Talk:Jesus/Archive 83

message: Should this article feature a ref to "Yahshua"? Or would that be confusing since "Yahshua" is arguably merely a sect based, dogmatically informed translation of "Jesus" with apparently no true historical or philological merit?LCP 19:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There doesn't seem to be a logical place to fit that link anywhere in the article. We can't put it in the "Names and title" section because that is a subsection of the Historical Jesus section. As you state, the name has no historical merit so, I presume the view isn't held by any notable historians. So then, it is a view held by a sect, so it could go in the Religious views section. However, we have to decide how notable the sect is, and would be giving a minority position undue weight by including it in a top tier article? We can only fit so much information in this one article. If we put it anywhere, perhaps we could write one sentence about the name and the movement in the "Other views" section. -Andrew c 20:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yahshua

message: I think it's a little strange that nowhere in the first paragraph does it mention that Jesus is regarded by Christians as the son of God! Is this left out for a reason or may I add a sentence to the first paragraph please? 
Also, there is a sentence about fulfillment of prophecy that claims that Jesus fulfilled "many" of the prophecies of the Messiah in the Hebrew Bible. According to the New Testament, every prophecy was fulfilled, and I think it may be misleading to suggest that there are some prophecies Jesus may have not fulfilled (according to the Christian faith.) Should that be changed to a more neutral stance?Bonjour123 02:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good thing there's nothing in that prophecy about Jesus having to bring the word of God to the Jewish people during His first lifetime, that'd sure make those Christians look pretty silly, huh. Homestarmy 02:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pretty important information!

message: The Wikipedia article states, factually, that Joseph was Jesus' father. From the point of view of this world religion, the Virgin Mary and Jesus' miraculous birth are absolute and fundamental concepts in Christianity without which the religion is reduced to nothing but folklore. The article should state instead that Joseph led Mary and the baby Jesus to safety in Egypt after being warned in a vision to do so.194.54.8.205 09:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Christian orthodoxy, Joseph was not the father.  What the Gospels actually mean is something that has been debated by theologians and historians and Bible critics.  What "the truth" is of course is not relevant to Wikipedia. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry if this is off topic, but you brought it up. What are these Roman records of which you speak?-Andrew c 12:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Hold on a minute, is this over the article saying that Joseph is Jesus' father, or that the article is somewhere stating that Joseph is Jesus' biological father? If it's the former, I was ignoring this discussion because that's accurate, though not necessarily clear, since legally speaking, Jospeh was indeed Jesus' father. But if the article is saying that Joseph is Jesus' biological father, it seems to be that itself would be violating NPOV, it would clearly be siding with a naturalistic stance on things. Homestarmy 02:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Jews refer to God as our father all the time, it does not mean we claim a biological relationship.  Jesus calling God his father was consistent with jewish practice at the time.  I am not saying this to dismiss the Christian view, only to remind people that it is not the only view. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus' father?? 

message: (moved from further down to include with earlier discussion)Afaprof01 00:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Step-father 

message: The following has been added "As customary since the legalisation of Christianity in the 4th century, he is shown bearded and with the long hair and strong features that identify him as a Jew. He is enthroned as in the Book of Revelations". Firstly what on earth does it mean to say that "strong features" identify Jews? Secondly, beards were unfashionable in the 6th century, yes, but they were fashionable earlier and are regularly depicted on Antonine rulers. More importantly, they were depicted on ancient Greek philosophers. Early depictions of Jesus do not show him as bearded, and it's unclear whether this convention originally emerged as a specific signifier of Jewishness. The phrase "Greco-Roman priest and king" has nothing to do with paganism. It refers to his costume and regalia.  Paul B 09:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. It's a trivial exercise to find images of Christ predating 1300 with the "typical" appearance. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well since I've has no reply from the editor who made these changes I will remove some of the text, which is rather too long and unwieldy now. Paul B 12:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture Caption

message: Currently, Jesus is listed under "divinities" in the Wikipedia:Good_articles. While he is viewed as God in mainstream Christianity but this is not universally held (e.g. among Muslims or some scholars). Any suggestions?  --Aminz 08:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if they allow multiple categorization, but it seems like "Protohistoric figures" could work. But "Divinities" seems best. They list a number of figures that are rejected by the majority of world religions today. On the other hand, many many more people alive today recognize Jesus' divinity moreso than they do Apollo's. I think the argument that we should change the GA categorization for NPOV concerns is not founded because the same argument could apply to a more extreme degree to the other articles listed. However, I do have some reservations because this article simply isn't only about the divine belief in Jesus. This article covers multiple POVs, including the scholarly historical Jesus and Islam's Isa, where the other articles may only be about the divine figures. Therefore, I would support multiple categorization, but I do not think we need to remove "Divinities".-Andrew c 21:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to put this article in the "GA article" page 

