Talk:Jesus/Archive 56

message: Hello,
I have revised my version, corrected the citations, and spelling errors:
:According to the Gospels, Jesus came with his followers to Jerusalem during the Passover festival where he gained substantial attention when he entered the city riding an ass (Matthew 21:5-21:7), for the crowd  cried, Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!-quoting Ps 118.26 - (Matthew 21:9),  (or King of Israel (John 12:13)). After this triumphal entry Jesus  went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought.  (Luke 19:45).  Jesus was then  arrested by Roman soldiers and by Temple guards (John 18:3), clandestinely at night to avoid a riot, because Jesus was popular with the people at large (Mark 14:2). Since the soldiers and guards had difficulties to identify Jesus, he said to them "I am he" (John 18:5).  One of his disciples used a sword to attack one of the captors, cutting off his ear (Mark 14:47). After his arrest, Jesus' disciples went into hiding (Mark 14:50-14:52).  Jesus was questioned by Annas and Caiaphas about his disciples and his teaching and then taken to the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate (John 18:19, 24, 28). Although Pilate was known to use violence to enforce Roman rule (Luke 13:1), he offered the crowd a choice between Jesus of Nazareth and a well known prisoner named Jesus Barabbas (Matthew 27:16). The crowd chose to have the insurrectionist Barabbas (John 18:40), who had taken part in an armed struggle against the country's rulers (Mark 15:7), freed and Jesus crucified (Matthew 27:21). Jesus was scourged as part of the Roman crucifixion procedure once Pilate ordered his execution (Mark 15:15). All the multitudes of Jews were sorrowful about Jesus' crucifixion (Luke 23:48).
Please tell me your opinions or correct errors I did not find. Since I did no see any objections concerning the content of my proposal, I might try to submit it again in the coming days.
Oub 11:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version revised 

message: Hello
As far as I understood the merged versions, right now the only open point is the Sentence:
:Jesus was condemned for blasphemy (Mark 14:64 Matthew 26:66) . 
This is more complicated than I thought and I want to discuss it a part. However there are at least three changes which could be made now.
:#Add: All the multitudes of Jews were sorrowful about Jesus' crucifixion(Luke 23:48).
:#Change: While in the garden, he was arrested by Roman soldiers on the orders of the Sanhedrin and the high priest, Caiaphas, for blasphemy, because he claimed to be the Messiah (Mark 14:62) and because, the Jews believed, he had made himself to be God (John 10:33).  to While in the garden, he was arrested by Roman soldiers and temple guards.
Rationale. That sentence is POV. There are  no verses supporting that the arrest took place because on the orders of Caiaphas (besides it looks odd that Roman soldiers should get orders by Caiaphas, it was the other way around). Mark 14:62 is irrelevant since this is a circular argument. He was condemned after the arrest, and there was no charge stated when he was arrested. John 10:33 is also not relevant since it is not referred to!
:#Add: The crowd chose to have Barabbas, who had taken part in an armed struggle against the country's rulers (Mark 15:7), ...
It seems that the second point is controversial. I just tried to change and somebody undid my change. In order to avoid an edit war, I would like to discuss this now. I actually did that already and nobody responded to my argument. Only Aiden explicitly stated The merged version (current + oub's) is quite accurate .
Oub 18:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another reason to wait on the FA nomination ;) Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 18:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: Aiden Well, what do you propose, there are no verses which explain why he was arrested. We could add that there are some possibilities: the disturbance in the temple,  the triumphal entry, etc. But what we can't to is leave it as it is, because there are no verses!Oub 19:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Obviously the story is written out  and referenced. Removing it in the name of PoV when the source is pretty obvious is not right. It could read According to the Bible... Dominick
(TALK) 18:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: Dominick it is NOT! Again, which verse states on the order of Caiaphas? Which verse states the reason for the arrest  was blasphemy or John 10:33. Such a verse does not exist, hence  POV. The reason could be the disturbance in the temple or the triumphal entry. I am not making this up, there is huge literature trying to argue what could have been the reason, since that reason is not stated.Oub 19:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An aside: Oub can you not do line breaks every time you respond? Thanks. :) —Aiden 19:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: John 18:3 states clearly:   "Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons."  I am aware of some of the controversy you speak of Oub, but certainly not all of it.  This has been discussed several times on this article.  Question:  Would you agree that whoever gave the orders would be the first person the soldiers would report to?  They did not go to the Roman representative first, but to the spiritual leaders of Jerusalem...Annas and Caiaphas.  We could "evade" the controversy by saying who the soldiers reported to afer arresting Jesus in the Garden.  Thoughts?  Storm Rider (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: Storm Rider Well to make this clear, I am just saying it is controversial. According to the Synoptic, yes I would agree that the arrest was ordered (most likely) by Caiaphas. With John, well, if really Roman Soldiers were present, it looks hm not very convincing that they have been there because just of orders of Caiaphas (and Pilate was not involved). As to your suggestion, would they bring him automatically to the person(s) who gave the order? Well not necessarily, if the Romans were involved, they might have just brought him there, for identification or in order that he could be previously be interrogated. That is all speculation of course. What bother me more is the part because he claimed to be the Messiah . For that I can't not see any reasoning. As I said the reason could have been the triumphal entry (which BTW is one of the most popular thesis in the "average" literature about the process. For me your proposal looks OK. Oub 20:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Re: Aiden oops, sorry. Which lines do I break, seriously mines, yours or the ones of  the whole section, or the text to which I respond? Oub 19:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: Aidenwell the truth is, I find it much more convincing this way, I wished everybody would use it. It helps to see where one entry starts and one finishes. But of course if it annoys the others there is no point. As a sign of my flexibility I don't use it now! :) Oub 19:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially since there is a line underneath each ==header== your lines were really breaking up the page and making it very hard to read what was going on with all the different indents, etc. People will reply to something three indents previous and if there's a line inbetween, it's difficult to see who is replying to whom. Thanks for the flexibility. --Oscillate 20:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: Oscillate Ok, I am convinced, I want my contributions to be read, and not causing people to get annoyed.Oub 20:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit war?

message: I don't care if this is a featured article it must be accurate. Stop dangling that please. Dominick (TALK) 18:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: Dominick At least we agree in something. But referring to an event in the future, is not my idea of correctness.Oub 18:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been waiting for the dust to settle before I comment. However, I and others are definitely working towards making this a featured article eventually. That's why I nominated it for the Article Improvement Drive, why others voted for it and why there is a to do list near the top of this page. A few sections ago, Aiden suggested that we nominate the article for FAC, but he agreed with me when I said we should wait to see how the AID drive goes. Dominick and some other editors may not care if this ever becomes a Featured Article, but many of the rest of us do. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 18:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is an inaccurate article, based on a PoV interpretation, it doesn't belong as a featured article. To say I am sabotaging that is rather rude. To say that we misidentified the High Priest, and that costs this article "featured article" status is not a defensable position. That is Oub's position he keep restateing. Dominick (TALK) 18:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dominck: Who said anything about sabotage? Right now it seems to be mostly a disagreement between you and Oub. As I said, I would have preferred to stay out of it until you all had worked out an agreement, POV or no POV, but I felt I had to respond when the FA drive was brought up. Personally, I've been working towards FA status since January, and I'm sure many others have the same goal. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 19:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After a cup of Tea, I find I owe you an apology. Pardon me. I don't like it to be a debate tool. Dominick (TALK) 19:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I basically agree. As long as we keep the Gospel accounts, historical views and religious views in separate sections, this is the only way to go. The particular issue under discussion is the proper subject for a recently created article, Sanhedrin Trial of Jesus.Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 20:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Article as a debate tool