Talk:Jesus/Archive 80

message: I had hoped that some of those who had chimed in on earlier discussions might register an opinion in the poll but they have not. Nevertheless, it is clear that there is no consensus for change. I hope that at point some of you who have registered opinions here will do some research to check the facts that you base your opinions on. I have been surprised in my own research in recent years to discover how many "facts" I once took for granted turn out to be more conjecture than anything else, albeit conjecture which has existed for hundreds of years. As such, these revelations have taught me to be more understanding of others' beliefs as I realize that much of what I believe really has as much to do with faith than objective fact.
--Mcorazao 20:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commentary on the Poll 

message: Because I was reverted, I felt I needed to explain a little further. The recent addition of WLC's opinion is surely cited, but is it relevent? It is a citation of a debate at a the "College of the Holy Cross". Because it is a debate, we cannot see the sources behind WLC's statement. We have to take his word for it that he is telling the truth, instead of exaggerating for rhetorical purposes. On top of that, his debate opponent disagrees with him. So should we cite Ehrman as well? Who are we to believe? I strongly believe that not only is this citation problematic from a WP:V and WP:RS stance, but it is also incorrect. We scanned a lot of literature and came up with as many points as a very diverse group of scholars could agree upon. That is how we came up with the second paragraph. Should we be adding things that may or may not be found in our huge list of cited sources (in the previous sentence) just because WLC said so?-Andrew c 19:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is always difficult to discern what the majority of scholars agree on.  Also, there is a right way to use sources and a wrong way, and this seems to be a real push, one we should be cautious about.  I have seem the position before, though - I think Habermas says a similar argument in one of his books, "historical evidence for Jesus" or something like that.  That might be a better souce.  Lostcaesar 19:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fair.  Reason I reverted was because I misinterpreted original edit statement to mean something like "we can't cite him, he's an apologist" - which effectively means "we can't cite him, he believes in a view he's arguing for".  I see now that my objection to that line of reasoning was completely irrelevant.TheologyJohn 20:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  William Lane Craig debate 

message: Can we please have a brief section on the teaching of Jesus? + probably a main article on that? --Aminz 03:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I too have advocated such a section for some time. I originally created a layout at User:Aiden/Jesus, but stopped working on it after Andrew c and I put effort into condensing the section for the sake of readability. However, I would still like to see some summary made, following my layout or not, of Jesus' most important sermons. —Aiden 05:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These sources are all third hand sources (views/interpretations upon scripture). It would be better to use second hand sources (canonical and non canonical writtings) which already contain all the information one requires to cite. A scholor is going to give his interpretation of what is written about Jesus' teachings. Wiki encylopaedia does not need to bandy about interpretations. People can read a quote from scriptures (or compare two contrasting views from different scriptures) by themselves. They don't need a scholor to judge what has already been written.86.4.59.203 23:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teachings of Jesus 