message: Just letting those who watch this article that God the Son, which was a long standing redirect to the Christian views of Jesus article, has recently been turned into a stub. If anyone wants to contribute to that article, or restore the redirect, or has any opinion on the matter (good or bad) please feel free to check it out.-Andrew c 21:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  God the Son 

message: I'd like to start trying to resolve some of the issues in the April FAC which failed, and I think the Sources on Jesus' life section is a good place to start, because I think what i'm about to suggest is more or less an obvious fix. One of the objections raised that was the "Sources on Jesus' life" section needed more information about the Apocrypha, (At least, I think that was what someone was trying to get at) but I have serious doubts that part of what is there now is relevant itself, specifically, the last paragraph:
:"Books that were not included are known as the New Testament apocrypha. These include the Gospel of Thomas, a collection of logia—phrases and sayings attributed to Jesus without a narrative framework, only rediscovered in the 20th century. Other important apocryphal works that had a heavy influence in forming traditional Christian beliefs include the Apocalypse of Peter, Protevangelium of James, Infancy Gospel of Thomas, and Acts of Peter. A number of Christian traditions (such as Veronica's veil and the Assumption of Mary) are found not in the canonical gospels but in these and other apocryphal works."
None of this seems to have to do with Sources on Jesus' life at all. This paragraph seems mostly about the formation of Biblical canon and its impact on Christian tradition, indeed, besides the Infancy gospel and the Gospel of James, none of the works mentioned claim to say anything about Jesus' life at all, as far as I can tell from their Wiki articles. And then, of course, the Infancy gospel is sort of obviously a medieval fairy tale at best, are there really that many notable people out there who take it as a serious source on Jesus' life? Nextly, I was under the impression Thomas was just a collection of supposed sayings of Jesus, rather than something providing information about Jesus' life. The only book here that I don't know much about the relevance of is the Gospel of James, but since it's only being listed in the context of just being important to Christian traditions and beliefs with the rest of these, I don't think just being in this list is really adequate mention of it as a possible source on Jesus' life, if it is even taken seriously itself. The most obviously irrelevant thing here, however, has got to be the last sentence, what possible relevance does it have in relation to Jesus' life? I understand that there are many people who believe the Gospel of Thomas to be important in relation to Jesus though, and I don't want to accidently remove something that might be important to the article, so for now, all I propose is to remove the last two sentences. Homestarmy 21:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If nobody objects, I will be removing the last two sentences today. Homestarmy 16:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The FAC and the Sources on Jesus' life section

message: I found the following paragraph under "Other Views" confusing.
There are many non-religious people who emphasize Jesus' moral teachings. Garry Wills argues that Jesus' ethics are distinct from those usually taught by Christianity.[112] The Jesus Seminar[113] portrays Jesus as an itinerant preacher (Matthew 4:23), who taught peace (Matthew 5:9) and love (Matthew 5:44), rights for women (Luke 10:42) and respect for children (Matthew 19:14), and who spoke out against the hypocrisy of religious leaders (Luke 13:15) and the rich (Matthew 19:24). Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers that many consider to have been a deist, created a "Jefferson Bible" for the Indians entitled "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" that included only Jesus' ethical teachings.
After reading the first sentence, I expected the views of "non-religous people", perhaps atheists, agnostics or politcal leaders. Instead, the views of two quite religious persons and one very religious institution are described.
--William Warner 06:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would seem the section title should be changed; what about Alternative views of Jesus, or Other perceptions of the importance of Jesus?  Another might be "Moral importance of Jesus". Good catch; it is confusing given the title. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with the sub-heading "Other Views", as it's the last one in the section. Perhaps the first sentence of the quoted paragraph should be "Some Christians have placed a heavier emphasis on Jesus' moral teachings.", while the first sentence of the second paragraph in this sub-section might read "In the development of their own ideas, many non-religious philosophers have reacted to the figure of Jesus."--William Warner 07:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see now, sorry about the revert. Until(1 == 2) 16:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I believe User:Silly rabbit has already noticed according to his edit summary, Wills is not a Christian, or at least does not appear to be as far as his Wiki article says. Homestarmy 16:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, sorry I missed this talk section before editing.  I think that "secular scholars" is better than revert-warring over whether these people are Christian or not.  The section does not deal so much with belief as in the method of exegesis.  Silly rabbit 16:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  None of the listed are secular scholars. Garry Wills is a religious writer, the Jesus Seminar is comprised of religious scholars, and Jefferson was not a scholar but was religious enough to create a digest of the NT for native americans. I see the point of exegesis, though, and changed "Christians" to "writers". I still see value in identifying Russel and Nietzsche as non-religious, and must have been the original purpose of the sentence.--William Warner 17:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suppose that the two categories are signaled nicely by the paragraph break, and an explicit label isn't necessary.--William Warner 17:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  While clearer, the new wording changes the meaning of the section a little. Before it highlighted the beliefs of the writers, but now it does not. Even without the labels, most readers who would care about the distinction will notice it right away.--William Warner 17:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I meant "secular" in the ecclesiastical sense, but I like the current compromise solution even better.  There is really no need to make the distinction explicit at all.  Thanks, Silly rabbit 18:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I found this confusing 

