Talk:Jesus/Archive 50

message: This has been in the news lately; it was a segment of Nightline and on the cover of U. S. News and World Report. Does anyone have any comments on this? Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 03:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Odd. Statements like these in the summary (and excerpts): "[Jesus] regarded [John the Baptizer] as his teacher. . . [cf. p. 133]", "[Paul] transformed Jesus and his message. . .breaking with James and the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem", and claiming to have access to "a Hebrew version of the gospel of Matthew untouched by the Greek copyists [p. 134]", make me think that this book won't make any huge impact on Jesus studies except in groups where anything other than the traditional view will do. But that's just my impression. --MonkeeSage 08:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus Dynasty

message: As discussed in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings),
Nest headings correctly, for the same reasons as above. The automatically-generated top-level heading of any page is a H1 which gives the article title. The headings within the article must therefore be H2, ie "==".
The heading levels in this talk page violate this, as "=" is used for the headings.  This should be changed to match the wikipedia style.
Edit: Looking at the archive pages, it seems that this style has been in use for the Jesus article for quite a while.  Is there a specific reason that this article is not using the wikipedia standard? If so, perhaps my statement should be taken back. —matthew0028 06:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can only speak for myself in saying this, but I belive it's due to plain, simple... laziness. :-) One person at the start used a single = heading and everyone else followed. The amount of effort one would have to put into re-formatting the entire discussion (archives and all) would be substantial. --Steve Caruso 03:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think it would be reasonable to just fix the main talk page, and leave the archives as they are.  We can even reationalize it as not needed, since they're archiving the articles as they were at the time of archival, heading errors and all.  Or, just do the main talk page, and put off fixing the archives until later.  No need to do everything at once. —matthew0028 06:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't remember who it was. Back in January, somebody came by and used one = for a header, which messed up the TOC for the other sections (which were using ==). If I remember correctly, that was the first time someone brought up Jesus in India. Since then I've been using = for primary headers to avoid messing up the page. I apologize for not following the style manual. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 04:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk Page Heading Level

message: An anon IP () added the following paragraph:
A secular interpretation of the possibility of a historic Jesus is that he was simply a human revolutionary who correctly perceived a corrupt political elite of his time as cynical manipulators of traditional religious symbol system. Lacking a modern vocabulary to say that directly, and having a utopian vision of a cooperative society, he spoke (often sarcastically) using religious vocabulary—eloquently enough to become an effective leader of a politically threatening dissident movement.  Yet, in his own primitive way, he was an early example of deconstructionism in practice. The tradition of Gnosticism, and most recently the Gospel of Judas support this view (from a secularist perspective).  This secularist view has many origins but can be found recorded in popular culture works such as the theatrical show Jesus Christ Superstar.
This dosen't belong in the Christian views section, so I moved it to the historical reconstruction section. However, I thought we might also need to discuss this. So, discuss away ;) Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 08:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just the point: they're certain secular readings. We have a section for secular, as opposed to religous, readings. The section on Christian views presents Christian theology, not "certain secular readings." Yes, that is a POV, but it's balanced by other POVs in the article. WP:NPOV means we discuss all relevant views and give them appropriate weight,Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 10:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: yes, hopefully the anon will return to back up these ideas.  It wouldn't be hard to cite that some believe he was some sort of revolutionary, but most of the rest is analysis that needs to come from some authoritive source.  Besides, adjectives like sarcastic, eloquent, primitive are subjective terms that really only belong in attributed quotes. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 09:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It's just better to give names, published works and page numbers than to hide behind the vague "A secular interpretation." The question is, whose secular interpretation is this? A number of interpretations have been discussed at the subpage Talk:Jesus/Historical Jesus (well, subpages of that subpage; the discussion got quite long). We've gathered quite a few sources at Talk:Jesus/Historical Jesus/Sources, not to mention Talk:Jesus/Cited Authors Bios. In short, we need sources for this paragraph. Without sources, it violates WP:NOR. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 10:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi lord@emf.net and welcome to Wikipedia. :)  The ideas you stated are interesting analysis.  As a newbie, one of Wikipedia's policies that you'll need to familiarize yourself with is No Original Research.  What this means in a nutshell is that as editors, we only express published ideas, not our own synthesis or interpretation (no matter how true or intelligent it may be).  So for example, can you cite a specific published source that expresses the idea that Jesus "was simply a human revolutionary who correctly perceived a corrupt political elite of his time as cynical manipulators of traditional religious symbol system"?  Is there a published source that describes Jesus an early example of deconstructionism?  These ideas may very well be true, but unless they have already been stated somewhere by an authoritive source, we can't put it in the article.  Does that make sense? --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 10:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, to clarify on the subjective adjectives...  words like "sarcastic, eloquent, primitive" are in the eye of the beholder, so they're not really neutral voice.  We only use subjective terms if we are directly quoting someone in order to describe a particular point of view. Does that help? --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 10:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm a bit confused as to how Gnosticism, with its view of Jesus as an unearthly being, and emphasis on secret, esoteric knowledge, and so forth, can be seen as even vaguely compatible with the idea of Jesus as a human revolutionary.  The Jesus of the canonical gospels (and especially the synoptics) is much closer to this idea than the Jesus of Gnosticism. john k 16:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dissident Jesus