message: Searching for scholarly sources, I have found the following sources on ethical teachings of Jesus. Would you please add any sources you might have so that we can start working on the section. It would be good not only to describe his teaching but also to specifically point out the "new" teachings he introduced:
*[            The Message of Jesus to Our Modern Life, by Shailer Mathews, The Biblical World, Vol. 44, No. 4. (Oct., 1914), pp. 297-300. 
*, How Relevant Is the Ethic of Jesus?, by S. MacLean Gilmour, The Journal of Religion, Vol. 21, No. 3. (Jul., 1941), pp. 253-264. 
*, A Professional Reading Course on the Ethical Teaching of Jesus., Clyde Weber Votaw, The Biblical World, Vol. 46, No. 4. (Oct., 1915), pp. 249-257.
*,The Ethical Teaching of Jesus, Erwin R. Goodenough, The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Ser., Vol. 57, The Seventy-Fifth Anniversary Volume of the Jewish Quarterly Review. (1967), pp. 243-266. 
*, Ethical Emphases in Teaching the New Testament, James T. Cleland, Journal of the National Association of Biblical Instructors, Vol. 2, No. 1. (1934), pp. 24-26.
*,    Trends toward Individualism in the Teaching of Jesus, Paul E. Davies, Journal of Bible and Religion, Vol. 24, No. 1. (Jan., 1956), pp. 10-17. 
*, The Ethical Principles of Jesus, Alfred Williams Anthony, The Biblical World, Vol. 34, No. 1. (Jul., 1909), pp. 26-32. 
*, The Ethical Teachings of Jesus in Relation to the Ethics of the Pharisees and of the Old Testament. Outline of Nine Studies, Ernest De Witt Burton, The Biblical World, Vol. 10, No. 3. (Sep., 1897), pp. 198-208. 
*, Self-Sacrifice in the Teaching of Jesus, The Biblical World, Vol. 21, No. 5. (May, 1903), pp. 323-326. 
*, The Significance of Jesus,A. C. McGiffert, Jr., The Journal of Religion, Vol. 11, No. 1. (Jan., 1931), pp. 47-62. 
*, The Question of the Relevance of Jesus for Ethics Today, Jack T. Sanders, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 38, No. 2. (Jun., 1970), pp. 131-146. 
*, The Ethical Element in Jesus' Teaching: The Ethics of Jesus by Henry Churchill King and The Ethic of Jesus according to the Synoptic Gospels by James Stalker, Review author[s]: C. W. Votaw, The American Journal of Theology, Vol. 15, No. 2. (Apr., 1911), pp. 282-286. 
--Aminz 08:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These sources are all third hand sources (views/interpretations upon scripture). It would be better to use second hand sources (canonical and non canonical writtings) which already contain all the information one requires to cite. A scholor is going to give his interpretation of what is written about Jesus' teachings. Wiki encylopaedia does not need to bandy about interpretations. People can read a quote from scriptures (or compare two contrasting views from different scriptures) by themselves. They don't need a scholor to judge what has already been written.86.4.59.203 23:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: My addition was removed . Would you please discuss it. Please also see the talk page of historical Jesus. --Aminz 03:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the user who removed your addition did so on the basis that the source was not up to Wikipedia standards. However, if this scholar did make such a claim, I'm almost positive we can find it in published material such as a peer-reviewed journal. —Aiden 11:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  If there is a college discussion, it is either based on the professor's own speculations (in which case, we shouldn't consider this an authority) or it is based on assigned readings (which could be in peer-reviewed journals, academic textbooks, including stuff written by the professor in question) - it is those published works we should draw on as sources. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes; historians study all manner of things, from the English Civil War to the Investiture Contest.  Even one who studies the Antique Near East is operating in a field much different from Biblical Scholarship.  The latter are scholars who study the events in the Bible.  Sometimes the fields overlap, and so this article can use both.  One may also say "scholars of the historical Jesus", which is really more akin to a Biblical Scholar who specializes in a narrow field, rather than a historian who does the same (its really too narrow for a historian).  There is also the related field of apologetics, which in a sense can be understood as those scholars of the historical Jesus whose scholarly opinion is that the Gospels got it right (that is a simplification, but you get the idea).  Basically what we must to is ensure that the source is fitting for encyclopedic use - after that we should have little prejudice against it. Lostcaesar 12:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But individual historians do not cover the large range you imply. Biblical Scholars cover about as much range as the average historian.128.211.254.142 08:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Another thing we need to be cognizant of is the Western academic notion of "modern languages" which has a big impact on the study of history, because traditionally the study of history is the study of historical texts.  Many universities have Departments of Modern Languages (Spanish, French, German etc.) and most History Departments focus on historical documents in those languages in effect French, Spanish, English history.  There are of course other languages that are "modern" in the sense that they are spoken today (are contemporary) yet are often in different departments - thus Quechua and Swahili may not be taught in a "Modern Language Department" and the history of Quichua and Swahili apeakers may often be taught in an anthropology department rather than a history department!  Similarly, non-modern languages, like Greek and Latin and Hebrew, are generally not taught in a Modern Languages Department, and the study of historical documents in these languages is often not taught in a History Department.  Some universities have a "Classics Department" which teaches Latin and Greek, and studies both Latin and Greek literature and history (even if they use the same methods as people who study French or Italian literature and history).  Similarly, some universities have a "Biblical Studies" or "Ancient Near Eastern Studies" department where they teach Hebrew, Aramaic, Uggaritic, Akkadian, as well as the literatures and histories of the people who wrote in these languages.  Again - and this is the key point - a person may have a PhD. or teach in "Biblical Studies" but when it comes to method and theory is as much a "historian" as someone in the History Department teaching American history. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, Andrew, Craig does cite his sources, and they are standard texts, have a look.  Lostcaesar 20:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, LC, you can see for yourself that the statement In summary, there are four facts agreed upon by the majority of scholars: Jesus’ burial, the discovery of his empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection. is unsourced. He cites Brown supporting one statement, Robinson and Kremer supporting another, Lüdemann supporting a 3rd, and L.T. Johnson and N.T. Wright supporting the last. This is the majority of scholars supporting all 4 statements?-Andrew c 21:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's keep in mind that the current and longstanding 2nd paragraph reads "most scholars in the fields of history and biblical studies agree that..." Ehrman, replying to Craig says "the majority of historians do not agree with Bill’s conclusion.... [and] the majority of critical scholars studying the historical Jesus today disagree with his conclusion that a historian can show that the body of Jesus emerged physically from the tomb." (we'll have to assume that Ehrman wouldn't make such a big claim in such an academic debate if it wasn't supported by sources, right?) Craig himself just uses the word "scholars", while Ehrman says Craigs claim is only accurate if you are talking about Christian-believing New Testament scholars. Because exactly whom Craig is referring to by saying "scholars", and because the word "majority" is disputed, I cannot support the proposed edit. I will repeat my suggestion. Dig through our already cited sources and see if they agree or disagree with Craig. If we can find more points of agreement between these scholars, it will only help the article. But I believe the proposed changes are vague and misleading as they stand.-Andrew c 22:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you have a specific wording you could propose?-Andrew c 01:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I have not followed this discussion, but the proposed text needs to be worded better: "While scholars disagree over the historicity of the Resurrection, most hold that the earliest disciples sincerely believed that Jesus had risen from the dead" CBadSurf 02:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still a little concerned over sources (I'll look into my books a little later), but how about something like "While scholar disagree over the historicity of the resurrection, most agree that some of the earliest disciples claimed to have had visions of the risen Jesus."-Andrew c 03:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I knew when I wrote it that "claimed" wasn't the best term because of negative connotations. But you are also correct that "sincerely believed" is fairly strong language.-Andrew c 06:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone, I think Aminz (sorry if I am mistaken) revelas a BIG slippage in this discussion when s/he writes, above, "Well, Craig says: "Even the most skeptical NT scholars admit that the earliest disciples at least believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead."  This sentence means we are not just talking about what some, many, most, or almost all scholars believe.  We are also talking about what scholars believe about Jesus versus what they believe about Jesus' followers.  There is a world of difference between saying that most scholars believe Jesus's post-mortem appearances occured, versus they believe that many of Jesus' followers believed they saw Jesus.  My point: we should keep these separate.  This is an article on Jesus, and in the introduction we should state only what shcolars believe about Jesus (not what his followers believed).  The article has sections on Christian and NT views and there it would be very appropriate to have sentences like, "The vast majority of scholars believe x about the NT" or "According to the vast majority of scholars, jesus's early followers believed ..." Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking the same thing, but wasn't sure how to phrase it. It felt like the follower's beliefs fell more under the Christian views section than the scholarly/historian section. There is some overlap because these are historical Christians, but this article isn't exclusively about early Christianity, or the early follower's belief, so I do feel that this information (while clearly relevent) may not fit so neatly in the LEAD, or at least not in the 2nd paragraph.-Andrew c 15:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a little more research into this. According to G. Theissen and A. Merz's The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide, Gerd Lüdemann (the person that Craig cites for one of his 4 points)  "argues... emphatically for a subjective vision theory. For him the tradition of the empty tomb is an unhistorical apologetic legend." After reading that, I wanted to post it here and hold back my attacks on Craig cherry-picking his sources to support his 'majority'. Furthermore, after some discussion Theissen and Merz conclude "the empty tomb cannot be either demonstrated or refuted with historical-critical methods". They point out that scholars who say the empty tomb is unhistorical typically also "attack" the burial as well. (strike two for Craig) They say it is hard to tell if the empty tomb created the resurrection stories, or if these visions were later explained by creating an empty tomb story. They conclude "the story of the emplty tomb can only be illuminated by the Easter faith (which is based on appearances); the Easter faith cannot be illuminated by the empty tomb." When considering scholarly opinions, they believe "the balance would tilt towards the possibility that the tradition of the emplty tomb has a historical nucleus. But only a little way." I'm sorry if this is all irrelevent because the proposed change only dealt with Craig's point 3 (maybe 4), not points 1 and 2.-Andrew c 16:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The fact remains these points concern what historians believe about early beliefs of Jesus' followers, not what historians believe about jesus.  This distinction is crucial. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Without meaning to sound argumentative, I think that the fact that the subject of discussion is, as it were, not really about the "life" but possible "afterlife" of the subject, that it might be better if that information were included in the Death and Resurrection of Jesus article. (By the way, I am a Christian, just trying to be NPOV, OK?) However, I do think that a section to the effect that "As described in the canonical Gospels, there is reason to believe that the body of Jesus was found to be absent from the tomb on the third day following his crucifixion. Several scholars, prominently including Bart Ehrman, have stated that the evidence available indicates that the majority of Jesus's followers believed that he had arisen from the dead, as described in the New Testament. They also seem to have believed in the post-mortem appearances Jesus is described as having made in the New Testament. For more information, see Death and Resurrection of Jesus." I do not have the materials Ehrman used to make these points when he was speaking against the Jesus Seminar, who held that these appearances could not be justified by fact, readily available, but I think that I might be able to find them rather quickly if it were indicated that they would be useful. Badbilltucker 01:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  View of Majority of scholars on Death and Resurrection of Jesus 

