Talk:Jesus/Archive 79

message: Why does it show BC and BCE, or AD and CE after each year in the article? An example:  
Jesus (8–2 BC/BCE to 29–36 AD/CE), also known as ....
:It's a long story, which would take....a very long time to explain compleatly. Homestarmy 13:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A long story indeed. CF, for example, /Archive 14, /Archive 15, /Archive 16, /Archive 17, /Archive 18, /Archive 21, /Archive 72, and perhaps other archives. It's been a recurrent issue. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 23:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The simple explanation is that there are a variety of different groups of editors who feel strongly that one or the other dating system is appropriate, and the easiest compromise which satisfied the greatest number of people was to employ both systems.  Basically, people who favor BCE/CE either claim that this is an emerging scholarly norm or that these terms are more neutral than AD/BC which they see as necessarily reflecting a Christian POV.  People who favor AD/BC either are Christian and think that since this article is about Jesus the terms are appropriate, or believe that these terms no longer carry a Christian connotation and in fact represent an established convention that should be followed in all articles and that there is no POV problem.  Our style-guide allows both sets of terms, and using both offends the fewest number of people. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My answer is that "common era" is simply an example of the secularization, i.e. de-culturization of western society.  Lostcaesar 14:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not sure whether I should be offended by the implication that Jews do not belong to Western society, or can be recognized as belonging to Western society only by accepting the dominance of Christian conventions.  Jews lived in Western Europe long before Christians. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I hardly think most uses of CE and BCE these days are trying to replace a more Christian influenced western society with a Jewish one :/. Homestarmy 18:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jews have their own calendar.  I believe it is the year 5767 atm.  If we want to be fair to Jews, and acknowledge their culture, we should use their calendar.  That would mean that we say AD 2006 / Kislev 5767 in respective settings.  CE is not an attempt to be respectful of Jewish culture.  It is an attempt to secularize Christian culture, and its contributions to the world.  In other words, it is a product of a secular attitude that religious contributions to mankind are only beneficial once stripped of their religious nature.  That attitude is as much a threat to Judaism as to Christianity.  The attempt to say that CE is "tolerant" of Judaism is simply the secular myth that de-sacralizing public matters is a step toward tolerance, i.e. that secularism is the utopian solution to strife rather than God (and religion).  In this sense secularism is neither tolerant of Christianity nor Judaism, and I think you can well observe that secular movements within the West have hurt Jewish culture as much as Christian. And, SL, to just speak of the West, Judaism did contribute much to western culture, but it did not contribute a calendar - that's the only reason my comments above were framed as such.  Lostcaesar 23:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is nonsense. BCE/CE emerged because the Western numbering system is now used throughout the world, most of which is non-Christian. Yes, others still persist locally, but it is the standard in business and scholarship. Remember the internatonal celebrations of the year 2000? Chrstianity did not contribute a calendar, just a start date - not much of an "achevement". In English, the names of months derive from Roman deities and of days from Germanic pagan ones. We still persist with these names even though the beliefs are long long gone. The CE notation is not about "tolerance" of Judaism, but about recognising non-Christian sensitivities. Paul B 00:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Asia and the Middle East have their own calendars.  Christianity contriubted the notion that history should be counted from the Incarnation, i.e. that time itself changed with the birth of Christ.  In (previously) Christian cultures some wish to employ BCE/CE because they don't want Christianity (or any religion) to be publically expressed.  In this way they deny, and insult, what Christianity is about: that Christ is the source of unity of mankind.  Respect for other cultures would be employing their calendars in relevant situations, not asking them to take up a dating system that counts form the Incarnation of the Lord and acting like, if we don't say "lord", it will be respectful of who they are and what they believe.  Its like celebrating that certain holiday on December 25 without so much as whispering just what that day is - there is no culture here, just a ghost of a culture.  There is a difference between respecting cultures and destroying cultures. Lostcaesar 09:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sure we all have passionate reasons why BCE is the devil (or the best new thing). But maybe we should keep that to ourselves. This is a talk page, not a discussion forum. Was the vote that took place only 3 months ago (which upheld the vote from the year before to include both era notations) not good enough?--Andrew c 02:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My most recent point had nothing to do with BCE/CE.  It had to do only with the suggestion that the de-Christianization of Western society is tantamount to its de-culturalization.  Lostceaser's response to me at the end of his 23:38, 1 December 2006 comment fully satisfies me and I thank him for it.  He understood what I meant, and responded appropriately and effectively. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Lostcaesar. Celebrating a holiday on December 25 but calling it "Winter Holiday" is a perfect example of why CE is ridiculous. 2nd Piston Honda 21:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, given that Jesus was almost certainly not born on December 24th or 25th, and that he was certainly not born in 1 BC/BCE (or even 1 AD/CE), why is that so ridiculous? --Stephan Schulz 16:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree with Lostcaesar, who I must say made some of the best points I've heard in such a debate. Nonetheless, I have no intention of advocating a change to the dual system we currently have in this article, although I too disagree with need and stated purpose of the 'Common Era' system. —Aiden 16:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd also like to point out to Slrubenstein that Lostcaesar used the term 'secularization', not 'de-Christianization', in his first comment regarding the 'de-culturalization of westen culture.' —Aiden 16:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  question 

