Talk:Jesus/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Different accounts of the Ascension

It would seem to me to be deceptive to only present Luke's version of the Ascension, given that the other gospels describe something quite different. A neutral point of view would seem to demand a summary of all four accounts:

• MK 16:14-19 The Ascension took place (presumably from a room) while the disciples were together seated at a table, probably in or near Jerusalem.
• LK 24:50-51 It took place outdoors, after supper, at Bethany (near Jerusalem).
• AC 1:9-12 It took place outdoors, after 40+ days, at Mt. Olivet.
• MT 28:16-20 No mention is made of an ascension, but if it took place at all, it must have been from a mountain in Galilee since MT ends there.)

TrumpetPower! 17:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree Jakken 18:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Sukkot?

I have removed this to talk for discussion; perhaps my skepticism goes further than Jayjg:

, but some scholars point out that details of the entry, such as the Hosanna shout, the waving of palm fronds, and the proclamation of a king, are more consistent with the Feast of Tabernacles, or Sukkoth, than with Passover.

First, I have never read any scholar make this claim. Second, although there may be some similarities between how Sukkot is celebrated today, that in no way suggests that the entry didn't take place around Pesah. Moreover, the Macabees were holed up in the mountains and missed Sukkot (thus, they created Hannukah as a substitute, when they did return to Jerusalme). And who claimed that Judah Macabee was a messiah? Let's not delete it outright, but let's leave it here until we can find a source. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hyam Maccoby is one scholar who points out that "details of the entry, such as the Hosanna shout, the waving of palm fronds, and the proclamation of a king, are more consistent with the Feast of Tabernacles, or Sukkoth, than with Passover." Jayjg ^(talk) 17:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's another scholar who does so: [1] - other links can be provided if necessary. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Does he also suggest that Judas Macabee was greeted as a messiah? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

SLR, I think you're falling into a trap here of Christian construction. The dichotomy between "mashiach" and "hamashiach", not such a big deal in Hebrew, has come to us in English as "annointed" and "the Messiah". Yehuda haMakabi was annointed king, and was, therefore, hamashiach of his day. If the story about the woman who broke the alabaster box and annointed Jesus with its contents is true, then technically, he was annointed as well...whether or not that makes him king or not is really an unrelated matter...the thing is, it is accepted by Christians as Gospel truth that Jesus was annointed and that he's the Messiah (although what they think that means is a matter for further study). That said, I don't know where the idea comes from that waving the lulav and shouting hoshi`a-na is associated with the king entering Jlem riding an ass. Tomer^talk 04:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

No, he doesn't. I'll restore the information to the article now. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

HaKohen, he wasn't ben-Dovid or ben-Yosef. He was ben-Aaron. He fails one of the quilifacations. With blessings, 220.233.48.200 20:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Priests were annointed as well as kings. My point above was this: I am skeptical as to whether Judah Maccabee was greeted as "messiah" in the sense of "legitimate king." I would not be surprised if he was "massiah" in the sense of an annointed priest (though I'd still ask for the source). Slrubenstein | Talk 21:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this whole business about the 'sukkoth' passage is ill-evidenced, confusing, far-fetched, etc. In any case, digression like this one should be, at best, moved to other pages, such as historicity of Jesus or historical Jesus. Furthermore, all four gospels agree on the Passover and only one (John's) mentions the waving of palm fronds. Mullerb 22:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Jesus's Secret Message link

Regarding the link Jesus's Secret Message which has been added by User:JoeMystical and removed by others several times today; does anyone else find this link a bit too tangential? There must be thousands of essays floating around about philosphical approaches to Jesus; it seems to be that this one is more about promoting Neo-tech than anything else. Jasmol 05:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree; I suggest that JoeMystical makes his case here for inclusion and we can get some kind of community consensus. KHM03 19:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• • The page begins with testimonials. Scrolling wayyyyy down, I still cannot find any clear statement about what I will find there - other than "something historical" about Jesus--JimWae 19:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Looking again, I "think" I have some idea about what the site is presenting - but it is not clearly stated - and the prose is hard to read because of syntax & visual presentation/format. I did not think it was worth spending any more time trying to figure out --JimWae 20:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I've asked JoeMystical to make his case here for the inclusion of the link. KHM03 20:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

If you don't like it, just delete it. No problem. I'll just put it back later when I get around to it. That's how Wikipedia works. If there's no consensus, things don't stay. JoeMystical 02:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Link to "Jesus, a historical reconstruction"

I spent seven years developing this website.

It is:

- not a spam

- not commercial in any way, not trying to sell anything

- low-key concerning the author, therefore not self-promotional

- presented only as A reconstruction

- fully researched and utterly documented

- the size of a small book

- covering many related topics affecting our understanding of Jesus

- posted on about 20 websites, some Christian, others not

- strictly about Jesus, the one credited to start Christianity

- under "historical Jesus", on the top 10 on Yahoo! and Google for years

- without hate against anyone

- hotly recommended among some of my readers (see below), including a few scholars (from different sides).

- offering a different approach, between "historic" and fully fictional earthly Jesus

Here is the link of the front page: judge for yourself: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/index.html

I also noted on the link list a posted website called the "Jesus puzzle", which is highly controversial, and against the existence of Jesus. It is strongly promotional towards the author, who uses it to sell his own book (I do not). Another link "Overview of the Life of Jesus' advertises book for sales (I do not) and carries Google ads (I do not). Another website selling stuff is "Complete Sayings of Jesus Christ" (I do not). Several sites promote a religious faith or atheism (I do not). So I am very perplexed about the criteria used for rejection or acceptance.

---

Now here are excerpts from my readers (complete texts in "my best review" and "... readers' comments" pages)

"Congratulations! ... easily the best documented & most objective piece of Jesus research that I have found on the internet in almost a year of surfing. ... independent evaluation of the historical evidence that you demonstrate so well. ... such historical clarity ..."

"I really appreciate your efforts to your homepage. It's great and informative."

"I am fascinated and impressed ... This is a fantastic effort."

"You have done a very thorough job researching your material."

"You are to be commended on your extensive study of these matters."

"I have just stumbled across your work, and have spent a few hours reading it. Most impressive!"

"I was researching some information ... and sifted through 10 or 20 documents before finding yours. The others were not helpful in the slightest, and your site was clearly and concisely organized and had the information I needed."

"I have visited your website on the historical reconstruction of Jesus and I have found it very interesting. You have done an excellent work on it ... Your website has helped me understand a great deal of Jesus and life of early Christians."

"Your work is impressive, and valuable to those like myself ... but have immense difficulty accepting all the add-ons ... Again, thanks for your work, and for sharing it with others who care to explore the truth of religious matters."

"This is where your rational approach is most helpful ... by using historical research and factual information. It really takes a careful eye to spot these things, some of which are buried under layers of "over-familiarity". This is not a criticism, rather more a compliment, but I do want to say that your site is demanding careful attention."

"Good Work. I have been reading your account of the life of Jesus, and I find it very insightful."

"I have just finished reading Jesus a historical reconstruction ... What I found in your online book is something very believable ... Thank you very much for your dedication to these matters."

"You have an excellent site. It's obvious you have put a lot of work/thought/effort into its construction."

"Bernard D. Muller provides a beautifully presented picture of the historical Jesus ... he brings to the table, mostly, a lot of common sense. It's a deep site, with a lot to think about and ponder over. Highly recommended ..."

"Your history of Jesus is fascinating! Very thorough and impressive. I was just surfing through the net and came upon your site, and I must say, I spent a lot of time going through everything you wrote ... Again, congratulations on your work!"

"The author clearly writes with a great deal of knowledge ... Furthermore, Bernard does not break any academic rules ... The amount of valuable resources available at the site is exceptional and should not be ignored ... this website should not be overlooked in any study on Jesus."

"I recently found your site and I am very impressed, you did a lot of work! I never read about the events at Cesarea before and I can see how they could inspire John the Baptist and Jesus to do what they did. ... I find your reconstruction very believable ..."

"... the eloquent cases you make for a later (and real) 'Q', 'Thomas' and the like have given me pause over taking John Crossan's opinions as the last word ... I really think you are closer to disentangling the NT mess than most."

"I just read your website about "The epistles of Ignatius: are they all forgeries?". I was absolutely impressed. Zwingende Argumente! Great work! Will this be published in a "Fachzeitschrift"? ... I appreciate good scholarship - as you call it: "highly inquisitive" ..."

"... what I found most refreshing about your work is its objectivity and impartiality. I've been searching for some time for someone who could help fill in the gaps and mostly have found Jesus bashers full of the same sort of hate and prejudice I see in the world religions. These people are no better than those they criticize. Thank you for bringing me closer to the truth without inciting bad emotions. And thank you for providing such a gold mine of information. Your site is at the top of my bookmarks! ... Keep up the good work."

"Here he does a good job of logically reconstructing the life and ministry of Jesus. It's a fascinating read whether you are a Christian or non-believer."

Best regards, Bernard

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mullerb (talk • contribs) .

It certainly looks like a thoroughly researched link. KHM03 20:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism (semi-locked)

As soon as we add this to the front page, it will be vandilized 900 times more than it is now. I think when it is MainPag'ed it should be LOCKED for editing. The Fox Man Of Fire 20:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It is locked now by the media hyped semi-protection. If you REALLY have new stuff, post it here Tronicum 09:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Jesus, a historical reconstruction (part2)

The link has been deleted again, about the same time, by two anonymous editers, giving no reason whatsoever. I did put it back. On the positive side, I am glad that Andrantus, OwenX, Mr Adequate, KHM03, EI_C, Johann Wolfgang and possibly Izehar are favorable to it. Actually three of the aforementioned put the post back in.

I am new to wikipedia but not too alarmed (yet) of the treatment of the proposed link. Actually, I do believe, on any wikipedia page on controversial issues, like politics and religion, that any addition, deletion or change should be justified in writing, on the relevant talk page, by an accurate and comprehensive article, as long as it takes. That would avoid all this unnecessary activity on the main pages, at least slow it down and render it smarter. If not happy about an alteration, the re-editer should then present counter arguments and reason for further change. More, I propose each editer should make sure he/she can be reached by email.

Now I have to find how to sign off properly —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mullerb (talk • contribs) .

---

Jesus, a historical reconstruction (part3)

One posted website has "Under the direction of our Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ created the earth". Go figure, this one is not deleted. That one and other posted religious sites are hardly about the historical Jesus, but use wikipedia to propagate their beliefs. Go figure, those are not deleted, but mine is. Maybe it is time to sort out what websites should remain posted on that page and not kick out automatically the last one to come. The later seems to be the major criteria for some deleters. (Mullerb 06:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC))

---

Who wrote that? Cause it's Craaaap. --Herkman 21:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Jesus, a historical reconstruction (part4)

I suffered more deletions. Apparently, the rule is to have another person to post your website. Somebody else already did try to post my site (twice) but that was deleted regardless. That does not seem to work either. And I personally think it is a bad policy. This is why:

- Almost anybody can find someone else to do that. So what's the point?

