Talk:Jesus/Archive 71

message: === Sermon on the Mount ===
Someone add this pic to article please... 
Jesus' "Sermon on the Mount":
.
Someone please put this pic somewhere (anywhere!) in the article; I cannot because I'm an Anon-user.  THANKS!  --152.163.101.10 10:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this image should replace the contentious baptism image? After all, the baptism image isn't even in the baptism section, as there's no room for it and the Temptation of Christ. The above image better fits in the Ministry section IMO. —Aiden 14:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, it totally belongs in the Ministry section (where the baptism image is currently) because that's the only section that touches on Jesus's teachings. Haldrik 08:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the baptism, it's an important event and one of the few things scholars agree on. It probably deserves an image (if not this one). If there is an appealing baptism picture somewhere, I'd prefer it over the temptation image (even tho the temptation picture is kinda fun). Haldrik 08:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Oooooh. Very long discussion on that. Please see the archives. Kevin/Last1in 01:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, not really here. But it DOES belong in the Historical background of Jesus and probably in the Historical Jesus. Haldrik 07:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That image used to be in this article under the historicity section, and it used to be in the Historical Jesus article as well. I'm not exactly sure why they got removed. I think it has to do with the philosophers info box that someone tried to insert at the top of both articles. They included that image as the main image of Jesus which caused the debate (and I think in the process removed the image from its old placement to avoid redundency). Since the image is no longer at the top of the article, I wouldn't mind seeing it reappear in the historicity section, as long as the caption is clear that it is NOT an image of Jesus, just an artist reconstruction of one of his peers.--Andrew c 14:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the image belongs anywhere, it would certainly belong in Historical Jesus. If you check that article's Talk page and archives, you'll find about 7 (printed) pages of argument over that image. The argument started the day after the image appeared at a press conference and runs through last week; another half dozen pages (the month of May and the first part of June) have gone missing. I'm surprised that Andrew doesn't recall why it got pulled from that article: Even in Historical Jesus, there is little support (outside of Thadman, Andrew & Haldrik) for what is variously called the "fictitious image" and "some guy who's not Jesus". I can see both sides of the issue (it provides an excellent idea of people then might have looked like, but it was never meant to be a portrait of Jesus) and really don't much mind if the image is in or out, but why open that can of worms here where even template placement becomes an entrenched battle? We have on this page some of the greatest artistic representations of the last 1800 years. I suggest we let the argument over this image storm elsewhere. When that argument is over and people in the "real world" begin to (or refuse to) accept that image as one of the Christ, then put it here with appropriate context. Kevin/Last1in 18:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, whether He is making a sign of the cross is interpretation. The mosaic is static, and simply shows the Christ holding up two fingers. While probably symbolizing the sign of the cross, this could simply be a gesture requesting attention, or that of a teacher instructing supplicants. In my eyes, it's also the most neutral image for the header that is both historic and beautiful. Kevin/Last1in 19:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "This could simply be a gesture requesting attention." No it cant. It can only be a sign of the cross. Iconography is a formal "language" with strict meanings. It is to inform an illiterate viewer that this person represents "the Son" (et filii) by the position of the hand. The solar-cross halo also signifies Jesus. To represent Jesus as somebody who would make a sign of the cross isnt accurate nor "neutral". The closest thing Jesus himself would have seen would be the kind of priestly blessing by a Jewish Kohen. Haldrik 00:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the gesture used for the giving of a blessing, not necessarily a sign of the cross, common in iconography.  The three raised figures represent the three persons of the trinity; the two inward fingers represent the two natures of Christ, human and divine.  Personally, I think it is a beautiful image and quite fitting for the article.  