message: Nietzsche regarded the character of Jesus as being worthy only of contempt, and saw nothing worthwhile in his teachings.
I would seriously challenge the notion that Nietzsche was opposed to Jesus himself. In The Antichrist, Nietzsche draws a sharp distinction between Jesus himself and the religion which centers around him. Nietzsche considered the real villian of Christianity to be Paul. He believed that Paul corrupted Christianity through a lust for power. He believed that Jesus, along with Buddha, were essentially good men.
:I disagree; I think a cursory reading of the genealogy of morals would make it clear that Nietzsche wrote Jesus's message off as inherently life-negating, and a cursory reading of the Bible would have made it clear that he was right - e.g. anyone who tries to save his life will lose it. Either way, I'm still with Jesus on this one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.179.101.192 (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since that line is unsourced, feel free to change it, I dunno who would challenge you. Homestarmy 00:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nietzsche and Jesus 

message: While many so called experts feel that the Dan Brown book Da Vinci Code's
idea that Jesus had children via Mary Magdalene is preposterous , this idea has been carefully explored in detail for anyone to consider ... including the many many proofs down through time that he did in fact have children; and unlike the Da Vinci Code's fictional claim Jesus has only one descendant today, the number would be very large 80 generations later or today.
See discussion in . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.247.22.103 (talk) 08:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Family & Genealogy Section Addition ?

message: The following was correct by Homestarmy after WaiteDavid137 ("the editor") edited it. However, I feel the following is a good discussion on why WaiteDavid137's edit is inappropriate.
The opening line of the article has been edited to say that the article "alleges" that Jesus is a "hystorical" figure and then references the article entitled, "Jesus as a Myth". There are some problems here. 
First, the author of line has misspelled the word historical. This doesn't meet wikipedia's standards of quality. It needs to be corrected.
Secondly, the location of the edit is poorly placed and grammatically incorrect. The article should not start with a sentence fragment, particularly one dealing with "other views" of the person of Jesus.
That is better placed in one of the subsections of the article, not as the article's opening line.
Third, the editor states that the article indicates that Jesus was an actual historical figure, making it "biased". However, this is the opinion of the majority of historians and researchers about the character of Jesus Christ. By the editor's standard, an article about the earth could be considered biased because it indicates that the earth is roughly spherical and not flat. Or, an article on Elvis Presley is biased because it indicates that he is deceased due to suicide, rather than hiding out in New Mexico. These views can be expressed in the article, but would not be considered generally appropriate for the opening of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.53.128.158 (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  you've conflated two seperate things Third, the editor states that the article indicates that Jesus was an actual historical figure, making it "biased". However, this is the opinion of the majority of historians and researchers about the character of Jesus Christ.
The majority of historians and researchers are pretty sure that there was a living person that the Jesus we see in bible is based upon. The majority of historians DO NOT believe that the Jesus presented in the people did the things claimed within that religious text or existed as a person. --Charlesknight 00:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no historical record of almost anything the Roman provincial governors and puppet rulers did - no one in Rome cared. What you've used is a very poor complaint akin to denying evolution because we don't have the body of EVERY creature that has ever died. As for being a sun god? He's not, and nowhere in the Bible or any Christian document does it indicate he is.128.211.175.239 18:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, because as we all know, as long as you call the other side insane and insult another religions beliefs by comparing their concept of God to deities they certainly don't believe in, they'll certainly surrender themselves over to your argument  -_____-. Homestarmy 13:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus as as a myth??? 