- Religious organizations can find masses of faithfuls to do just that. So what's the point?

- Anyone can go to the library, an internet cafe, a friend's place, from work, and do that from another computer. So what's the point?

- Somebody with money to spare can hire somebody else to do that. So what's the point?

But when somebody, openly, under his own name, proudly proposes his valued and extensive website, oh no, you cannot do that! Instead, you have to sneak around like a low lifer and hope for the best.

By the way, I am not a celeb trying to draw publicity on me.

(Mullerb 06:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC))

Hi, and welcome to wikipedia! You may be a tad confused about WP:NOR. It's not that a random stranger, or an original author, or masses of faithful folks aren't allowed to edit... the problem is that *new* research on a subject, which hasn't been looked over by many other scholars, experts, and laypeople, is generally considered to be not encylopedic. I've actually scanned over some of your stuff, and you might be interested in the works of various authors on the evolution of the gospels based on Q and sayings, and the historical arguments and revisionism suggested by those arguments.

In addition, we have a totally separate pair of articles about historical evidence both for, and against, Jesus. See Historicity_of_Jesus and Historical_Jesus. Those might be better places for links about scholarly arguments based on textual analysis. Ronabop 11:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Links are not subject to WP:NOR or to WP:NPOV --JPotter 21:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Jesus is generally accepted etc

Could this please be sourced? Saying there is a "scholarly consensus" is not the same thing as sourcing it. "Generally" implies to me that there is general agreement on the life of Jesus. Given the paucity of extra-Gospel evidence for Jesus, I think this is a bit too much.

Remember that the policies of Wikipedia ask that we present views as views, not as facts. Whose view is it? The paragraph as currently given does not say. James James 00:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• The intro should not be filled with details about sources - but anything in intro should be discussed in a section below - and there should be sources for things there. Alternatively, footnotes could be used --JimWae 01:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the list of scholars so early in the article is intrusive, breaks up the flow - not part of an introduction.

How about just most scholars with a footnote link? RossNixon 09:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. "Most scholars" would be better. Paul B 11:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Or "Some Scholars"...

No, most is better. Generally is fine too. May or some scholars is POV as it is generally accepted the Jesus was historical among scholars, even the Jesus Seminar. The Jesus-myth crowd is an extreme minority. --JPotter 21:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you using "scholars" to mean "Christian scholars" or "Biblical scholars"? One feels you must be.James James 03:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey...How do I sign with a time and date stamp? --Herkman Oops...Never mind...Newbie ya' know...--Herkman 21:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Are the scholarship agreement figures true for world-wide scholars or just English speakers? Are we assuming clergy and professors from Christian establishments as one should assume? Could the writers please qualify the statements? Djbell 22:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Although I believe it to be true, I am not sure how one could verify the claim "most scholars" (although the article could and should have a section on Crossan's "Jesus Seminar" or whatever he calls it, in which a large number of scholars vote - that's quantitative data). Be that as it may, I do believe that the list I edited in constitute the leading scholars in the English-speaking world, at least. I do not have the data, but one way one could verify this is by going to a citation index. The more frequently a scholar is cited (in academic journals or books), the more "leading" they are. Another way one could measure this - but I don't know if the data exists - is a survey of books and articles assigned in University courses. It is possible - I do not know - that if there is a professional association of Bible critics and historians, their newsletter might on occasion do a survey along these lines. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

These scholars that you are talking about seem to be what you might call "Biblical scholars". Frankly, they can hardly be considered to be "general" in this context, can they? What I'm concerned about is that we do not a/ state as a fact that Jesus lived and b/ suggest that the view that he did, although it is very commonly held, is "general", which implies to me a view that is not shared only by cranks or fringists (a comparable view would be that the world is round or that the world consists of a hundred or so elements and not just four). I'm content with Slrubenstein's attributing the view to sources, which is the prescribed method for Wikipedia. We do not state our views; we report those others have stated. That works for me.James James 03:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

But the Jesus-Myth view is such a tiny minority, and serious Biblical scholars / Jesus scholars reject it outright, so that only a very few people affirm it. Mainstream scholarship does consider it fringe. Nothing wrong with maintaining the normative view of scholars. Every article needs some norm; the "Earth" article shouldn't pander to the "world is flat' crowd, when mainstream science affirms a "round" Earth. This doesn't mean we denigrate the fringe views on WP; there are articles about the Flat Earth theory as well as the Jesus-Myth theory. Yes, mainstream scholars denounce or ignore these fringe views, but we still have articles on them (which is fine). By the same token, we need to recognize their fringe status and proceed from an honest position. KHM03 03:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Biblical scholars, such as the mentioned Jesus Seminar, using historical tools find sufficient evidence for an historical Jesus. These are some of the most (theologically) liberal biblical scholars and discount miracles and the divinity of Jesus, yet find sufficient evidence using redactionay criticism of the New Testament for an historical Jesus. The fact that a body of the most liberal scholars say that Jesus was historical puts the Jesus-myth crowd, Earl Doherty et al in the minority. --JPotter 06:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The Jesus-Myth view is a tiny minority but they are very vocal and quasi fanatic. They can argue anything, including vastly different theories of their own. And they can also introduce links to their personal website, but I can't do it for mine (SOB). Talking of Doherty, here is a critique I did on his book: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/djp1.html (Mullerb 06:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC))

Here's an indication of the relative size of the Jesus myth scholarship [2] --JPotter 06:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not know what James James means by "These scholars that you are talking about seem to be what you might call "Biblical scholars". Frankly, they can hardly be considered to be "general" in this context, can they?" What is a "general scholar?" Mr. Wizard? Bill Nye, Science Guy? When we make a claim about what scholars generally accept, we should be referring to people who have advanced training in the historical and literary analysis of biblical sources. Not geology, not astronomy, not biology. Who cares what someone with a PhD. in "general science" thinks? The experts are the people who got a PhD. in, and have published in peer-reviewed journals dedicated to, the historical and/or literary analysis of the Bible. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

If we take a look at the "general public" the cross section would reveal a massive number who believe in the historical existence of a man named something close to Jesus (probably yeshua or some such in the original hebrew), who had diciplines, ran around preaching, and was (apparently, according to canonical Ilsmaic belief) crucified. A couple hundred years later, a significant religion was around.

If we take a look at the cross section of historians, and the specific field of biblical scholars and other relevant experts, we will find that the vast majority of scholars, especially respected ones, believe the existence of a man named Jesus of Nazareth, who was a preacher and likley seen as a prophet or sorceror, later as the Son of God (a term used to describe prophethood and a special relationship) and then later the Son of God, divine himself, child of the virgin mary begotten by God the Father, to be historically factual.

I would then further suggest that by examining these two observations, and recalling that scholars generally respect other scholars, that its perfectly fair to use Generally, Majority, and Vast majority.--Tznkai 15:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure you're not being biased towards Western scholars and historians? There are a lot of scholars in Asia (China, Japan, India etc). (Heck I even wonder about Russian and other Eastern European scholars) Their opinions matter just as much as scholars in the Western world. Just because scholars in the Western world generally believe something, does not mean scholars elsewhere may believe the same thing. I'm not saying that scholars in Asia, don't believe that Jesus Christ existed. I have no idea although I suspect many of them haven't really considered the matter in that much depth. Some people think because this is an English encylopedia, we should restrict ourselves to the English speaking world. I disagree. For starters that means you should also reject scholars from the Middle East (including Israel) and scholars from much of Europe, such as France, Germany, Italy and even the Vatican and also Latin America. BTW this is quite a different issue from many science issues. Although there are some areas where the tends to be differences in the general thoughts in Asia and the Western world, in most core areas I don't think there is that much disagreement. Few scientists would suggest the world is flat (this was never really a strong theory in Asia anyway), nor would they reject evolution, etc etc where they come from. I think we can all agree with that. But the question for scholars and historians in general is quite a different issue. Without some evidence to support your claim including in most of Asia etc, I would disagree with your suggestion. The vast majority of biblical scholars would probably be acceptable however. BTW, even when it comes to the general population, the same still applies. There are 1.6? billion Muslims and 2? billion Christians. The vast majority of them would believe in Jesus Christ. However there is also about 1 billion each from India and China many of whom are not Christians or Muslims so whether they 'believe' in Jesus Christ or not is not very clear to meNil Einne 13:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I certainly wouldn't expect a Hindu or a Buddhist (for example) to affirm the divine nature of Christ, which Christians affirm. But his existence is another matter. I have a feeling that the historicity of Jesus isn't exactly a hot issue in Asia; it isn't in the West, either, which is kind of the point. Scholars who are considered experts agree that he existed...they disagree as to his nature, the historicity of miracles and his Resurrection, etc. So, if any user finds significant Asian scholarship which denies the existence of Jesus, let's deal with it (most appropriately at the historicity article), but until then, we'd just be guessing. Merry Christmas...KHM03 13:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The issue is not whether someone is Christian or Jewish, Hindu or Muslim or Buddhist or atheist or deist. Nor is the issue whether someone is from the US, Germany, India, China, or Indonesia. When I need surgery for a detached tendon, I do not care whether the surgeon is Jewish or Muslim, Chinese or Austrian. I care that they are good surgeons. Similarly, when I take a University course and study Shakespeare or Confucious, I do not care what the religion or nationality of the professor is: I care that they have a firm grasp of the scholarly literature and have demonstrated that they can contribute to that literature, on the topic. The same goes for a Bible scholar. I have read critical studies of Biblical books written by people I know to be Jewish AND Christian, and the methods of their scholarship is pretty much the same. And not because they were born in "the West." I have no doubt that a Japanese or Kenyan can apply the same methods, and apply them proficiently and artfully. Race, religion, and nationality do not enter into this. Are the people critical scholars or not? have they published books with University presses, or have the published in peer-review journals? Has their work been cited in scholarly books and articles? Are their works assigned in University courses? These to me are the basic criteria of "scholar" and I KNOW that there are people of many different races, religions, and nationalities who fill these criteria. If we have not cited a Thai scholar or an Angolan scholar, it is only because none of us working on the article know of such scholarship. Or it could be that no one from Thailand or Angola has gotten a PhD. and has written in peer-reviewed journals on the topic. So let's just stick to the point: Nil Einne, which Indian or Russian or Chinese scholars should we cite? By the way, I do think that there is a reasonable claim that for the sake of verifiability we should feature people whose work has been published in english - in english Wikipedia. Still, if you can tell us which Chinese, Indian, or Japanses scholars you are referring to? Where did they get their degrees? Where do they teach? Where have they published? Is their work cited in other peer-reviewed journals? These aren't rhetorical questions. if you are going to argue there is another scholar we should refer to, give us relevant information about him or her. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Jesus, a historical reconstruction (part5)

My link is off for good mostly because of two editers:

- The first one, who cannot be accessed, because, I quote: "If every personal page about Jesus were included, this would be a link farm.". But the links, on the 'Historical ans skeptical views' side, point to mostly personal websites. They are: "The Jewish Roman World of Jesus", "Historical context of Jesus' time", "Jewish sects during Jesus' time", "Christ and the Other Religions", "The Jesus Puzzle", "Skeptic's Guide to Jesus". No wonder so many personal pages appear here, because the author of critical study on the matter usually does not benefit of an umbrella organization, such as, for the other side, Christian organizations, churches, denominations or sects. Therefore, that rule, if applied, would quasi-eliminates the skeptical side of things. Going back to my deleter, it seems he/she therefore follows this: it's OK to have links to personal pages, as long as they are posted early. If done later, too bad! No way, you are too late.