message: "Ascension" and "Temptation" in a couple of the headings are capitalised -- is this deliberate? Chensiyuan 01:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably, in this case, they don't refer to temptation or ascension in general, but specific events termed "Ascension" and "Temptation". Homestarmy 17:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MoS

message: So after we basically all agreed on a wording, and LotR made it go live earlier today, another user has come along and changed it to Disputes about the existence of Jesus and reliability of ancient texts relating to him are discussed later in this article and in several separate articles including Jesus and history. completely ignore our previous work. What do other users think of this version? I think referencing wikipedia articles in this manner is just poor writing. There may be some underlying ideas in that proposal that could help to improve the wording of the Andrew/LotR version, adn I'm sure we can talk them out, but I think it's premature to have an undiscussed version go live. And what up with blanking the big ref?-Andrew c [talk] 05:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just poor writing, its an MoS violation of WP:SELF, I seriously doubt any FA reviewer would let us pass with that in the lead. Though on the ref, it does occur to me that we now need to reference scholars who believe the Gospels to be compleatly accurate in addition to the Jesus-myth folks.... Homestarmy 05:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck finding any. While many may believe into the spiritual truth of the bible, I'd be suprised if a significant number of even deeply religous scholars believe in the literal accuracy of the gospels, given that it takes a massive amount of mental yoga to reconcile the discrepancies between them. --Stephan Schulz 09:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it back to the new agreed version as it's important to note early on that there is huge range in the acceptance of the historical documents that this whole article is built on.  Sophia 10:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think I mentioned before that we should probably site some biblical inerrants. I can't think of any off the top of my head, maybe William Lane Craig? maybe Gary Habermas? (I'm not sure how far they take their beliefs, but I believe they both argue for a historical resurrection when most scholars don't go into that terittory, or outright reject the resurrection as historical). I'm sure there are some theologians out there we could cite. I mean, we site a bunch of non-historians, non-biblical scholars for the myth group, I'm sure we can find some non-historians who have degrees in some field and teach at very conservative universities who hold the view on the other side of the spectrum. I'll try to put some research into finding citations, and others are welcome to contribute.-Andrew c [talk] 11:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It also occurs to me that with the way the sentence is written now, it refers to all historical accounts of Jesus, whether that be the Gospels or not. If it was just the Gospels, we wouldn't necessarily need someone who is a Biblical inerrantist, but merely someone who believes that whenever the Bible mentions Jesus' life, that it's accurate. But it's have to be someone pretty crazy who not only belives the Bible to be accurate, but everything else as well, including all of Josephus and every Infancy gospel, no matter how clearly ridiculous an account the infancy gospels may be. You might try D. James Kennedy as a non-historian non-biblical scholar yet popular type of inerrantist fellow, he's got some theological degrees. Homestarmy 17:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It looks like we're changing the meaning of this sentence, from "some think jesus never existed" to "some question the reliability of the accounts." I'm fine with that. The idea that Jesus may not have lived gets plenty of airtime in the rest of the article, and it doesn't belong in the introduction. I think the best paragraph so far is the one in which the sentence was simply eliminated. I prefer a clear statement of a minority opinion to one written by committee and grafted on without regard to its very visible seams. The sentence as it's written now says very little, unlike the two that precede it. Last night, I reverted the compromise sentence because it read so badly, but I neglected to read all the talk that preceded the change. Perhaps a better approach to closing this paragraph would be something along the lines of "While there is broad agreement on these few details, facts about Jesus have always been hard to prove and hotly disputed, as the nature of this person is so important to so many." I like that wording because it captures the spirit of much of the rest of the page, which is chock full o' alternative views.