Lostcaesar 17:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The three raised figures represent the three persons of the trinity; the two inward fingers represent the two natures of Christ, human and divine." It's definitely fitting for the Trinitarian views section. It's historically anachronistic tho. Haldrik 17:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, a "blessing" and a "sign of the cross" are the same thing. IIRC all blessings by a Christian priest involve the sign of the cross. Haldrik 17:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: "I don’t understand how it is anachronistic." It's anachronistic because Jesus, himself a 1st-century Jew, never saw the ritual of the sign of the cross because it didnt exist yet. He cant have preformed it. As best as possible, an encyclopedic article must clearly distinguish between who Jesus actually was, versus the many cultural and artistic fantasies about him. It's similar to the problem of representing the ancient King David with Michaelangelo's nude statue of King David which is uncircumcised, which is impossible and inaccurate. It's even anachronistic in the sense of using Italian Renaissance ideals of (uncircumcized) beauty to represent a (circumcized) Jew who lived in the Iron Age. By contrast, it's ok to use the stylized statues of the Roman emperors because usually the emperors themselves commissioned them. So, their own cultural and artistic ideal is accurately reflected. Haldrik 17:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And icon is not an artistic fantasy, and this page is not about simply a reconstruction of what a first century Jew would or would not have done.  It is about Jesus in the context of the historically developing understanding of him.  I think Byzantine iconography is an excellent lead for such a presentation. Lostcaesar 19:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean "fantasy" in the sense of free use of imagination, as opposed to what literally happened. "It is about Jesus in the context of the historically developing understanding of him." Exactly. Which is why the different "historical understandings" must be clearly distinguished from eachother. Some of these "historical understandings" are dead wrong. For example, the Medieval Period is loaded with various notions that we find silly today. Haldrik 19:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It is not meant to be a historically accurate image. It is art first and foremost. I think people are taking things a bit to literally. —Aiden 19:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "People taking things a bit too literally". That's the problem. When it comes to religion, people tend to take symbolic notions or imaginary scenarios literally. Because this is a wellknown problem, an encyclopedic article must be especially clear to distinguish reality from "art". Some people assume that Jesus was a Roman Catholic or a Baptist or some other modern kind of Christian, and Jesus wasnt. Haldrik 19:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Interestingly, the method for performing the sign of the cross, which the Ravenna mosaic depicts, did not come into existence until the sixth century (or just before it). This Catholic icon from sixth-century Ravenna, Italy, is essencially an advertisement to promote this newly-invented way of doing the sign of the cross. Haldrik 20:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that really just your intepretation? —Aiden 15:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is, the image depicts Jesus performing a Catholic/Orthodox ritual that existed in the 6th century, but didnt exist in the 1st century. Jesus never performed this ritual or even saw it. It's anachronistic to confuse Jesus with this ritual. Because most Protestant Christians dont recognize the validity of this ritual, it isnt neutral to use this image as a general introduction. Because Jesus himself was a Jew, it isnt neutral to use this image as a general introduction. Haldrik 00:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then under that logic any image of Jesus with a halo or a cross in it should also be removed as those symbols did not exist during his time. And not to engage in a theological debate, but I am a Protestant Christian and I'm the one who uploaded the image and placed it at the top. I highly doubt any point of view is being conveyed by the image. —Aiden 04:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Haldrick's logic is sound. This is not an image of Jesus. It is certainly anachronistic since it incorporates elements that could not have existed at the time of Christ, and only presents an "artistic fantasy" of what Christ might have looked like. Haldrick, please upload your photograph of Jesus so we can incorporate that into the article header. What? No Photo? Hmm. That's a puzzler. So I guess we need to strip all the anachronistic artistic fantasies and leave the article with twenty-three pages of text. Alternately, we could leave this anachronistic artistic fantasy in place since it is as (or more) neutral than most and by far more beautiful that the alternative anachronistic artistic fantasies available. Consensus anyone? Kevin/Last1in 21:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't have said it better myself. —Aiden 01:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: "So I guess we need to strip all the anachronistic artistic fantasies and leave the article with twenty-three pages of text." ... Or we can select a image that is a reconstruction, using features known to exist in 1st