Talk:Jesus/Archive 21

message: I believe that the technical term is Gospels, capitalized, when one refers to the four biographies of Jesus in the NT. The word gospel, no capitalization, refers to the core Christian message that was proclaimed. I am not a member and don't really know what I am doing as far as editing, so maybe one of you could check that out and make the corrections if that is appropriate. 
giff@giffmex.org, 11 December 2005.
:Yes I believe so too. One could be referring to the Gospel of Saddam Hussein even by using the capitalization "gospel." However, if you use "Gospels" we know that you are referring to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gospels or gospels? 

message: I just made one small change, and am announcing it here.  I changed the idea that Mormons believe Jesus visited the Americas to that Jesus visited a lot of places, including the Americas.  The Book of Mormon is pretty explicit that Jesus more than just Israel and the Americas, and I think it's a small change with a much bigger effect in tone.  I then removed the line saying the primitive church apostatized for 1800 years until restored by Joseph Smith.  While academically true, I think it's not within the scope of an encyclopaedic article on Jesus. Comments?--Mrcolj 16:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latter-day Saint minor edits 

message: Again, since it was growing too long, the previous discussion has been archived. It can be found at Talk:Jesus/Archive 20. Brisvegas 03:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: I added the article's Featured article candidate status.  Please Support or Object and give your reasons. Thanks. Scifiintel 08:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article candidacy 

message: I'd really like to see that word removed.  Christianity doesn't even get that kind of exposure on here.  It's propaganda of the worst kind.  islam considers Jesus a 'mohammed' concept.  He is not considered to be anything that the NT or historical sources consider him to be.
islamics are confused by their mohammed about what Jesus means.  I am not Christian, however, even the Jewish concept of Yeshua is far, far more needed to be included than the arbitrary retelling of the mythos of mohammedian beliefs.  Also, what is the islamic concept of Messiah that is listed?  Can we at least have an article that links to such a concept of Jesus as islamic messiah?  I'd prefer the entitre paragraph of islamic notions of Jesus to be shorted to him being mentioned as Isa, and that's it.  Most importantly, how can anyone accept what someone 600 years later said as historic fact vs comporaries, which may or may not be accurate, but at least knew him in person? Monty2 11:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, hi... just passing through.  Not a regular contributor at this article, but knowledgeable enough to know that your language is oddly chosen.  Followers of Islam (the religion) are in modern English politely called Muslims, not "islamics" or "mohammedian".  Also, perhaps you should read up regarding the Mehdi before asking "what is the... concept" above.  That Islamic teaching is distinct from, though related to, Jesus' Second Coming, to which Islam also holds.  Lastly, there is much dispute regarding whether (and to what degree) gospel writers were comtemporary with Jesus; also, for Muslims, the teachings of the Quran, though recorded 600 years after Jesus, are the teachings of God, and hence reliable.  Before engaging in further questions here, I suggest you might want to talk with me.  As a somewhat aware non-Christian, non-Muslim I can help with some of your questions in an impartial way.  As an experienced Wikipedian, I will also gladly discuss WP:NPOV concerns with you.  Best wishes, Xoloz 20:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of 'beloved' on the islam sentence 

message: Passages in the Gospel of Mark mention a mysterious young man:
Mark 14:51-52: These verses describe an unusual event associated with Jesus' arrest by the Temple guard in the Garden of Gethsemane. This passage describes an almost-naked young man who had been following Jesus. The passage has an almost cartoon-like theme. The guards grab at the man, but he runs away naked, leaving the men holding only the man's linen cloth. The text reads: "And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him. And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked." 3 Author Bart Ehrman writes: "Interpreters have propounded a host of possible solutions to these questions over the centuries, but there has never been any consensus." 
Mark 10:46: This describes the arrival and departure of Jesus and his followers at Jericho. The text reads: And they came to Jericho; and as he went out of Jericho..."  Scholars have recognized for centuries that there is obviously some text missing from the middle of this verse.  
A letter of Clement of Alexandria (found by Morton Smith in 1958 at the Mar Saba monastary near the city of Jerusalem) quotes two passages from an older version of the Gospel of Mark that are missing in the current version: 
Fragment 1: This was located in "secret Mark" immediately after Mark 10:34. It describes an event very similar to the raising of Lazarus in John 11. Secret Mark relates that a man in Bethany had died. His sister begged Jesus to have mercy on her. At this instant, a voice was heard inside the tomb. Jesus rolled away the stone blocking the tomb's entrance, went in and raised up the brother. 
Following this is an unusual passage: "The young man looked at Jesus, loved him, and began to beg him to be with him....Six days later. Jesus gave him an order; and when evening had come, the young man went to him, dressed only in a linen cloth. He spent the night with him, because Jesus taught him the mystery of God's domain." 4 (Others translate the last two words as "the kingdom of God"). The fragment continues, saying that Jesus later returned to the other side of the Jordan.
 
