Talk:Jesus/Archive 103

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 100

Archive 101

Archive 102

→

Writing clean-up

I wanted to propose significant re-writes for various sections of this article. I know that wikipedia can be edited by anyone, but I am pretty sure someone would simply revert any changes I made, so I wanted to come here first and not waste my time. I don't have a problem with the content, although I think there could be a lot more. My major problem is simply with the prose in many sections. From the historical theories on down sections are poorly written. There is little to no transition between 'paragraphs' and it really feels like everything was slapped together without the slightest effort given to structure or flow. In fact there is no flow or proper structure to a few of these parts. I don't want to change the content, just how its laid out. Beyond that I would need to expound upon single sentence paragraphs to make them complete thoughts. It's just really sloppy writing at times, and I wanted to gage people's thoughts and see if anyone minded if I just went and edited this thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlund (talk • contribs) 04:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

While not required, sometimes if you are going to do a major rewrite it might be a good idea to post it here on the talk page (at least a 1st draft) and get feedback on what parts of the rewrite are ok and what parts will generate controversy. Perhaps you might post a rewrite of just the first two paragraphs as a style sample so folks can see what you are trying to do. Be extremely careful if you move citations that they remain meaningful in the rewrite and that they are not lost in the process unless it is important to delete or replace them for good reasons (and always explain that in the edit summary and here if needed). -- Low Sea (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Jesus name in Sanskrit

According to the Sanskrit scriptures, Jesus is known as Easa (Jesus) and Easa Maseeha (Jesus Messiah). The passage describes Jesus being the son of God, born to a virgin and is an brahmin with two births. This information is important to all Christians living in India and other South Asian christians. Christianity is the third largest religon in India and it shuold not be avoided. --Rajput94 (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Please provide sources. I believe you are confused with Eesa in modern North Indian languages, which is a borrowing from Arabic 'īsa. Bhavishya Purana is not a source since its dating has been argue with great evidence to have been written in 19th century. Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 21:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You dont seem to be educated in this field.

Source - [[1]] Christian website with Sanskrit translated.

Note - it mentions all the different scriptures and links --Rajput94 (talk) 05:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Easa means Jesus in Sanskrit. christian people in india name their kids Easan after jesus cause of the sanskrit text. You perhaps do not know much about Sanskrit or North India, you should goto north india somewhere and ask around. anyways, Christianity in India and South Asia follow after this Sanskrit text. --Rajput94 (talk) 05:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If all you are saying is that there are many Christians in India, you are making a point about India, and about Christianity, and this point should go in those articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Reforem Judaism

I rolled back the deletion of "profressive movement" because in some countries Reform is not called Reform but progressive. I think the idea is not to characterize the reform movement but to help identify it outside of the US. Similarly, in Israel Conservative Judaism is called traditional Judaism. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the facts. I was about to start a discussion about this rollback, but you beat me to it. I apologize profusely for my unconstructive edit. Cheers. Marcus2 (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

An honest mistake, forget about it, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Jesus and Manichaeism

I have added a mention of Manichaeism's acceptance of Jesus as a prophet to the article. This is uncontroversially true, and at least as important as what the Mandaeans think of Jesus. Skoojal (talk) 08:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the mention of Manichaeism should be expanded slightly. The article should say that Manichaeism accepted Jesus as a prophet along with Buddha and Zoroaster. Manichaeism's acceptance of Buddha and Zoroaster is not directly about Jesus, but it provides more context (the fact that the Mandaeans reject Abraham, Moses, and Muhammad is not directly about Jesus either, but it's also useful context). Skoojal (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell and Friedrich Nietzsche

I seriously question whether either Bertrand Russell or Friedrich Nietzsche deserves to be mentioned in this article. They are only two of many philosophers who have rejected Jesus, and not necessarily the most important (particularly not Russell). The main focus on views of Jesus is what various religions think, not what philosophers think, so I'm strongly inclined to just delete this part. Skoojal (talk) 08:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

And Garry Wills probably doesn't deserve to be mentioned either, since he is only one of a long list of people who have expressed the view attributed to him in the article. Skoojal (talk) 08:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about this, but I understand the logic. I suspect these people's views belong in articles on these people or their work. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really get it, I don't think a single paragraph on philosophical criticism in a very long article is undue weight. If you think there are better authors to list than please suggest them. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither Bertrand Russell nor Friedrich Nietzsche is considered an expert on Jesus as far as I am aware. I agree with what I think Slrubenstein is saying above - Russell's and Nietzsche's views about Jesus are important to understanding them, but of very doubtful importace to understanding Jesus. Skoojal (talk) 10:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

