free to submit it for reconsideration after an appropriate waiting period. --MikeJ9919 01:10, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to Jesus Christ

message: :There are also moderate intermediate positions, such as the suggestion that Jesus may have undergone a Near-Death Experience (NDE), a phenomenon well-attested in recent times. Most of the Miracles of Jesus are Faith Healings, which are well documented throughout history. Their numbers, in fact, seem to be increasing rather than decreasing.
NDE Jesus theory is not a "moderate intermediate" position. It has very little relation to what is written in Bible, and at the same time completely ignores all historicity problems, making it completely unacceptable for both sides.
There is no such thing as a faith healing. Even if we count placebo effect and shamanic trickery in, it's not anywhere near strong enough to resurrect people, give sight to the blind or do other feats allegedly performed by Jesus. Taw 13:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NDE / Faith healings 

message: Once again I have removed a lot of 'debate' from the section on 'His Life According to the New Testament'. Can I again strongly suggest that keeping this section as a summary of what the New Testament says about Jesus would be extremely useful to our readers. We can record doubts about historicity, conflicting interpretations etc in other parts of the article. DJ Clayworth 19:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Whether or not there is a mistranslation in or misinterpretation of the Septuagint, the Gospels clearly describe her as a virgin. Jayjg (talk) 19:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: According to the New Testament

message: There are already numerous articles on Jesus' life according to the New Testament, or the Christian view of Jesus, etc. This article needs to be freed from that to a greater extent - hence I propose that "according to the New Testament" be dropped from the headings --JimWae 04:25, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
Uhhhh. And where exactly do we have other sources on Jesus? Other than the Book of Mormon, the Pope, and crackpots claiming that Jesus ordered them to blow up small children? This isn't just about NPOV/POV, but about usefullenss of the article!--Tznkai 17:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus' life - according to the New Testament 

message: Actually, he spoke Aramaic.  He may additionally have spoken other languages, but he certainly spoke Aramaic.  See Aramaic of Jesus. - Mustafaa 17:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't doubt he spoke the local language, as well as Greek and Hewbrew (trade and religious langauges) as the son of a carpenter. Heres my question. WHY DOES IT MATTER!?--Tznkai 17:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Language

message: OK, there can be endless debate over whether Jesus claimed to be God, or this was a deification akin to what happened to Buddha, and a lot of other such emotional stuff, but some things should be in this article, and not all are, which are agreed upon by devout theologian and atheistic historian alike:
* His name would not have been, two thousand years ago, Jesus. Maybe it was Yeshua (though that wasn't a common version of Yehoshua any more, by then), maybe it was something else, but "Jesus" is an Anglicized version of the Roman version of his name. It has the Latin suffix "-us", which no self-respecting Jew of his era, especially an anti-Roman rebel, would have used, and it starts with J, a letter and (in English) phoneme which didn't even exist in that region, neither in Hebrew nor Latin. Anyone here who really knows anything about the period, or the Bible, or Christianity, should be able to agree to this. So mention should be made, early in the article. I mean, one looking up Jesus should quickly be informed of the basic facts of His name.
* Christ is an anglicized version of his TITLE. It was never his surname. Were this going on today, you wouldn't call him Mister Christ, with Christ taking the place of his last name, but instead something like Christ Jesus, or Christ Jesus Josephson...with Christ as his title, like Pope or Doctor. Of course it wasn't Christ, per se, but something like Krista, anyway.(Christos, I believe. RossNixon) The title meant something like "savior", and was not only used in reference to a potential messiah, but also to smaller-scale martyrs and holy men. Surely a complete article should mention this, too, somewhere up front.
Hmmm...there are several other such basic facts which are often ignored, but are still accepted as facts by educated religious leaders as well as people desiring historical accuracy. It's inexcusable that they're not mentioned because people are so busy debating the more unprovable stuff. Unfortunately, I need to put my youngest to bed, perhaps I can get back to it later. 
In the meantime, someone really should add a nice, diplomatic (palatable to both sides) version of the two above facts to the article.
Kaz 02:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  We Can Agree On Some Basic Clarification 