- The second one refers to a wikipedia's rule stating the author of a website cannot himself post it (but somebody else can do it!). I demonstrated already how easy it is to circumvent that policy (see part4). Actually, that rule makes wikipedia rather naive.

PS: recently, a new website has been linked "Jesus Christ at WikiChristian". No problem here, no deletion. More, the site is preliminary, very incomplete. Who cares?

OOPS, I blinked and did not pick up still another entry in the link section (the left side) "Jesus in the Jewish Tradition", a personal website, pointing at 'Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.'. No deletion so far.

(Mullerb 22:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC))

---

Jesus, a historical reconstruction (part6)

I want to address this comments:

"Hi, and welcome to wikipedia! You may be a tad confused about WP:NOR. It's not that a random stranger, or an original author, or masses of faithful folks aren't allowed to edit... the problem is that *new* research on a subject, which hasn't been looked over by many other scholars, experts, and laypeople, is generally considered to be not encyclopedic."

Most links on the right side ("Historical and skeptical views") point to websites which can be argued to have "*new* research on a subject, which hasn't been looked over by many other scholars, experts, and laypeople". Therefore, I do not see why my site should be deleted, while others are in. Also, my site is more popular on Google or Yahoo! than most of the posted others. I also got rave reviews from readers, including scholars. And most sites on the left side cannot be considered encyclopedic either. They are only statement of faith from a denomination or sect.

"I've actually scanned over some of your stuff, and you might be interested in the works of various authors on the evolution of the gospels based on Q and sayings, and the historical arguments and revisionism suggested by those arguments."

I have been interested, and read a lot about it already, on the making of the gospels, "Q", parables, sayings, etc. I commented on that all over my website, and I have special pages dealing with gospel making & dating, "Q", parables, etc.

"In addition, we have a totally separate pair of articles about historical evidence both for, and against, Jesus. See Historicity_of_Jesus and Historical_Jesus. Those might be better places for links about scholarly arguments based on textual analysis."

OK, the first page has links to websites, but my site is not squarely about answering historicity by yes or no. It definitively deals with it, all along, and leads to firm conclusions. But it is a lot more about what kind of historicity we are talking about. You must know by now, by scanning my pages, I stand for a "historical Jesus", with that Jesus not really historic and certainly a huge lot less as described in the gospels. In conclusion, that page does not seem to be right for a posting of my website. The other mentioned "Historical_Jesus" would be appropriate, but has not a link section.

(Mullerb 23:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC))

Jesus, a historical reconstruction (part7)

First, I want to thank KHM03, OwenX and Johann Wolfgang for their help and appreciation for my work. However, my anonymous opponent, 64.12.116.70, twice within 24 hours, again took off the posting without explanation. I looked into his files and learned a) His main interest on wikipedia is SpongeBob b) He has been accused many times of vandalism, including into the Jesus page (through outrageous insertions: see the evidence for yourself) c) He has been threatened repeatedly to be blocked.

I sent him a message: "To anonymous, Stop taking off the link to my website. Your position cannot be defended, because you allow the posting of new websites and you do not delete the existing ones, except mine. Why mine, and mine only? Explain yourself and be specific."

I looked at the websites which are posted in the link section and I noticed: some of them offer openly things or/and books for sell (I do not know yet about wikipedia policy, but I was accused once to be "commercial"). Many are obviously faith driven, some are not from religious organizations or collectivities, and therefore personal (but so what if they are relevant & of decent quality!). But right now, the section looks like a link farm (and growing), and could use some work. I'll come back to that.

I want to float two ideas here: EITHER we remove the whole link section, which looks certainly not encyclopedic (mainly because of the nature of the topic). There are other pages where the sites can be posted: historical_Jesus, Jesus-Myth, historicity_of_Jesus, etc. Also, it looks that each faith denominations have their own sites (i.e.), such as mormon(ism). OR we organize the postings we have per categories, such as "Christian views", "other religious views", "scholarly views", "skeptical views" and "mythicist views", with a short (10-15 words or less) of presentation for each website. There are many examples of structured link section in wikipedia. But, as I just remember, there is a space problem for the Jesus page!

(Mullerb 02:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC))

It would probably be better to just have good quality links for the general subject on this page, pruned to standards of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links. I'll go do some pruning. Ronabop 05:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Second Paragraph Summary of agreed points

I apologize in advance for bringing up what likely has been discussed at length. Being new to this article, I was not a part of that discussion and do not even know where to look in the archives for it.

This paragraph expresses the consensus of both critical and conservative scholars on the life of Jesus. Is there any reason why we can't take the list of scholars into a footnote and add others such as Paul L. Maier, D. A. Carson and other more conservative historians to the list? Since I work in a theological library, I could even look in the works of each of these and provide exact citations for them (after the first of the year, of course) that establishes this. --CTSWyneken 11:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

No apologies needed. Read over our relevant guideline, Wikipedia:Cite sources which explains important criteria and lays out the options (I assume most will be familiar to you, but go over it just to be sure) and then do wha you think is best, complying in a reasonable way with that guideline. Also, you are welcome to add more views, both conservative and radical, religious and critical, and so on, just make sure you comply with Wikipedia: Neutral point of view and Wikipedia: No original research. From what you wrote, I do not have any reasont o think you would violate those policies - but if you are new here it is worth reading them carefully; it might help you avoid conflicts in the future (and might help you feel more confident about parts of articles you think need to be changed). Slrubenstein | Talk 15:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, of course I'll follow or exceed the rules. --CTSWyneken 15:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Disciples tortured by Romans for believing in Resurrection?

The following has repeatedly been added to the article:

The disciples, despite extreme torture and gruesome deaths at the hands of Romans, did not relent, even unto death, their claim that Christ was indeed resurrected and who he claimed to be.

Aside from stylistic & continuity problems, is there any evidence that Romans tortured and killed disciples who claimed to have seen a resurrected Jesus - and for no other reason than their belief in Jesus' resurrection? My research indicates the Romans considered the disciples still to be Jews (as did many disciples themselves) until Jewish leaders proposed someone else as the possible Messiah, and after several Jewish-Roman wars.

Usage of "Christ" is definitely POV in this paragraph.--JimWae 19:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• If you don't like "Christ," then change it to "Jesus" instead of deleting the entire thing.Drewlarson 08:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Jim requested ONE source. The book "Evidence for the Resurrection," by the Josh McDowell Ministry, is written entirely on the subject. This page, http://www.riverpower.org/resurrection.htm, has a specific summary of the book which directly relates to the above quote. Drewlarson 08:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • We are not asking for evidence of the Resurrection - but rather HISTORICAL evidence (not just non-historians repeating a legend) that the apostles (or any others who claimed to have seen the risen Jesus) were (1) killed (2)killed for their belief in the Resurrection, and (3) killed for that alone - for those are 3 assertions your insertion makes --JimWae 09:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
    • HISTORICAL evidence eh? There's just no appeasing you is there, Jimmy? And just what would you consider historical evidence? Perhaps you would like 1) the video of the courtroom where the judge passed the sentence on the disciples, 2) the eye-witness testimony of someone who was there when it happened, or 3) a time machine to go back and check the facts. Until then, I think we should just go with diminishing the statement with the following: "MANY HISTORIANS state that the disciples, despite extreme torture and gruesome deaths at the hands of Romans, did not relent, even unto death, their claim that JESUS was indeed resurrected and who he claimed to be. However, despite the expertise, Jimbo remains unconvinced."Drewlarson 07:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• • The most your reference says, which is far from what you wrote, and is mostly legend anyway if it is meant to refer to any "witnesses" to a risen Jesus, is

    In fact, they were beaten, stoned to death, thrown to lions, tortured, and crucified for their preaching.

I think "evidence" for the claims from the aforementioned paragraph is not to be found, that is for most of those disciples. Eusebius, in History of the Church, Bk2,26 & Bk3,1,5, accounted only for two executions among the twelve, the one of Peter & James (John's brother). Nowhere (including 'Acts') it is specified that was because of their belief of the resurrection or about what Jesus had claimed to be. For the others (minus Judas, of course), Eusebius claimed they dispersed outside of Judea in the 60's and preached "in every land". Nothing about persecution, for whatever reasons.

Furthermore the page is about Jesus, not about how & why his disciples died. In other words, it is out of context.

• The statement is made as a supporting argument to the Jesus' resurrection. Therefore, it is clearly not out of context, especially in a section specifically discussing the resurrection. Drewlarson 08:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[large section removed by the author (Mullerb), because its material is re-used under the proper title "After his death numerous followers spread his teachings" (see below) (Mullerb 19:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC))

(Mullerb 00:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC))

Christ Birth - new data

If you take a look at the link to King Herod's death, there is new data that pinpoints the exact year and possibly the exact day of Christ's Birth. cheers, parkfoto/dan onischuk --Parkfoto 20:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

image

I really liked the Greek image of a living Jesus at the top of the article. Now we have an image of a dead crucified one. I say show a depiction of Jesus the teacher at the top of the page, not of Jesus the dead meat (which could grace the top of Crucifixion. Just my opinion, of course, no offence. dab (ᛏ) 23:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I share your view. Arguably, the crucified Jesus is a POV image. Could we have the living one back? James James 02:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure that can be arranged. Does anyone have a reason not to go back to the image that was there before? Was there a particular reason the change was made? Wesley 23:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• It has the advantage of not showing the face very much, but does show very white skin. To be realistic (& NPOV), no image at all in lead would be appropriate. --JimWae 23:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Since Jesus had no European blood in him, why do images of him portray him as an European. I would think that truth in both image and words would be paramount when dealing the savior of the world. How and why is this tolerated by theogians and the public. Some will say that this isn't important and that accuracy here carries no merit. Do they also feel the same way about the words of Jesus? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.222.44.7 (talk • contribs) .

