Talk:Jesus/Archive 35

message: In the interest of clarity, Rob has identified himself as a Bright as well as an athiest. Thus both his distrust of supernatural faith and his demand for proof beyond what we may consider to be reasonable. I will not be able to communicate in any meaningful way with Rob until I learn more of the Bright movement. That said, Wikipedia should not be a battleground. Arch O. La 12:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - all I am asking for is balance, NPOV and verifiability. This article seriously lacks all 3. Robsteadman 12:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Robsteadman on these points, from what I have read so far. I also do not believe that faith is an appropriate methodology to employ for discussions here unless it's refering to the phenomenon of faith of others from a 3rd person pov, stating it as a fact of such belief, with a  clarification of what faith is, and that its rejected among most of academia (which is secular). Also, besides not assuming faith as an acceptable mode of operation, we should avoid misuing it as a label to pin on others beliefs systems which are clearly oppposed to it, i.e. those who make it clear that they do not reject logical proof or material evidence for their beleif. To call someones beliefs faith is thus derogatory (unless you are refering to religious belief since its defined that way).Giovanni33 22:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a point, and I can see how the term "faith" can be offensive in terms of the Bright meme. The comment below seems rather political. Arch O. La 01:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It's just a rather narcissistic term popularised by Richard Dawkins to mean someone who adopts a pro-science, anti dogma brelief system. Paul B 12:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really: http://www.the-brights.net/ Robsteadman 12:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, we should respect Rob's faith as much as anyone else's faith.  I trust that he'll keep his faith out of his editing, as he encourages us to do.  KHM03 13:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AAARRGGH!!!! I have no "faith" - what a very silly and offensive thing to say. Robsteadman 13:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no faith in the supernatural, but that's neither here nor there. Per:KHM03, we should respect Rob's unfaith. Arch O. La 13:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've known about it for years, Rob. Perhaps you should read a bit more carefully the very website you cite. You might recognise that science and history are not dogmatic. Paul B 13:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I repeat - I don;t have a ":faith" - please don;t try to muddy the rational and logical by lowering it to the level of the irrationa; and nonsensical. Robsteadman 16:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: As I understand it (Rob will correct me if I'm wrong), Brights see themselves as continuing the Enlightenment but going further. Hence they are not just "enlightened," they are "bright." This means more than a "scientific viewpoint" as most people use the term, and may be futurist. Arch O. La 15:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This is how Rob categorized himself on a user talkpage. (The comment has since been deleted, but oh well). I thought it would help clarity if we viewed his comments in light of this. Arch O. La 16:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarity

message: I have created a subpage to begin the process of requesting comment or arbitration in this matter. Since January 25, we have had to deal with someone who is trying to make a point and I, for one, see no better solution. I welcome everyone on both sides to go there and help figure out what next recourse to take. (unsigned comment).
:I have posted an editiorial there, and I am open to comments and suggestions. Arch O. La 00:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requests for Comment / Arbitration

message: Aiden, when you made that edit on the Islamic part, im pretty sure Muslims believe that Jesus was not God at all, but merely one of His most loved prophets or something? I don't think there's a oneness thing about it, I was under the impression they didn't think Jesus was God at all. Homestarmy 22:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When he was layed on(sooli)and was crucified yeah but this was not Hazrat Isa(Jesus) he was another person with the same face and meanwhile, Allah(muslim's God) took him up and he will send him in this world to finish the evilness. Rida Ilyas 22:feb
anyway, it looks like the line got removed somewhere. Homestarmy 17:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hold on a second... (Islam and Oneness?)

message: == Added a Pakistani Muslim ==
When he was layed on(sooli)and was crucified yeah but this was not Hazrat Isa(Jesus) he was another person with the same face and meanwhile, Allah(muslim's God) took him up and he will send him in this world to finish the evilness.
Rida 22:feb
Added Solomon Grayzel, see  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misc. links, references, citations, bibliographies, endnotes, and so on 

message: When he was layed on(sooli)and was crucified yeah but this was not Hazrat Isa(Jesus) he was another person with the same face and meanwhile, Allah(muslim's God) took him up and he will send him in this world to finish the evilness.
Rida 22:feb
Added Solomon Grayzel, see  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added a Pakistani Muslim 

message: I have added a quote by Michael Grant to this subpage. --CTSWyneken 17:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grant Quote Added to Cited Authors Bios Page 

message: I found some references in Archive 3 (28 Oct 2004) and copied them to our cited authors subpage. Arch O. La 06:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Old Jesus Myth citations

message: Dear fellow editors: 
I have posted our version of the paragraph on the article page. Thank you one and all for helping to fashion it. I have placed an HTML comment in the source of the article, just above the paragraph, requesting editors talk before editing, save when it comes to the footnotes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CTSWyneken (talk • contribs) .
:: Sorry about that; sig got separated from this paragraph by the section below. --CTSWyneken 15:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, citing what they consider a lack of extant contemporaneous documents making reference to him, a small minority of others question the historicity of Jesus.
Anyone agree? —Aiden 22:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus 2nd Paragraph posted 