message: Footnote 6 is a reference supporting the statement that some scholars believe Jesus is non-historical/mytholigical. It's a reference to a speech given by a graduate student from Columbia (I think) University, as reported in the local newspaper. This is not, repeat not, a scholarly reference, no matter how good a scholar the drad student might be. I propose deleting it on this ground. (Footnote 5,, referencing the same subject, i.e. the assertion that some scholars question the historicity of Jesus, is more solid and can stay). PiCo 08:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, your right, the reference specifically refers to him as a graduate student of ancient history. I would support removing it then. Homestarmy 13:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed; Lostcaesar 14:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to delete footnote 6 

message: It just looks clumsy and unencyclopedic. Furthermore, as I noted in the edit summary, I couldn't find a single instance of these designations being used in other Wiki articles, so why was it added here and only here? (That was a rhetorical question, mind you.)Jinxmchue 20:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone wants support to drop the double AD/CE system, in favour of a sigle system (preferably AD), write a message to my talkpage.--RedMC 20:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most Historians would prefer a single date system CE/BCE for historical dates, and YA (years ago) or BP (before present) for events in prehistory, or it would seem so from recent historical books I have read,  (History and pre-history are differentiated by the existence of contemporaneous writing that can be deciphered by modern scholars.)  I see the dual dating system in this article as a courtesy to those Christians who would prefer to date years Anno Domini, and in spite of the fact that we know that Christ was most likely not born in the year 1 CE. --BenBurch 20:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But this is the only article I've found with such date designations. BC/AD is still used for articles on Julius Caesar, Plato, Socrates, etc. Why is that? Why haven't "BCE/CE" advocates changed those articles, too? Why has just the article on Jesus been targeted? Or is it just that - the Jesus article is being targeted? Jinxmchue 21:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that CE/BCE should be on those other articles!  Will you help me do that?  It's a big job and I have been putting it off.  As for the present article, there was a LONG consensus process for the present dating scheme detailed in a comment above. --BenBurch 22:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree that BCE/CE should be used for the reasons I've given here and elsewhere. Besides that, it appears that such changes are against Wiki policy (see RedMC's note on my talk page). Jinxmchue 17:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: First of all, Jinxmchue is ignoring a major, major discussion that occured here over a year ago, and then again 3 months ago. It has been a major point of contention whether we use AD or CE, so the working compromise for the past year and a half was to use both. Yes it is clunky, but it keeps the peace. We just voted on this not too long ago, so I really don't think it is time to ask this question again. Please refer to Talk:Jesus/Archive 72 and archives 14-17. Next, while you may personally have been unable to find a single instance of CE in use, I offer Kingdom of Israel, History of ancient Israel and Judah,  History of South America, Agrippa I, Upanishad, Medlar, Muhammad, Zen, Sufism, History of Tamil Nadu (a FA), just to name a few. But more important than examples is the guidelines: Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but should be consistent within an article. WP:MoS#Eras.--Andrew c 22:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To Ben, I highly recommend against going around changing all the date notation, as it has led to....conflicts. Homestarmy 22:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You think it would be a tough sell?  I would have assumed not. --BenBurch 22:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one item which is definently not supposed to be on the menu :/. Homestarmy 23:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Most Historians would prefer a single date system CE/BCE for historical dates...or it would seem so from recent historical books I have read' — my reading experience has been the exact opposite.  The history books I read are medieval history, but I have actually never in my life seen BCE/CE used in them.  I did see it in a book on the Reformation that I just read.  Perhaps medievalists just like Latin.  Lostcaesar 23:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Not as universal as I had supposed, clearly, perhaps it matters what region we are considering and what cultural background the authors stem from? Clearly a book about a part of Christendom would have a strong AD bias? --BenBurch 23:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alas, Ben has secretly uncovered the Christian Fundamentalist monopoly on all historical works concerning Christianity, retreat my bretherin! :D Homestarmy 00:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with Ben, I think most current academics that I have read are using the new dating nomenclature.  I have enough years on me that I prefer the AD/BC out of habit and given my religious convictions only further emphasizes my preference.  I dislike using both, but feel it is the easiest way to keep constant reversions regarding dates to a minimum.  