True accuracy isn't possible in the absence of any acceptable photographs. All we have are best guesses, and certainly some guesses are more likely than others. As to why bad guesses are tolerated, even the transliteration "Jesus" may not be the best version of Ιησους, but it's been around long enough and used widely enough that there's not that much point in arguing for a different one. Frankly I'd prefer an older icon of Jesus in the lead, or perhaps no image at all as JimWae suggested. Wesley 20:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

"After his death numerous followers spread his teachings"

Is it exact and proven?

a) What was preached, Christian beliefs or Jesus' teachings?

b) Who propagated whatever in the first decades following Jesus' death?

Answering point a), and assuming their authenticity for argument sake, the Petrine and Johannine epistles are not about the teaching of Jesus, according to the gospels (sayings, parables, etc.). There are no "Jesus said that, and that ..." And Paul, the most successful apostle then, was preaching a gospel he said getting mostly from Above (the heavenly Jesus, God and the Spirit), plus some "deductions" from the OT, and his very own thinking (and very little from what could be directly from Jesus' teachings). 'Acts' worded out some of the (alleged) preaching of Peter and the ones of Stephen & Paul (both non-eyewitness). But it is not about Jesus' teachings. The same for James' epistle and Jude's.

Answering point b), Stephen, Paul, Barnabas, Apollos, Timothy, (ref: 'Acts', 1-2Cor) were not followers of the earthly Jesus. According to 'Acts', the followers settled in Jerusalem and stayed here up to the alleged dispersion (in the 60's according to Eusebius), too late to be pioneers. Among them, only Peter is described to do any preaching outside Jerusalem, in Samaria and Judea (but after Philip, member of the seven). As known through Paul's epistle (ref: Gal), Peter also went to Antioch (but well after Christianity was founded here) and, very likely, to Corinth (but after Paul) (ref: 1Cor1-3).

Antioch, early on (40's), became a centre from where Christian missionaries were sent out, but 'Acts' tells us the Church here was led by teachers and prophets, who are named, and none of them are Jesus' followers (Ac11:19-28,13:1-3).

The only canonical text to mention a preaching of the disciples all over, and right after the crucifixion, is Mark16:20. But Mark 16:9-20 (when the resurrected Jesus allegedly says "they [believers] will pick up snakes in their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all") is likely a later interpolation (and conflicting with 'Acts', where the followers do not go farther than Jerusalem):

A) Answering Marinus, Eusebius (around 310) wrote: "The accurate ones of the copies, at least, circumscribe the end of the history according to Mark in the words of the young man seen by the women, who said to them: Do not fear. You seek Jesus the Nazarene, and those that follow, to which it further says: And having heard they fled, and said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. For in this [manner] the ending of the gospel according to Mark is circumscribed almost in all the copies."

B) "the most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20" "[Mk16:9-20 verses] are absent from important early manuscripts [such as Vaticanus and Sinaticus] and display certain particularities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark. His gospel probably ended at 16:8 ..."(The NIV Study Bible)

C) "It [Mk16:9-20] is in a different style, and is little more than a summary of the appearances of the risen Christ, all of which could be derived from other NT writings. One MS gives indeed a shorter ending after v. 8: 'they reported briefly to Peter's companions what they have been told. Then Jesus himself through their agency broadcast from east to west the sacred and incorruptible message of eternal salvation.' Four MSS give the shorter ending and add the longer to it. One MS has the longer ending with the following insertion between vv. 14 and 15: ..." (The New Jerusalem Bible)

---

So I would replace "After his death numerous followers spread his teachings, and within a few decades Christianity emerged as a religion distinct from Judaism." by "After his death apostles propagated their testimonies, and within a few decades Christianity emerged as a religion distinct from Judaism."

I think the change is neutral and more encompassing. It does not deny some of Jesus' message was preached by his own disciples. However, it takes in account the preaching of others, such as Paul, the author of 'Hebrews', etc., which had little to do with Jesus' teachings, as drawn from the gospels. Furthermore, the 'Jesus' being preached then was not necessarily the same (also "spirit" & "gospel"!), according to Paul, 2Cor11:4-6a NKJV "For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted--you may well put up with it! For I consider that I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles. Even though I [Paul] am untrained in speech, yet I am not in knowledge."

And Paul denounced false apostles in the same epistle (2Cor11:13-15), obviously preaching things Paul rejected.

Therefore "apostles", as a word covering the like of Peter and Paul, is justified. "Testimonies" is also a good compromise, because the teachings were not the same and the inspiration was different: for some, possibly as recalled from the earthly Jesus, for others allegedly from visions, revelations, God, Christ in heaven, the Spirit, the Scriptures, etc.:

"I [Paul] proclaimed to you the testimony about God" (1Cor2:1b NIV)

"we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden ..." (1Cor2:7)

"God has revealed it to us by his Spirit" (1Cor2:10a NIV)

"... we speak not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, communicating spiritual [things] by spiritual [means]." (1Cor2:13 Darby)

"... I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it." (1Cor3:10)

"I did not receive it [Paul's gospel] from any man [Paul had met Peter & other eyewitnesses], nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." (Gal1:11-12)

"... God's glad tidings, (which he had before promised by his prophets in holy writings,)" (Rom1:1b-2 Darby)

"For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." (Rom15:4 KJV)

Therefore the plural for 'testimonies' is justified. I would abstain from "numerous" too, because one dozen active apostles (or less) at any given time, would be enough to spread beliefs, from Jerusalem to Rome.

(Mullerb 19:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC))

Luke at least mentions 70 followers, or "apostles" whom Jesus sent out to preach during his ministry. Many if not all are alluded to later in the New Testament; Church tradition has these 70 also spreading Jesus' teaching after his death. Acts 2 mentions around 100 people waiting in the upper room when the Holy Spirit came. "Numerous" is not too much of a stretch at all. Other places in the gospels mention people that Jesus told to spread his teachings such as the demoniac in the region of the Gadarenes that he healed, and the Samaritan woman from John 4 who spread the word on her own initiative. Also, why do you make this distinction between the 'earthly' and 'heavenly' Jesus and apply it to the NT as though they were different persons, when the NT makes no such distinction? Wesley 06:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Even if the 70 were true (suspect because only mentioned in Luke's gospel), there is no evidence they were active after Jesus' death. You are suggesting there is some: please specify. The 120 from Ac2 are not said to go preaching abroad. The Samaritan woman (only in GJohn) and the demoniac are only 2 persons. They allegedly testified about what happened during their brief encounter with Jesus and not very far (a Samaritan town and the Decapolis). That's hardly apostolic work.

As for 'earthly' and 'heavenly' Jesus, the majority of people on this earth makes a distinction. Many accept a certain rural Galilean Jew (Jesus of Nazareth) crucified under Pilate, but a majority does not see him as "heavenly" Son of God.  ::(Mullerb 07:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC))

Mullerb, do you really think that is a true statement? The majority does not see/believe in Jesus as the Son of God? I may be a simiple fellow, but I would disagree with you. The vast majority of Christians actually do see Jesus as the resurrected Son of God. I would agree with you that there exists a liberal wing within Christianity that feels Jesus was a fable, but worthy of apprecaiting his teachings, but they are certainly the minority. Do you have any studies that support your statement?

The Seventy were called strictly to preach the gospel. I see no reason to assume that they ceased to exist simply because they were not mentioned further in other letters or that it was only mentioned in Luke. It seems appropriate to remember that the Bible is hardly an exhaustive history, but only a sampling of the letters written by a few of the disciples of Christ. I know that may raise the hackles of some Christians, but I am not saying there is a missing gospel only an incomplete history. Are you attempting to qualify the difference between the acts of the apostles and the acts of disciples? Storm Rider 23:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Answering your first paragraph, I was thinking about the majority of people on this earth. I thought it was clear.

As for your second paragraph, those seventy (or seventy-two) appears in Lk10:1 "After these things the Lord appointed seventy others also, and sent them two by two before His face into every city and place where He Himself was about to go." (NKJV). Sixteen verses later, their mission is completed: "Then the seventy returned with joy, saying, "Lord [Jesus], even the demons are subject to us in Your name." (10:17). Then there is no more mention of the seventy, either in the gospel or 'Acts'.

On your last point, I was after "After his death numerous followers spread his teachings ..."

I am questioning:

a) only the ones who had been followers of Jesus of Nazareth (such as Peter) were apostles. Because, according to 'Acts', most early Christian missionaries operating outside of Palestine were not (such as Paul, Barnabas, Timothy & Apollos).

b) only the teachings of the same Jesus of Nazareth was preached. Because, the Pauline epistles and 'Hebrews' are not about the teachings of this Jesus.

c) the apostles were numerous. The word in highly subjective and not objective. Since we have no way to determine their number, and many of them were not necessary for the task, it is better to drop 'numerous'.

Mullerb 01:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

For additional sources regarding the seventy, see the Seventy Apostles. Many of these are mentioned in the salutations of Paul's epistles. Regarding the 120 gathered in the upper room in Acts 2, it does say that the followers were scattered from Jerusalem by persecutions just a bit later in Acts. Also, the over 3,000 converts mentioned in Acts 2 were Jews who had gathered from many different places, speakers of different languages. It's reasonable to assume that they eventually returned to their home country as Christians, even if they did not all become full time evangelists or apostles. As Peter preached Jesus of Nazareth to this crowd, it was followers of Jesus that they decided to become.

The New Testament epistles are most certainly about the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. My saying so is just as strong an argument as your saying they're not. ;-) You're projecting a distinction between "Pauline Christianity" and whatever you call the other kind that isn't really there. Just as you're projecting a distinction between an earthly and heavenly Jesus that is not in the New Testament, or at least was not there in the minds of its authors. Wesley 03:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

"For additional sources regarding the seventy, see the Seventy Apostles. Many of these are mentioned in the salutations of Paul's epistles."

I looked at it and I learned: "... The Orthodox Church tradition of supplying names to the Seventy or the Seventy-Two whose "names are written in heaven" is associated with a late 3rd century bishop Dorotheus of Tyre, unknown except in this context, to whom has been ascribed an account of the Seventy Apostles, of which the surviving version is 8th century. The names of these disciples are given in several lists: Chronicon Paschale, and the Pseudo-Dorotheus printed in Jacques Paul Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus, XCII, 521-524; 543-545; 1061-1065. The Roman Catholic church finds that "these lists are unfortunately worthless" (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1908, "Apostle"). Eusebius positively asserted that no such roll existed in his time ..."

Are we really looking at primary historical material here? Furthermore, many on the list of the seventy are highly dubious, in regards of being active in Palestine during Jesus' ministry (according to GLuke).

As for the 120 and 3000, you used the words "It's reasonable to assume". We cannot base historical analysis on such methodology. However, I am allowing that some, more so among the Greek-speaking members of the Church of Jerusalem, (such as Stephen & Philip, according to "Acts") became true apostles, that is preaching Christian beliefs.

"As Peter preached Jesus of Nazareth to this crowd, it was followers of Jesus that they decided to become."