--bleeding_heart 22:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The thing is Andrew, by saying all accounts like that sentence, it doesn't imply that it only means serious sources, so saying that "very few" people trust all documentation concerning Jesus means there'd have to be some crazy guy who trusts the infancy gospels and every pseudographical work concerning Jesus, no matter how contradictory to the gospels, and no matter how plainly ridiculous and discounted the account is. Homestarmy 05:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey don't get me wrong, I think we have a pretty good version (I did help with some of the original wording ;) I just think it would be fair for everyone to have a chance to give their imput. Maybe we can address Ross' concern here and be on our way, but it doesn't hurt just to wait another couple days to be sure we are on the right track (which I think we are). You make a valid point that we aren't just talking about the gospel accounts. If we get to the point of needing something else, I came up with another idea, but I don't want to confuse things anymore than they already are so I'll hold off making new proposals (besides, I like the path we are on).-Andrew c [talk] 05:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Andrew, you wanted some source support? All I can offer for now is a partial list of conservative evangelical scholars who strongly support the historicity of the NT. One could compile a long list of moderate to conservative scholars who have defended the accuracy and historicity of the New Testament, viz. Paul Barnett, Craig Blomberg, Darrell Bock, Richard Bauckham, E. M. Blaiklock, Marcus Bockmuehl, F. F. Bruce, E. E. Ellis, Craig Evans, Donald Guthrie, Colin Hemer, Harold Hoehner, Martin Hengel, Craig Keener, Andreas Köstenberger, Bruce Metzger, Stanley Porter, Robert Stein, Ned Stonehouse, Graham Twelftree, Daniel Wallace, David Wenham, John Wenham, Ben Witherington, N. T. Wright, Edwin Yamauchi, etc. Does this help? rossnixon 06:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are now into parading beliefs rather than scholarly work - unless I'm really out of the loop there is no widespread acceptance of the complete accuracy of the NT except by Christian apologists. The historicity of the census has never been established and what about the different lineages in Matthew and Luke? Complete acceptance of the NT is a much a minority view as the Jesus myth (even though it has more proponents - the wonders of faith). I'm happy to see a sentence that gives a feel for the full spread of views in academia for the accuracy of the documents that this whole article is based on, giving no undue weight to any one group. We need something though as most academia does pick and choose which bits to accept - often based on the faith of the scholar - no non Christian accepts the historicity of the resurrection for example.  Sophia 10:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ross, did you read Homestarmy's point above? The sentence isn't just talking about the 4 gospels, but ALL accounts of Jesus' life. How many of those scholars believe Josephus doesn't have any Christian interpolations? How many of those scholars believe the infancy gospels, the Gospel of Thomas, etc are entirely historically accurate? -Andrew c [talk] 13:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Here is one example from your list. I randomly picked Craig Evans and found It is highly unlikely that the Gospel of Judas preserves for us authentic, independent material, material that supplements our knowledge of Judas and his relationship to  Jesus-Andrew c [talk] 14:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies. I did not pick up on the inclusion of non-canonical texts. rossnixon 02:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to apologize. I think this may indicate that our wording has a certain connotation and we could consider rephrasing to make it clear. As a refresher, this is the text that was last in the article Very few scholars believe that all historical accounts concerning Jesus are either completely accurate or completely inaccurate concerning Jesus' life. The original proposed version said "the gospels" instead of "all historical accounts" and I think the change helps. I still think that nearly all historians do not consider the gospels flawless, but Ross has clearly shown a number of biblical scholars and theologians who do hold that position. So is saying "all historical accounts" enough to convey that we are not just talking about the gospels?-Andrew c [talk] 04:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Many readers will read "historical accounts" and think of the NT. The non-canonical texts are vastly less known and regarded by most as mythological or apocryphal. Is there another term that sounds less historicitic that could be used? Say "ancient texts"? That is the term used on this page  rossnixon 02:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good suggestion. It works for me.-Andrew c [talk] 02:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Ross's suggestion seems fine though, so are we going to go with that? Homestarmy 18:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Took a couple days off myself. I noticed the change has been made and just wanted to commend those who worked on iterating this much improved sentence. LotR 14:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New proposal from Afaprof01 