century Judea. Strive to be as accurate as possible. Haldrik 03:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article isn't just about the "historical Jesus". It is also about the various perspectives of Jesus, both secular and religious. —Aiden 03:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article isnt about the "ficticious Jesus" either. And if it is, it needs to be clearly labled as fiction. --Haldrik 17:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Another truly stellar idea, Haldrik! Let's put in a recent photograph of a skull that is not that of Jesus coated with digital clay in a way that a few people decided fits said non-Jesus skull, overlaid with pigment that might or might not be similar to the hair- and skin-tones of people who lived near Jesus in the same century. An image, I might remind you, the creators of which have stated was never meant to represent Jesus Himself. They admit that no one knows the colour of skin in 1st Century Judea since no colour representations have survived. They, like artists for the previous eighteen-hundred years, admit they are guessing based on current, limited knowledge. That's so much better than a truly beautiful image, intended to represent the actual subject of this article, that has endured millennia. MUCH "more accurate" to have a pseudoscientific fantasy than an artistic one, don't you think? Kevin/Last1in 12:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The tone of the above comment comes across as sarcastic. I'm not sure why so much emotion needs to be invested in this issue. It's a question of being as clear and as accurate as possible. --Haldrik 17:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: An educated guess isn't equal to or less reliable than something known to be false. Limited knowledge is a fact of being human. But when something is *known* to be false, its falseness must be taken into account. That's how human knowledge works. Science (and a good encyclopedia) isnt omniscient, but it eliminates any false assumption (like Jesus being a 6th-century Catholic priest who gestures a sign of the cross). The opening picture sets the tone of the article in a powerful way, and in this case the Ravenna mosaic imbues the reader with a false sense of Jesus. --Haldrik 17:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Certainly, images about Jesus say much more about the artists and the audiances (and often dont even intend to depict Jesus himself). Perhaps, all images should relocate to a separate article where they can be analyzed. .. Probably to the Images of Jesus article. At this time the article notes that any image doesnt directly reflect Jesus himself, but it doesnt focus on explaining what features of the artist's culture the image does reflect. Haldrik 04:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I had to smile. Check out this 8th-century Medieval manuscript depicting two popes (Gelasius on left and Gregory on right). Compare its popes with the two 6th-century Ravenna mosaics depicting Jesus. Notice how Jesus's clothing resembles Gelasius's papal clothing on left, while Jesus's sign of the cross resembles Gregory's on right. In other words, the Ravenna mosaic seems to depict Jesus as if he was a 6th-century Italian Catholic pope. (It seems most 6th-century depictions of Jesus clad him in the prohibitively expensive Tyrian purple dye, which few beyond the Byzantine emperor or Roman pope could afford.) --Haldrik 04:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing in this article can be proved to be a literal description of Jesus. Every single section of the article deals with views, whether historical views or religious views. Likewise, these images are views. If you're advocating removing these images, you'd need to remove pretty much all text as well. Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is. —Aiden 14:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Nothing in this article can be proved." Nevertheless, some things can be disproved. The accuracy of some claims is more probable than the accuracy of other claims. For example: claims about when Jesus was born. No date can be "proved" at this point, but many dates can be disproved. So there is a range of probabilites. Personally, I'm confident Jesus was born in year 2 BCE, albeit for me 3 or even 1 BCE isnt impossible. I'm aware of the scholars who argue for 6-4 BCE, and they have good reason to do so, but I have a hunch they're wrong. The arguments for 2 BCE require slightly different assumptions (including a period of coregency between Herod the Great and his son) but the arguments are just as good, and in some ways better (much more support from ancient historians). The point is, not everything can be proven, but much can be disproven. I'm satisfied with the current range of birth dates from 8-2 BCE. The analogy of birth dates applies to many aspects of who Jesus was. While our perception of Jesus himself is "blurry", there is some genuine insight. We know for a fact, Jesus wasnt a 6th-century Italian priest. --Haldrik 19:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussions about various images for article 

message: Someone add this pic to article please... 
Jesus' "Sermon on the Mount":
.