To make the point again: Russell and Nietzsche are only two of many philosophers who were opposed to Jesus. What about Celsus? What about Porphyry, and any number of others? Is there any particular reason why Russell and Nietzsche should be mentioned but not the others? Skoojal (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about Russell, but Nietzsche's views on the matter are very well known. These critical philosophical views are a small but important part of modern world views on Jesus. If you want to expand the section a little to include other philosophical views that would be fine by me. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 10:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I question whether criticism of Jesus by philosophers (any philosophers) is appropriate to this article at all. Jesus was not a philosopher in the strict sense of the term, and thus what philosophers have to say about Jesus is arguably irrelevant to this article, albeit relevant to articles about them. Skoojal (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What is a "modern world view on Jesus?" I do not understand what this phrase means, and frankly I suspect that Russell (the Russell who coauthored the Principia Mathematica) would not know what to make of this phrase either. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Celsus and Porphyry represent ancient neo-Platonic pagan reaction to the rising Christian movement. Russell and Neitzsche represent modern scepticism, which is a very different issue. Russell is just a representative of rationalist/empiricist attitudes, and Nietzsche of existentialism, which also links to neo-Pagan anti-Christian views, which often draw on Nietzsche. Since they essentially stand for these wider movements, the brief mention of them seems an effective way to address the issue of modern views, as opposed to ancient anti-Christianity. Paul B (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like these views are more appropriately placed in the Christianity article, then. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Both the Russell and the Nietzsche quotes are referring to Jesus specifically rather than Christianity as a whole, I don't see how they are not appropriate here. The article should describe how modern philosophers view Jesus. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No, there's no reason why it should do that. It should describe what scholars of Jesus and Christianity say, but not what philosophers say - they have no relevant expertise in the matter. Given that Jesus was not a philosopher in the same sense that Russell was, philosophical criticism of Jesus is just beside the point. Skoojal (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I believe we are not giving undue weight, I believe these views are notable, and that having a criteria that we only discuss what scholars of Jesus and Christianity say is not founded in any Wikipedia policy. I agree with Paul B's comment. The point of this paragraph is to present the challenges modern skepticism raised to the world view advocated by Jesus and his followers. Do you have any alternative suggestions. Mentioning Celsus and Porphyry was good because it was more concrete in describing what we could do to improve the article (but I agree with everyone else that those two individuals do not represent modern criticism). Any other suggestions?-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The section in which Russell's and Nietzsche's views are mentioned is entitled, 'Religious perspectives.' Does it really require an explanation why their views should not be mentioned in a section with that title? If their views belong in the article at all - which in my view they don't - it would have to be in a different section. Skoojal (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Some more thoughts. If you really want to 'present the challenges modern skepticism raised to the world view advocated by Jesus and his followers', then why stop with Russell and Nietzsche? Why not mention the latest fashionable thing - Dennett, Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens? Why not mention any and every notable writer who ever said that Jesus got it all wrong? Where does this stop? Skoojal (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There are two claims being made here: first, that the views of certain idividuals are notable. As i suggested i sympathize with this: I once added what Milton Steinberg (a noatable Jewish theologian) wrote about Jesus and Jayjg deleted it because Steinberg was not an established representative of Judaism. Given Jesus' notability, there is as we should expect quite a host of thoughtful views. If we include one or two people, where do we draw the line? I think this criticism deserves to be taken seriously.

The second claim is that Russell does somehow speak for an age of skepticism which has a very specific view towards religion that distinguishes itself from oher views. I have serious problems with this argument. We can pick quotes from Nietzsche, but it is clear from his work that his argument was against Christianity as a whole; his views of Jesus make sense only within that context and i still think his critique is better placed in the article on Christianity. As for Russell - as a philosopher his major work involved the theory of types and I do not see his employing his own unique contribution to philosophy to make any claims about Jesus. That is, his views of jesus are his personal opinion. That he represents a certain approach to philosophy is coincidental. I think some people are making a larger claim: that there is a view, one which developed and spread during the 19th century, that one can lable "skeptical" or "modern" which ought to be represented in this article. I do not believe this view is principally philosophical (to the extent that it is, we should be quoting Hume and Kant, not Russell and Nietzsche - I am not sure i'd object if the quotes came from Hume and Kant). The question is, why did Europe move from the age of faith to the age of skepticism? What is the source of these new views? And I propose that a major source was Biblical Criticism, first in Spinoza's Theological-political Treatise, then the works of gunkel and Wellhausen. In other words, it was the work of historians who challenged the authority of the Bible that laid the foundation for Nietzsche's and Russell's skepticism. Should we include this skeptical viewpoint/ By all means! But it is already representd, in the sections on "the historical Jesus." I don't think Russell ever made any claim about Jesus that did not have its origin in critical history. It is the view of these historians (already in the article), not Russell's analytical philosophy, that is notable. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that all this is true, I think mention of Russell and Nietzsche should be removed from the article soon. Skoojal (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent removal