message: I intend to revert any changes to the paragraph made without talk page discussion and consensus, be it by Christian apologists or nonexistence hypothesis supporters -- two times a day if necessary. This does not include adding to the footnotes or setting wiki links.
I will not revisit any old arguments longer than to refer to the subject archive, when set up.
I will not support any changes made that rely on arguments already made, nor repeat myself by engaging them. New arguments I will reply to.
Should a consensus to change the paragraph emerge here, I will respect it, in fact, post it myself, even if I disagree with it.
Anyone else share my intentions? --CTSWyneken 14:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My intent re: this paragraph

message: # Why was my opposing vote deleted?
# I feel we need to clarify that "lack" in reference to "extant contemporaneous documents" is a relative term. We should qualify it with the addition of "what they consider", so that the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph would look like:
::However, citing what they consider a lack of extant contemporaneous documents making reference to him, a small minority of others question the historicity of Jesus.
Anyone agree? —Aiden 22:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post consensus 

message: Could someone summarize the disputes? 
From what I can tell its about the the existence of Jesus? Ofcourse its debatable. My own POv is that there are only two pieces of extra-biblical evidence of Jesus which have any reliability, and only one of those has any decent reliability, but that is a very short passage by Josephus. There is, thus, not enough evidence to regard his existence as a given, but there is enough to consider it reasonably possible. 
If Jesus existed, what did he do? That is difficult to say, because the biblical accounts cannot be assumed to be all that reliable. However, it seems likely that he would have been some sort of teacher, prophet, and miracle worker - just like many other people around the same time. 
Ofcourse, in Christian mythology it is generally believed that Jesus was an incarnation of God who came to earth to redeem the sins of humanity. He was executed by crucifixion, but arose from the dead after three days. Anyone who believes this is saved from eternal torment in hell.
We can state this as long as its is described as part of Christian mythology, not facts. 
I have not had time to study the article myself but would like to help iron out the disputes, here. Giovanni33 07:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Josephus is NOT reliable - it is widely accepted, even by many "christians" that is was vandalised and doctored by "christians" in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. The article is stating things as FACT when they are not. The article uses "faith" scholars to support these non-facts - they are unreliable, out to support their "faith" and we should only be reporting their OPINION as OPINION not as FACT. The article needs a POV tag on it. Robsteadman 07:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a fair summary - I disagree with one or two points, I maintain that the term "critical" will be misleading to teh average user (even if it is the correct word) and I think that the page still says he did exist contrary to the evidence - it does not just say these people say that.... the use of definite dates is a huge problem. But overall a fair summary. The main problem is the abuse and uncivil (and un WP) behaviour of some who do seem to be attempting to protect the page - stating they will revert all edits to certain paragraphs, wanting the page protected and outright insults such as troll and "robsteadman, please go away". There is a solution - verifiability and NPOV sentences which do not imply more than is factual. Robsteadman 08:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems similar to some conflicts I'm having over at the Christianity page. When I find some time I'll read through this article to see if I can help with the NPOV language, and other points of contention. In the meantimes lets all try to be extra civil with each other just as if we were in any other work place, at the office. :) Giovanni33 08:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying, and I apologize if I have ever been uncivil. I haven't looked at Christianity much, because I've been focusing attention on articles specifically about Jesus, and not the religion He founded. But maybe I'll take a look when I need a break. Arch O. La 09:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Im guessing most historians have written books arguing for Christ's existance using more than 2 pieces of evidence? :/ Homestarmy 13:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summarize disputes

message: There are still many disputes on this article and, follwing  Giovanni33's post I think it right we have a POV tag whilst these are ironed out. Robsteadman 07:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm actually going to agree in the spirit of developing NPOV. This does need to be ironed out. Arch O. La 08:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Robsteadman 08:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: There will always be disputes on this article. I submit that a POV flag is only required when there is a major dispute in progress. There is no major dispute at the moment, just a discussion on what paragraph the dates should be in! I hope someone else will also remove the POV flag. rossnixon 19:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is much more than the dates - there is a general dispute about the POV of this article - I have restored the tag because it is appropriate. I hope noone else removes it without discussion. . Robsteadman 19:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You keep repeating that the article is "heavily POV" - please list out the points you think are honestly POV - and that does not mean not "rob's" POV. There will not be any progress if you keep alluding to how terrible the POV all the time with nothing to back it up. If it's just a few minor points, then it's not "heavily POV". --Oscillate 19:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it's the bulk of the article with the slants given as fact which are, in fact, only opinion. Virtually every paragraph is heavily POV. Robsteadman 20:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, there has been major dispute over minor points, which has even been carried off of here into shouting matches on user's talk pages. Arch O. La 19:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And all sorts of nastiness and namecalling. At least the trolls seem to be quieter today. Robsteadman 19:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well SOPHIA aregued it was POV until she was hounde from here by certain editors. Robsteadman 20:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah I thought of her but she wouldn't support the tag.  The only peson disputing is you and you've demonstrated over and over again that you'll never be satisfied without making this article your POV.  I don't think that's a good enough reason to have a tag.  Just my opinion.Gator (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You are wrong. And clearly trying to pick a fight. If you look at my edits, rather than comments on talk pages, you will see that I have consistently beentrying to achieve NPOV. I suspect the only reason you;re concerned is that you fear NPOV will remove the POV slant which you currently support. I genuinely want, and am trying to achieve, NPOV. I maintain the current article is POV and, consequently, the tag should stay. Robsteadman 20:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No one is tying to pick a fight with you, Rob. No one ever has to.  You fly of the handle way to easily.  I am very aware of what kind of edits you've been making and trying to make and I stand by what I said.  Assume good faith, Rob.  I am not the POV pusher.Gator (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Regardless of whether or not it is currently NPOV or not, it is disputed. If the recent breakdown in communication is not a "dispute," than the term has no meaning, This goes far beyond the kind of disagreement that Rossnixon is talking about. I will neither be a troll nor accuse others of being a troll. That said, we do need to work it out, and I hope we can do so without again breaking into war. Arch O. La 20:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re:Gator1: Again it's disagreement vs. dispute. The page is far more disputed than when SOPHIA was here. I miss her because she was able to foster communication and help keep the page from falling into dispute. Arch O. La 20:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Me too.Gator (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I thought we were going to stop arguing with Rob? -___- Homestarmy 01:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV tag