message: "While the earliest surviving manuscripts and fragments of these texts are dated later than the earliest surviving manuscripts and fragments of the canonical Gospels, they are probably copies of earlier manuscripts whose precise dates are unknown."
I think the correct word here is POSSIBLY - the Q document is NOT the consensus view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.211.254.142 (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Q document 

message: The first paragraph explains that Jesus is an anglicized for of the Greek for Yeshua, and even tells us what this name means in Hebrew, but does not tell us that this is the same name as Joshua in English.--Counsel 21:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does now, and that information is verifiable by the same source already cited there. Badbilltucker 01:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Folks, I personally think these edits should be reverted and not reintroduced until people have reviewed these past discussions:  and . Slrubenstein   |  Talk 09:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than expect everyone to dredge up musty archives in order to understand your meaning, why not explain why you don't think this article should mention this? Arker 10:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not going to cut and paste what many other people have said.  What I did do is I went through all the archives - a very time-consuming a tedious process - to find the relevant discussions and I provided links.  I do not think discussion from last year (concerning a topic two thousand years old) is "musty" and I do not think that my asking you simply to click on a link is asking too much of you.  I already did the dredging, and put it in the form of two simple links and all you have to do is click on them.  And you complain?  It will take you far less time to read the links than it would for me to write uop a summary for you - FAR less time.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, here's the thing though. I've read the archives. I don't see any convincing reason to omit this information (thought I do see reasons to phrase it very carefully, perhaps.) So if you see something in the archives I don't see, you need to bring it up. Arker 11:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I appreciate your looking at the archived discussion.  If you think careful rewording would suffice to address the various concerns, then that is fine by me. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also have read the archives. I am also a lifelong practicing Christian (and a bit of a biblical scholar as well) and have never heard any convincing argument against it. The "scholarly arguments in favor of something are not sufficient for inclusion in an article" response could also be applied to everything from gravity to childbirth. Perhaps a more subtle phrasing than that which I used might be called for, or a short statement with a direct link elsewhere, but it is I believe useful to point out that it is extremely unlikely that Jesus had a unique name, which is something that I have heard expressed repeatedly by people who are I believe ill-informed on the matter. Badbilltucker 15:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is too much drivel in the main page86.4.59.203 23:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joshua 

message: Doesn't an article under constant semi-protection fail #5 of WP:WIAGA? Hbdragon88 03:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm...#5 says that it doesn't apply to semi-protection. bibliomaniac15 03:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:GA/R|Good article review]] 

message: Another Question: How can Jesus be listed as being born 8–2 BC/BCE ?  Hello people, BC/BCE is Before Christ/Before Culteral Event...either way he IS the dividing line, he cannot have predated himself.
It's is now a commonly accepted fact that the traditional year of Jesus's birth was wrong. Please get the facts before you ask a question. Zazaban 04:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to be rude; but yes, if you read the Chronology section of this very article you will find a pretty good explanation of the dating issue. —Aiden 12:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That is what encyclopedias are for, and how convienent that people who are confused can actually ask the probable contributors of the article how something works. Homestarmy 03:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction 

message: What exactly is the logic behind having Julius Caesar's dates given in BC/AD form and Jesus's dates in this hybrid slash style?  If anyone should have the old AD tacked on the end you'd think it'd be this guy.Theotherkg 21:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that both are accepted as valid, so whatever way the article starts should probably be left unless there's a very good reason against it. ElinorD 22:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The Arbitration Committee has ruled that AD and CE are both acceptable, so users are not to go changing one to the other.  We had a vote on it almost a year ago, and the consensus was to use both. I'd personally prefer just BC and AD, but individual users who start unilaterally changing it will simply be reverted. Musical Linguist 22:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please no - not this one again. Both are ok and either would be fine. I have never understood what this fight is about as it sooooo doesn't matter. I agree BC and AD make the most sense for this article due to the context but it's not worth the trouble to try to change it.  Sophia 23:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Andrew. Nail. Head. —Aiden 07:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You guys must realize that its discussions like this which are indicative/symptomatic of having far too much spare time!!. Its not like you haven't had this discussion a gazillion times already!!86.4.59.203 23:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BCE/BC - CE/AD 