The following passage, 'and is presently one of the Masters of the Ancient Wisdom, deities responsible for governing the planet' was recently removed from the article. It was part of the description of Theosophical views of Jesus. Was this really necessary? I am considering putting it back. Skoojal (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, can you cite a statement to that effect in the canon of present-day Theosophy? --BenBurch (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The entire passage about Theosophical views of Jesus is not supported by any kind of cite. I would suggest that the deleted section of that passage go back in and that a citation needed tag be applied to the entire passage. Skoojal (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, then it might be some person's fantasy? Please, can we get the cite first from some reliable thing? --BenBurch (talk) 03:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure, but it looks like an accurate description of the Theosophical view of Jesus to me. There's no need to remove this passage, either in whole or in part. It should go back to its previous version, and have the cite tag added. Skoojal (talk) 04:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not our role here; We include cited material in these articles, not material that could be colorably correct by somebody's estimation. I'll let others here comment, but my instinct is to remove that whole devoid-of-cites section. --BenBurch (talk) 06:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If all uncited material had to be removed, the citation needed tag would not serve any purpose. Skoojal (talk) 07:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo says remove things RATHER than use a cite tag. Period. Cite tags are only for things that you plan to run out and look up the cite for. And this article has a lot of things that need removal if people don't get busy with the actual research. --BenBurch (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The citation tag is a component of assuming good faith. If an edit is unsourced but includes information which is undoubtedly accurate ("Earth is the third planet from the sun^{[citation needed]}") it is often better to either blank it out or tag it so that someone less lazy than yourself can put information on it. If we removed information like that that is obviously needed, rather than doing the right thing and finding the sources for it, it would not improve the encyclopedia. And if a rule or guideline prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. However, if something is doubtful and unsourced, delete it with extreme prejudice. Peter Deer (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, there is a difference between common sense things like "the moon orbits the earth" and details of obscure theological disciplines. --BenBurch (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of this. I was merely making a distinction in the assertion of policy. But on less obscure theological concepts, such as "Jesus is regarded as the Son of God by mainstream Christianity", it would be better to attempt to find the sources than delete it, or if one is unwilling to put in the effort themselves tag it so that it is clear that the thing is unsourced. I've been working very hard on the Ahl Al-Bayt article, removing large amounts of original research, but the difficulty on that matter is so much of the article is comprised of it that if I were to indiscriminately delete all of it there wouldn't be an article left, so instead I am working to try and source most of the things in there and delete that which is dubious or sources cannot be found for it. I suppose it just takes a lot of common sense edits to make sure that you don't just eviscerate the article, but it's very true that sources are essential, especially on issues as POV as this. Peter Deer (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please let's remember the history. In the first years of Wikipedia, there was no strict "cite sources" policy - there was no NOR or V policy either. We did assume good faith that information added came from a reliable source. Then we realized that this is often not the case and developed V, NOR, RS and so on. And then we had this dilemma: very good encyclopedia articles where we can all assume the vast majority of information came from reliable sources. And sometimes the sources were in a bibliography (like many encyclopedias) - but there were no precise citations (like in a journal article). One reason for the "citeation needed" template is to help push people to update articles that were policy-compliant when written but are not policy-compliant now. I'd expect to find many such tags placed in articles written before say 2003 or 2004. But V, NOR, and RS have existed for a long time by now. At this point people whould know when they add something to provide their source right away. Or, as BenBurch suggests, add information with a promise to add the citation soon. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I think you have wrote something wrong....I believe Jesus isn't dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.232.143 (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

With respect to the many writers working on this page; this article ignores the large collection of people who claim a) that the man Jesus never existed in any way, or b) that the mythological teachings of such works as the "Bible" and the like that make references to Jesus are referring to in actuality a collection of over 100 years of events happening to various people, or c) that there were many people named both "Jesus", and "Christ"; based on historical readings, common names at the time. ...That the texts reference specifically a "Jesus Christ" are actually a combination of various Jesuses and Christs. That the vast majority of spirituality and philosophical practices do not accept the existence of any so called "Jesus Christ" person needs to be acknowledged (as they make up over 50% of the world population) else this article remains one-sided. The references to academics and scholars "accepting" the existence that appear and/or are eluded to throughout the article represent only those of mythological beliefs as most non-mythology-practising, scholars hold beliefs a, b, and c, as listed above. Lostinlodos (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, and so, edit up a new section with those views in a sandbox off this talk page, and cite sources and keep it NPOV and I'm betting we can add it to the article without any trouble. --BenBurch (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. There is no point in suggesting that Jesus never existed. That 'the vast majority of spirituality and philosophical practices do not accept the existence of any so called "Jesus Christ" person' is irrelevant and has nothing to do with this article, and therefore does not need to be acknowledged. Skoojal (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