message: I reverted the edits to Possible_external_influence which added Zoroaster and changed all the instances of "pagan" to "gentile." The paragraph as it was was exceptionally clear, cohesive and persuasive, in that it limited its argument to external sources that christians themselve claim, the apostle Paul, popes JPII and Benedict, and Cornell West, to name a notable few. I suggest a sentence at the end of the section would achieve more while destroying less.--bleeding_heart 23:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zoroaster 

message: Just a quick query: shouldn't typing in "Jesus" redirect to the disambiguation page? Its quite a common name in some countries, so just assuming that it refers to Jesus of Nazareth is a bit strange. I would also back changing the name of the article to Jesus of Nazareth, rather than just Jesus, for the same reason.Hagger 12:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, Jesus is a common name in some countries, but in those countries where Jesus is common Christianity is the prevalent religion. When one seeks to know about "Jesus" everyone knows immediately you are not talking about Jesus Ortega around the corner. Curious, are there other notable individuals who are immediately recognized simply by the name Jesus? We strive to faciliate searches and make Wikipedia the most user friendly; I think it is doing that currently. --Storm Rider (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I also think 'Jesus' is probably the most neutral, broadly acceptable name we're likely to have. Plus if we change this one, would we have to change related articles, and wind up with Jesus of Nazareth in Christianity, Historicity of Jesus of Nazareth etc? Status quo is better. Wesley 16:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  no, i think Jesus should stay at this page.  Generally the term Jesus is associated with this page.  Keep it the same as it is. (Simon.uk.21 20:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If this is an informal straw poll, I agree. --with those who say leave it as it is.  =David(talk)(contribs) 02:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect & Article title

message: What's with the use of both systems of dating?
:Once it became apparent that trying to choose either system would incur the edit-war-tastic wrath of the side that preferred the other system, this became the status quo. Though someone didn't like it in the FA nom... Homestarmy 02:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh no not this one again - but thanks for asking on the talk page and not just changing them.  Sophia 10:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wish you all the best for finding the right dates :) --SkyWalker 11:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BC/AD AND BCE/CE Dating? 

message: removed copy and paste job of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08377a.htm by -Andrew c [talk] 04:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this the Catholic Encyclopedia? Homestarmy 04:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It says so. So yes it is is Catholic Encyclopedia. --SkyWalker 10:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, so why was it removed?  Per Wikipedia:Catholic Encyclopedia topics, text from the Catholic Encyclopedia is in the public domain although the text is rarely usable "as is".  Better to fix it than to remove it unless it is hopelessly inappropriate.  --Richard 04:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk pages are for discussing article content, not for copying and pasting large blocks of public domain text. This talk page is rather long as is, and it can be hard to keep track of past discussions (which are still active) while other discussions are going on below them. The anonymous user simply copy and pasted the CE text, with no comment. They didn't say "Hey, I found the following public domain text, maybe we should consider using it." We have no idea why the user placed the text here on the talk page. However, because it did add 32% to the article size, and the exact same text is easily accessible through the link I provided, I thought my move was appropriate. If not, I'm sorry. We can restore the copy and paste text if you like, but perhaps we should make a talk subpage for it? maybe Talk:Jesus/Catholic Encyclopedia-Andrew c [talk] 14:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the chronololy of the life of jesus 