message: It would only be right to put a short paragraph on the idea that Jesus was a man of color, given multiple scientist and common sense conclude that from the region he was, he had middle eastern characteristics.  Of course, I am guessing that is to much to ask. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.149.207.175 (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The concept of "person of color" was not relevant in Jesus' time, and is not central to His influence in todays world. Justin Eiler 18:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His favourite colours are green (trees), blue (sky) and red (blood). ;-) rossnixon 00:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: ....why do you only use bold for your text? Homestarmy 19:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Please SIGN your posts.-Andrew c 22:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay as much as it pains me to do this. I think it is relevant to the article to mention the pigmentation (trying for a PC word and probably failing) and/or race. Alot of people believe that Jesus was a black man (doubt it) and another larger group believes he was a white almost european-looking man (also unlikely). No matter how unlikely either of these extremes or how few people believe either of them (hope its a few) it is still a controversy that exists and that is given a decent amount of attention from time to time. (personal belief is he was obviously a semtic Mediterranian Jew but meh). Anyway it should probably be in the article somewhere with Biblical evidence cited as well as geographical evidence and whatever else. Btw the parenthesis just make me feel better this posting can be read totally without them. Eno-Etile 12:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey, I have a crazy idea, how about if a citation from a reliable source can be provided then we mention it, otherwise not? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Meh controversy is controversy and controversy is important and suitable for encyclopedias. I'm sure theres a source somewhere...Eno-Etile 03:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: All of this is the worst kind of pseudo-scientific speculation.  There are documents from Romans mentioning their encountering people they thought were Roman and then learned were Jews.  The point is NOT that Jews "looked like" Romans.  The point is that around the Mediterranean there is a wide range of skin tones and facial features and Romans understood that not all Romans look alike, not all Jews look alike, and there is no reason why a Jew can't look like a Greek or a Greek like a Roman etc.  Yes, it is anachronistic and just stupid to think Jesus (incarnate) looked like Sting or David Bowie.  But then again, what does an "Anglo Saxon" look like?  As for composite images to represent some average Galilean, well, one thing we do know: very few people in the world are average.  I don't see this as at all helpful. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Publius Lentullus is fictional. All these issues are discussed in the article Race of Jesus. Paul B 15:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus Color 

message: Jesus of Nazareth
The place name Nazoreth did not exist during the time of Jesus. It is a second century place name. Jesus was refered to in the new testament scriptures as 'Jesus the Nararite'. A Nazarite is a person who belongs to a subsect of Essene Jewdaism. For instance, upon the cross the Romans nailed the sign 'Jesus the Nazarite, King of the Jews'. It is a mistake of translation between Greek to other languages that 'Jesus the Nazarite' became 'Jesus the Nazarene'. Later this mistranslation was interpreted as 'Jesus of Nazareth', but only after the 2nd century. Prior to the second century no Narareth existed in Palastine, or Jordan (where Jesus was babtized by the Nazarite John the Babtist). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.149.206.5 (talk • contribs).
:you are wrong. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All major historians of the time accept that Jesus was from a small and otherwise un-noteworty town, Nazareth.  My sources: Crossan, Sanders, Vermes, Eriksen.  You show me one major historian who disagrees.  Also, you are simply wrong that Nazarites were a sect of Essenes and I can't believe you have any evidence to support this bizarre claim.  Be that as it may, it is highly unlikely that Jesus was a Nazarite because he did things that violated their vows - he drank wine and approached the dead.  And he didn't do anything Nazarites are supposed to do. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Couldn't agree more. --BenBurch 21:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You are spouting crank theories by people who are simply making things up about the Essenes and the Dead Sea Scrolls.  These claims are so far beyond rigorous academic scholarship that you may as well say Jesus was really an alien and that the reason the cave in which he was entombed was later empty was because he had beamed back up to his starship and by the say the Dead Sea Scrolls include blueprints for a teleportation device.  Pure BS.  And it has no place in an encyclopedia, unless you want to contribute to "the Crank's Encyclopedia of BS." Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Please be civil and Assume good faith.  I have studied theology, and it did open my mind to new scholarly perspectives.  I have seen no evidence that most of these ideas you are presenting are remotely accepted by any serious academic. TheologyJohn 15:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia has a "undue weight" clause in our neutral point of view policy. This means that we are to try our best to represent the majority scholarly view as such, and not give a disproportionate amount of space to minority view. In fact, some view are so obscure/minority that they don't belong in some top tier articles. Wikipedia is not a place to present The Truth, nor is it a place to catalogue every possible view on a topic. This is why some other editors have asked for sources and questioned the significance of your cited scholars. You see, everything on wikipedia has to be reliably sourced and verifiable. Original research is forbidden. You are claiming that the majority view is wrong and that we need to tell everyone The Truth, because it is theologically significance. Unfortunately, wikipedia is not the appropriate platform to disiminate your ideas. While it may be possible to mention in the article the minority view that Nazereth was not a 1st century town, we'd also have to qualify it by saying most scholars accept it as a very small village. That is how wikipedia works. I hope this clears things up. I suggest you read some of the linked policy points and ask question before assuming this is the place to publish fringe ideas as if they were The Truth. Thanks. Also, please, pretty please, start signing your comments by typing four tildes ~~~~. It will help everyone keep track of who is saying what.-Andrew c 19:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus' title

message: While I have no quarrel with the material here (few articles could have been as thoroughly developed) I question the order of topics. This is a secular encyclopedia, it would stand to reason to begin with the section on historicity and then follw with the religious view. Haiduc 16:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say this is one of situation where the religious view of the subject is more pertinent than the historical record (Along with Mohammed, Krishna, etc.)--Isotope23 16:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also have to agree with the order as is--not that it's necessarily more pertinent (that's a matter of subjective interpretation), but that the religious view has had a far greater impact than the scholarly. Justin Eiler 16:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is actually what I meant by pertinent...--Isotope23 17:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will not go against the general opinion in this case, but I wonder to what extent it is determined by the perspective of the editors. As a non-religious (but not non-spiritual) person, I would prefer the more neutral "this is the man and this is why he was important" approach, rather than the other way around. I imagine that the reason the prophets are done in reverse order is some proprietary interest by those who are especially interested in them for their religious roles. I think that an illustrative example is to see how a relatively minor figure is treated. Look at Joseph Smith, Jr. and you will see what I mean. Here the editors were able to put some distance between themselves and their subject. With Jesus it has not happened - not that it is not an excellent article, just that the ordering betrays a devotion that is not shared by all. Haiduc 18:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordering 

message: This section is very poor. It is unsourced, POV, and probably giving undue weight to a minority view. What can we do to improve the section? I feel having a concise paragraph could help this article, but do not have enough knowledge on the subject to write it up. I do not feel the current text is workable and would propose removing it for the time being, but wanted to come to talk first. -Andrew c 15:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sufic views 