To the first point,BenBurch, I'll do that over the next few days of the week, as I believe we're nearing consensus on another article I've been having a back-n-forth with. Per Skoojal, I, and apparently BenBurch at lease agreed in the principle (sorry to call you out), am simply pointing to the fact that the article references to the presentation of Jesus as a Man, and not necessarily the Figure, and goes so far as to push the interpretation of the biblical and Koranic connotations of the Jesus, a man; a being, to the total ignorance of the scientific and philosophical interpretation of Jesus, a collection of various people's works with a mythical, and be-it a characteristic, approach to such works in a combined figure to be revered as the representation of the good (as per Gnostic approaches to the subject of a sonless god), if not the general atheistic approach (and far more people practice non-religious Buddhism, atheism, and non-theistic Zenism (of the Tao basis) (when combined) as per the listings (religious breakdowns on various country pages, and some handfuls of religion pages; posted on various locations on this very site), than are specifically Jesus, the profit, and Jesus, the Son believers. As many branches of Judaism do not accept even the existence of a single Jesus, if at all. And the vast majority of non-theistic. That leaves the single entity Jesus as a representation of the religious beliefs of selected groups (including belief-at-the-table scientists) of Christians -Gnostics, Muslims, and a minority of Jews (the religion, not necessarily the people). That would place the non-single-entity (when including the no-entity collective) as a larger belief. What would neutralize the article would be a heading and series of paragraphs linking the belief of various groups to definitions in a well-laid-out tree of beliefs. Simply stating that Jesus is {a man} {a being} {a son} {of god}, {god} {et al}; without the counter that there may have been many Jesuses or no Jesus(es) at all makes any other statement discontinuous (to the site as a whole) and unbalanced, leaving the neutrality, as the reason I tagged it, in question. Sorry about the long response.Lostinlodos (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this right Skoojal. You're saying that even though there exists a wide field of research, or body of knowledge, in which people formulate opinions adverse to the articles title, it shouldn't be allowed because you feel its irrelevant and off topic? I think its very relevant and needs to be presented in the article. I find it hard to believe that this is not topic appropriate. — _Maggot^Syn 02:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The idea that Jesus never existed is a fringe view. This isn't a serious issue, and there's no need for a 'neutrality disputed' note on this article. Skoojal (talk) 06:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

We have had this discussion a gazillion times. A small number of scholars with relevant expertise (Biblical studies, Ancient Near Eastern studies, History of 1st century Palestine) do not believe Jesus existed, and this article says just that. Most scholars do believe he existed and this article, and linked articles, deal with the various bodies of scholarship on the matter. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I would contend that most non-religious scholars believe that Jesus is based on a various collection of people and their lives, not a single person. Admittedly the "no" Jesus view is probably historically impossible (and true; "fringe" as you state) to prove, considering how common the two names were in the time frame of 100BCE-200CE, much like today's Jo(h)n Smith and John Clark(e) in the English West. I still hold that the vast majority of people (again, non-religious, and many gnostics, some branches of Islam, other religious and spiritual leaders et al) and if given a week or so, I'll sandbox a new section tree for the secondary view. RF such best sellers as The Many Christs (sic), The lives of The Jesus', and Jesus: Historical Perspectives. I'm not pushing to change the tone of the article, just that we include the two other viewpoints, one of them with just as large a belief base as the single Jesus (religious) view. Or, depending on how much I can come up with and actually 'do' in the next week; and the review of my finalized sand box I'll link here; maybe a split article Jesus Christ (religious view) and Jesus Christ (non-religious View) with a dab page for Jesus and Jesus Christ.? You chose the titles 'if' there is a split in the article. Lostinlodos (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"I would contend that most non-religious scholars believe that Jesus is based on a various collection of people and their lives, not a single person." Well you would be wrong about that. Most scholars believe that the gospels accurately refer to a Jewish teacher from Galilee who had a distinctive set of ideas, came to Jerusalem and got executed. Some scholars believe that the version of his story is wildly exaggerated, with miracle claims etc, and some believe that theological figure of Jesus as "the incarnation of god" was created by the merging of Jewish ideas with pagan Greco-Roman ones. But the idea that Jesus was some sort of conflation of different people is anything but mainstream. See historicity of Jesus. Paul B (talk) 12:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The NPOV tag is inappropriate and unsupported by sufficient counter points, citations or examples. It should be removed. Qjuad (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(new indent) I may have been hasty or overly bold, but I have removed the tag. I am not a fan of tags used without providing exact reasons so that other editors can make corrections easily. Tags are not to be used to register personal dislike for a topic or because the positions of reputable references are unacceptable to individuals. Wikipedia strives to report the positions of experts on a topic and does not draw conclusions and is not a soapbox to propagate fringe ideas. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I won't argue the tag at the moment, and will wait until I finish the sandbox for review. That said, I could care less about where an article lies in relation to my views. I believe that every article fails in it's neutrality if it fails to discuss/state ALL points of view, no matter how "fringe" they my be. Nor do I believe the statement of "fringe" or "conspiracy" or any other such related term can be neutrally used as the groups that are being referenced following such terms often consider the opposing view to be the fringe or target etc. Again, my point was to ~~force~~ (push, stimulate, move towards, encourage, pursue, motivate) a discussion and hopefully more collective work (I will post my sandbox here when I pull references together) to bring such opposing views into the article in order to counter-set the current version and hence bring it to a neutral standing. Follow, thoughts? Lostinlodos (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure you want to use the word "force?" Force sounds aggressive, maybe arrogant. Who are you to force a discussion on a topic we spent several months discussing in detail? yes, that is right, we spent months discussing it in detail. Why didn't you participate? Where were you then? Wikipedia is always open to the public, you could have expressed your views then. We talked for month afte month about just these issues and yet you ignored us. So it wasn't a good time for you? But not that you feel like it you are going to "force" us to repeat a lengthy discussion we had over the course of many months, just to please you? Surry bub, but the world doesn't revolve around you. We had a detailed and lengthy discussion - in fact, at least two discussions each of which lasted for several motnhs. Sorry we weren't able to "force" you to participate then. In any event, Wikipedia has a policy on WP:FRINGE which is linked to our NPOV policy and whatever you thinkk this article will comply with Wikipedia policies. You want to make an edit? okay, as long as you comply with our policies. I will tell you right now, you may try to "force" me to accept your view that there are only two views of Jesus, religious and non-religious, but you will lose; you will never force me to agree to that silly and outlandish claim. I can count higher than two; do I have to "force" you to acknowledge that there are other views you seem not to care to know about? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, there *is* a minority opinion that there was no historical Jesus, and a short sections, with citations, would be appropriate in my opinion. We have all these other sections on theosophy and other extreme minority points of view that don't even come close to the number of people who believe that there was never a real Jesus. So it belongs here. As a SMALL section. No undue weight. --BenBurch (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, well I obviously wasn't here at this page during that time else I would have partaken in the discussion. :) Lostinlodos (talk) 02:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of us have been here for years and have gone through the same round of discussion multiple times. Slrubenstein fits in that category along with others. No surprisingly some of us react strongly to aggressive language regarding subjects that have been previously discussed several times. Lost, make a proposal using reputable references and let's go from there. I am sure you did not intend to sound aggressive, but that is now water under the bridge. Let's move n to a proposal and determine merit. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Stom Rider is right that you should make a concrete proposal and see what people think. But trust me, this paragraph:

Most scholars in the fields of history and biblical studies agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew, was regarded as a teacher and healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.[5][6] Most critical scholars believe that ancient texts on Jesus' life are at least partially accurate.[7][8]

and the entire section on the Jesus myth with a link to a longer article on the jesus myth (which is perhaps the article you want to work on) were the result of many long discussions. I am glad you now admit that you were not around for those long discussions but with all due respect, instead of telling us you will force us to have another long discussion (and I am not harping on the word, I am not scolding you, it is water under the bridge, but i do want to give you constructive advice) if you are interested in a discussion of these issues and you admit you have not been around very long, why not go through our archives and read our very long discussions on the topics? Why do you think we keep archives of talk, anyway? This is one reason - so people who were not here for a discussion can catch up on what they missed. Do we have a very large archive, that would take a long time to read? Well, yes. But you were the one who wanted to force/push/stimulate us to have a discussion, if you are so interested in the discussion i am sure you would enjoy reading the archives and reading the detailed discussions you missed! I hope I am encouraging/motivating you! Slrubenstein | Talk 07:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

103 Archived talk discussions downloaded! Wow, this has gone around more than a few times eh? I've started a rewrite last night at home for the introduction which will bring together the various other aspects and links there to allow a casual browser to decide the best place to go with anything they may be looking for. That should keep this article clean of further no-Jesus and many-Jesus ties, for the most part, while at the same time stating up front that other beliefs about the man and/or myth do exist. I just have to find all those other articles. Lostinlodos (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, we have had many many long long discussions! I urge you to look at the linked article on the Jesus Myth, and other linked articles, and consider ways to improve them. this is an omnibus article and alrady longer than most wikipedia articles ought to be. The bulk of the details are in fact in the many linked articles! That is not to say that some of the linked articles can't be improved upon! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Detail about Buddhist views of Jesus that does not make sense

The article reads, 'Buddhists' views of Jesus differ, since Jesus is not mentioned in any Buddhist text.' This does not make sense. Buddha is mentioned in Buddhist texts, but Buddhists still do not agree about Buddha. Clearly, whether something is mentioned in Buddhist texts or not has no necessary relevance to whether Buddhists will agree about it, so I'm going to change this. Skoojal (talk) 07:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The Religious perspectives section

I have a couple of questions about the religious perspectives section. First, this point has probably been made before, but why is the section on Jewish views of Jesus called 'Judaism's view' and not 'Jewish views'? It implies that there is only a single Jewish view, which looks like a potentially questionable claim. If Christians and Muslims are allowed to have more than one view of Jesus, why can't Jews? Second, couldn't the section 'Dharmic religion views' be titled something better? 'Dharmic religions' is obscure and will not be immediately comprehensible to all readers. I suggest that this section be split into separate Hindu views and Buddhist views sections; they are different religions, after all. Skoojal (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In addition, I don't see the justification for the current arrangement of the sub-sections of 'religious perspectives.' I'd suggest that Jewish views should come first, then Christian views, then Islamic views, in keeping with the age of these three religions. Skoojal (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The logic of putting oldest religions first does not make much sense to me. It would seem like the religion that is most concerned about the individual be listed first. If the topic were Muhammad I don't see why we cover Judaism's views first or those of Christianity. Importance of topic to a religion is a better standard than the age of a given religion. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