This alleged preaching, in Ac2:17-40, has little to do with Jesus' teachings, more about Christian beliefs. It stresses salvation in the last days and the resurrection of Jesus, both "demonstrated" by quotes from the Scriptures, not from what Jesus said. And this is typical of what can be seen in the epistles.

"The New Testament epistles are most certainly about the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. My saying so is just as strong an argument as your saying they're not."

In due respect, and do not take it personally, an opinion cannot be considered primary evidence. And a saying of yours cannot, on its own, be regarded as a strong argument. As for my own saying, which would be "the epistles are not about the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth", I already shown that Paul's preaching (by his own admission) was based on God's hidden wisdom, the Spirit, the Scriptures, Paul's thinking and very little from Jesus, either when on earth or Above. 'Hebrews', 'James', '1John' & '1Peter' are in the same category. As far as I know, most (if not all) of the teachings appearing in these epistles are not claimed by their respective author to come from the ones of Jesus. Mullerb 21:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding those points you questioned from above: I agree with you that there is a difference in an apostle and followers, Seventies, disciples and missionaries. After the death of Judas one apostle was called to replace him. It has always been my understanding that Jesus called twelve apostles for a reason and only a "quorum" of twelve apostles until some time after Christ. 2) What gospel was taught? Your concerns/question sounds like a distinction without a difference. Assuredly Paul's understanding of the Gospel was through the Holy Spirit and not at the feet of Jesus. Thankfully his example gives credence to the understanding that the Holy Spirit is the great teacher of truth and not simply reading the scriptures (I am not a fan of sola scriptura). If you feel it an important distinction to make; I would support the change, but I think an important point to make is that there is only "One" gospel. 3) This seems to go with your first point, to which I have already agreed. I have started to hear from many Christian groups a more casual understanding and use of the term apostle. Scripture does not support that there were numerous apostles, but rather numerous disciples. Of course, numerous is a relative term; relative to the twelve apostles, they were numerous. I am only one of many, but I would propose you making your changes and let's see how it goes. Storm Rider 22:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be assuming another distinction where there is none, this time between Christian beliefs and Jesus' teachings. Jesus' teachings as recorded in the Gospels include salvation in the last days, and his own resurrection (first predicted by Jesus, then later demonstrated by Him when he met and spoke with his followers after His resurrection). Regarding the 70, while many may seem dubious, there are also many that are far less dubious. It still pushes the number of apostles well above 12.

Regarding Paul, he first became a Christian because he thought Christ appeared to him on the road to Damascus. He wrote that his faith would be worth nothing unless Jesus was in fact crucified and did in fact later rise from the dead. He also reported Jesus' words of instituting the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians 11. In Galatians 1, Paul says that his gospel is based on the revelation of Jesus Christ.

1 John is based on who Jesus is and what he did, as well as what He taught. Arguably for someone who both preached and did miracles, both of these things are important parts of his ministry. Like the Gospel of John, it is more theological and philosophical, but the opening chapter emphasizes its connection with the historical Jesus: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life— 2 the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us— 3 that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ." Much of 1 John resonates with or is similar to various teachings of Jesus as recorded in the gospels. To claim otherwise is absurd, so I won't belabor this further.

1 Peter similarly says more about Jesus than it quotes him, but there are also allusions to some of Jesus' parables, such as when he mentions his readers' faith being tested as if by fire. He also quotes some of the same Old Testament passages that are quoted about Jesus in the gospels. And it again lays the greatest emphasis on Jesus' sufferings and his resurrection.

I have just shown that all of these epistles are first and foremost about the teachings of Jesus, especially when 'teachings' is understood to encompass what Jesus did as well as what he said. Wesley 23:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

"the Synoptic Gospels suggest a span of only one year. The consensus view remains three years however."

I find this statement rather erroneous. I am not contesting that 3 years is normally accepted, but that it is a consensus view. How can we be sure? That would required voting by anyone on this planet, with not one vote against, to be considered a consensus. I personally disagree with 3 years, so would Malhon Smith and Dominic Crossan, two liberal Christian scholars (and probably many more). So it cannot be a consensus.

Now this is what shows on MSN Encarta, for "Jesus Christ": "All three Synoptic Gospels (the first three Gospels, so called because they present a similar overall view of the life of Christ) record Jesus' public ministry as beginning after the imprisonment of John the Baptist, and as lasting for about one year (See also Mark, Gospel According to). The Gospel According to John describes it as beginning with the choosing of his first disciples (1:40-51), and as lasting for perhaps three years."

From "Chronology of the Life of Jesus Christ", Catholic Encyclopedia: "the year of my redemption" (Isaiah 34:8; 63:4), appear to have induced Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Philastrius, Hilarion, and two or three other patristic writers to allow only one year for the public life. This latter opinion has found advocates among certain recent students: von Soden, for instance, defends it in Cheyne's "Encyclopaedia Biblica"."

From [3]: "Scholars variously argue that Jesus's ministry lasts as little as one year or as many as four."

I would like the change from "consensus" to "generally believed".

Mullerb 22:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Grammatical corrections and style suggestions (sections 1.1-1.3)

Section 1.1: I only saw punctuation errors

Section 1.2,

-paragraph 3,

--sentence 3: "... go into these details, some ..." would be better as "... fill in the details of this time, some ..." or "... go into the details of this time, some ..."

Agreed, more so because "these details" assumes the word 'details' has been used before, which is not the case. I will attempt to make the change. Mullerb 21:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Section 1.3,

-paragraph 1,

--sentence 2: "... the Luke ..." should be "... Luke ..."

Agreed (somewhat), but I would replace "the Luke" by "the gospel of Luke". I'll try to make the change Mullerb 21:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

--sentence 5: "... which also contains ..." should be "... which contains ..."

Not agreed, because removing 'also' may suggest beatitudes and Golden Rule are not part of the 'teachings'. With or without 'also', the present sentence is awkward. I would propose: "Some of the most known teachings, including the beatitudes and the Golden Rule, are to be found in the Sermon on the Mount." But I will hold on that one, more so because the authenticity of parables, Sermont of the Mount and many teachings is contested by some critical scholars (& myself). Something should be done about the two "famous". Repetition is not good writing. Mullerb 21:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

--sentence 6: "... (or stories with ..." should be "... (stories with ..."; this parenthetical definition could also be moved to sentence 3

Agreed with your first point. Yes there is some redundancy with sentence 3 and rewording might be called for. I do not plan to do anything on that one for reasons explained above. Mullerb 21:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

--sentences 7-8: "... of disciples. His closest followers were ..." would be better as "... of disciples, the closest of whom were ..."

Agreed, but I would like to put that after "According to the New Testament" and start the next sentence by "And he performed ...". I will not implement anything yet. Mullerb 21:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

--sentence 9: "... the raising Lazarus ..." should be "... raising Lazarus ..."

Agreed Mullerb 21:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

-paragraph 2,

--sentence 1: "hierarchy" for "hierachy"

Agreed Mullerb 21:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

unregistered, 11:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Christianity Series

Is there any particular reason the christianity series bar does not appear on this page? I realize that other faiths have stuff to say about Jesus but there appear to be separate articles covering that (e.g. Isa). For instance, Muhammad may have a lot of relevance to the Bahai faith but his article still has the islam series bar at the top. The bulk of this article discusses Jesus as per christianity and it just seems logical to have the series bar here. I would be fine with the other series bars appearing in the sections of the article discussing other faiths as well if jesus is linked to from them. Savidan 20:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I would have added the other series bars in other places in the article, but I couldn't find any others that linked here. Savidan 21:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree.Gator (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I returned the Christianity series template. I don't see how its inclusion can be POV in an article about Jesus. The first sentence describes Him as being the central figure of Christianity. Since I believe in the one-revert rule, that's my one for today. --Elliskev 01:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I object to the addition of the template. First of all that would be POV as Jesus has importance in at least one other world religion. Secondly this article should be made to show more views and just because it is leaning towards Christianity, we should try to make the content show other religious views on his life rather than just agree with the content and add the template. Because there are many different religious views, there is a Christian views of Jesus article which already has the template and that is where it belongs. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I respectfully disagree. Jesus is first and foremost the founder of Christianity. --Elliskev 02:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, but that would be POV. The issue is that when he is important in another large religion too and there is already an article about him in the Christian view, Christian views of Jesus that has the template already, the template should probably not be added. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I realize that he is an important figure in Islam. But, it isn't a point-of-view that He is the founder of and reason for Christianity. It's a fact. POV would be a template along the lines of The Son of God who died for our sins and rose again from the dead for our salvation series. But, it's not. --Elliskev 02:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This would be POV. Others can also argue that Paul founded Christianity. The template is not only POV but also destroys the format of the page. It looks much better without the template. Like I said there is already a Christian views of Jesus article which is the correct article that should have the template.--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose one could argue that Paul founded Christianity, but in the name of Jesus. Anyway, I see you removed it again. I won't put it back, but I disagree with its removal. --Elliskev 02:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I just think we should have more discussion before it is added again. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Christianity is named after Jesus Christ, as are Christians. Is absurdity the rule here? 68.110.9.62 02:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I kind of agree with both sides. Anonymous editor is right that Jesus has a wider context than Christianity, but his central importance to Christianity should be recognised. Given that there is a Christianity series, not including the page about, erm, the guy the Christians consider their god within it would seem a bit odd. Jesus is without question the central figure in Christianity, that's a plain fact, regardless whether there is any truth in the stories about him. If you were arguing to add Islam or others, I'd see your point but I think that it should be there. I won't add the template myself but I wanted to add my 2c.James James 06:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Crusades and the Inquisition also be part of the series on Xty? My concern is that having that "series thing" there - especially when it omits anything at all controversial or "unpleasant" - indicates to the reader that the page is in the same vein. It also presents Jesus unambiguously as Christ and as the son of God --JimWae 08:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you should add those pages to that series, Jim. Again, it seems your issue is with what's lacking, not the template itself. And I think that in the context of Christianity, Jesus is unambiguously Christ; however, the series does not state that, does it? I don't think it's POV to suggest Jesus is central to Christianity, because all POVs would agree that he is. They differ only on how he figures in their worldview. The series idea is not an endorsement in my view, just another aid to navigation. You read about J, you might want to read about some other Christianity-related figure or thing. Not to include Jesus in a series of articles to do with Christianity seems certainly POV to me though -- not to mention a bit odd, a bit like a series on Islam that left out Allah because the Xtians don't agree that God's like that. James James 11:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose this is Wikipedia's belated War on Christmas. Bah humbug everybody! 68.110.9.62 10:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with James James. I think people are mixing up two issues here. The first is, was Jesus the "founder" of Christianity. The answer is, yes, according to some, no according to others, and NPOV and CS suggests that we simply acknowledge this and provide the appropriate sources for the two views. That there are two views, however, has no bearing on whether this should be tagged as a Christianity-related article. It is. Moreover, the fact that this article is related to other series (e.g. Muslim?) is irrelevant. There is no reason why an article cannot be specificed as being part of more than one series. I also agree with JimWae, although his comment has more to do with the nature of the series than the specific question of including this article or not. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I have a problem with the series template both for what it contains & what it does not contain.