Storm Rider (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Clearly a book about a part of Christendom would have a strong AD bias? Well, I will simply remind you that BCE/CE is just as biased as any other dating system - its just a different kind of bias.  Lostcaesar 09:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll repeat what I said a earlier this year - I so don't care which we use as long as it's consistent throughout the article. If CE/BCE is becoming more common then our transition compromise of both systems is the best one to use at the moment. The whole point of this wiki is that it should change over time but it should reflect the world outside - not drive the changes. Most people (in the UK at least) will understand AD/BC but CE/BCE is becoming increasingly recognised. With conventions that are so widely used we need to put aside our religious agendas and just be honest about the common usage of these terms Sophia 11:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, no, I'm not ignoring any discussion because I didn't know such discussion existed and I certainly don't have the time or inclination to search through materials to find something that happened an entire year ago. I would thank you not to assume things like that. As for your examples of BCE/CE being used on Wiki, I thank you for producing those, but I find it highly amusing that the Wiki links for the dates with the BCE designation (such as those in the Kingdom of Israel article) go to pages that use the BC designation. Silly, inconsistent, confusing, unencyclopedic, and proves my point quite well. Jinxmchue 17:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict)I'm seriously not trying to be rude, but isn't that the definition of ignorant? You come off sounding cocky by saying that a) you simply didn't know that perhaps your concerns had been raised in the past (in fact 1 week ago, look at the top of the page) and that b) you have no interest in learning the history of this debate, and the consensus process that got us to where we are today. This is wikipedia. We work as a community. So please, try not to spit in the face of past discussion. You are more than welcome to disagree with or outright ignore the consensus, but don't get upset if I become frustrated with this attitude. Reading up on policy and past discussions is one way for me to take you more seriously. Saying you have no desire to do these things is upsetting to me. Sorry for being blunt, I do wish you the best.--Andrew c 18:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One or the other system ought to be chosen.  It hardly matters which from a cultural standpoint, because the difference is superficial.  Those who object to AD may not wish to measure time by "Our Lord;" the newer system removes the reference to Christ but does not cease measuring time by Christ's life (as arbitrary as the date may be).  A new system of measurement would have to hinge on some other history-making or -breaking Event; would indeed require a new state of mind.  As a Christian, I am comfortable with a lot of the fabric of our society being intertwined with Christian references, as surely as it is natural for a Southeast Asian nation to have references to Buddhism in its architecture, in its language, on its money.  As an example on this very webpage, the icon chosen to represent the idea of keeing peace during a discussion (a practice disregarded by some I have noticed) is a dove -- which comes straight from the Bible.  Those who want to change this have centuries of work ahead of them.  At the very least, as someone else pointed out, it is interesting that the entry about Christ is singled out to make the point.Yours etc. 18:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You've got to be kinding me—if there is one page above all other pages in Wikipedia that should use BC/AD —it is this one.  To use anything else is just disrespectful.  I don't think editors of the Muhammad article would like it if someone was to place BC and AD next to their BCE/CE.  Try it see how long this would last.  Political correctness gone crazy.  Besides this hybrid format goes against the MOS.  —MJCdetroit 04:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because of the intense discussions here and my work as a theological librarian, I have read a great deal of the scholarly literature on the life and times of Jesus. Both era notations are used extensively. If anyone would care to move from the article here into the literature, they will be confronted by both. We should maintain both, not only for the sake of peace but to keep confusion to a minimum. --CTSWyneken(talk) 14:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed the "BCE" and "CE" date designations 

message: Seriously, did this man do NOTHING bad in his WHOLE life??? I mean C'MON now. and if he did, we are going to slab a big fat "criticism and controversy" section in here, since there soo many articles on this site that have one, but that don't really deserve it. 71.117.209.109 03:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it depends on what you mean by bad and bad to whom :/. There is some criticism in the "other views" section, but the stuff there is pretty much all there is (or at least a pretty good representation of it) notably speaking, and we are supposed to be using summary style already. Homestarmy 04:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That's correct, Jesus is perfect. Any other questions? User:Spock 04:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticism and controversy 