Someone please put this pic somewhere (anywhere!) in the article; I cannot because I'm an Anon-user.  THANKS!  --152.163.101.10 10:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this image should replace the contentious baptism image? After all, the baptism image isn't even in the baptism section, as there's no room for it and the Temptation of Christ. The above image better fits in the Ministry section IMO. —Aiden 14:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, it totally belongs in the Ministry section (where the baptism image is currently) because that's the only section that touches on Jesus's teachings. Haldrik 08:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the baptism, it's an important event and one of the few things scholars agree on. It probably deserves an image (if not this one). If there is an appealing baptism picture somewhere, I'd prefer it over the temptation image (even tho the temptation picture is kinda fun). Haldrik 08:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sermon on the Mount 

message: Should this image be added? --DrBat 23:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oooooh. Very long discussion on that. Please see the archives. Kevin/Last1in 01:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, not really here. But it DOES belong in the Historical background of Jesus and probably in the Historical Jesus. Haldrik 07:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That image used to be in this article under the historicity section, and it used to be in the Historical Jesus article as well. I'm not exactly sure why they got removed. I think it has to do with the philosophers info box that someone tried to insert at the top of both articles. They included that image as the main image of Jesus which caused the debate (and I think in the process removed the image from its old placement to avoid redundency). Since the image is no longer at the top of the article, I wouldn't mind seeing it reappear in the historicity section, as long as the caption is clear that it is NOT an image of Jesus, just an artist reconstruction of one of his peers.--Andrew c 14:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the image belongs anywhere, it would certainly belong in Historical Jesus. If you check that article's Talk page and archives, you'll find about 7 (printed) pages of argument over that image. The argument started the day after the image appeared at a press conference and runs through last week; another half dozen pages (the month of May and the first part of June) have gone missing. I'm surprised that Andrew doesn't recall why it got pulled from that article: Even in Historical Jesus, there is little support (outside of Thadman, Andrew & Haldrik) for what is variously called the "fictitious image" and "some guy who's not Jesus". I can see both sides of the issue (it provides an excellent idea of people then might have looked like, but it was never meant to be a portrait of Jesus) and really don't much mind if the image is in or out, but why open that can of worms here where even template placement becomes an entrenched battle? We have on this page some of the greatest artistic representations of the last 1800 years. I suggest we let the argument over this image storm elsewhere. When that argument is over and people in the "real world" begin to (or refuse to) accept that image as one of the Christ, then put it here with appropriate context. Kevin/Last1in 18:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Forensic" Image 

message: The "intro" image of the article is the 6th c. mosaic of Jesus. I like this image a lot. It has both antiquity and impressive realism which is somewhat rare. It even has the "pan-Mediterranean" features that look more "Jewish". These are all good reasons to use this image here. ... On the other hand, in the mosaic, Jesus is making a "sign of the cross" like a Christian priest ... and this is horrendously anachronistic. ... I feel this image really belongs in the section depicting Trinitarian view. In fact, while doing the "sign of the cross", he would be saying, "In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit", and his hand is currently at the position of "and the Son". This makes it very cool for the Trinitarian section. I dont want to move it tho until we can find another appealing image that can serve as a nice intro but also represents Jesus with as much historical accuracy as possible. (But not that "forensic" picture because the one thing we know for a fact about that picture is that it is NOT Jesus, and that just bugs me.) Just a heads up. Haldrik 06:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, whether He is making a sign of the cross is interpretation. The mosaic is static, and simply shows the Christ holding up two fingers. While probably symbolizing the sign of the cross, this could simply be a gesture requesting attention, or that of a teacher instructing supplicants. In my eyes, it's also the most neutral image for the header that is both historic and beautiful. Kevin/Last1in 19:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "This could simply be a gesture requesting attention." No it cant. It can only be a sign of the cross. Iconography is a formal "language" with strict meanings. It is to inform an illiterate viewer that this person represents "the Son" (et filii) by the position of the hand. The solar-cross halo also signifies Jesus. To represent Jesus as somebody who would make a sign of the cross isnt accurate nor "neutral". The closest thing Jesus himself would have seen would be the kind of priestly blessing by a Jewish Kohen. Haldrik 00:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the gesture used for the giving of a blessing, not necessarily a sign of the cross, common in iconography.  