• I did edit it to include the Crusades and the Inquisition & was reverted within an hour.
• The template represents Jesus as Christ and as God. If it had only the trinity that would be sufficient & NPOV

I am not about to engage in a long battle to NPOV the template just so it can be NPOV enough to be here. The Jesus article, perhaps more than any other article on wikipedia, needs to be neutral on claims of his divinity --JimWae 01:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• The template seems to be a POV project to present a positive view of Christianity on wikipedia. There does not seem to be any acceptance of "presenting both sides" by the editors of the template. While I have a problem with such projects on wikipedia, they are probably unavoidable - that does not mean we need to accomodate them if it means surrendering NPOV. --JimWae 01:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Allright all those in favor of the tag? All those against?

This is getting to the emporer's new clothes point. NPOV to such an extreme can become so ridiculous as to warrant ridicule. --Elliskev 00:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia would rather call Jesus a Jewish schismatic than the founder of Christianity. 68.110.9.62 03:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The Series Bar is not POV the first sentence recognizes that he is the central figure in christianity. his importance to christianity is much more than his importance to other religions. case in point: the christianity series bar links here, no other series bar links here. The article acknowledges his importance to other faiths and the addition of the bar does not take away from that. The majority of the people who read this article will benefit from the series bar as it links to useful information. This is part of the series on christianity. The Islam series bar belongs in the Muhammad article and this belong here. There are more productive ways for you to express your minority views which do not disrupt the usefulness of this encyclopedia. Savidan 01:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems pretty obvious to me that the central figure of Christianity ought to be included in the template series. The template does indeed mention Jesus as "the Son", but that is entirely appropriate, considering that the subject of the template is Christianity. The article makes it clear that this is a Christian affirmation and not a blanket statement. It's no more POV than an Irishman saying, "I'm Irish." It's a silly debate that will bear no fruit for Wikipedia; let's drop it. The main problem seems to be not whether or not to include the template (of course we should...be serious), but where it will neatly fit given the plethora of other templates and images. Ideas? KHM03 01:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

IMO, the template is appropriate in this article, again by virtue of Jesus's centrality to Christian doctrine. Further, the links available in the Christianity series will be useful to users trying to search for certain aspects of Jesus, such as the History of Christianity or the Sermon on the mount. Overall, I feel its usefulness and expectedness outweighs its POV here. jnothman ^talk 07:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I would say for the sake of simplicity and clairity, apply both the Islam and Xianty series templates here. The series are meant to assist readers navigate related subjects. The Xianity one would go first because of both relative importance to the religions involved, and Chronological ordering. AE, care to jump in here?--Tznkai 22:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this [4] in addition to the Islam template is reasonable solution

I would be happy to add a template on Islam in the section of the article that discusses the Islamic view of Jesus in the section of the article that talks about the Islamic view of Jesus, even though it is already in the main article on that. However, it is important when creating a neutral point of view article, as per wiki guidelines, not to inflate the importance of certian points of view. Jesus is the main figure in Christianity, a minor figure in Islam. The Islam portal does not link to this article. Jesus is last on the list of prophets article for Islam. Therefore the Christianity portal should be at the top of the article. But as I said, I am fine with any other portals you want to add in parts of the article which discuss those religion's view's on Jesus. In fact, I'll add that now because that appears to be the consensus. 69.22.42.35 01:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Woooah. Not consensus yet. Hold your horses. Its the bloody holidays, give people time to respond--Tznkai 01:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why there should be no portal while we are discussing this issue. Because the purpose of the portal is usefulness it seems like we should retain it until concensus has been reached to remove it. 69.22.42.35 01:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Burden of proof is generally on the adder against a stable version, and avoiding edit wars is a good thing. Waiting for abit hurts no one.--Tznkai 02:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, give it a bit more time. I'm in favour of the template (or a template) but I don't see the rush. Let's try to get broad agreement on what there should be from a wide range of editors; otherwise, the next anti to wander along will have good cause for an edit war over it. James James 02:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for waiting everyone. In my opinion I think that a separate article should be made for the Jesus page, which has a links to the main Christianity concepts and also the a link to the Jesus in Islam article. A special template can be made for the purpose of this page. But putting in two different templates will mess up the look of the page. So I agree with Tznkai on that both views should be represented and I also agree with some of the other editors on this page that Christianity's concepts should also be included. A very good solution is to have a separate template like the one JimWae made but smaller and with only a few links including Christianity ones, one to the Jesus in Islam and any other important articles. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually. Hows "This article is part of the series on Jesus?" Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus the Christ (links to christian views) Isa beloved prophet (to Isa at top. Then move the nav templates Xinaty and Islam to the see also link section?--Tznkai 03:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Turns out a series on Jesus already exists. I don't like it much though, so I'm creating an alternative--Tznkai 03:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This solution is not NPOV because it skews the notability of different beliefs concerning jesus. Jesus is a major figure in Christianity and a relatively peripheral figure to all of these other faiths. Most of the stuff in this article comes from the Christianity view point de facto because the people who followed jesus around and wrote about him in general were christians. If there is to be an article on the historical a-religious jesus ("Jesus of Nazareth" could be the title) which treats all of these view points as equal it should not be the article which falls under the title of Jesus. That article should be the one which the xtian template links to. I won't disrupt wikipedia to make a point but imagine for a second if someone suggested removing the islam template from the article on muhammad because bahais have a different interpretation of his status as a prophet. It would artificially inflate the importance of muhammad to the bahai faith in relation to the muslim faith. For example, if the nazi leaders series and the artists series were fighting over which series template should appear on the Hitler page, it should be the nazi leaders one, not necessarily because more people identify with hitler as a nazi leader than as an artist but because hitler is more relevant to the field of nazi leaders than to the field of art. 68.191.223.193 06:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed more NPOV template

Here is a more appropriate template - and relevant to the Legacy section --JimWae 21:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree: The existing template is so POV that it's inclusion here is disturbing. This version would be much better. --Nigelj 22:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Looks OK. (I assume we are voting here). RossNixon 22:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

What was I going to say... oh yeah... GNAH! NO VOTING! Atleast not yet. No reason to turn to straw polling just yet.--Tznkai 22:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

This discussion should be taking place at Template talk:Christianity. KHM03 14:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

No, this template is proposed to be for this article only - at least at this time--JimWae 18:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

No-no-no-no! Baaaaaaaaaaad idea. multiple versions of templates tend to cause bad things and reduce consistancy, and I'm reasonably sure our MoS has something to say on it.--Tznkai 18:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, it is not even a template - it can just be a table within the article --JimWae 18:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Its still a nav table though. I'd rather fix what we have then create a confusing proxy.--Tznkai 18:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to modify the Christianity template, please join that discussion, rather than making a competing "template fork" because you don't care for the actual template. KHM03 18:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• I joined that discussion some time ago - there has been no discussion here about whether or not this is "part of a series on Xty". "Series" implies continuity. Is there some group looking after the continuity of this "series"--JimWae 20:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Tag

1. Gator (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
2. (your it!) Dominick ^(TALK) 18:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Savidan 01:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
4. It's this simple. Whatever template links here, is here. Only Christianity links here. 69.22.42.35 20:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Far more important to Christianity than any other faith. 68.191.223.193 06:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No Tag

1. Tag means template? I explained myself above. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Perhaps AFTER the template is NPOV'd - which so far seems a long task --JimWae 21:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not the place to propose changes to the template. The template was agreed to after much discussion and consensus has been reached. 69.22.42.35 01:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Jesus

How long have people been trying to fully NPOV the Jesus article. It is kind of funny. What on earth do regular encyclopedias do? fischersc 07:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I have reintroduced (amended) a reference to the non believers (positive!) views of Jesus teachings. Anyone object to this? If so, why? PaddyBriggs 07:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

n.b. the NOR charge does not stand up in this case. This is a statement of fact, and a fairly obvious one at that. It doesn't need or lend itself to "Original Research" PaddyBriggs 07:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You could probably add Hindus, Buddhists and Taoists to that list too. --Fire Star 08:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I am sure that you are right! Not my subject, but I would have thought that most Christians would not object if the putting on record of the fact that you actually don't have to be a Christian to have positive views of Christ! PaddyBriggs 08:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Triumphal entry

"Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem at the end of his ministry is usually associated with the Passover Feast, as stated in the New Testament, which indicates that the waving of palm fronds and other greetings from the crowd were intended to hail Christ as the Messiah (John 12:13)."

I would remove "usually" and (because appearing only in John's gospel), "waving of palm fronds". I would change "triumphal" to "kingly". "Triumphal" is not used in the gospels, and at this stage, what was the triumph? But there are references, in the four gospels, that Jesus was seen as a (future) king or/and a ruler in the line of David. I have a problem with "entry into Jerusalem", because in the four gospels, the demonstrative welcome occurs outside the city (in the countryside) and not inside. "hail Christ as the Messiah": the crowd hailed a human person, so "Jesus" instead of Christ is more appropriate (and neutral, with no prior assumption).

So I would rewrite: "Jesus' kingly welcome outside Jerusalem at the end of his ministry is associated with the Passover Feast, as stated in the New Testament, which indicates that the greetings from the crowd were intended to hail Jesus as the Messiah."

I'll wait for feedback on that one.

Mullerb 00:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

seems reasonable to me. Let a couple of others weigh in, Slrubenstein | Talk 01:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds about right.--Tznkai 22:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion based on interpretations?

"some interpretations of the Synoptic Gospels suggest a span of only one year"

Is the suggestion dependant on interpretations? I do not think so. What interpretations are required to enable the suggestion?

I would rewrite: "the Synoptic Gospels suggest a span of only one year"

PS: Here is a word from the competition: MSN Encarta, for "Jesus Christ": "All three Synoptic Gospels (the first three Gospels, so called because they present a similar overall view of the life of Christ) record Jesus' public ministry as beginning after the imprisonment of John the Baptist, and as lasting for about one year (See also Mark, Gospel According to). The Gospel According to John describes it as beginning with the choosing of his first disciples (1:40-51), and as lasting for perhaps three years."

I'll wait on that one also.

Mullerb 00:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Legacy

I have deleted the following paragraph twice:

Other legacies include the adoption of the cross as a symbol, the doctrine of the Trinity, a view of God as more fatherly and less angry, growth of belief in an afterlife and in the resurrection of the dead, the Anno Domini method of reckoning years, and celebrations at Christmas and Easter.