message: The article recognises, eventually, that Jesus is a major prophet of Islam. However, I think it would be pertinent to make a reference to his importance to Islam in the introduction. I thus propose one of the following:
1) The first sentence be changed to say something like, "Jesus (8–2 BC/BCE to 29–36 AD/CE),[1] also known as Jesus of Nazareth, is the central figure of Christianity and a major prophet of Islam."
2) A sentence be added to the introduction, saying something along the lines of "Jesus is also a major prophet of Islam, in which he holds a non-divine status." (not very well worded, but you get the idea)
3) Or the article stays as it is. I don't think this is satisfactory as we get no mention of Jesus' position in Islam, which is significant both for that religion and for comparisons between religions, until waaay down the page.
What do people think? Polocrunch 14:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you're really saying is that the section on Views of Jesus, which is down at the end of the articler, be reflected in the introduction. I have no problem with that, but since Jesus is far more important to Christianity than to any other religion, I'd put it last. Possibly a separate paragraph, saying that Jews believe the Christians are mistaken about identifying Jesus as the Christ, and that Muslims accept him as a major prophet but reject the idea that he was the son of God? PiCo 02:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look through the history, you'll find that there was a fourth paragraph in the introduction for the Islamic view, but it was removed per concerns about prominence, typified by WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. The introduction is meant to summarize the major points of the article. The two largest sections are the Gospel/Christian view and the historical view. Less 'prominent' views of Jesus are confined to the 'other views' section and thus are not necessary required to be summarized in the introduction. However, I personally am indifferent to the inclusion of such a paragraph in the introduction. —Aiden 04:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I read the original post, I was confused because I was thinking about that fourth paragraph. I must have been asleep when it was removed. I personally wouldn't mind seeing it re-instated, but I also wouldn't mind reading the past discussions first. Do you know by chance what archive its in? Thanks.-Andrew c 16:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it was discussed on talk. If I remember correctly an editor removed the summary when the introduction was reworked. —Aiden 05:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it's extremely pertinent to at least mention his status in Islam in the introduction. For instance, "...also known as Jesus of Nazareth, is the central figure of Christianity and a major prophet in Islam." The vast majority of the introduction still focuses on his role in Christianity, but I think it's important to establish that his "paranormal" status, shall we say, is not exclusive to Christian adherents. Ombligotron 13:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can mention Islam in the intro.  I have thought for some time also that we should be using Christian and Islamic dates, parallel, rather than Chritian and secular western dating as we do now.  Lostcaesar 14:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can mention islam in the intro but have to be careful that it is NPOV. Furthermore, there is absolutely no reason to use islamic dates at all, as this article (except for the fact that muslims count Jesus as one of their prophets - along with Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses etc) has nothing to do with Islam. Str1977 (smile back) 15:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I would disagree with adding the Islamic view to the first sentence, as I think everyone can agree the most prominent view of Jesus is as Christianity's central figure and I prefer a short and sweet introduction. However, the re addition of the fourth paragraph would seem to address the issue adequately. —Aiden 15:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus and Islam 

message: The Christian views of Jesus just had a major addition/overhaul, thanks to LostCaesar. Hopefully editors here could review these changes. LC has also requested help in expanding the non-traditional, non-Catholic sections. --Andrew c 18:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes please review - its always better to have many hands involved lest contribution by merely the stamp of one editor.  I tried to include various views but am of course restricted by my own knowledge.  Lostcaesar 00:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian views of Jesus 

message: I know this article is already long, but I made two little additions to the plot summary of the Gospels section that I thought needed to be mentioned because of their significance.  I added a little sentence on the transfiguration, and another on Jesus' teaching concerning repentance and damnation. Lostcaesar 00:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 additions 

