Talk:Jesus/Archive 76

message: José or "something like that" is claiming to be Jesus Christ. According to CBS, this man claims to be Christ's 2nd Coming. He is 60 years old, Former Heroin Addict. There are several problems with his claim. He is Hispanic. I am not racist, if you read my thoughts under Black Jesus Section, but Jesus is Israeli. He has sinned, heroin addict, he claims the Devil is destroyed, and was destroyed 1000 years ago. The Bible specifically states, from the mouth of Jesus, that in the end times, there will be people who claim to be the Messiah, God Himself, God's Son. I warn you, before and if you get involved with this false testament, there are words in the Bible saying this is a lie. If this New Jèsus says ANYTHING against the Bible, you have even more proof he isn't real. --66.218.17.183 03:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really notable for the real Jesus article, I think there's a List of people who claimed to be Jesus or something article like that though. Homestarmy 13:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I remembering listening to the Howard Stern show, when he invited three guests, each claiming to be Jesus. They were so annoyed with each other. LOL! --Haldrik 03:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I remember there was a comedy sketch about someone definitely not being the messiah. LOL. Now if only I could remember who it was. this sounds close. Neutralaccounting 06:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Man claims to be 2nd Coming of Jesus 

message: this page needs archiving now. Jpe|ob 08:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  archiving 

message: I think the personal data is controversial and inherently POV.  I for one believe he was born in Nazareth; some think he wasn't born at all.  We express all these views or none at all. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which part in particular is this? Homestarmy 15:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are primary, secondary, and other sources near after that support them. Jesus both as a article and as a concept is based on sources- primary, secondary, historic, but also current original research.  Neutralaccounting 01:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the personal data we need not take account of the loony fringe claiming that he wasn't born at all. This would be a case of undue weight. Bethlehem is the birthplace given by the sources, so we can use that with a proper attribution (e.g. "traditionally", "commonly", "according to the sources") Str1977 (smile back) 07:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  personal data 

message: I think we can improve the Christ views on Jesus passage. Currently it begins with trinitarian and non-trinitarian beliefs, and later adds the common ground only in passing, almost glossing over the resurrection. IMHO the passage should state first that Christians accept Jesus as the Messiah and believe that he rose again after being crucified. All the other things can than be listed. Thoughts? Str1977 (smile back) 07:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent suggestion!  First and foremost, that Jesus was viewed as the Christ, the Messiah, and the Savior of the world.  That he was crucified and rose on the third day.  Str, do you think the virgin birth should be mentioned initially also?  I have always felt that it was of significant import; although there are groups that question it, I think we should stick to orthodox thought here.  Your suggestion will improve the article.  Storm Rider (talk) 07:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should begin with Christology rather than the Trinity; Messiah, resurrection, saviour - all of that makes sense only within a Christological framework.  Lostcaesar 07:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Storm, the virgin birth should IMHO be listed, as it currently is (not because it is unimportant or I don't believe it) but because the central things should be mentioned first: Jesus' Messiahship (as this is the central claim of Christianity) and his resurrection (as this is essential to that claim and to Christianity itself). Str1977 (smile back) 09:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Storm Rider (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I have tried to implement what I had in mind. If you disagree, please pillor me here. Str1977 (smile back) 19:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Christian view

message: Discuss. Neutralaccounting 06:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Discuss what? The Da Vini Code? No thanks. Paul B 11:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Section Proposal: Conspiracy Theories About Jesus 

message: thumb I'm at a loss to understand how this image shows Jesus with "distinctively African features". He seems to be as white as they come with a thin, straight nose. The latter feature is also common in Ethiopia, but apart from the curly black hair, which is also commonplace in southern Europe, I see nothing distinctively "African" here at all. I've no objection at all to including an image of an African-looking Jesus, but we shouldn't claim something about a specific image that's demonstrably wishful-thinking. Paul B 07:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe they are North African - people there are "white looking", I guess - Mediterranean really.  - Its not a great picture of the image.  Lostcaesar 08:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture is from Ethiopia, so I would assume they were trying to make him look somewhat Ethiopian.  It's hard to tell, but it looks like they might have somewhat broad noses.  If we do replace it, it would be nice to replace it with some artwork native to an African country rather than a "revisionist" painting. Peyna 12:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please let us avoid the suggestion that all Africans - even all sub-Saharan Africans - look alike, okay? As benedict anderson and I am sure many other have pointed out, graphic representations of Jesus and others (e.g. Mary, the Apostles) commonly took very very very localized forms (e.g., not even "European" but say "Tuscan" or "Silesian").  Most likely (this would be in issue for discussion in an article on graphic representations of Jesus) people were depicting images of Jesus that looked like themselves, without thinking they were making historical claims about what jesus "really" looked like let alone what race he belonged to. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 09:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is whether or not the image shows what the caption says: "distinctively African features". The assertion takes as a given that there are such things. Of course the actual population of Africa is vast and varied. Ethiopia in particular has a diverse population, having had long contacts with with cultures on the Arabian peninsular and diverse internal African populations. However, I can't see any evidence that this image indicates distinctively African features. As regards skin-colour the characters as portrayed are clearly several shades lighter than the Ethiopian average. There may be many reasons for this - common pictorian conventions adopted and repeated among the various Orthodox communities being one. I have no idea whether or not Ethiopian artists made a conscious decision to portray the holy family as "paler" than the Ethiopian norm or not. Paul B 10:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may be so bold, this issue of how so many different culture and sub-cultures depicted Jesus's physical characteristics doesn't seem like its a small enough subject to warrent compleate inclusion in this particular article. Homestarmy 00:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: African?