message: These sentences are the light side: "His teachings centered around unconditional self-sacrificing God-like love for God and for all people. During his sermons, he preached about service and humility, the forgiveness of sin, faith, turning the other cheek, love for one's enemies as well as friends, and the need to follow the spirit of the law in addition to the letter." So I added the dark side: "Jesus ministry sometimes included elements of judgment (Matt 25:31-46), castigation (Matt 23:13-39, John 8:38-48), destruction (Matt 10:11-15), and hellfire." Jonathan Tweet 05:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think its highly fair to simply say that His ministry included those things without saying anything about why those things were in there. Homestarmy 13:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Homestarmy, I'm sure we can work this one out, too. I keep my initial additions short, as they're often reverted. According to WP:Revert, bad edits that are made in good faith should be improved, not reverted. I'd be happy to see the sentence expanded into a paragraph or incorporated into the apocalyptic paragraph. Jesus says mean things about people, religiuos leaders, whole cities. Cutting, burning, wailing, gnashing of teeth. That's not just "repent or be damned," which anybody can say. It's "repent or I damn you." I don't see that anywhere in the text yet. If my way of including it is bad, let's find a better way. Jonathan Tweet 14:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I didn't revert you :/. Homestarmy 15:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Homestarmy, I know you didn't revert me, and thanks for taking it to talk.
I deleted the remarks because I feel that they are already referenced in the paragraph on the apocalytic element of Jesus' ministry. If people feel that that section can be expanded, I do not in principle object. Just remember that this is a long article that has many linked articles; no theme should be given a lot of space. Rather, make sure that the appropriate linked articles do justice to the apocalyptic elements of Jesus' ministry. Be that as it may, if someone feels the sentence on his apocalyptic mission is inadequate, by all means improve it - but keep things in context. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's what's missing from the "apocalypse" paragraph: Jesus promises hurt for specific groups. The current wording makes it sound like he's just warning people of the bad things that will happen to them, like John the Baptist was. No, he's promising hurt. Like Arnold says, "I'll be bahk." Homestarmy says we need to explain why that's there, and that sounds good to me. Jonathan Tweet 15:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jonathan: To know is not to percieve. To percieve is not the same as to judge with wisdom. To be wise is not enough for courage is needed for making the correct action. Spending so much time reordering the article is like a man who cleans another person's car but does not tender care to his own cars engine. You know alot about cleaning the body of this car, but it is not helping your engine run, nor is it helping the engine of this article to simply clean its surface.86.4.59.203 00:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Thanks for acknowledging how much I know about this topic. I'm sure I must be hard to understand, and I beg your patience. Jonathan Tweet 01:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Pharisee's knew alot about jewish scripture and law. Your not hard to understand. You seek quedos, respect for your learning. Many people seek that, so its understandable. And if its not knowledge people trade in, its money, power, women, strength, wisdom or the secrets of immortality etc. And when the emptyness isn't filled, people seek more possessions such as these in the hope of filling it. Question could be, 'what does one do when one has run out of time to fill emptyness yet one still feels insecure'?86.4.59.203 00:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps one writes another portentously self-regarding wikimessage. Paul B 00:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well maybe I should write the messages as a parable instead so it don't appear so self regarding or portentous.;=).86.4.59.203 19:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  judgment, etc. 

message: We seem to agree that this article is so long that even central issues like Jesus' promise of destruction to the Pharisees, scribes, various cities, backsliders, etc. can only be handled briefly. In that case, the whole section on Chronology should be summarized down to a paragraph. That would give us room to nearly double to Ministry section if we wanted to. The precise year of Jesus' birth is of interest to almost no one compared to the content of his ministry. And there's a main page already to cover the details for them's as likes. Jonathan Tweet 17:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, Wayne, the B'nai mitzvah is not called a "birth"--whether termed birth, or "born again." While there was, indeed, a higher incidence of infant morality at that time, the explanation you provide is nothing short of a fantasy. Justin Eiler 02:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah. If you're not referring to the B'nai Mitzvah, then I apologize for my confusion. If you have such references available, by all means share them here. I will admit it sounds like so much twaddle, but let me express that I don't accuse you of spreading twaddle: I am assuming that you've read these sources and accept them in good faith. If you can give some examples here, we can see if they're reputable or scurrilous. :D Justin Eiler 19:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So I cut the chronology section way back and someone put it back in. It's far longer than other, much more important sections, e.g., Jesus' baptism. Jesus' baptism is way more important than the exact year and date of Jesus' life and death. It's not of historical interest or theological interest. We know to within less than 1% how long ago he was born and died. Can we cut this material way back again? It doesn't serve the reader to front-load the article with low-priority, highly detailed material. "Jesus" is not a boring topic, so the page should not have a long boring section, especially not at the front. Jonathan Tweet 15:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology of Jesus 

message: Matthew says Jesus was born before 4 BC/BCE and Luke gives an event that dates it as 6 AD/CE. Look outside the box and there is no contradiction. At the age of 12 children of the period held a celebration for entering the community (literally "born again") which, due to high infant mortality, was possibly more important than their real birth date. Couldn't Luke be refering to Jesus' second "community" birth? This would make his actual "physical" birth date 7 BC/BCE. A Jupiter-Saturn conjunction in 7 BC/BCE being the Star of Bethlehem now ties in nicely. The star couldn't have been something spectacular or people would have seen it and the Bible is clear that only "astrologers" could. Ochams Razor. Wayne 01:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, Wayne, the B'nai mitzvah is not called a "birth"--whether termed birth, or "born again." While there was, indeed, a higher incidence of infant morality at that time, the explanation you provide is nothing short of a fantasy. Justin Eiler 02:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah. If you're not referring to the B'nai Mitzvah, then I apologize for my confusion. If you have such references available, by all means share them here. I will admit it sounds like so much twaddle, but let me express that I don't accuse you of spreading twaddle: I am assuming that you've read these sources and accept them in good faith. If you can give some examples here, we can see if they're reputable or scurrilous. :D Justin Eiler 19:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So I cut the chronology section way back and someone put it back in. It's far longer than other, much more important sections, e.g., Jesus' baptism. Jesus' baptism is way more important than the exact year and date of Jesus' life and death. It's not of historical interest or theological interest. We know to within less than 1% how long ago he was born and died. Can we cut this material way back again? It doesn't serve the reader to front-load the article with low-priority, highly detailed material. "Jesus" is not a boring topic, so the page should not have a long boring section, especially not at the front. Jonathan Tweet 15:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: references

message: There's a main page where readers can find details like these. They are too detailed for a top-level page that's too long and still doesn't include key information. They should be summarized and moved to their respective pages. Jonathan Tweet 03:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Names and Titles, Ties to Religious Groups

message: Thought it was a joke. Looks legit. I'll bet you 10:1 it doesn't pan out, but the story is going to have people Googling Jesus DNA, so we might at least give them good information. Jonathan Tweet 05:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 2000 year old DNA from a desert region?  Highly unlikely.  And exactly how do they know if it's his DNA or not?  Compare it to the blood on the Shroud of Turin? Jinxmchue 03:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DNA of Christ 