message: Shouldn't the article be titled Jesus Christ? -- The Serene Silver Star 17:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe. Jesus Christ currently redirects to Jesus. I personally think it should be the other way around. But since he is also refered to as Jesus of Nazereth, you could make a point that the simplest name should be used.  12.214.89.153 22:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: "Jesus Christ" as the article title would not really conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy as Christ (or Messiah) is a religious title that is most readily identifiable with Christianity and has a token position in Islam. אמר Steve Caruso 22:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article isn't only about "Jesus Christ" you will see sections on the historical Jesus, Jewish views on Jesus and other views that do not use the title "Christ". Looking through the interwiki links does help because there are multiple instances of "Jesus", "Jesus Christ", and "Jesus of Nazareth". The latter two redirect here. Unless there is a serious concern that the Jesus (disambiguation) should actually be located at Jesus, I think leaving the article here is just fine. The only need to expand the title is for disambiguation purposes, which we are currently dealing with via the disambig header at the top of the article.-Andrew c [talk] 04:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the current article name is fully in agreement with WP:COMMONNAME. Both "Jesus Christ" and "Jesus of Nazareth" are much less likely to be used than just plain Jesus, and I'm ready to bet peanuts against macadamias that when the average user enters "Jesus" in the search box, he or she expects to arrive at this article (although he may be surprised by some of the contents ;-).--Stephan Schulz 09:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Name

message: it's regarded as a "miracle" to his followers. but it's also a "folklore" to smart, rationale people. 71.182.92.118 03:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He had a dad. Some fella named God.  --Ezeu 04:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The man said "humanly impossible".  This may be true.  He didn't say anything about it being impossible for God. --Richard 04:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Is there a point to this with respect to the article, or are you just complaining? TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  include how Jesus Christ had a dad. It's humanly impossible for a woman to reproduce asexually. 

message: Could someone clean up the notes at the bottom of the Jesus Page as it is all messed up
: Especially that notes look so ugly. I agree it need an urgent cleanup.Ή --SkyWalker 09:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There was an unclosed ref tag. Homestarmy 17:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good job :) --SkyWalker 11:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean Up

message: I think it is highly misleading to say "while other scholars hold the historical and theological Jesus to be one and the same" and then cite a 2007 book by the Pope to support this statement. The Pope's view, being the head of the largest Christian denomination, clearly belongs in the "Religious perspectives/Christian views" section. While I know that there is a grey area between when scholarship stop and religion starts, most scholars acknowledge that historical methodology cannot plausibly reconstruct the supernatural events in the Gospels. That is not to say that they didn't happen, only that a scholarly, objective methodology can only go so far in those matters. When the Pope says the historical Jesus and his theological Jesus is one in the same, is he making a theological statement of faith? or is he stating an objective conclusion from scholarly methodology? -Andrew c [talk] 00:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Andrew, Benedict XVI argues in his book that positing scholarship and religion as somehow mutually exclusive, or two extremes with a grey area in between, is not accurate (I don't have the book handy to cite page #'s, sorry).  In my opinion, his book also demonstrates the feasibility of his thesis -- Biblical scholars I know respect Benedict not only for his office, but for his scholarship.  He incorporates the same historical-critical methodologies employed by "most scholars."  Benedict XVI criticizes (in a scholarly, not polemical, way) the arguments of key figures among those you call "most scholars" -- those who methodologically posit the disjunction between faith and history such as Bultmann and Loisy.  If you'd like other examples of scholars who share Benedict XVI's view of this matter, I could list a few: Gregory Vall, William Murphy, Francis Martin, Matthew Lamb, Matthew Levering, Michael Dauphinais, Iain W. Provan, V. Philips Long, Tremper Longman, and Richard B. Hays.  These are the ones I know off the top of my head, and include Catholics and Protestants, priests and laymen.  Since there is a healthy scholarly debate regarding the appropriate methodology to use in the scholarly study of the Bible, I find it appropriate and not misleading, as you say, to point out that such a debate exists.  Not to mention it would leave the article biased and incomplete. The.helping.people.tick 01:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Isn't Benedict a scholarly-type person in his own right, I was under the impression he had gotten some qualifications in theology or something before becoming pope, and since the sentence also concerns theology rather than just history, the.helping.people.tick's citation seems appropriate... Homestarmy 04:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Benedict (still as Ratzinger) is a formidable Catholic scholar and held positions as professor of theology at 4 different (secular) universities. --Stephan Schulz 11:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There are two issues here: first, even scholars do not always write scholarly works.  Second, there are different types of scholarship.  I believe theologians are scholars.  I think critical historians and literary critics are also scholars.  The assumptions and interests driving these scholars are different.  This is not just a matter of secular versus religions, by the way - historians and jurists in the US or UK are all scholars and sometimes write on the same issues but in very different ways.  Sociologists and historians of science, and biologists and physicists, are all scholars but often provide conflicting accounts of science.  We should avoid using the word "scholar" unmodified.  Wherever we use it, we should be clear as to what kind of scholar. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Andrew c, regarding your recent change which now reads, "Some scholars draw a distinction between Jesus as reconstructed through historical methods and Jesus as understood through a theological point of view, while other scholars, along with many religious adherents, hold that a Religious perspectives on Jesus|theological Jesus represents a historical figure," it seems that there is an implied disjunct between scholars and religious adherents, as if there were no religious adherents who are scholars.  In fact, many scholars are religious adherents, which does not make them any less scholarly. This seems to violate NPOV. The.helping.people.tick 20:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. We can strike the "along with many religious adherents" part for now. I just thought it was obvious that the Jesus depicted in the Qur'an is believed to be an actual historical figure by most Muslims, as is the Jesus depicted in the NT gospels to Christians, and the Jesus depicted in the Gospel of the Ebionites to the Ebionites, etc. In addition to the scholars who hold the view, there are many lay people who may share the view as well, but not based on scholarship, per se. Maybe there is a more elegant way to convey this. I honestly did not intend to create a dichotomy between "other scholars" and "religious adherents", because those "other scholars" are going to be "religious adherents" .-Andrew c [talk] 20:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Pope the scholar 