What constitutes importance is a partly matter of opinion. Different things may seem important to different people. The case of Muhammad is not at all similar, because Muhammad was never a Christian. Jesus was a Jew, and thus Jewish views should be mentioned first. Skoojal (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your position, but I disagree with it. Jesus is acknowledged by Jews, but he is certainly not believed to have been the Messiah. In fact, Jesus has nothing to do with Judaism except for him having been Jewish. Matter of Opinion? That seems an odd qualifier for your position given that Jesus has no position in Judaism. Jesus is the central character of Christianity; there is no one of equal importance in this religion. There is absolutely no comparison between the position of Jesus in Christianity his position in Judaism. I think given our widely divergent positions it would be helpful to hear from others before making this change to the article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Jesus having been Jewish is a rather important connection between Jesus and Judaism. I think the importance of Judaism to Jesus matters more than the importance of Jesus to Judaism. This is an article about Jesus, after all. Skoojal (talk) 03:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The Jewish views are responses to the fact that Christianity came into being, so they are also chronologically secondary as far as this article is concerned. After all one could make a case that Hinduism is older than Judaism. I don't think that would justify putting it first. The primary motivation for the arrangement should be the readability and flow of the text and the relevance of views. If I remember the section on Judaism was called "Judaism's view" in order to ensure that it did not simply list the views of any Jews about Jesus, who may not be speaking for the religion (e.g. Karl Marx). Paul B (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Jewish views of Jesus are not simply responses to Christianity. Jesus and his disciples were Jewish. Their views of Jesus were Jewish views. The section 'Judaism's view' ought to be called Jewish views for the sake of consistency; in an article like this one, it's obvious that it involves religious views and I don't think it will lead to people adding a discussion of what Marx thought to that section. Skoojal (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if your argument were right, then Bahai views would have to come before Judaism's view, because Jesus has a more important place within the Bahai Faith than he has within Judaism. I'm not suggesting that this change should be made to the article, only pointing out that there seems to be no good grounds for the way things are at the moment. Skoojal (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Marx was just an example. Indeed your point actually supports the 'Judaism' name, since including the views of his diusciples (supposing we could accurately determine them) would simply confuse matters. The section is about Judaism, not the view of people who happen to be Jewish. Regarding the ordering, my point was that the order should be determined by what makes the article most coherent and readable, not some pathological obsession with hierarchies. Paul B (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this conversation has gone as far as it can. Skoojal has a specific point of view, but it is rather unique in that it values the importance of individuals by their cultural heritage. We begin the article by clearly stating that Jesus was Jewish; the Jewish views of Christ are negligible because he is but one of hundreds who have claimed to have been the promised Messiah. What makes the article of value is by clearly stating the importance of the topic, which is clearly seen by what Jesus has meant to Christianity. The meaning of Jesus to Judaism is ....nothing. He is not believed to have been the Messiah. Chronology is not the standard of importance in this context.

We are at a standstill; let's move on until such time as a clear consensus is reached. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Paul B, I think your response misunderstands my point. Jesus's disciples were not 'people who happened to be Jewish.' They were Jews, and their views were Jewish views. I wasn't suggesting that their views be mentioned in the section 'Judaism's view', simply giving them as an example of why it's wrong to say that Jewish views of Jesus are simply a response to Christianity. Skoojal (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that, Skoojal, is that according to nearly every account, Jesus's disciples believed he was the son of God. Even from a neo-skeptic's view, Jesus's disciples believed his teachings had some sort of meaning or authority. Our "Jewish views" section would therefore claim: "Some Jews believe Jesus is the son of God and the Messiah." While this is true, these Jews were/are often considered more Christian than Jewish. Jesus's disciples were Jews with Jewish views, but that was during a time period when Christians were counted among the Jewish sects. Whenever Christianity and Judaism are considered as separate belief systems, then Jesus's disciples are always cited as Christian views. -BaronGrackle (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There is such a thing as Messianic Judaism - Jews who accept Jesus as the Messiah. They're regarded often as non-Jews, but why does this matter to the article? Muslims who follow the Ahmadiyya branch of Islam are often considered non-Muslims by other Muslims, but they are still listed as a sub-section of Islamic views here. Skoojal (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read Geza Vermes' book. Those Jews who believed Jesus was the son of God did not believe what post-Nicene Creed Christians think "son of God" means. Ditto Messiah.

But there is a more important issue here. First, Skoojal is right that Judaism mattered to Jesus - this assumption (basically, that Jesus was a Jew, that his beliefs and practices were intelligible to himself and others in the context of 1st century Jewish belief and practice) is the cornerstone of all modern historical research on Jesus (Crossan, Ehrman, Sanders, Frederiksen, Vermes) - their work is unintelligible without this assumption. Second, what virtually all Jews today mean by "Judaism" is Rabbinic Judaism which formed between 200 CE and 500 CE i.e. a hundred years after Paul. This is normative mainstream Judaism and is even a respected touchpoint for Reform Jews. It has authoritative texts (the Talmud, major Midrashim) and notable theologians who wrote after the Talmud was finished, but within its traditions (Rambam, Saadiah Gaon, Yehuda HaLevi) and they do have views of Jesus which are not the same thing as the views of 1st century Jews.