message: While dug up by archeologists circa 1980, the TV Special out March 4, 2007
(Sunday) claims that tomb has now been firmly connected to be Jesus tomb.
Which contains 6 persons, including 2 mary's - one decipered to be Mary
Jesus's Mother and the other to be Mariame / sic Mary (Magdalene) the
argued wife of Jesus; and 4 males including Jesus, Mathew, Judas and Joseph
son of Jesus.
The Jesus Family Tomb : The Discovery, the Investigation, 
and the Evidence That Could Change History 
by Simcha Jacobovici (Author), Charles Pellegrino (Author) 
published by Harper and out Feb 27, 2007
ISBN-10: 0061192023 
ISBN-13: 978-0061192029 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.192.1.172 (talk • contribs).
This is very controversil due to the fact that has not been proven, and probably won't. There is a lot of evidence to sway to this 'tomb', but in the end I am willing to bet 600/1 that it is never proven. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.235.34.131 (talk • contribs).
If this is DNA'd, then it's proven :) Shannara 23:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there are no known relatives of Jesus to compare the DNA to, it's usefulness in this situation is quite limited.  --Midnite Critic 23:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: "If this is DNA'd, then it's proven"... it's incredible how powerful certain words are for the masses, even if the technical/scientifical details are left behind... It'e enough to stick "DNA test" or "carbon 14" to any bogus information and that's it, we have the absolute truth! 12.28.109.82 06:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Newly Discovered Tomb

message: User User:Reisio has expressed objection to the use of "BC/BCE" and "AD/CE" dating conventions. Can we have input of the community on this issue? (Note: I am aware that the issue has been discussed already. This is an attempt to see if the community consensus has changed.) Justin Eiler 19:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Due to the fact that Wikipedia is a secular project, I much prefer CE dating.  The slash-heavy dating conventions worked out on this article look cumbersome and awkward.  However, that is just my opinion.  If a consensus has been worked out on this article, I don't see the point of changing things and getting people all stirred up.  janejellyroll 23:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've got better things to talk about. Personally, I'd rather use either system rather than both, but whatever. I like how the clumsy year format is a clear example of how contentious religious debates are. It reminds all readers that zeal makes things harder all around. My suggestion is this: editors can use either format because it doesn't really matter, but the only way that an editor can change a year designation is to change it to the dual/clumsy format. Jonathan Tweet 23:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will note, in agreement with you, that the Common Era Notation/Christian Notation dating argument was listed as one of the lamest edit wars on Wikipedia. Justin Eiler 00:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I like your suggestion (that editors can use either format, but changes should be limited to dual format).  It would be very silly to have editors constantly changing things around.  There are so many useful things to work on throughout Wikipedia, I'd hate to see editors get all wrapped up in this.  janejellyroll 01:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If you are colour blind, you can't tell what is red, and what is green. What is red may appear green to you, and what is green may appear red. Your eyes may see, yet you shall not percieve the correct colour.86.4.59.203 00:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: My own personal opinion is that the dual notation system is rather ... well, stupid. But it is, IMHO, less stupid than the flame war that resulted from the previous arguments. While I agree that one format should be used and used consistently, the previous contention and arguments make me feel that the dual notation format may, indeed, be the best one--sort of a "lesser of two evils" solution. Justin Eiler 00:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating controversy again 

message: Although language over there would seem to exclude him, I see that this article is still included in that category.  I've started a discussion over there and would like to know what other editors think.  janejellyroll 01:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The question of whether or not Jesus ever declared himself to be the Messiah is open enough that I would not be terribly comfortable with this category being added. However, if it were a vote, that would be Do Not Support, rather than actively Oppose. Justin Eiler 02:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A really good case can be made for that argument.  Although I do not favor excluding Jesus from the category on the basis that he had a "broad" support (because I feel it is too subjective), I would expect those favoring his inclusion to show that he was, in fact, a "self-declared messiah."  janejellyroll 02:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Category talk:Self-declared messiahs]] 

message: Can someone fill me in on why the Islamic view of Jesus has such early prominence (the fourth paragraph, pre-TOC)? Why doesn't the article on Muhammad include a long paragraph near the opening of the article stating the Christian view of Muhammad? Algabal 04:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Jesus is a prophet in Islam (the purest prophet, in fact). Muhammad is not a prophet or anything in Christianity. Jonathan Tweet 04:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Algabal 04:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Islamic View of Jesus

message: I do not wish to incite a debate about this as fact or fallacy, but it does seem a valid question in terms of how an encyclopedia article describes Jesus.  The article as it stands now generally describes Jesus as a real person.  Is this appropriate? Also, this claim is qualified repeatedly, e.g. 'The main evidence for Jesus' life are the gospels', etc..., which makes me wonder why an encyclopedia article about a religious matter discusses evidence at all.  Does the article on Zeus discuss evidence for or against the 'real existence' of Zeus?  Why is there such a plethora of such instances in this article?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.114.179.210 (talk) 09:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Provide an example where the article itself expresses any view as to whether the Jesus of the Gospels actually lived or not? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Problem is, I can't any "scholars" I would consider worthy of the name who ascribe to the "Jesus was completely mythological" argument. I know that's probably my own POV showing through, but I'd say if it can't be documented that there are scholars who ascribe to such a theory, then we don't worry about it. If it can be documented (something a bit more substantial than Joe Quack who thinks Jesus was an alien or some such), then mention it--if not, then not. Justin Eiler 01:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anonymous editor, your example does not respond to my question; it has no bearing on "where the article itself expresses any view as to whether the Jesus of the Gospels actually lived or not."  The fact is, the four Gospels are indeed the primary sources on Jesus - whether the Jesus they are sources for was historical or entirely fictional is a matter of interpretation.  Even when scholars thought the Trojan war was pure myth, the Iliad was one of if not the prime source on it, and the basis for historical fiction and plays about its characters.  Second, the paragraph you cite refers to what most scholars say.  In short, the article itself is not expressing any view about whether jesus was real or not.  By the way, even if the Gospels were written during the purported life-time of Jesus would not in and of themselves mean he was a real person - Conan Doyle's stories and novellas about Sherlock Holmes were written exactly during the period in which Homes was said to have lived, yet Holmes was fictional; biographies about Thomas Jefferson and John Adams came out in the past few years to much acclaim and no-one questions their validity.  The issue is not when the Gospels were written but that there is little other direct evidence Jesus lived.  For what it is worth, I have no objection to saying so in the introduction tot his article Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the biographies and works of Millard Fillmore could conceivably be collected into one "book" (multi-volume), it seems to me that we could say that the only reason we know Millard Fillmore exists is from this one book, suggesting, of course, that the "book" (and the man) could be fictional. Collecting a bunch of works together shouldn't, in itself, cause pollution. It's okay if someone doesn't think that the collection creates coherence or more belief, but to suggest that bringing together separate works now makes all the books suspect (or more suspect), seems a silly argument to me. Each book of the bible still stands on it's own, as it did before it was assembled into a single compilation.Student7 20:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I can understand why some would doubt that Jesus is the Messiah, but one cannot deny the fact that he did exist on earth at one time.  --Luigifan 02:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus a real person? 