message: What PC drivel! Wikipedia isn't a place for political grandstanding. The dates should be BC and AD only! --Nordic Crusader 07:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Political correctness is powerful, Nordic. It can even seep into neutral information areas like Wikipedia. Sad, but true142.176.46.3 19:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Both are acceptable notations. --Storm Rider (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: BCE and CE are far from neutral regarding religion - by renaming the Christian calendar as "common", they are making Christianity out to be commonly believed.  This is pure evil from the politically correct perspective.  If you use BC and AD you are simply marking that you are using the Christian calendar, which is far more reasonable. 22:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be silly. 'Common' means that the era-notation is commonly used (i.e is common to all cultures - international). Anyway, the use of this convention is not going to change, so don't bother to bruise your typing fingers. Paul B 22:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, it isn't commonly used - plenty of countries use other calendars.  Secondly, I heard this line of reasoning on one of the Islamic blogs (where CE was presented as some kind of Jewish plot!) a few years ago - so its a failure there if you're really trying to be all sensitive and politically correct by using it.  Thirdly, its a bit rich to argue that the academic convention that has been in place for no more than a couple of years "isn't going to change" ... academics are as changeable as the wind, and will probably change to some other abbreviation or calendar when they realise that CE is even worse than AD. 75.60.181.84 22:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the wrong place for this discussion. Try Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). --John 22:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I meant it was not going to change on this page. If Islamist blogs alleging Jewish plots are to be accepted as evidence we may as well give up on NPOV now. however, it's an odd sort of Jewish plot that that is "making Christianity out to be commonly believed". Paul B 23:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AD/CE is BOLLOCKS!

message: This text was recently added to the Buddhist views section:
I don't find that Notovitch was a Buddhist, nor that his views are representative of Buddhist views.  It seems that his interpretation of a text he found in Tibet, and Prophet's interpretation are that Jesus traveled in India, etc.  Is this material appropriate for the section it is in?  Or is it appropriate for inclusion in the article?  
— ERcheck (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Judging by the Elizabeth Clare Prophet article, she might represent some New Age views, but not Buddhism. Paul B 18:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Nowhere. It's not a reliable source. Paul B 00:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddhist views section 

message: in the muslim view of jesus...
u should add that they belive that the injl was messed with which made the bible
:What's an injl?  The Islamic view isn't a good source for the historical Jesus because the Qu'ran was written about 600 years after he lived.  It would be like using the movie Braveheart as a historical source on the life of William Wallace.  Jstanierm 13:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Injil means a gospel - or divinely inspired text. Follow the links. The section represents Muslim views. Obviously a non-Muslim historian would consider the Quran to be worthless as evidence about the historical Jesus, but Muslims believe it to be divinely inspired. That's why it's in the section on Muslim views! Paul B 15:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I see there's a muslim views section.  It's interesting that Muslims don't believe Jesus was actually crucified but Simon Cyrene was instead.  This is the same as several heretical beliefs held by groups within the Christian community in the early first centuries.  I wonder if a comparison should be made? Jstanierm 15:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, non-Muslim historians put these ideas in the context of such gnostic sects of the time, but I don't think there's space here to discuss the details; that should go on the  Islamic view of Jesus page. Paul B 15:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Muslim view