If we want a section on what Jesus' contemporaries thought of him, we would need to distinguish that from the section on Jewish views, which should expres the views forwarded by what Jews today (yes, we are still alive, and have thoughts and feelings) consider normative Judaism. A section on what Jesus' contemporaries thought of him would have to draw on major historians like Vermes, Frederiksen, Sanders, and would be indistinguishable from the articles we already have on the historical Jesus and Jesus in his cultural and historical context. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, a section on Jesus's contemporaries first. That includes those who followed him (disciples; early Christians) and those who didn't. It looks like we already have those perspectives somewhere in this article. -BaronGrackle (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a point - we do not have any neutral sources from or about Jesus' contemporaries. The primary sources are reviewed in "The Gospel Account," the rest is reconstruction and we have two sections already most especially on the Cultural and Historical Background of Jesus. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anything that has been said contradicts my point - there is no logic to how the religious perspectives section is currently arranged. It needs to be re-considered. My preferred arrangement would be: Jewish views first, Christian views second, Muslim views third, Bahai views fourth, Hindu views fifth, Buddhist views sixth, and other views seventh. That's a fairly minor change from the way things are now. 'Jewish views' would be better than 'Judaism's view', because it allows for the fact that there are religious Jewish views different from those of mainstream Judaism. Skoojal (talk) 04:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

See, this is where I'm losing you (and I think others are as well). Hinduism is older than any of the other organized beliefs on this list, and Buddhism predates most of them. And I can find a good many more Buddhists who consider Jesus's life significant than I can among Jews. Having chronological order as you suggest would have our list as: Hindu beliefs, Jewish beliefs, Buddhist beliefs, then Christian beliefs... it would just look awful. Honestly, is there really any doubt that among the religions that Jesus has influenced, his life has been most influential among the religion that is named after him and considers him the only God? -BaronGrackle (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact I did not suggest a strictly chronological order. I did not and do not think that Hinduism should be mentioned first. Discussion becomes very difficult if people misrepresent each other's proposals. I do not think that my actual proposal, which you did not consider, would 'look awful.' However, if you don't like it, I have a different proposal: those religions that ever had an important connection with Jesus should be arranged in chronological order, and everything else, including Hinduism and Buddhism, should go in the 'other' category. So the arrangement would be: Jewish views first, Christian views second, Islamic views third, Bahai views fourth, and other views fifth. Skoojal (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is deliberatey misrepresenting you, only pointing out that your argument mixes up hierarchies of chronology with relevance in ways that will introduce confusion. As Slrubenstein has already pointed out, we cannot usefully include the views of 1st century Jews in the "Judaism" section, simply because there was no clearly defined distinction between Judaism and Christianity in the early years. There is also the additional problem that scholars have quite differing views about what early followers of Jesus actually believed regarding their connection to Judaism, and indeed even what range of views came within "Judaism" at the time. The Judaism section is essentially about the position taken within Judaism after it became clear that Christianity had become a distinct, separate (and, of course, often hostile) religion. In that respect it is best placed after the Christian views section, since meaningfully Jewish views of Jesus were not formed until modern Rabinnical Judaism developed and trinitarian theology in Christianity had been established. Paul B (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for misrepresenting your suggestion and flaming against the straw man, Skoojal—I get carried away sometimes. Still, Jesus is an important figure in some forms of Buddhism, particularly those forms that have ties with United Methodist Christianity. And, according to this article, some Hindus consider Jesus to be "the beloved son of Krishna", while others consider him to be "an Incarnation of God". These connections are not a far cry from the "Prophet" or "Manifestation of God" place given to him by Islam or Bahai. If we didn't place Hinduism first in a semi-chronological format, it'd be difficult to explain why not. -BaronGrackle (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The number of people who consider themselves Buddhists who accept Jesus as a prophet must be rather small. In fact, if you will forgive me for introducing my own judgments into this discussion, Jesus has no place within Buddhism. Whenever people start combining Buddhism with Christianity, the result is neither Buddhism nor Christianity: it's Manichaeism. Combining these two religions was what Mani did back in the third century; modern attempts at combining them are a much more lame and less interesting version of the same thing. Jesus in Hinduism is an optional extra. The point of all this is that there's no good reason why there should be 'Hindu views' and 'Buddhist views' sections in this article (by now, I regret adding them). They should go in the 'other' category. Skoojal (talk) 05:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