message: Rob, I submit that "Bright" is an attempt to lower the rational to the level of the political. I assert that your statements about "faith" are political statements. I leave it as an exercise to the reader whether politics is properly rational, irrational or nonrational. Arch O. La 22:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention that according to Wikipedia, Rob has faith...not in God (apparently...correct me if I'm wrong), but to a proposition or idea or set of ideas, including that there is no supernatural, no divine, no God.  That takes a great deal of faith, in my view.  But we digress.  KHM03 22:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If it's a strong enough belief, it can still be faith!  KHM03 22:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: But...this conversation probably belongs at Talk:Faith.  KHM03 22:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course, none of this has anything to do with this article, or with Rob's abilities as an editor.  Let's stop.  KHM03 22:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has nothing to do with the article itself nor with Rob's ability as an editor, but with the debates over the article. I think it tends to put it all into persepctive. Arch O. La 23:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Further Clarity

message: Dear fellow editors:
I do think it is possible for us to come to a consensus (which we have in the past) and to do it without name-calling, analyzing each other's motives, disparaging scholars, repeating the same arguments over and over, etc. (which we have not)
I'd propose (as I did earlier implicitly when I posted the current paragraph 2) a moratorium on changes in paragraphs 1 and 2. This will allow us to take a break from this discussion, come back with fresh minds and clearer views, do the reading and citation we really should be doing, and allow us to practice civil discourse on the issues.
Does anyone object? If so, don't vote;' discuss. 8-) --CTSWyneken 13:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we're still going over the Pharisee/Saducee thing for the moment it seems. Homestarmy 14:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, let's talk. Or rather, you all talk. I'll research. --CTSWyneken 14:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: While there are still things that need editing what is the point? WHen it's perfect that's fine, until then we shou ld be striving to make this better. Robsteadman 16:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Striving for improvement is good, but is perfection humanly possible? As for analyzing motives, I am attempting to understand and to seperate that understanding from value judgements. But, that's just me.Arch O. La 17:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Arch O. La -- Perfection is possible!  ;)  KHM03 18:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is divine perfection. Arch O. La 22:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  The point is so that we stop abusing each other. Witness below. --CTSWyneken 20:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice to have more debate about the article and the facts being used and less ad hominem attacks and personal smears. Robsteadman 20:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Moratorium 

message: I have begun a bio of Finegan at talk:Jesus/Cited Authors Bios--CTSWyneken 15:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Capsule Bio of Jack Finegan Begun

message: Whew, tough subject. Anyway, here is a masterpiece by Blake if the page ever gets unlocked again.Dave 14:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More Pics

message: Hey, Haldrik! Thanks for the reference. Finegan's book is very nicely done. I have here an earlier edition from Princeton University Press, and it doesn't contain the sections in your edition that you cited. In mine, section 392, page 248 says: "Perhaps a date for the birth of Jesus sometime in the winter of 5/4 BC (Finegan's dating scheme) best satisfied all the available evidence." Does your edition have that sentence? Either way, does he make a similar statement in the paragraph you cited in favor of 2 BC/BCE? --CTSWyneken 16:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Finegan's 1998 revised edition still covers in great detail the arguments for the earlier possible dates for Jesus's birth (c. 5 BCE) assuming Herod's 4 BCE death. But I think he shocked the scholarly community when his revision finally concluded the scholars who argued for a later birth date based on Herod's 1 BCE death were probably right. I think for Finegan, what changed his mind was the possibility of a precise, reliable date for Herod's conquest of Judea. It was in a Sabbatical Year on the day of Atonement. This information allows an exact date: 36 BCE. Once you count off 34 regnal years (starting with the first Jewish New Year), you simply do end up with Herod's death in 1 BCE, and thus the plausibility of Jesus's birth in 3/2 BCE. Today there are many scholars who acknowledge the possibility of the later date, whether they prefer it or not. Haldrik 22:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I assumed this was the case. Is there a page number at all in the revised edition? If not, I'll cite it by section number, providing folk here are OK with expanding the date range to include 2 BC. Personally. I buy Paul Maier's argument for 5 BC/BCE and 33 AD/CE for birth and death dates, but it is scholarship in the field that matters on this topic. The most practical way, IMHO, is to set the range of dates proposed by historians and Biblical scholars. --CTSWyneken 22:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finegan on the Birthdate of Jesus 