The three raised figures represent the three persons of the trinity; the two inward fingers represent the two natures of Christ, human and divine.  Personally, I think it is a beautiful image and quite fitting for the article.  Lostcaesar 17:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The three raised figures represent the three persons of the trinity; the two inward fingers represent the two natures of Christ, human and divine." It's definitely fitting for the Trinitarian views section. It's historically anachronistic tho. Haldrik 17:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, a "blessing" and a "sign of the cross" are the same thing. IIRC all blessings by a Christian priest involve the sign of the cross. Haldrik 17:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: "I don’t understand how it is anachronistic." It's anachronistic because Jesus, himself a 1st-century Jew, never saw the ritual of the sign of the cross because it didnt exist yet. He cant have preformed it. As best as possible, an encyclopedic article must clearly distinguish between who Jesus actually was, versus the many cultural and artistic fantasies about him. It's similar to the problem of representing the ancient King David with Michaelangelo's nude statue of King David which is uncircumcised, which is impossible and inaccurate. It's even anachronistic in the sense of using Italian Renaissance ideals of (uncircumcized) beauty to represent a (circumcized) Jew who lived in the Iron Age. By contrast, it's ok to use the stylized statues of the Roman emperors because usually the emperors themselves commissioned them. So, their own cultural and artistic ideal is accurately reflected. Haldrik 17:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And icon is not an artistic fantasy, and this page is not about simply a reconstruction of what a first century Jew would or would not have done.  It is about Jesus in the context of the historically developing understanding of him.  I think Byzantine iconography is an excellent lead for such a presentation. Lostcaesar 19:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean "fantasy" in the sense of free use of imagination, as opposed to what literally happened. "It is about Jesus in the context of the historically developing understanding of him." Exactly. Which is why the different "historical understandings" must be clearly distinguished from eachother. Some of these "historical understandings" are dead wrong. For example, the Medieval Period is loaded with various notions that we find silly today. Haldrik 19:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It is not meant to be a historically accurate image. It is art first and foremost. I think people are taking things a bit to literally. —Aiden 19:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "People taking things a bit too literally". That's the problem. When it comes to religion, people tend to take symbolic notions or imaginary scenarios literally. Because this is a wellknown problem, an encyclopedic article must be especially clear to distinguish reality from "art". Some people assume that Jesus was a Roman Catholic or a Baptist or some other modern kind of Christian, and Jesus wasnt. Haldrik 19:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Interestingly, the method for performing the sign of the cross, which the Ravenna mosaic depicts, did not come into existence until the sixth century (or just before it). This Catholic icon from sixth-century Ravenna, Italy, is essencially an advertisement to promote this newly-invented way of doing the sign of the cross. Haldrik 20:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that really just your intepretation? —Aiden 15:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is, the image depicts Jesus performing a Catholic/Orthodox ritual that existed in the 6th century, but didnt exist in the 1st century. Jesus never performed this ritual or even saw it. It's anachronistic to confuse Jesus with this ritual. Because most Protestant Christians dont recognize the validity of this ritual, it isnt neutral to use this image as a general introduction. Because Jesus himself was a Jew, it isnt neutral to use this image as a general introduction. Haldrik 00:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then under that logic any image of Jesus with a halo or a cross in it should also be removed as those symbols did not exist during his time. And not to engage in a theological debate, but I am a Protestant Christian and I'm the one who uploaded the image and placed it at the top. I highly doubt any point of view is being conveyed by the image. —Aiden 04:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Haldrick's logic is sound. This is not an image of Jesus. It is certainly anachronistic since it incorporates elements that could not have existed at the time of Christ, and only presents an "artistic fantasy" of what Christ might have looked like. Haldrick, please upload your photograph of Jesus so we can incorporate that into the article header. What? No Photo? Hmm. That's a puzzler. So I guess we need to strip all the anachronistic artistic fantasies and leave the article with twenty-three pages of text. Alternately, we could leave this anachronistic artistic fantasy in place since it is as (or more) neutral than most and by far more beautiful that the