Fragment 2: Clement's letter also includes the words from Secret Mark which were inserted into the middle of Mark 10:46: "The sister of the young man whom Jesus loved was there, along with his mother and Salome, but Jesus refused to see them."
:if it were central to Jesus' life or if you would have cited sources well or if you would sign your comments, maybe we'd consider keeping this.  As it stands it's information that is too much detail and not focused. Scifiintel 17:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of these issues are discussed in the Secret Mark page. They are too tangental to be discussed here. BTW until very modern times nakedness was rather more 'normal' in public contexts. The first passage is simply an illustration of the general panic at the arrest.Paul B 17:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus' Relationship With a Young Man 

message: Note: The present dating system of this article is a compromised reached as a result of a lengthy debate, please see Talk:Jesus/Archive 16
----
I once removed the BCE/CE dates because when the debate over which systems to use for what was at it's peak many said that for "christian articles" they should use BC/AD dates. I believe this is right. What do you think? Chooserr
:I believe that the consensus that was reached here was that in general the article would use BCE/CE, but would use BC/AD whenever describing a specifically Christian point of view or discussing Churh history (which, of course, is indeed a sizable portion of the article). A perfect example is this section:
::In the 248th year of the Diocletian Era (based on Diocletian's ascension to the Roman throne), Dionysius Exiguus attempted to pinpoint the number of years since Jesus' birth, arriving at a figure of 753 years after the founding of Rome. Dionysius then set Jesus' birth as being December 25 1 ACN (for "Ante Christum Natum", or "before the birth of Christ"), and assigned AD 1 to the following year—thereby establishing the system of numbering years from the birth of Jesus: Anno Domini (which translates as "in the year of the Lord"). This system made the then current year 532, and almost two centuries later it won acceptance and became the established calendar in Western civilization due to its championing by the Venerable Bede.
:The very nature of the contents requires the use of AD and is thus uncontroversial — I cannot imagine anyone objecting, certainly not I.  But there are plenty of sections of the article that address either the context of Jesus's life, or views of Jesus, from a non-Christian perspective; in those sections, BCE and CE are appopriate. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 03:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since BC and AD violate NPOV, if only one must be used then it obviously should be BCE/CE.  Guettarda 14:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes the use of BC/AD POV? --Elliskev 14:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: BC - "before Christ" - asserts that Jesus is the Christ.  AD - "anno Domini" - asserts that Jesus is God.  Wikipedia can only describe POVs, we can't assert them.  (I realise I am never going to win this argument, and there is no reason to bring it up once again).  Guettarda 15:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, you did bring it up once again. Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Both forms are considered acceptable. The importance is placed of uniformity. It may be your opinion that BC/AD is a point-of-view, but BC/AD is common usage and widely accepted as a de facto norm. Likewise, it's my opinion that BCE/CE is a point-of-view, but I accept that it, too, is an alternate de facto norm and widely accepted as such. --Elliskev 15:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Be that as it may, it still violates NPOV.  De facto norms can be horribly biased.  It isn't a valid argument to say "well everybody does it".  Iirc, the NPOV policy actually deals with this argument.  Guettarda 15:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Maybe an argument could be made for systemic bias, but not for NPOV. It's like spelling. Is it color or colour? Is it NPOV for me to spell it color? No. Is it the right way to spell it? It depends on a couple of factors. The nature of the article and the form used previously in an article. --Elliskev 15:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It may be in disagreement with your personal POV, but I don't think there was a communit consensus that it was POV. squell 20:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Note that I think the current compromise is the worst possible choice, making a stylistic mess out of a good article, but apparently the consensus of significant contributors is that it should be exactly that. I will be bold and fix the horrible "AD xx CE", which was only introduced on 8 december by , apparently, so is not subject to the compromise. — squell 11:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just got back from two discussions on Jewish related topics and its seems we have a double standard here.
First, Wikipedia says that if there is no compelling reason to change a term or replace it with one of equal value, the original term stays.
Second, it was the view that since Jews might be offended by seeing AD/BC in a Jewish article, why do Christian's get treated differently?
It should be BC/AD.  People prefer the term to BCE/CE something like 50 - 1 and this is a Christian article.JohnFlaherty 09:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: This is not a "Christian" article, it is an article about someone who is important to Christians but to non-Christians as well.  And we already worked out a compromise; the article does use BC and AD as appropriate. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: As I note above, it really comes down to the question as for whom is this article being written. Incidentally, the answer to that question should determine not only the date notation, but also the whole tone and approach of the article. If the article's ever going to be coherent and read as a sensible whole, this point needs to be decided and enforced. Personally, I believe we should aim for the worldwide general public (who don't necessarily have any prior knowledge of Jesus) as being our audience, although I know others believe the audience should be academics alone, jguk 09:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it comes down to whether we pick up on a trend that is increasingly popular, although some are still ignorant of it, or use an anachronistic system that more and more people are abandoning.  Of course, what I just wrote applies to non-Christians; I understand that for Christians BC/AD will always be meaningful, which is why it is used in this article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Should we not write for our reader? Assuming you agree with this, who do you think the readers are that we should be writing for? jguk 16:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First, we should always find a balance between writing in an accessible way, and reflecting the state of the art of scholarship.  These two aims may come into conflict when talking about string theory, but not in this case.  I have absolute faith in our reader's ability to make sense of any article that uses BCE and CE in a minimum amount of time. I have no doubts about their intelligence.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: BCE and CE are not academic jargon.  The National Geographic Channel (which is VERY pop) uses it. "discursive polysemy" is jargon (just an example).  To answer your question directly: We are writing for an audience of English-speakers who want to learn things they do not yet know. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Jguk, as I've said before elsewhere, this is an encyclopedia, not an Easy Reader.  Your arguments might hold more weight if you were talking about :simple:, but you're not.  Here, they hold little weight.  Tomertalk 23:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  BCE/CE 