message: The vote on this matter has been taken. Those who are working on this article are working on it in good faith and are committed to NPOV. The refusal of one person to allow it to be removed betrays the presence of POV in that person. This matter should be appealed to editors for their decision. I ask that since the vote has been taken, and the vote has gone to those who want it to be removed. It should be removed. drboisclair 17:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The vote had been for less than 24 hours. ONly 10 votes and 3 voted to retain it. The vopte should be for longer and, perhpas, some debate to see if consensus could be achieved. It currently is NOT a consensus. Robsteadman 17:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is your POV on what consensus is. Consensus on this matter, since it concerns one action, involves the majority that vote on the matter. Majority rules at least in democracies.drboisclair 17:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The vote wasn't given long enough. The discussion wasn't given long enough. Stop reverting.  Robsteadman 17:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess that both of us can't do it again, right WP:3RR, right? drboisclair 17:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SO you;re admitting no consensus and only about 18 hours to vote and only 10 votes and yet still acting upon that? Appalling. The POV is still disputed. There is no consensus. Mor time and discussion is needed not just silly votes. How can we make this less POV because I still think the bulk of the article is heavily POV. Robsteadman 17:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's because you want the intro to be "Jesus did not exist" Deskana (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: not at all - I want things to be accurate and verifiable. We cannot verify those dates - only that some scholars have an opinion that they might be rioght. What is presented is that he did live between those dates. Unverifiable and POV.Robsteadman 19:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That apparently is the person's POV. drboisclair 17:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The biggest problem I have with Rob is that he frequently states "This is against Wikipedia policy!" and is unable to state which policy it is against,  or says "This is against NPOV!" where it clearly isn't. NPOV policy dictates that all POVs are represented, not that the article has a singular POV that is neutral. In order for an article to be NPOV it should represent all major viewpoints/POVs. That's NPOV... Deskana (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: There was NOT a consensus and the vote was not given long enough. This is steam,rollering a decision by a handful of POV pushers. Outrageous. But useful extra evidence at the abuse this page is suffering at the hands of those who do not want to present the factual accurtate and verifiable. Robsteadman 19:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Rob, by the way, how goes the evidence gathering, im looking forward to defending myself and your keeping us all in suspense! Homestarmy 22:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refusal of one person to remove the neutrality flag 

message: These edit wars need to stop, leave the paragraph alone already, and stop trying to say that beliefs came from Jesus merely being born. Rob's edit was pretty good except for that unclear point. Did Charles Darwin's mere existance cause the theory of evolution to be founded? No, it was Darwin's book that did the trick, and he wrote the thing. Yes, there was a minor scientist Darwin had to compete with who said the same things. However, he was in such low standing, nobody really listened to him (Or was going to listen, I can't remember exactly how it went). If the teachings of the gospels didn't come from Jesus, then they don't exist at all, and this book in front of me which says "The Holy Bible: International Version" doesn't exist either. Furthermore, I would also be a pink daffodil with purple polka-dots and a leaf which can roll up and shoot out gumballs, how delicious. Now, seriously, we've gone over the whole "Majority POV dominates, minority POV gets mentioned" thing before, what if the sentence says "....the moral lessons/guidlines/whatever which are attributed to Jesus's teachings, however, some members of this group deny this relation due to disbelief in Christ's existance."? Homestarmy 22:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure which paragraph you mean but I changed a phrase from that Jesus preached to attributed to Jesus' teachings to remove the indirect assumption that Jesus existed for non-believers, as the point of the sentence is that regardless of whether Jesus exists, some of the teachings attributed to him communicate good moral values. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph I meant was the second one that we keep getting in a revert war over now that consensus is over, and yes, I meant that edit down there. The way that sentence reads it makes it sound compleatly NPOV, as if most people mrely attribute the teachings to Jesus, which could mean anything. The view in that paragraph is of humanists, atheists, and secular whatevers, and the reason that they might merely attribute the gospels to Christ is apparently because some of them have a great degree of disbelief of Christ's existance, this almost has to be noted sort of or it seems more like the article is just switching POV's around all over the place with no relations to the article as a whole. "Attribute to" just sounds so sterile, so lifeless, so...un-Jesus-like. Homestarmy 22:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I'm trying to take a neutral stance so that those who don't believe in Jesus don't think the sentence is POV, without disagreeing that Jesus' teachings had moral lessons for those that do believe in Jesus. I don't think the article can be warm and fuzzy for everyone. Garglebutt / (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True neutrality is good, as long as we remain civil. Homestarmy, I agree that academic scholarship can get a little dry—but you may enjoy Theopedia ;) Arch O. La 23:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But their Jesus article is small, ours is big and people see it alot, and besides, how do they "attribute" the beliefs to Jesus if they don't even believe in His existance? That at least needs some explanation, I could attribute creationism to Charles Darwin, but without hypothetical background information such as "Homestarmy, however, never graduated from kindergarten", it doesn't make much sense. Homestarmy 00:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not again -___-

message: Don't want to nitpick, but can people please use Edit Summaries where possible when editing this talk page? Browsing the page history (as I need to sometimes) it's difficult to see who added what and where. I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Deskana (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't want to nitpick... 

