Talk:Jesus/Archive 46

message: More references:
Jesus as prophet, 1 similiarities, (virgin birth, miracle capability) 2 return to earth stuff in Islam 3 Injil stuff 4 and I might look up the life of Jesus claims and that last sentence when I get home. Homestarmy 20:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just it, the Isa article didn't have references when I looked, wikilinking to other articles doesn't cut it, we're aiming for FA status. I was going to finish looking up that section, but im a bit busy with school :/. Homestarmy 21:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the first fact tag is covered by source #14. The part about Yuz Asaf is just a statement of belief of one small sect. This belief is stated in an article on the offical webpage of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community . As for the second fact tag, I haven't found anything yet to back that up, but i'm still looking--Andrew c 22:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: that first sentence seemed to go more into specifics than source 14 could cover, and i'll try to add in what you found. Homestarmy 22:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I must of not noticed it there or something, I was just skimming over the stuff I found to see if I could see the information, I guess 14 does apply then, which just leaves that last thing, which im pretty sure is backed up somewhere by something. Homestarmy 22:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Interesting. Do you have a sura we can cite? Arch O. LaTalkTCF 07:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sura 4:157, "they said 'We killed Christ Jesus, the Son of Mary, the Apostle of God,’ but they killed Him not, nor crucified Him. It was made to appear to them so and those who differ therein are full of doubts with no certain knowledge. They follow only conjecture for assurity. They killed Him not. God raised Him up to Himself".  Thus, the statement by anon appears to be incorrect.  Additionally, see the initial comments by Dr. Jamal Badawi, here .  See this too, although I'd probably not use it as a reference in the article , and yet more, .  Enjoy.  :)  Jim62sch 16:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but there are now a couple of suras quoted in the Isa section already. I was asking for citations, not quotes, but we have what we have. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 19:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Islamic section

message: Is anyone even considering them? Here's Robsteadman's proposal again:
In 1998, however, the Jesus Seminar, a research group of about one hundred academic New Testament scholars, published The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus (). By a system of votes they decided which events from the New testament happened, which might have happened, which were doubtful and which were highly unlikely to be true. The Jesus Seminar biography of Jesus is somewhat different than the New Testament version: Jesus was born in Nazareth during the reign of Herod the Great, his mother was Mary and he had a human father who was probably not Joseph. A virgin birth was unlikely. He was baptized by John the Baptist who was later beheaded by Herod Antipas. He was an "itinerant sage who shared meals with social outcasts" and "practiced healing without the use of ancient medicine or magic, relieving afflictions we now consider psychosomatic" though some claimed he did this in the name of Beelzebul. He proclaimed the coming of "God's imperial rule". He was arrested in Jerusalem and crucified as a "public nuisance", specifically for overturning tables at Herod's Temple, not for claiming to be the Son of God, during the period of Pontius Pilate and Caiaphas. Belief in the resurrection is based on the visionary experiences of Paul, Peter, and Mary Magdalene and the reality of a physical resurrection is doubtful.
This is probably too long for this article, but I do believe we need to say something about them in the historicity section. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalk PS Peter and Mary: for that, you have to cite the proper page of the TCF 22:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must have missed the first proposal. I think that this is good information about the JS's POV. I personally don't find it too long or too short, but just right. But perhaps the summary of their bio is a little excessive. Are we going to also recap other historical Jesus bios for all the different theories? Or is the JS's the biggest and therefore deserving of the most attention?--Andrew c 22:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Notice I said for this article, which is already starting to get a bit long. I also posted it to Talk:Historicity of Jesus. This paragraph was first put in this article (not the talk page) and was quickly reverted. Many people may not even have seen it. Ergo, we need to (continue to) talk about this: the last discussion (above) went off-topic. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 23:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good stuff. Maybe it could be included here under the  "other views" section - that was an area especially mentioned in the last FA assessment. In the historicity/historical articles it would be nice to have a little more detail on why they came to the decisions they did. Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTalkTCF 23:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps. I have been interested in expanding the "other views" section. Look at how we expanded the Ebionites to include other early "lost" Christianities. I'll leave the "additional details" to others. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 23:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Wherever it goes, it should have a qualification about "alleged visionary experiences," ala the suggestion of Archie's friend above regarding the wording of current article. --MonkeeSage 23:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul definitely said that he had divine visions. Whether or not to believe Paul is another matter. Of course, I do believe him, but that's my POV. Best to just say that Paul wrote such in his epistles, especially since we already cite Galatians. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 23:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. My main thing was to make sure that it was clear that the Peter/Mary visions were recorded in pseudepigraphical material, not directly asserted in the NT. So I think some sort of qualification is in order. Mabye something like "Belief in the resurrection is based on the visionary experiences of Paul recorded in his epistles, Peter, and Mary Magdalene recorded in other contemporary literature..." ...could probably be said better, but mabye something along those lines? --MonkeeSage 23:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Been awhile since I read anything from the JS, but I think they used Gospel of Peter and Gospel of Mary Magdalene. --MonkeeSage 23:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that I think about, mabye they mean the visions recorded in Acts about eating unclean foods? Also, is the statement that "Belief in the resurrection is based..." a reflection of a JS statement, or is it supposed to be a factual account of why Christians believe in the resurrection? If the latter, its not entirely accurate, 1 Cor. 15:4-8 presents at least three lines of evidence: scriptures, physical appearence, and visionary experience. Possibly a fourth, if you add testimony. --MonkeeSage 00:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I currently have the JS book out from the library. If we need to cite references for this section, if we ever agree on a version, I'd be glad to look up the page numbers.--Andrew c 02:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That Paul had a vision is obvious enough: he said as much. The experiences of Peter and Mary are open to interpretation. If nothing else, we can simply say that the Jesus Seminar supports the vision hypothesis. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 04:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 64.169.5.86: You should really make an account a log in, and sign your posts (using 4 ~'s). Regarding Paul and Peter, the NT makes it clear that they claimed to be party to visionary experiences (Acts 10:17, 16:9, 18:9, &c). Regarding Mary Magdalene, there is no such indication, the word vision is never used and the circumstances never indicate that she perceived something that the others around here didn't. The apostles actually make it clear that when Jesus "appeared" to the disciples, he was not an incorporeal vision, but had a body and flesh into which Thomas could thrust his finger to see his wounds (John 20), and which could consume broiled fish (Luke 24). Whether you believe them or not, the canonical gospels don't mention anything about Mary seeing visions. --MonkeeSage 21:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: /*Sheepish grin*/ I stand corrected! --MonkeeSage 18:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please register as a user and sign your comments. It's hard to take someone seriously that posts anonymously.  --CTSWyneken 12:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing to remember is that a vision of angels at the Ressurection does not mean that the Ressurection itself was a vision, although that's certainly what the vision hypothesis states. Also, even an anonymous IP can sign with ~~~~. The problem with anon IP's is that many such IPs are rotated among several users, for example if they attend the same college, work for the same employerer or are signed up for the same ISP. It is important to know who was talking! Before I registered, though, I would always sign with my name and a link to my  website. Since I registered last August, I haven't had to do that. Registration is free and makes things so much simpler ;) Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 21:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, yes, getting into the profound stuff now.  Excellent! Jim62sch 00:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. To me it sounds as if the JS uses the vision hypothesis to explain why Christians believe in the ressurection. It is, of course, only one hypothesis. See also stolen body hypothesis, swoon hypothesis and, well, faith in a literal ressurection. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 02:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with faith in a literal ressurection? :D Homestarmy 15:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because that has scary implications? Maybe Jesus is the way, the truth and the life? rossnixon 20:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus Seminar, part 2