Talk:Jesus/Archive 5

message: Can I get Lir, Adam Carr, and ChrisG to agree that this page can now be unprotected?
If so, then I will do it.
-- Toby Bartels 18:57, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotection? 

message: There is some biblical evidence that John the Baptist was as ascetic. He ate locusts and wild honey in the wilderness (Matthew 3:1-6, Mark 1:6)
But people at the time contrasted Jesus with John, saying that Jesus "ate and drank".
:“John [the Baptist] came neither eating nor drinking, and they said, ‘He has a demon’; I come eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet,” says Jesus, referring to this morning’s passage from Proverbs, “Wisdom is vindicated by her deeds”[Matthew 11:18-19].
--Uncle Ed 20:35, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Ascetic

message: This is not on the ascetic issue. 
I think the second section , the Problem of Jesus, is fundamentally mistaken. There are not two kinds of knowledge, only one with more or less evidence supporting it. Because of the obscurity of the life of Jesus, an obscurity which he himself sought and cherished,evidence of his life has come to us in scanty form.
The Gospels are written records of people's memories, who  themselves saw   him at first hand, and there are other writings which  are less clearly defined in their origin. This evidence is sufficient for non-secular historians, and most Christians. The article should therefore not misrepresent the status of people's faith as being mystical and unevidenced, when it clearly is evidence based. 
TonyClarke 23:27, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: the "problem of Jesus"

message: LIr: thank your for responding, and for not undoing my reversion. The fact that secular historians do not belive in  a magic god is not genuine information, it is a tautolgy, true by  definition. If they did believe they would not be secular, if they are secular then they do not believe.
I am not trying to score points here, but we are all in the same boat and there is not _different _ evidence for Jesus, just more patchy and oral. But there _is_ evidence, accepted by   a lot of people.
TonyClarke 01:13, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Dies [ April 3rd, 3:00pm ]
Even for a list of options, this seems rather over-precise. Is this from some sect's articles of faith, or is this someone's idea of a joke? -- 217.158.229.99 16:11, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

text: I've just deleted it now that you have pointed it out. It was in the old text before I started fleshing it out with I hope uncontroversial points about his teaching, iether agreed at least three of the gospels and not contradicted. One can say stuff about Jesus' ethical teachings without being controversial; which I will do at some point, but we can't talk about spiritual ideas without getting into Son of God debates.: ChrisG 18:14, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

text: Sorry Chris. One of the other troubles with Wikipedia is that you are always catching snapshots. Howver can't help but observe that we shouldn't be getting into debates, we should just record what is observed. It shouldn't be controversial that hundreds of millions of Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God. DJ Clayworth 14:33, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Magic vs miracle

message: I made two changes to the opening paragraph:  first, I added "healer."  I think most Christians view Jesus' work as a healer as pretty important to his work.  I know that many historians consider it important, as the role of healer in Judea under Roman domination was well-established and for some historians important in making sense out of what Jesus actually did.  I would have no objection if someone wanted to modify this term as "spiritual" or "faith" healer, although this may be an anachronistic distinction.  I did delete the adjective "religious" modifying "teacher" because I do think it is anachronistic and out of place -- his teachings are also civil/social (indeed, even today many Jews hesitate to call Judaism a "religion").  In fact, one could argue for adding "social reformer" (or putative, or attempted, or something) to this indroductory characterization, as I think both religious Christians and secular historians would agree with this reading of his vocation. Slrubenstein
what do you mean by healer? Was he a doctor? Lirath Q. Pynnor
The term doctor doesn't work. It projects the concept of a modern physician back to Jesus' time. Healer is better, even if more ambiguous. There are many references to healing people.
Who did Jesus heal, and how? I don't think its very NPOV to define him as a "healer" without even defining what a "healer" is. Lirath Q. Pynnor
: People reportedly came to him blind, deaf, lame, and leprous, and he sent them away free of these handicaps, according to accounts.  What is that?  I'd call it a "healer".  Mkmcconn 00:28, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Slrubenstein, I've restored 'religious teacher'. I agree that there is an ethical and social reform element to his teachings. However, the concept of God and creating the Kingdom of Heaven were central to his teachings, whatever he meant by those concepts. If Jesus wasn't a religious teacher then neither was Mohammed or anyone else for that matter. He is also the inspiration for a religion of 2 billion followers, and is considered a prophet by another billion. I agree it is important to describe as a healer in exactly the same spirit you describe. : ChrisG 10:01, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Healer

message: Excellent intro paragraph. I'd quibble with 'faith healer', but it's minor. I wish there was a way we could lock down the intro paragraph and get on with editing the rest now. DJ Clayworth 14:33, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: DJ, lets be clear here. Do you mean the preface, i.e. what is before the table of contents or the section entitled Introduction which I largely reverted? I'm not sure whether there is a confusion. Your reference to Faith Healer suggests you are referring to the first. In which case add a line break. Thanks. :ChrisG 14:41, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

text: I mean the whole preface, i.e. down to the 'Introduction' header. DJ Clayworth 14:51, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Preface

message: Is it really appropriate to include admitted "speculations" about Jesus being married, here?  So some "scholars" apparently think this: is that relevant?  Other "scholars" think that Jesus was a "magic mushroom" drug guru: that doesn't belong in this article either.  Mkmcconn 03:26, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus Married