message: This section is for data gathering on scholarly views. Please debate with the scholars and each other elsewhere to protect my poor, librarian's sense of order. 8-) --CTSWyneken 02:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! That's very helpful. --CTSWyneken 14:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Why does he think Jesus lived 48 years?  Or did you mean 2 BCE? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll have to double check, but I believe he's arguing the dates for the reign of Herod are off by 10 years. --CTSWyneken 12:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Also, can you give a quick idea who this fellow is? --CTSWyneken 11:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article had lots of good content. A quick search afterward shows that he is a Herbert W. Armstrong follower. No evidence of his credentials found - perhaps it is just plagiarism. rossnixon 00:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah. I suspect, then, he doesn't have scholarly credentials. Good news: anyone can put material on the internet. Bad news: anyone can put material on the internet. --CTSWyneken 01:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scholars and the dates of Jesus' Birth and Death 

message: "If we remember the prevailing tradition represented by the majority of the early Christian scholars dated the birth of Jesus in 3/2 B.C., and if we accept the time of Herod's death as between the [lunar] eclipse of Jan 9/10 and the Passover of April 8 in the year 1 B.C., then we will probably date the nativity of Jesus in 3/2 B.C., perhaps in mid-January in 2 B.C." p. 319, §549. Haldrik 13:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! That's very helpful. --CTSWyneken 14:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jack Finegan, ''Handbook of Biblical Chronology'', rev. ed. (1998)

message: A Marginal Jew (full citation in article notes)
"a time somewhere between 28 and 33 seems the most likely date for Jesus' death." 1:375.
"Jesus was born not long before the death of Herod the Great (4 B.C.)" 1:375
====Chronos, Kairos, Christos: Nativity and Chronological Studies Presented to Jack Finegan. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989====
This work is a set of essays in honor of Jack Finegan on the chronology of the life of Jesus. --CTSWyneken 02:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does he think Jesus lived 48 years?  Or did you mean 2 BCE? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll have to double check, but I believe he's arguing the dates for the reign of Herod are off by 10 years. --CTSWyneken 12:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: John P. Meier

message: This work is a set of essays in honor of Jack Finegan on the chronology of the life of Jesus. --CTSWyneken 02:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: <cite>Chronos, Kairos, Christos: Nativity and Chronological Studies Presented to Jack Finegan</cite>. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989

message: Professor of Religion, Mississippi State University.
"Prevailing view is that Jesus was born between 8 and 2 BC and that he died around AD 30-33." p. 56.
"my judgment that Jesus was born in late 12 BC and that he was crucified around AD 21." p. 56.--CTSWyneken 11:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jerry Vardaman

message: Director of the Academy for Scriptural Knowledge, Alahambra, California
"I believe that there are seven historical and biblical factors that show the reasonableness of a 3 or 2 BC birth for Jesus." p. 86.--CTSWyneken 11:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ernest L. Martin

message: Professor of History at Western Michigan University.
"...yields 5 BC, the most likely date for the Nativity." p. 119
"On many bases, then, 3 April AD 33 makes a strong claim as the date of the Crucifixion." p. 126.--CTSWyneken 11:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paul L. Maier

message: Senior Scholar, St. Hugh's College, Oxford University.
"Places the Crucifixion of Jesus in 36." p. 162.
"It follows that Jesus was born in 12 BC." p. 163.--CTSWyneken 11:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does he think Jesus lived 48 years?  Or did you mean 2 BCE? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll have to double check, but I believe he's arguing the dates for the reign of Herod are off by 10 years. --CTSWyneken 12:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nikos Kokkinos

message: Long article here http://www.triumphpro.com/when_was_jesus_christ_born.htm
"February, or late winter, just before spring, in 4 B.C." rossnixon 00:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, can you give a quick idea who this fellow is? --CTSWyneken 11:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article had lots of good content. A quick search afterward shows that he is a Herbert W. Armstrong follower. No evidence of his credentials found - perhaps it is just plagiarism. rossnixon 00:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah. I suspect, then, he doesn't have scholarly credentials. Good news: anyone can put material on the internet. Bad news: anyone can put material on the internet. --CTSWyneken 01:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: William F. Dankenbring