A legacy is the residual benefit left by an individual. Christ had nothing to do with any of the above things. The cross was a symbol his followers developed after his death; he did not recommend it to his followers. Thus, not his legacy. The doctrine of the Trinity was not taught by Christ nor was it is common belief at the time of the apostles. This was doctrine that was developed over 300 years after the death of Jesus. The view of a more fatherly god is problably accurate and should be reinserted. The method of reckoning years was not created by Jesus, but again is something his followers developed a significant period after the death of Jesus. The celebrations of Christmas and Easter likewise were not instituted by Jesus and thus can not be his legacy. Most of these were the legacies of followers of Jesus, but they are certainly not his legacy. Storm Rider 23:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• There is a far broader meaning to legacy [5] [6] and in history what really matters is what happens as a result of someone's life, not what was intentionally & explicitly handed down by them. Is the New Testament part of his legacy? He did not hand that down, yet in there he "says" enough to lead people to a doctrine of the trinity. How does Jesus affect even non-Christians? Certainly Anno Domini comes in there --JimWae 00:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome. JimWae is quite right that "legacy" has different meanings. Would it be acceptable to both of you to divide this section into "direct" and "indirect" legacies, or something like that? By the way, I personally prefer JimWae's expanded use over my own proposed compromised. No one can state with any objective accuracy what Jesus' legacy was, in the narrow terms set forth by Stormrider. Any claims that something is "the residual benefit left by an individual" meaning Jesus, runs into NPOV problems - because all we know is what some people have claimed to be his immediate or direct legacy. Well, either way, the paragraph SF keeps deleting does belong in this section, even if many paragraphs in this section can be worded more carefully. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You will note that I reinserted two of the things Jim cited as legacies. Neither are items that put WIKI in the position of defining doctrine taught by Christ. Such would be the case to attribute the doctrine of the Trinity to Jesus; I view that as strictly POV. There are Christians who don't believe in the creed and to attribute it to Jesus goes to far. For that reason I deleted it. AD was created out of respect for Jesus' life and death, but we stretch the definition of legacy to get there. I think I explained my reasoning effectively above.

Slrub, there are ddefinitions for the term legacy, but an individual's legacy is the directd result of their life; their accomplishments, their words, and their acts. To use the term to apply to a historical event is a different application of the term that applies to an event rather than an individual. This is not difficult and let's not stretch the English language to the point that we ignore common language. I agree with you that as long as proper wording is used some of those things can be introduced, but let's resist the impulse to define doctrine attributed to the teachings of Jesus unless it are those teachings where there is not conflict.

I am sorry that was so confusing for you Slrub. I understand how that could have been nearly impossible to follow. I was early in the morning my time and I obviously made a serious mistake. Storm Rider 19:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

There are two paragraphs following my comment, and each is indented differently. Could someone indent properly, and sign? It ould help me to know whether I am to respond to Storm Rider, JimWae, or a third party. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting it out - no need to apologize, I was just confused. I agree that it is important that the wording not suggst that we are necessarily tlking about something Jesus personally and consciously and deliberately bequeathed. I agree that this is a very important point. But understand that there may be some things ALL Christians agree come from Jesus, that some people doubt really came from Jesus (in other words, you are raising an accuracy issue; I am saying it is also an NPOV issue). That said, "legacy" really is not restricted to the consequence of individual, conscious, wilful acts. Surely, there is a way to make this clear in this section. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's move forward. Storm Rider 19:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Existence

"Many Christians and some scholars believe that the accounts in the New Testament are historical facts, though others maintain that different parts have different degrees of accuracy, and a few hold Jesus did not exist at all."

How could any "Christian" hold that Jesus did not exist at all?

Mark Burton Albuquerque

Part of a series on ... ?

Is there really a series on Christianity? SERIES implies something with continuity. Is there a single group looking after this continuity? Are they the same people who are looking after the series on Islam, for which there is now also a template attached to this article? Isn't Other articles on a more accurate description of the purpose of a navigational link? --JimWae 06:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion to Remove Common Era references in this article

There are four main reasons in which I believe that we should re-instate what the original version of this article presented, the terms AD and BC alone, rather than along with BCE and CE.

1. Discrimination - A push to replace references of AD and BC, which have been used for thousands of years without any complaints, is simply discrimination against Christianity. Think not? Well what's the difference between these two statements: "I wish to replace AD and BC with CE and BCE due to the fact I do not worship Jesus Christ", and "I wish to replace Wednesday with "Third Day" due to the fact I do not worship the God Woden". There is no difference. The latter has never been discussed because there is no anti-German religious bias in Western culture. There is, however, an anti-Christian bias. Saying "100 BC" is no more religious than saying "Wednesday". Not to mention, Wednesday is used probably on a daily basis compared to BC and AD being used on a, perhaps, monthly basis.

2. Nature of Article - This article is based on the documented life of Jesus of Nazareth. Though not many acclaimed scientists acknowledge he is the Messiah, very few deny he existed. Not only is Jesus the central figure of Christianity, he is also the basis of the anno Domini (as well as common era) system. At least this article in particular should reference the terms AD and BC only. As for other articles, that is another issue. Not only is the use of BCE and CE discriminatory and as of currently, unaccepted, its use is much unappropriate for use in an article of Christian nature such as this.

3. Confusion / Balance - Usage of both the anno Domini and common era systems within one article can be very confusing and unbalanced. Due to the use of both CE and AD in the Jesus article, I once visited the Judaism article and attempted to discuss using both AD and CE within that article (currently they use CE). The suggestion was dismissed as being "too confusing" and "unbalanced", which is the exact reason I am stating here. Both eras should not be used at once in one article, not only because they are confusing, but because they both refer to the same event, Jesus' birth, therefore there is no need for both. Also, there are still many who do not possess knowledge as to what CE and BCE signify.

4. What's the 'Common' Era? - Lastly, what is so "common" about the "common era"? If this is the year 2006 CE, what is it that occured 2006 years ago that jumpstarted the "common era"? The birth of Christ, say you? Then why is it that we call it the "common era", not the "Christian era"? Or is there another event that occured in AD 1 that is notable? Since it's obvious that even the "common era" system is based on Jesus, why not at least have non-controversial terms like AJ for "after Jesus" and keep the BC for Before Christ? AD (in the year of Lord Jesus Christ) may be a proclamation of faith, but covering it up with CE as "common era" is only worse. At least acknlowledge the event on which the era is based!

Based on the above, I vote that the terms CE and BCE and all reference to the "common era" be erased from this article. Please discuss below. PatrickA 05:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC).

Please see Talk:Jesus/Archive 15 & Talk:Jesus/Archive 16 - another vote is a waste of time & energy - and calling for a vote before assessing any discussion could be construed as presumptuous -- or perhaps it's just newbie-enthusiasm. Welcome to wikipedia --JimWae 05:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

This is really a non-issue. My advice is "let's move on". KHM03 12:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Quite so. We have debated this to death. As far as I know, tis article does not exclude BC and AD. By the way, have you read Karen Armnstrong's biography (or, is it history?) of God? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

As per Jim, KHM and SLR. Start by reading the archives of this page, then read the various policy proposals, the arbcomm cases...and if you can find some new argument which has not been dealt with before, then we can have yet another food fight here, which will once again result in no consensus for change.  :( Guettarda 16:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

This is NOT a non-issue. It's a big, current issue. Yes, we've had the debate here and elsewhere over and over, but some new points raised here are worth considering. Since we have BC/BCE notation in this article, how about we also have it in the article(s) on Judaism?

This article is stated as being "..in the series on Christianity". As christians we use AD/BC and we don't use the ridiculous alternative. Other christian articles don't have this nonsense of BC/BCE, so why has this one?

I agree with the proposal that in this article the CE/BCE terms should be removed. Arcturus 23:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

And yet, many Christians (myself included) reclaim CE by referring to it as "Christian Era" rather than "Common era." This tends to eliminate the issue. archola 00:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

24.106.140.254 reversions

I'm not going to get into an edit war over this and have already reverted twice, but 24.106.140.254 has repeatedly removed information from the article that was thoroughly discussed here and Ithink a good compromise was reached and I realy don;t want to get into this all over again.

I've politely asked 24.106.140.254 to stop this and take it to the talk apge but he refuses. Can somene reverty this and encourage him and others to discuss it if they really feel that we need to talk about this all over again? Thanks.Gator (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Jesus's father

I added NPOV information about Jesus's father. The article assumes the reader is a christian, and accepts his mother as a virgin, and has no father. This is a clear POV, and is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Please do not remove the information I added which gives insight to who's Jesus father, unless you point out your reasons here. Lengis 03:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed it; unsourced and/or original research. Please discuss your sources and research here...thanks. KHM03 03:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

All information was found on Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary%2C_the_mother_of_Jesus#Virgin_birth_of_Jesus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Joseph Lengis 04:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Please cite authoritative academic sources; WP is not a "self-referencing" authority. KHM03 04:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

In any case, those articles are linked to here and interested readers can follow up.James James 04:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Lengis has a point that it needs to be pointed out the biological fact regarding the virgin birth. Without running into a revert war, I propose this be inserted where he inserted his statement. (Assuming he is a he).

However biologically speaking this is said to be impossible, and many non-Christians and non-Muslims do not accept it as true due to the inability of humans to reproduce without sexual reproduction. Information regarding if there was a father and his identity is limited, and as a result determining the validity of the virgin claim may never be known.