message: VOTE: BC/AD vs BCE/CE 9/14/1
BC/AD
#Just as POV as BC/BCE in my opinion, is more appropriate for this article, is still widely used and BCE/BC is the identical dates jsut with different names adn I have very little tolerance for political correctness especially when it is at least just as offensive as BC/AD is for non-Christians.
#As I understand it whatever was in use at the time the article was fiorst written is the policy Wikipedia is going by. However, since BC and AD have been used by Western Civilization for over a thousand years and it is still the most common usage then this article and all articles as far as I am concerned should use the common usage. In fact, I believe most encyclopedias use A.D. and B.C. as well. Dwain 16:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we give it 48 hours? --Elliskev 20:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: VERY GOOD QUESTION!!!  Tomertalk 23:47, 15 Kislev 5766 (UTC)
This was never mean to reject a compromise or stir up trouble, I was unaware of a previous compromise. an't expect meto sift through the archinves before discussing issues and I only did the voting in order to reach a solution to something that users were debating before it got ugly. Please enlighten me:  what was the compromise solution?  ThanksGator (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Isn't it what's in the article? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The compromise is the subject of almost this entire section of the archives.  Read away. :-)  Tomertalk 01:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  stricken section 

message: Does anyone actually want this thing up?, I think it's just wierd.  Also, I thought the reason we had no image of Jesus in the intro is because a physical description of him exists in no historical or other documents.  What do you think? Scifiintel 04:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of Jesus with John ? 

message: I am wondering about the usage of the term extant text with regard to the NT. As I understand it, there may be a few fragments that are candidates for consideration as being from before the year 100 - or maybe not. I do not think the article says anywhere yet that (virtually) nothing written in the original language survives - an important consideration for the historicity section. I understand that extant could also mean "not entirely lost" (like one's uncopied letters one might have burned in the fireplace) but I wonder if the meaning is clear - and if saying there ARE extant documents is taking a position on the chain of authorship --JimWae 04:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read several books on NT textual criticism, and none have ever suggested that we have any extant original manuscripts. The Christian argument is that we have enough copies to verify with a great degree of accuracy the original text of the lost original manuscripts. 05:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extant texts 

message: I have changed the third paragraph to read "his mother Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived. Someone keeps reverting it back to what it was before. But the fact is that the Gospels don't claim that Mary was always a virgin. They give evidence that Jesus had other siblings. The point the Gospels make is simply that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived. So I have made the change for clarity and accuracy. To say that the Gospels claim that Mary was a virgin makes no sense by itself. When was she a virgin? For how long? Why is this important. But my edit makes it clearer. If you revert it, please comment here. Thanks
15:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mary a Virgin 

message: I have just added a new section to Judaism and Christianity on "love."  It is just a stub of a section, hopefully others will add more about the Jewish notion.  But I know that my characterization of the Christian notion is at best wildly incomplete.  Perhaps among the contributors to this page there are some who could go over it and add whatever additional material, detail, nuance, explanation they think necessary. I am very concerned about not misrepresenting, or doing justice to, the Christian point of view. I also added a long quote from Maimonides to the section on Heaven and Hell; in fact, I did a rewrite a week or two ago.  I know the Jewish position is well-represented but again I am concerned that in the process the Christian view may appear misrepresented or at least underrepresented.  So, I'd be grateful if someone checked and made sure the Christian view(s) are accurately and sufficiently represented. Thanks, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  favor? 

message: What's the deal here?  Do we want this or not?  Keeps getting added and taken away and now it's vandalism....I'm confused.  What are people's opinion in this regard.  I for one have no problem with it and am, frankly, at a loss, as to why this seems to be an issue.  Am I missing something?Gator (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an issue because there are no records of what Jesus looked like, so it is best not to have a guess in the intro.  If we want that picture, than put it somewhere other than the intro.  I think the picture's wierd.  So I don't want it at all. And it doesn't make any sense, because there's no evidence that Jesus' disciples were children during his ministry. Scifiintel 21:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder whether we could have a montage of a number of different representations? That could look rather good and get across the fact that we don't know what he looked like and that people see Jesus in many different ways. --G Rutter 21:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I kinda like this pic, from a BBC special.  But I defer.  KHM03 00:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This woodwork picture