message: To help us with deciding what to do with this issue, I's like to assemble scholarship here on the question, "Was Jesus 'at odds' with these groups?
===Michael Grant===
Premier historian of classical antiquity.
In Jesus (full cite in article footnotes), p. 111:
"[Jesus'] overwhelming conviction of his own unique, divinely inspired role...profoundly shocked and offended the leading groups of his fellow-Jews... Jesus' assumption that he had been entrusted with this mission by God himself had seriously alienated the most determined, serious and progressive element in the Jewish religious leadership. This group was knowm as the Pharisees."
"Signs of the extreme gravity of Jesus' conflict with these Saducees have survived in the Gospels." p. 146.
===Maccoby===
(Moved from below by CTSWyneken for organization's sake) I'll quote a passage from Maccoby here (there was probably somewhere else you asked me to do this but this seems appropriate in this discussion too.  There's a whole chapter called "Was Jesus a Pharisee?" in his book "The Mythmaker" (p. 43-44).  It's hard to reduce Maccoby's detailed argument to something quotable, but I'll at least put forth this general paragraph:
"It should be remembered that Jesus would have been a most unusual Pharisee if he had never disagreed with other Pharisees.  As explained earlier, amicable disagreement was an essential ingredient in Pharisaism, and the Pharisee literature is full of disagreements between the various sages of the movement.  In some cases, the New Testament has created conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees, not by altering 'Sadducees' to 'Pharisees' or by removing some essential element from the story [examples Maccoby gave earlier], but simply by turning what was originally a friendly argument into a hostile confrontation.  Thus in various ways, Jesus has been isolated in the Gospels from the movement to which he belonged, the Pharisees.  Yet, despite every effort to turn him into an isolated figure, his identity as a Pharisee remains indelibly stamped on him by his style of preaching.  His use of parables (often thought by people unfamiliar with Pharisee literature to be a mark of his uniqueness) was typical of Pharisee preaching; and even his quaint expressions such as 'a camel going through the eye of a needle', or 'take the beam out of your own eye' are Pharisee locutions found in the Talmud." --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 21:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This raises an interpretive issue.  Rabbinic discourse is characterized by argumentation.  Thus, for a 1st century person of learning to debate other men of learning (e.g. Pharisees) does not necessarily mean that he is antagonistic to them as a group - indeed, arguing among them could just as well mean (as some have suggested) that he was a Pharisee.  I know it is not our place to provide out own interpretations.  I only mean to say that we need to use these sources carefully.  If a source claims Jesus rejected the authority of the Pharisees, that is worth putting in.  But if a source merely says he debated the Pharisees, and goes no further, we cannot use that source to suggest that Jesus was at odds with the authority of the Pharisees. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yours is a point well taken, and I expect to find it in a source somewhere. Certainly not "all" Pharisees were out to get Jesus. (Nicodemus and others spring to mind) Right now, I'm just opinion collecting to see if there's a trend. In the end, we'll craft something that fairly represents the consensus (if there's one). Personally, I think "many Palestinian Jewish authorities" is sufficiently general to cover all bases. But I don't want to discuss it right now. I'm tired of talking and do what Librarians and Scholars do at such times -- melt into some good books. (I hear Shaye Cohen calling....) --CTSWyneken 16:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  When Rabbis and rabbinic students get together in a yeshiva, they debate Torah. That's just what Rabbis and rabbinic students do. When Jesus and the Pharisees get together (often while eating!) they debate Torah. That's just what Jesus and Pharisees do! It is their JOB to debate halakhah, just like it is the JOB of legal experts to debate law. Haldrik 19:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Jesus is "Pharisaic" (which may or may not be the same thing as being "a Pharisee"). He commands all Jews, including his own students, to obey the Pharisees because only the Pharisees have the divine right to interpret Jewish law. (Mt 23.1f) "Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his students: 'The teachers of the Torah and the Pharisees sit in Moses' [judgment] seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you'. Jesus debates with the Pharisees and indeed critiques the legal status quo, but he acknowledges their authority. Again, Rabbis debate the correct interpretation of Torah. That's just what Rabbis do. Haldrik 20:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That may well be, but we're here to reflect what scholars say, not our own views. Do you have a source that makes this point relative to Jesus and the Pharisees? --CTSWyneken 20:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  I'll quote a passage from Maccoby here...--MPerel ( talk | contrib) 21:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I vaguely remember it in the swirl of talk these past few days. I've taken the liberty of giving it its own section above. I hope you don't mind. Could you also affix the page number of the quote? (there goes that librarian again!) You don't have to worry about reproducing the argument here. All I want to accomplish for us as editors is put a good summary of the issue in a wide range of scholars for us, so we can intelligently craft good text. --CTSWyneken 21:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scholars on Jesus and the Pharisees, Scribes and Saducees 

message: (Moved from below by CTSWyneken for organization's sake) I'll quote a passage from Maccoby here (there was probably somewhere else you asked me to do this but this seems appropriate in this discussion too.  There's a whole chapter called "Was Jesus a Pharisee?" in his book "The Mythmaker" (p. 43-44).  It's hard to reduce Maccoby's detailed argument to something quotable, but I'll at least put forth this general paragraph:
"It should be remembered that Jesus would have been a most unusual Pharisee if he had never disagreed with other Pharisees.  As explained earlier, amicable disagreement was an essential ingredient in Pharisaism, and the Pharisee literature is full of disagreements between the various sages of the movement.  In some cases, the New Testament has created conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees, not by altering 'Sadducees' to 'Pharisees' or by removing some essential element from the story [examples Maccoby gave earlier], but simply by turning what was originally a friendly argument into a hostile confrontation.  Thus in various ways, Jesus has been isolated in the Gospels from the movement to which he belonged, the Pharisees.  Yet, despite every effort to turn him into an isolated figure, his identity as a Pharisee remains indelibly stamped on him by his style of preaching.  His use of parables (often thought by people unfamiliar with Pharisee literature to be a mark of his uniqueness) was typical of Pharisee preaching; and even his quaint expressions such as 'a camel going through the eye of a needle', or 'take the beam out of your own eye' are Pharisee locutions found in the Talmud." --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 21:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Maccoby