message: Somebody has inserted meaningless text at the end of the first paragraph; to wit,
"AND THUS MARCANTONIO SHALL SAVE ALL ."
Please erase it as I am new here and cannot find the "edit article" section.
Ploomb 00:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  irrelevant sentence should be deleted 

message: To date, the article quotes:
Most scholars in the fields of history and biblical studies agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee, who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on orders of the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate under the accusation of sedition against the Roman Empire.
May I suggest the following edit:
Most scholars, in the fields of historical and biblical studies, agree that Jesus was a Jew, from Galilee, who both taught and healed.  After being baptized by John the Baptist, he was, some three years later, accused of sedition against the Roman Empire and, by edict of Roman Governor, Pontius Pilate, crucified. --Curiouscdngeorge 00:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, your version has way too many commas for normal English grammar or style.  I am not sure what your point is but if you find the phrasing "regarded as a healer" I agree it is awkwardly phrased but there was a lengthy many-day discussion of this and how to phrase it in a way that was, to everyone's satisfaction, NPOV compliant, and this is what we came up with.  It is not that awkwardly phrased that I would change it and risk another lengthy POV debate. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look through Talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate/Key, we have discussed the language of "healer" before (and come to the consensus to include it). I suggest you review the past discussions and see what sort of new arguments you can bring to this debate.-Andrew c 15:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It should be included because it is one of the few things from the Gospel accounts that most historians agree happened.  The sentence is about what most historians think, and they think this is significant - it is the view of these historians that is being represented, not yours or mine. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus was Teacher and Healer

message: Could anyone interested mosey on over to Death and resurrection of Jesus and check out the tomb section. One editor keeps inserting claims that the DNA analysis proves that it's REALLY the bones of Jesus! -Andrew c 03:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for help, review 

message: A few articles that are not as visible as this one need opinions from more editors. There has been a merge proposal to merge John of Patmos and John the Evangelist with Names of John, see Talk:Names of John for the proposal. Also, the new Template:John has been TfDed by me. My issue is that these changes work to imply that a number of individuals are actually John the Apostle. While this is a valid POV, I do not believe it is the majority POV, so these changes are giving undue weight to a minority view (IMO). Mainstream scholars like Raymond Brown and Bart Ehrman disagree with the 'traditional' view, and the authorship of the 5 Johannine works have been disputed since antiquity. -Andrew c 23:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment, John-related 

message: Jesus fulfilling prophecy is a major theme in the gospels. A discussion of prophecies fulfilled doesn't naturally live under any particular header (birth, ministry, etc.). So I created a new header in the gospel-narrative section. It could naturally be expanded.
According to the Gospels, Jesus' birth, life, death, and resurrection fulfilled many prophecies found in the Hebrew Bible. See, for example, the virgin birth, the flight into Egypt, Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14), and the suffering servant.
Jonathan Tweet 14:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prophecies fulfilled 

message: Sorry about this. Late to this article. I will be, I suppose, the thousandth person to criticize the use of a footnote from an unknown author, Thompson, to justify the remark that some scholars "and authors"  consider him a myth. Then a second reference to some known scholars of the 19th century. There are no reputable scholars today claiming his existence is a myth. Of course, there are all sorts of "authors", but they shouldn't be used to justify a casual remark here. If the remark must stay in, suggest dropping the Thompson one and using the 2nd one and saying "a few scholars still doubted his existence during the 19th century." or something like that.Student7 01:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all academics are house hold names .  Sophia 16:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One is not a Christian unless one acts like Jesus. By that judgement, how many so called modern Christians live up to 'the mould'? A christian should be well read in many scriptures (open minded to many paths), and should not feel insecure by reading articles upon historical speculation! Historians/theologians are there to produce research upon Jesus from all angles and all points of view. People interested in Jesus' teachings because they wish to improve themselves are hardly likely to be worried about (or interested in) historical speculative debate. When learning anything it is normal for a person to remember what resonates with them and throw away the rest. Censoring a view of Jesus is not necessary. People have their own minds, one should respect their ability to reason for themselves.86.4.59.203 01:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus as Myth

message: In the gospel narrative section, we find: "The Acts of the Apostles state that Jesus appeared to various people in various places over the next forty days. . . According to Acts, Paul of Tarsus also saw Jesus during his Road to Damascus experience. Jesus promised to come again to fulfill the remainder of Messianic prophecy.[25]" These are both from Acts, not the gospels. Do we remove these references, or change the title of the section. I'm all for cutting references to Acts. Jonathan Tweet 19:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Acts is so closely related to Luke that my feeling is that it's worth keeping in the same section as a part of the same general "thing", I guess.  Not too picky about what name the section is called either way (this is only a very small part of that section, so I don't see it as a big problem, so if people feel a name change is required, go ahead! TJ 20:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply add a reference showing its from Acts, after all each book in the bible is only secondary source material at best. Some of the works have probably been somewhat doctored by the Roman Church anyway to suit their position. A Gospel quote wouldn't be much more convincing anyway. All of Pauls contributions to the Roman bible are somewhat contraversial, as to whether he (or his cohorts) actually wrote half of them. But frankly who's going to ever be able to prove the authenticity of any part of a book that old (the 3rd century AD politics have long since had their effect). In this world of dented pride and ego, people generally pick references to suit their own positions! So it doesn't matter much which references you use. If someone has a different view to the reference in the article, they won't believe the version given no matter which passages one uses to support the viewpoint! Don't be affraid of using Acts as a reference, even if it is 'not Gospel'. After all, even 'Gospel' is not proven to be 'Gospel', doesn't mean you can't quote it anyway!86.4.59.203 00:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acts in Gospel Narrative 