message: The assertion that Jesus was arrested by Roman centurions in unthinkable. The Sanhedrin had no power to command Roman soldiers, but instead maintained its own quasi-military force as relegated to it under Roman provincial law.The source quoted never says "Roman soldiers".
The assertion that Pilate washed his hands to show Jesus was innocent is also an assumption, as there is no statement concerning this in the source. The washing of hands to deny jurisdiction over a provincial was a standard Roman governorial practiced, that was practiced not to show innocence, but to relegate jurisdiction to provincial councils, such as the sanhedrin.
The assertion about Christ being arrested because of magician suspicions is supported by records of superstitions of the day. Also, the charge leveled that Christ was a "malefactor" in the KJV is more correctly translated as "magician". 
For more information on this, see the writings of prominent Roman historian Dr. John F. Hall.
:To address only one item: Pilate washing his hands does not mean that he thinks Jesus is innocent. It is a Roman practice symbolizing that the Judge in a trial is innocent of the accused's death because the latter is executing because of his crimes according to the law. And Pilate actually says in the Gospels: "I am innocent" (Matthew 27,24). Str1977 (smile back) 22:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I understood of the Bible and other sources, the Romans did not arrest him on the Sanhedin's command, but for disturbing the peace. Furthermore, it's also possible that the Sanhedrin, or other dissenting Jews, could have bought Jesus' arrest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.211.175.239 (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arrest, trial, death sources. 

message: Jesus is also important in Islam, he is part of the central prophets and hence this needs a serious inclusion in the intro. Jesus the person is not only a figure of one religion but two religions. Jesus is mentioned in the Bible and the Qu'ran. 2.1 billion Christians and 1.7 billion Muslims love Jesus (esa).--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 14:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Worlview needs rep

message: As has been explained and agreed to many times before, this article summarizes Judaism's view of Jesus, not what random individual Jews think. There are 14 millions Jews, who have 14 million different opinions of Jesus. Jayjg (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, this is not about "intellectuals" among Jews. This is about Judaism, the religion. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ....a religion which, like any others, is made up of adherants of varying notabilities. I'm not saying Jayjg is wrong, because he isn't, but in many of these views sections feature views from various highly notable people within each religion :/. Homestarmy 00:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no indication that the people Aminz mentioned were "highly notable" in any way. Furthermore, what makes a person notable may have nothing to do with his notability in a particular religion; for example, Einstein was highly hotable, but he has no standing as a thinker within Judaism - that wasn't his area of expertise. There are hundreds of thousands of highly notable Christians who are in an identical position regarding Christianity. Jayjg (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you plan to list the views of tens of thousands of non-Christians who have written about Jesus? How would you pick and choose which ones to include; would it only be the views of random Jews you have happened to find via searching books.google.com? Jayjg (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, so you did a google search and found an article on "Recent Jewish Interpretations of Jesus"; good for you. However, Wikipedia's Jesus article is itself a summary article, it contains a subsection containing a brief summary of Judaism's view of Jesus, and the fact that Tanner managed to get an article published on some recent Jewish views is not really notable enough for a summary article like this, nor particularly relevant for an article on Judaism's views. Jayjg (talk) 01:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aminz, Judaism is the Jewish religion, your attempts to include "the views of *people* of other religions" do not belong here. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judaism's view of Jesus 

message: Islam and Christianity share this person, Do not lump a section called NOn-Christain views, because this is a POV, Islam could equally say non-Islamic views. This article is part of the section titled Islamic topics. It cannot be lumped in with teh world faiths if Islam holds a significant belief in Jesus. I have politically correctly renamed this section to World Religious Views, to name it non-Christian is a POV and a Bias, see NPOV discuss here!--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 22:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hala, what are you proposing specifically?  I agree that WP:NPOV is strongly stressed on Wikipedia and we strive to achieve that quality in articles.  As TJohn points out, we all have biases, opinions, and personal POV; however, admitting it does not mean that we can completely strip their impact on articles.  BUT we should attempt to do.  We are generally sufficently self-aware to know some of our shortcomings, but there are areas when we do not see our own shortcomings and the effects of our POV.  This may be one of the for some Christians.  We Christians like to claim Jesus for our own because He is central to our faith.  It makes it difficult to accept that others also acknowledge Him in their own religions.  Please make a proposal and let us go from there.  Storm Rider (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: THIS IS AN ARTICLE ABOUT JESUS NOT CHRISTIANITY  worldview is needed