message: A Marginal Jew (full info in notes to the article)
"It is probably ont just a coincidence that, while the Synoptic Gospels present Jesus in frequent conflice with the scribes, Pharisees and local "rulers of synagogues," at least he speaks to these groups on a regular basis. The lines of communication are open, even if they are often red hot...In contrast, the Synoptic Jesus enages in debate with the Saducees...the encounter is marked by hostility on both sides." 1:346. --CTSWyneken 14:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This raises an interpretive issue.  Rabbinic discourse is characterized by argumentation.  Thus, for a 1st century person of learning to debate other men of learning (e.g. Pharisees) does not necessarily mean that he is antagonistic to them as a group - indeed, arguing among them could just as well mean (as some have suggested) that he was a Pharisee.  I know it is not our place to provide out own interpretations.  I only mean to say that we need to use these sources carefully.  If a source claims Jesus rejected the authority of the Pharisees, that is worth putting in.  But if a source merely says he debated the Pharisees, and goes no further, we cannot use that source to suggest that Jesus was at odds with the authority of the Pharisees. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yours is a point well taken, and I expect to find it in a source somewhere. Certainly not "all" Pharisees were out to get Jesus. (Nicodemus and others spring to mind) Right now, I'm just opinion collecting to see if there's a trend. In the end, we'll craft something that fairly represents the consensus (if there's one). Personally, I think "many Palestinian Jewish authorities" is sufficiently general to cover all bases. But I don't want to discuss it right now. I'm tired of talking and do what Librarians and Scholars do at such times -- melt into some good books. (I hear Shaye Cohen calling....) --CTSWyneken 16:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  When Rabbis and rabbinic students get together in a yeshiva, they debate Torah. That's just what Rabbis and rabbinic students do. When Jesus and the Pharisees get together (often while eating!) they debate Torah. That's just what Jesus and Pharisees do! It is their JOB to debate halakhah, just like it is the JOB of legal experts to debate law. Haldrik 19:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Jesus is "Pharisaic" (which may or may not be the same thing as being "a Pharisee"). He commands all Jews, including his own students, to obey the Pharisees because only the Pharisees have the divine right to interpret Jewish law. (Mt 23.1f) "Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his students: 'The teachers of the Torah and the Pharisees sit in Moses' [judgment] seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you'. Jesus debates with the Pharisees and indeed critiques the legal status quo, but he acknowledges their authority. Again, Rabbis debate the correct interpretation of Torah. That's just what Rabbis do. Haldrik 20:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That may well be, but we're here to reflect what scholars say, not our own views. Do you have a source that makes this point relative to Jesus and the Pharisees? --CTSWyneken 20:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  I'll quote a passage from Maccoby here...--MPerel ( talk | contrib) 21:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I vaguely remember it in the swirl of talk these past few days. I've taken the liberty of giving it its own section above. I hope you don't mind. Could you also affix the page number of the quote? (there goes that librarian again!) You don't have to worry about reproducing the argument here. All I want to accomplish for us as editors is put a good summary of the issue in a wide range of scholars for us, so we can intelligently craft good text. --CTSWyneken 21:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: John P. Meier

message: I've created a subpage to keep track of our research on this subject. See Talk:Jesus/Scribes Pharisees and Saducees --CTSWyneken 14:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scribes, Pharisees and Saducees Subpage Created 

message: Ditto for scholarship on the dates of birth and death. Talk:Jesus/Dates of Birth and Death --CTSWyneken 14:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates of Birth and Death Subpage Created 

message: I've reorganized the page for ease of reference and added N. T. Wright. --CTSWyneken 15:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cited Authors Bios Subpage Reorganized 

message: Last sentence in the third paragraph reads "Most Christians also believe that Jesus fulfilled Bible prophecy." The word ASLO should be removed since the previous sentence applies to SOME Christians but not ALL or MOST.
Stuartyeates 17:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  remove "also"  