alternative anachronistic artistic fantasies available. Consensus anyone? Kevin/Last1in 21:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't have said it better myself. —Aiden 01:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: "So I guess we need to strip all the anachronistic artistic fantasies and leave the article with twenty-three pages of text." ... Or we can select a image that is a reconstruction, using features known to exist in 1st century Judea. Strive to be as accurate as possible. Haldrik 03:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article isn't just about the "historical Jesus". It is also about the various perspectives of Jesus, both secular and religious. —Aiden 03:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article isnt about the "ficticious Jesus" either. And if it is, it needs to be clearly labled as fiction. --Haldrik 17:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Another truly stellar idea, Haldrik! Let's put in a recent photograph of a skull that is not that of Jesus coated with digital clay in a way that a few people decided fits said non-Jesus skull, overlaid with pigment that might or might not be similar to the hair- and skin-tones of people who lived near Jesus in the same century. An image, I might remind you, the creators of which have stated was never meant to represent Jesus Himself. They admit that no one knows the colour of skin in 1st Century Judea since no colour representations have survived. They, like artists for the previous eighteen-hundred years, admit they are guessing based on current, limited knowledge. That's so much better than a truly beautiful image, intended to represent the actual subject of this article, that has endured millennia. MUCH "more accurate" to have a pseudoscientific fantasy than an artistic one, don't you think? Kevin/Last1in 12:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The tone of the above comment comes across as sarcastic. I'm not sure why so much emotion needs to be invested in this issue. It's a question of being as clear and as accurate as possible. --Haldrik 17:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: An educated guess isn't equal to or less reliable than something known to be false. Limited knowledge is a fact of being human. But when something is *known* to be false, its falseness must be taken into account. That's how human knowledge works. Science (and a good encyclopedia) isnt omniscient, but it eliminates any false assumption (like Jesus being a 6th-century Catholic priest who gestures a sign of the cross). The opening picture sets the tone of the article in a powerful way, and in this case the Ravenna mosaic imbues the reader with a false sense of Jesus. --Haldrik 17:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Certainly, images about Jesus say much more about the artists and the audiances (and often dont even intend to depict Jesus himself). Perhaps, all images should relocate to a separate article where they can be analyzed. .. Probably to the Images of Jesus article. At this time the article notes that any image doesnt directly reflect Jesus himself, but it doesnt focus on explaining what features of the artist's culture the image does reflect. Haldrik 04:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I had to smile. Check out this 8th-century Medieval manuscript depicting two popes (Gelasius on left and Gregory on right). Compare its popes with the two 6th-century Ravenna mosaics depicting Jesus. Notice how Jesus's clothing resembles Gelasius's papal clothing on left, while Jesus's sign of the cross resembles Gregory's on right. In other words, the Ravenna mosaic seems to depict Jesus as if he was a 6th-century Italian Catholic pope. (It seems most 6th-century depictions of Jesus clad him in the prohibitively expensive Tyrian purple dye, which few beyond the Byzantine emperor or Roman pope could afford.) --Haldrik 04:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing in this article can be proved to be a literal description of Jesus. Every single section of the article deals with views, whether historical views or religious views. Likewise, these images are views. If you're advocating removing these images, you'd need to remove pretty much all text as well. Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is. —Aiden 14:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Nothing in this article can be proved." Nevertheless, some things can be disproved. The accuracy of some claims is more probable than the accuracy of other claims. For example: claims about when Jesus was born. No date can be "proved" at this point, but many dates can be disproved. So there is a range of probabilites. Personally, I'm confident Jesus was born in year 2 BCE, albeit for me 3 or even 1 BCE isnt impossible. I'm aware of the scholars who argue for 6-4 BCE, and they have good reason to do so, but I have a hunch they're wrong. The arguments for 2 BCE require slightly different assumptions (including a period of coregency between Herod the Great and his son) but the arguments are just as good, and in some ways better (much more support from ancient historians). The point is, not everything can be proven, but much can be disproven. I'm satisfied with the current range of birth dates from 8-2 BCE. The analogy of birth dates applies to many aspects of who Jesus was. While our perception of Jesus himself is "blurry", there is some genuine insight. We know for a fact, Jesus wasnt a 6th-century Italian priest. --Haldrik 19:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ravenna mosaic image