message: I would like to modify this paragraph:
Most Christians believe Jesus to be the second person in the Divine Trinity, and also the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible). Most also believe that Jesus rose from the dead after being crucified, and that those who have faith in him will be saved. Muslims believe he was one of God's most important prophets and also the Messiah, though they attach a different meaning to this than Christians.
I'd like to change it to a very brief summary of the position of Jesus in religions. What religions do you think are notable/important enough to include?
----
Christianity, Islam, Bahá'í Faith come to mind. Other possiblities include Rastafari, Jehova's witness, Mormonism.--Tznkai 4 July 2005 00:02 (UTC)
Ahmadiyya, Buddhism Tomer TALK July 8, 2005 18:22 (UTC)
:Ahmadiyya I suppose is about as muslim as mormonism is (it alll depends on your POV) but Buddhism? I thought Jesus was irrelevant in mainstream, zen, and chinese buddhism?--Tznkai 8 July 2005 18:28 (UTC)
::I'm no expert, but I thought in Mahayana at least, Jesus is regarded as a great teacher.  And if I'm not mistaken, in some incarnations of Hinduism, he's regarded as an avatar of Vishnu as a reëstablisher of what Krishna "came" for.  Perhaps it would behoove us, instead of you and I talking about it tho, to go ask some Buddhists and Hindus.  :-p Tomer TALK July 8, 2005 18:33 (UTC)
:::I can pass for bhuddist, but considering how complicated it really is, it would probably behoove us yes. I'm just trying to think of the most notable and salient ones to add.--Tznkai 8 July 2005 18:39 (UTC)
::::No you can't.  You can't even spell Buddhist.  :-p  I'll go invite comment (to this talk section) on Talk:Buddhism and Talk:Hinduism.  Tomer TALK July 8, 2005 18:50 (UTC)
:::::You'd be surprised how little people care when you want to sell them "Chakra Crystals" from "Buddhist Monks" anyway. of the above list whcih should be noted?--Tznkai 8 July 2005 19:01 (UTC)
In Mandaeanism, Jesus is regarded as an arch-deceiver who came to corrupt the message of John the Baptist. - Mustafaa 9 July 2005 00:44 (UTC)
Hinduism on Jesus: Jesus has almost zero influence in Hinduism, but considerable importance. We Hindus revere all holy men who teach "Higher Truths", and Jesus brought them to humanity with remarkable clarity and wisdom. Jesus, in the Hindu view, is a very high soul who came here to offer Grace and teachings. As the interpretation of Jesus´ sayings by Hindu sages is different from even the apostles´ interpretation, sayings directly attributed to Jesus, as the Sermon of the Mount, or Jesus´ actions themselves, are the base for this view instead of biblic interpretations and philosophy. (see: "The Sermon of the Mount according to Vedanta",  by Swami )   Subramanian talk 9 July 2005 00:55 (UTC)
:Images of Jesus are common in Hindu households in Trinidad, and many people do consider him an avatar.  Guettarda 02:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll: Religions Jesus is important in. 

message: I modified the comparison between Jesus and Alexander to make it accurate, following JimWae's valid point.  But I also restored the sentence explaining that these scholars reject the supernatural elements of the Jesus texts; I do not understand why JimWae deleted this, but it is important.  Finally, I deleted the reference to Achyar S who seems to have no degree higher than a BA and as far as I can tell, has never published in a peer-reviewed journal, or even cited in one.  We all know lots of people (I mean, non-scholars) don't beleive Jesus ever existe, there is no need to try to name all of them. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  changes to history paragraph 

message: Voting is now open on a proposal to amend the Manual of Style regarding era designations (the BC/AD vs. BCE/CE debate). Kaldari 21:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting open on BC/AD vs BCE/CE compromise proposal 

message: ... what has happened to this article? Why on earth is there a whole section on Jesus having a romantic relationship, and why did nobody look at the original text of John 21 to see that the word is agapao and not eros? This is a sad state of affairs, I must say. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah... has been (sensibly) removed from this article. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dear oh dear...