message: The following paragraph has been repeatedly restored - usually with only the comment "restore compromise"
:Most Christians affirm the Nicene Creed and believe Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for humanity's sins, and acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from sin (John 3:16). Christians generally believe Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides with God the Father until the Second Coming. Other Christians, however, do not recognize the Nicene Creed as the correct interpretation of scripture.
I presume the first sentence of the paragraph is intended to be parsed as such
:Most Christians 
:* affirm the Nicene Creed
::and 
:* believe 
::* Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for humanity's sins,
::: and 
::* acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from sin (John 3:16).
and NOT
:Most Christians 
:* affirm the Nicene Creed
::and
:* believe Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for humanity's sins,
::and
:* acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from sin (John 3:16).
With 2 "and"s in there and neither a comma nor a "that" to mark the parallelism, the sentence is at least syntactically awkward.
But my main objection is not to syntax - I mention it only to point out how "stuck on" the last part of the sentence is.
1. The Nicene Creed does NOT say that "acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from sin (John 3:16)" -- rather it says that Jesus came to save people - no condition is mentioned. (Whether the condition is understood as necessary, sufficient, or anything else, it is still a condition.) The reverter has contended it IS in the Nicene Creed, or implied, or something... -- but it is NOT there, and any revert based on such "reasoning" is POV and Original Research. 
2. The paragraph repeats "Nicene Creed" and as such, forms a bracket around things in-between, and has been repeatedly restored to keep that bracketing. If things in the middle are NOT about the Nicene Creed, then such should be explicit.
3. Catholics & several other groups (Greek Orthodox too, I think) do NOT believe that acceptance of Jesus is a condition (neither necessary nor sufficient) of salvation. Catholic theologians had even "invented" Limbo for those who were neither baptized, nor had accepted Jesus. According to this view, until Jesus, all good people went to Limbo. For centuries afterwards, with most of the world never hearing of Jesus, Limbo would probably still have been FAR more populated than heaven. Even now, more conceptions end in spontaneous abortion than birth. While the RCs no longer teach Limbo, they do still teach that those who never "accepted" Jesus can be saved. The RCs seem ready to even say they are already in heaven. The RCs also teach that those adults who lead a "just life" yet never "accept Jesus", can also be saved.
**The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: 'For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained... (C.C.C. # 816)
**Lutherans also have agreed with the "just life" view
4. Even IF the majority of Xians belonged to churches that held this John 3:16 position, it would be only a bare majority (and it is NOT clear even that such IS the case). The introduction is needlessly introducing an issue about which there is no general agreement in Xty - and gives NO indication that there is contention on this issue. This topic, not being generally agreed upon, does not belong in the introduction - John 3:16's being "stuck on" is evidence that it is there mostly either to satisfy someone's desire to profess his/her faith or to engage in some Bible-thumping. It is misleading to present only the predominantly Protestant view as the view of "most Christians" (there is also other distinctly Protestant vocabulary in the paragraph and article, btw, but that's for another day). The proportion of Xians who believe the first part of the sentence is in no way commensurate with the proportion of those who believe the last part - and it is misleading NOT to point this out.
5. The clause in NOT really about Jesus, but rather about a religious relationship to Jesus. Not even the "Religious articles" on Jesus even mention this condition for salvation. This is supposed to be primarily a biography article about Jesus - not one about what certain sects teach about how one is supposed to relate to him. 
6. Only one person has repeatedly restored my removal of that part of the sentence. I take it that is because I have already persuaded people here that it does not belong. Just because 4 or 5 people agreed on a compromise one week does not mean that the text is to remain unaltered despite further discussion. Another sentence has already been added on.
7. Why does it take a non-Christian to point this out?
I think I have amply demonstrated why this clause does not belong in this sentence in the introduction. This John 3:16 view is not agreed upon in anywhere near the same proportion as the other views in the sentence - it is quite likely not even the position of the Xian churches to which the majority of Xians belong. It is time to see who is fighting against the real consensus
*See also
** Talk:Jesus/Archive_19#Catholic_view_on_salvation
** http://www.beliefnet.com/story/57/story_5704.html
** http://www.religioustolerance.org/limbo1.htm
** http://www.moraltruth.com/t03.asp
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus/Archive_34
--JimWae 07:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW I agree with Jim. There is too much reverting to the unverifiable and inaccurate. Robsteadman 11:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This paragraph needs some work and, in particular, citation. I'll stay out of it, however, until the citations in the first and second paragraph are complete. There is only so much research that can be done at once. --CTSWyneken 12:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll get to it again in time, yeesh :/. Besides, since the Creed says that Jesus saved us from sin, and John 3:16 says we have to accept it, it's just combining the meaning of the creed and John 3:16, what's the big deal? Homestarmy 16:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "big deal" is accuracy - that is what an encyclopedia is meant to be about. Robsteadman 16:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: But isn't that really fro the body of the article rather than the intro? General, most "christians" believe in intro - nicene and nicene later? Robsteadman 18:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There were people arguing that, as well as people arguing for a more detailed description in the intro paragraph. Hence the compromise. Arch O. La 18:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again with John 3:16 

message: Surely it is time to unprotect this page and allow the wider WP community to have a go? Robsteadman 11:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The dust should have settled on our vandalism and we can surely go back if it reoccurs. --CTSWyneken 11:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure.Gator (talk) 13:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've removed the semi. Hope it works out... William M. Connolley 13:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotect

message: Once again, I have avoided posting anything here for quite a while, but it really seems like that dead horse you guys are beating is about to turn to dust. It seems that the biggest difficulty that this debate is undertaking is the consideration of a specific set of words in a specific sentence. Why not just write an entirely new sentence?
"However, citing the view that historical research has not yet uncovered contemporaneous sources that reference him, some scholars question the historicity of Jesus."
Notes on terminology:
*View - used as opposed to "fact" or other similar terms. By stating view, it neither promotes nor condemns the veracity of Josephus as has been debated here, nor do I use the term "opinion" which could make the reader think it was automatically untrue.
*Yet - used to designate the "lack" of sources but not discount the possibility that they may eventually be found.
*Sources - several historical figures are verified by, if not only by, pieces of information other than writings, such as statues, engravings, etc.
*Reference - again, no source plainly states, "Jesus, son of Mary, born X, died X, roman crucifixion style, etc. etc. etc." Some historical sources may say something to the effect of, "This statue given by Nero in honor of..." or whatever else, providing a reference to but not a direct record of a name which might be associated with a specific historical figure.
Feel free to revise or edit the above statement, but please remember: You have now spent over one month debating the use of about three words in one paragraph on a page that has sixty more paragraphs to consider. Maybe there are bigger fish to fry. --Avery W. Krouse 21:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad suggestion.  Has a good beat...I can dance to it...I give it a 9.  KHM03 21:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A bad suggestion because it implies there MIGHT be documents - we have no eviodence of that. It is implying a POV and therefore should not be used. Verifiable and accurate not POV pushing. Robsteadman 21:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can live with it. --CTSWyneken 21:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: "However, noting that all known documents that mention Jesus were written at least one decade after his death, some scholars question the historicity of Jesus."--JimWae 21:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Warning User Robsteadman: you are engaging in personal attacks on recognized scholars. Please stop. --CTSWyneken 22:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might recognise them - I do not. Priest scholars are merely POV pushers. Let's stick to the verifiable and the factual. Have you come up with any extant contemporaneous documents mentioning "jesus"? Have any of the preiest scholars? Please feel free to list them here. Robsteadman 22:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Robsteadman 19:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A different suggestion