message: A recent edit has changed 'Jesus was the Nazarene' to 'The Gospels record that Jesus was a Nazarene, but the meaning of this word is vague.[25]'
Whilst agreeing that the discussion of the names of Jesus should be continued on another page, I would like to change the line to 
' The Gospels record that Jesus lived for some part of his life in Nazareth. There may have been other reasons why the Gospels refer to him as 'Jesus the Nazarene'. [25]' Any comments? Johnmarkh 14:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the Life and Teachings section already says "Jesus' childhood home is represented as Nazareth in Galilee" before you even get to the historicity section. That particular paragraph was written from scratch, not changed from anything else. It summarizes (scholarly opinion of) Jesus in relation to other Jewish sects. There was an early sect of Christian Jews known as the Nazarenes. That may be what Christianity was known as before they were first called Christians in Antioch () That sect is what the word "Nazarene" is referring to. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 14:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I changed it to "a" because I specifically remember Jesus being in the same category as Lord of Lords, but not Nazarene of Nazarenes, "the" seemed incorrect. I didn't put in the "vauge" thing though. Homestarmy 15:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's "vague" because, as Nazarene states, there are several proposed derivations besides "from Nazareth." Of course, it is possible that one of those derivations was why Nazareth was named Nazareth. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 15:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nazarenes

message: Please note that a couple of participants on this page are currently up for adminship, if any of you wish to weigh in. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bring to others' attention

message: Shouldn't the "Religious perspectives" section, which accounts for the religious views of most of the world, be listed before the historicity section according to WP:NPOV's guidelines on prominence? —Aiden 21:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could go either way. It depends on whether you want to emphasize religious or historical views. Some people will have strong feelings either way. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 22:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main section billing 

message: I would like to just delete the following paragraph (2nd paragraph under Nativity and childhood):
:According to Luke 2:18-20, an angel visited some local shepherds in the night, telling them "Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. And this will be the sign to you: You will find a Babe wrapped in swaddling cloths, lying in a manger." After this an innumerable company of angels appeared with the herald singing "Glory to God in the highest, on earth peace, good will toward men." (See The First Noël.) The shepherds went quickly to Bethlehem, finding the sign to be as the angel foretold. They subsequently publicized what they had witnessed throughout the area. According to Matthew 2:1-12, some men from the east (traditionally called "wise men" or "Magi"), presented the infant Jesus with gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. The men were following a star which they believed was a sign that the Messiah, or King of the Jews, had been born.
While these details are interesting when discussing the nativity story, I feel that they have very little to do with Jesus, and more to do with the first Christmas. At least, I think we should cut down on the bible quotes (what is the point of linking to the quote if we are just going to copy and paste it into the text). --Andrew c 02:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second the suggestion. » MonkeeSage « 02:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: At the very least, it should be heavily cut down. john k 03:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I have heavily condensed the paragraph and merged the main points in the first. Please let me know what you think. —Aiden 03:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made some slight changes, and feel that you did a great job of condensing the two bits from each gospel into their own consise sentences. Thanks!--Andrew c 04:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cutting down some more