message: I translated the first paragraph of the chinese version of this article:
耶稣（公元前8年至公元前2年–約29年/36年)，古兰经称为尔萨，是伊斯兰教先知；新約聖經称为基督，是基督教的中心人物或神。
And by altavista babelfish, I came up with this:
Jesus (8 B.C. to 2 B.C. □□29 year /36 year), Koran called 为尔 Sa, is the Islamism prophet; New □□□is called Christ, is Christianity's key player or the god.
Even though this might be an extremely rough translation, it seems to have false information on it. Even though Jesus is mentioned in the Koran and there for is counted as an Islamic prophet, I personally feel that mentioning this at the start might be missleading.
...or maybe the chinese government is behind this.
Is there anyone who can translate and/or do something about this? 
-Arctic-Editor 21:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Madness! Chinese Mandarin is quite a complex language, you can't expect a computer translation program to succeed in this matter. This is a job for human English/Chinese translators. Your wasting your time, let a Chinese Christian do it.86.4.59.203 00:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese version problems 

message: Hi, my name is Matthew. Some changes and clarification need to be arranged in Jesus' lineage. These are direct answers from the BIBLE itself. 
Jesus' lineage is two fold. 
1: Matthew dipects His lineage from Joseph's lineage. ie, his grandad...etc all the way to King Solomon the son of David the King Of Israel. 
2: Luke dipects His lineage from Mary's lineage. ie, the line form Adam on down through the priests all the way to Jesus's birth. 
Matthew shows His right to the THRONE and Luke shows His right as a Priest. Therefore as the scriptures in Genesis 14:18 says "And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God."
I hope this helps in the editing that needs to be done. Thank you very much.
-=S+S=-Picker 02:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are incorrect. Luke's genealogy says nothing about it being Mary's line. In fact, it says "He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph". Because this genealogy contradicts Matthew's in places, some people have come up with explanations to explain away the apparent contradiction. These explanations have their place in the Christian views section (or better yet, a more detailed spinout article on that topic), but because the text is not clear, and because some people believe that they both refer to Joseph's line, NPOV says we cannot say what is and isn't the truth. Perhaps you could propose specific changes you would make to that section, keeping in mind our policies concerning neutral point of view, and sourcing, and attribution. Thanks.-Andrew c 14:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have updated this with information from Eusebius' Church History, which is considered the official explanation of how the lines differ. Understanding the Levitical marriage is crucial to jewish history, and people who read the accounts do not understand the history that is throughout the old testament about how the legal and birth records are different. half the new testament (exageration) is about jews fight over who's got the better genealogy. Wyatt 20:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus' lineage 

message: Is it not undue weight to mention the idea of a completely nonhistorical/mythical Jesus in the lead of this article?  I'm all with mentioning it somewhere, but I don't for the life of me see why it should be in the lead? TJ 17:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This should only be mentioned later on in the article, perhaps with additional information regarding the theory as well. -- Sarcha 45 19:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the time of our increadible fight over this issue, I too believed that it was undue weight if I remember correctly, but I think at the time I was led to vote for the current option to avoid something even more silly. And to tell you the truth, the more i've seen it there, the more I still think its undue weight.... Homestarmy 20:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I personally think the compromise we got out of the long discussion regarding that sentence is probably the best we can do. I do not think removing the sentence is a good idea. We say that the view is small. Sure the view is unpopular and even blasphemous to some, but removing it may be construed as censorhip and offend the editors who worked hard to get the mention in the lead. I understand completely that the argument is that this view is so non-notable that there is no justification for it to be given the 'undue' weight of being in the lead. I disagree and believe that a passing notion that mention the view is small is about the right amount of weight. I do not believe the sentence is inaccurate or harmful to the article. So my two cents is for it to say where it is.-Andrew c 20:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest dropping the 2nd half of the sentence, as "mythical" is a subset of "historicity". rossnixon 00:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a reasonable suggestion. The question then is, what article should we link to. I like that the historicity and the myth articles are both linked. Removing one or the other doesn't work in my eyes. The myth link seems to work best with this sentence. The historicity article is for the most part about the sources on Jesus' life. And the topic of historicity can go into more than just "did he or did he not exist" but also "did he do x?" "are certain aspects of the texts historical or not" etc. So I would be for shortening the sentence (good compromise) if we can come up with a creative way to include both links somewhere in that paragraph.-Andrew c 01:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The first paragraph emphasizes the importance of Jesus in Christianity.  The second paragraph reviews the major views of historians, providing three views: the vast majority, a minority, and some of the minority.  The third paragraph returns in more detail to Christianity, the fourth paragraph discusses Islam.  I fail to see how this gives undue-weight to those who view Jesus as a myth (it is a small minority but it is real, and if we delete it sooner or later - as Homestarmy suggests - someone will put it back in in a worse way).  And how anyone can think that this article is dismissing the Christian view in favor of the Islamic view is just beyond me.  Free4it, Wikipedia is not a venue for pushing your own views.  You live in a world where there are other people who have views different from your own - you will just have to get used to it.  Be that as it may, this article makes it very clear that among religions, Jesus' is most important in Christianity - and Christian views are expressed here.  If you want to know more about Christianity, go to the article on Christianity. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus myth in intro 

message: Quote from article: "As a result of the likely several-decade time gap between the writing of the Gospels and the events they describe"
This seems ambiguous, and sounds more like opinion than fact. There are thousands of good sources on this out there that could be used to reference (and perhaps refine) this statement. Certaintly none that I have heard of would describe it as 'several decades', I believe it is more like 3 decades (at most)60.228.122.155 07:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At one time, I was under the impression this article actually had a referenced statement about the estimated time between the actual events of the gospel and when the gospels were written, but this statement doesn't look like it. Homestarmy 12:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 3 decades (at most) is a theological viewpoint. Mark was the first Gospel and is accurate in decribing events that happened up to 70AD but totally wrong about events predicted after that date. There are a few other points that indicate a similar date as well such as Paul (who died in 67AD) not knowing the Gospels existed. Using available evidence the widely held scientific viewpoint is that the first Gospel was written around 70AD. If we are talking about the Gospels we use today then these are the English translations of 1st to 3rd century versions that were translations themselves. Wayne 01:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time gap between Jesus' death and the writing of the gospels.