To reply to Paul Barlow's points about Judaism: you are making a judgment about what Judaism is that is a potentially POV issue. As I pointed out, followers of the Ahmadiyya branch of Islam are often considered non-Muslims by other Muslims, yet here they are presented as one division of Islam. If that's OK, then I cannot see a good reason why 'Judaism's view' should not instead be 'Jewish views', a broader category including non-conventional Jewish religious perspectives. Skoojal (talk) 05:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be to open it up to precisely the problem that any Jewish writer's personal view could be included, which would simply open up the section to become a chaotic jumble of assertions. Paul B (talk) 08:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No it wouldn't. Non-mainstream Jewish religious views are an organized phenomenon, and not just the opinions of individuals. Skoojal (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal, Paul B expressed himself quite well and it is now you who are misrepresenting what someone has said. Paul is not making a judgement about what Judaism is, any more than we all have to make judgements about what are notable points of view and reliable sources. All reputable Jewish historians today will tell you that Jesus and his follwers and non-followers did not distinguish themselves as Jew and non-Jew, this distinction only arose during Paul's ministry; as for contemporary documents, we have none aside from the New Testament and the earliest manuscript of any NT book is dated after Jesus' death, and there is considerable debate among historians as to whether the Gospels accurately represents the views of Jesus and his contemporaries. Finally, all Jewish scholars and institutions today agree that "Judaism" refers to Rabbinic Judaism and its heirs, with the possible acception of Karaites. Orthodox Jews argue for a general continuity between Rabbinic Judaism and the Judaism of Jesus' time, but there is considerable debate as to any Rabbinic sources available to us make reference to Jesus; many argue flat out that this is not the case. All non-Orthodox Jews and non-religious scholars of Jewish history agree that Rabbinic Judaism developed after Christianity. Rabbinic Judaism and its heirs have written about Jesus and one recognized scholar, Maimonides, is refered to in this article (he edited the Mishnah Torah) and two non-Orthodox Jewish movements, Conservative and Reform are also refered to; these views are provided as clearly distinct Jewish POVs (haven't you even read the article you are commenting on?). Please tell us what notable Jewish view, which is found in a reliable source, you believe is being excluded from the article? Please, don't refer to Buddhism and stop making vague accusations against Paul B. You seem to think some notable Jewish view from a reliable source is being exluded. Which one? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The article ignores the views of messianic Jews, those Jews who accept Jesus as the messiah. They, as you are probably aware, claim continuity with Jesus's earliest Jewish followers. Strictly speaking, they're a modern phenomenon with no direct connection to Jesus, but they can be seen as examples of the same thing. Using the term 'Judaism's view' instead of 'Jewish views' hides this. Skoojal (talk) 12:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason why I mention this is not because I necessarily want these views to be mentioned, but only to show that there's no reason why 'Judaism's view' is the term that should be used. Skoojal (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

As per Buddhism, I will mention that if I like. It's relevant to the extent that Buddhist views are mention here. Skoojal (talk) 12:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

.

Messianic Jews are not considered Jews by any branch of Judaism; please read the introduction to the article as well as the talk pages. It is agreed by Messianics and non-Messianics alike that the only people who consider Messianics Jewish are certain branches of the Messianics themselves. All Jews and most Christians do not consider them Jewish, so their view should not be placed under the "Jewish" section. -- Avi (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

We refer to Judaism's view, because there are no end to the opinions that Jews have on Jesus; no doubt 13 million of them. What any individual Jew might have said about Jesus is not particularly relevant, whereas what Jewish movements or authoritative Jewish codes of law say is relevant. As for Messianic Judaism, it's a branch of Judaism in the same way that hoverflies are a kind of wasp.Jayjg ^(talk) 00:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there are two sources of confusion here. The first is semantic: Skoojal seems to be using "Judaism" to refer to some monolithic homogeneous entitity, and "Jewish" to refer to various movements or groups within Judaism. Thus, Skoojal wants to include Jewish views so that views of different movements or groups within Judaism are represented. One reason I, PaulB, Araham and Jayjg disagree with Skoojal is semantic: when we say "Judaism's" we are not refering to a monlotihic homogeneous entity - we use it to refer to the views of different movements and groups within Judaism (I would have thought this clear, since the article which none of us object to already presents the views of different groups). We use "Jewish" to refer to the views of indiviuals (which could lead us to expanding the section to reresent fifteen or whatever million different views). If Skoojal's point is that we should represent diverse views of different kinds of Judaisms, we all agree, we are just using the words differently.

The other source of contention is what counts as a movement or group within Judaism. Judaism is by definition a national and collective religion - this is made plain it texts all Jews consider sacred and fundamental (namely, God's covenant with Abraham in Genesis, and with Moses and the Children of Israel in Exodus). Historically (by which I also mean all historians of Judaism would agree to this), while Jews have almost always been divided as to the contents and meaning of Judaism, as well as the border between Judaism and non-Judaism, it has always been for the nation itself to negotiate the boundaries of Judaism, how far they can be stretched before being broken. This logic is manifest in one of my favorite corny jokes. Two brothers, Yossi and Avi, are talking and Yossi says "Hey Avi, did you hear Shmuel became a spy?" Avi stops and turns to Yossi and says, "Listen: by mama, he's a spy. By papa, he's a spy. But by spies? He's no spy!" Slrubenstein | Talk 11:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)