The remaining information on "who" the father is if there is one needs to be placed elsewhere in the article, if not already mentioned. Pepsidrinka 04:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that this is a redundant sentance, as this is a "no duh" situation. The words "miracle of the" has been inserted to cover that in less words.--Tznkai 05:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The section in question is regarding his birth. It is absolutely relevant, and must be kept there. Lengis 04:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course a virgin birth is biologically impossible; that's why it's mentioned...as a claim to miracle. There is an article (Virgin Birth) where it might be more appropriate to deal with this, if the points are properly sourced. KHM03 04:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

You are making excuses. Your previous excuse was that you can not use Wikipedia as a resource, but then you realized that the sources on Wikipedia already have acedemic research, so now you are looking for a new excuse. This is not appropriate. Lengis 04:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect; Wikipedia can't cite Wikipedia as a source. My suggestion is that you take your concerns to a more appropriate article, and discuss on its talk page what your proposals are. KHM03 04:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Please read more carefully. I clearly stated the Wikipedia articles I cited had ACEDEMIC sources. Please do not voice your own personal beliefs on Wikipedia, as that is POV, and not appropriate. Lengis 04:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• It would be a good idea for you to familiarize yourself with WP:3RR. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

"(This does not apply to self-reverts or correction of simple vandalism)", Your reverts are vandalism as you have not given reason for the removal of information. This is not acceptable. Please re-read the rules. Lengis 04:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Nope. You re-read Wikipedia's definition of vandalism and you will see that your understanding of both the 3RR and vandalism is incorrect. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

For what its worth, as you have already been reported on the 3RR board, I'm pretty sure a self revert is a change you make, and then you revert it back to the previous version. In this case, you are not reverting your edits, but rather other people. In addition, you have reverted back to your original version six times. Pepsidrinka 04:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Announcing that you are reporting someone is a reportable offense, and is considered harrassment.Lengis 04:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

As stated, your 5 reverts have been reported. Please stop violating Wikipedia policy. Thanks...KHM03 04:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Announcing that you are reporting someone is a reportable offense, and is considered harrassment.Lengis 04:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Section 1 is "Life and teaching, based upon the Gospels." As such, this section is not the appropriate place to put comments about the biology of reproduction. In addition, including unverified speculation about a Roman soldier is inappropriate. Discussion countering the assertion of the virgin birth, if stated in a NPOV, would be more appropriately placed in section 2.6 (Other views). —ERcheck @ 04:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Information at Wikipedia on the main page of Jesus should NOT be based upon the Gospels, as it is not a reliable source of factual information. Lengis 04:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

In order to not further disrupt the sensibility of the community, I will cease from reverting until this matter has been settled. I believe in the point I have made is NPOV, and must be addressed. Wikipedia is not a place for religious views, when factual information takes priority especially on a page describing Jesus's life. Factual NPOV information must be presented first and foremost before religious views are put forth. I ask that the information on the main page of Jesus NOT be based upon the Gospels or any other religious sources, and that factual information take precedence. Lengis 04:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It's difficult when dealing with an historical figure (esp. one who lived so long ago) to declare fact. But the section you want to edit sums up Jesus as presented in the Gospels. The Gospels are key texts for our understanding of Jesus, whether or not they are entirely accurate, and deserve mention. Your problem seems (to me) to be primarily about the concept of a virginal conception. There is an article which can deal with that more precisely, assuming you cite academic sources (not simply other WP articles). Good luck...KHM03 05:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel the article, Jesus, should contain all the factual information first and foremost while all the other religious takes on his life should be done on other articles. For one thing, not all worshipers of Jesus believe his mother was a virgin, while the main article on his life declares it as a fact. This is clearly onesided and not appropriate for the main article of Jesus. Lengis 05:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's the proposed edit:

However biologically speaking this is impossible, and many non-Christians do not accept it as true due to the inability of humans to reproduce without sexual reproduction. Who's Jesus's father, is the subject of much debate among those who reject the notion of a virgin Mary. At the time Saint Joseph was Mary's husband and lawful father of Jesus, and lived until Jesus was at least 12 years old. Despite this some speculate that Mary had relations with a Roman soldier and then married Joseph who protected her from the harsh Jewish laws of the time which would have sentenced her to death by stoning for such an act. Unfortuantly, concrete factual information regarding this matter is limited, and as a result determining the biological father of Jesus may never be known.

• Somebody here must have heard of Parthenogenesis, no?
• for those who believe it was an act of God, it was not impossible
• Roman soldier is just one of many possibilities
• saying Joseph lived until J was 12 is accepting the NT as historical fact ( = POV)
• Saying J had a bio father is POV - even though I have to agree he must have (unless he was a girl).
• Saying "the father MAY never be known" is too weak. There really are no circumstances under which this could EVER be settled.
• It's kind of stating the obvious that virgin birth is not something a non-believer would accept, but saying so (at least mildly) makes it clear that the section is attempting NPOV
• mythological element should be stated in the section

This used to be the last paragraph of the section: (contributed by somebody I know)

• For most Christians, only the virgin birth and the Incarnation itself are major articles of faith for this period of time before Jesus begins his ministry. Muslims also believe in the virgin birth, but aside from that, few, if any, non-Christians believe in either, and even look upon stories of the virgin birth as mythological or as perhaps indicating that Jesus was conceived out of wedlock.

--JimWae 05:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I am open to alterations to the proposed edit, as long as it contains information on who Jesus's biological father could be, and clearly states that biologically it is not possible for Jesus's mother to be a virgin. Lengis 05:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Unless there was a miracle. KHM03 05:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

its not really biologically impossible per se, but highly unlikley, as it would open a massive can of worms. The very definition of miracle implies that it happens outside of normal channels if you will. Stating it was a miracle, or perhaps JimWae's extended edit here, covers all the needed bases. AFter that, you're leading users around by the nose.--Tznkai 05:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

His father "could have been" just about anyone - including Joseph - so "out of wedlock" pretty much covers it. The mythological take ("our God is as miraculous as everybody else's") is more relevant than any Roman soldier. The article never states the virgin birth as fact - (nor now that miracles are facts) - but some clear statement that it is not believed by all is appropriate - but great details belong in subarticle - and not every point needs to be immediately counterpointed --JimWae 05:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This is disputed, but I think this may be some controversy to some Christians, but not me though. Is always said Jesus is the Son of God, and Mary is known as Virgin Mary or simply Mary. Saying Jesus is born out of wedlock actually insults God and many Christians. It is always said that God sent Jesus down to earth and put him into Mary's womb, and she married Joseph, therefore he is Jesus' father. Taking facts of the Bible will be the best. --Terence Ong ^Talk 06:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It is my understanding that this article attempts to provide information on Jesus from various perspectives. When we cite the beliefs of many religions, we are necessarily talking about FAITH. It is true that there are historical facts that point to the existence of Christ, but even that is disputed by small minority. My point is that it is perfectly acceptable to state that Christians "believe" Jesus was born of the virgin Mary. It is inkeeping with WIKI NPOV rules. Lengis, your edit just amounts to saying some people don't believe it...Duh! What is your point? Of course some people don't beleive it. Do you actually believe that WIKI is misleading anyone who reads this article? Is it possible to discuss any religion or belief without needing to state that others don't believe it? It is an issue of faith.

On another angle, you attempt to state it is impossible for a virgin birth based upon man's current understanding of science. Think back on all the things that man has believed as fact proved by his understanding of science and have been dead wrong. Our limited understanding of things is proven daily. The very best we can say is that based upon our "current" understanding, something is impossible. It would be foolish to assume that humanity has a complete understanding of anything; we don't. We as scientists have an understanding today of many things, and yet we are constantly surprised at how much we actually do not understand.

If you want to make it perfectly clear that the virgin birth is a belief, knock yourself out. However, going further than that is redundant and thus unnecessary. Storm Rider 08:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe you missed the point. Some people don't even know who Jesus is. They never heard of him, and this article is to inform people who are completely ignorant of who he is, and his life. By stating right in the begining that he was born to a virgin Mary is very misleading, and doesn't cover all possibilities. For one, it's not physically possible. This article does not address the various possibilities as to who his father might be, to those who are interested. Like I said before, all factual information must be presented first and foremost before individual beliefs, such as the accounts that his mother was a virgin and his father was a God. The article as it stands is highly biased and one sided towards an individual viewpoint rather than facts.

One more thing, sarcastic nonsense such as "Duh! What is your point?", is not appropriate nor helpful. If anything it's flamebait and is counter productive to improving the article at hand. Please leave this kind of rhetoric out of your posts. Lengis 07:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

We don't state any such thing. The article says that's what the Gospels say. What's your source for saying Jesus was not born by a miracle of the Holy Spirit? You'd make a lot more headway if you produced sources instead of your own arguments. The discussion of candidates for Jesus's father are not appropriate for a review article of this nature. Perhaps you could start an article on the subject, with properly sourced discussion of the subject? James James 08:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I will repeat myself. The article should not be based on what the gospels says. That's a POV from a specific account, rather than actual historical information. You are detracting from the point, and forcing a burden of evidence incorrectly. There is no actual proof or evidence that suggests Jesus was born by a miracle in the first place. Because of that, all possibilities as to who his father was (or lack of) must be presented as plausible alternatives to maintain a neutral point of view. That's the bottom line. Lengis 02:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's take this one step at a time. You want to discount the accounts found in the Gospels (however, those are the most complete information Christ known), and you want to only state historical information. Great, please reference your historical information that states who the father of Jesus was. Reference your statements to those articles, not to articles that cite those articles, in your edits and move on. Storm Rider 03:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

As the "facts" discussed here are unquestionably based on faith, I'd still like to see more better quotes from the Bible on the "son-of-God" issue, since quotes given in the article (initially, but still) only point out that the narrators in the Gospels claim he is the Son of God; there is no quote that Jesus himself claims to be so. Scepticism might easily arise from a reader, which would be healthy, except John 8:54 of the New International Translation (English), goes (according to http://www.BibleGateway.com/, the webpage used in the links on the bottom of the page): "Jesus replied, 'If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.'" I believe that it would be appropriate to at least add this quote to the main article. Grasshopper 13:39, 14 January 2006

Nazareth/Nazarene

Why do allusions to Nazarene. Of Nazareth is by no way the common accepted meaning of the term. Why keep removing it? Jus cause you don't agree? Or it doesn't agree with your particular favorite version of christianity? Get over yourself...--Tombombadil 16:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith. It's redundant and I said that already in my edit summary.Gator (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Please calm down. The whole "your agreement is irrelevant" thing is needlessly hostile and just makes you look angry (and it's not true, my opinion is relevant). Explain how they're different here instead of just reverting. That's how we do things here. We discuss. Go for it.Gator (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh and this [7] is also not helpful and is,. frankly, childish. You're just making things worse and I'm trying to be civil with you. PLease explain how "of nazareth" is so different from "Nazarene" that we need both titles in the intro? That's all. Thanks.Gator (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Back to the point, the scholarship presented at Nazarene seems to indicate that "Jesus of Nazareth" is a misnomer. My inclination would be to leave both 'titles' out of the first sentance, as neither is widely used. Any reasonable discussion of these names could take place elsewhere in the article. --Dystopos 17:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well whether or not its accurate may not be as important as whether are not Jesus is know n by those titles (even if it is a misnomer). I'm just trying to figure out why we need both when we've had jsut the one for so long? I'm tryign to get hi to talk about it, but he's been very defensive for some reason? Trying not to bite the newbit here...Gator (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Feeding my babies, Dystopos is correct, however in the Eastern Rites and orthodox Churches, of which I am a member interpretes it to be Jesus the Nazarene, not of Nazareth, One, Nazareth was a necropolics at the time of Jesus. No one live there. More in a moment.

Hebrew word for Nazareth is "Natzrat" not "Notzri" and a person from Nazareth is a Natzrati. The name Notzri lacks the letter"tav" from Natzrit. The Aramaic word is Natzaratiya or Natziratiya, with the "tav" since a female ended "-ah" will be at when the suffix "-iya" is added. AND the Aramaic form would not be used in Hebrew. Notzri is the earliest form of the word Nazarene. All Christians are referred to as Notzri.--Tombombadil 17:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

That's really all very interesting adn Ilearned something today, but thje fact is, even though it may be inaccurate, Jesus is still known as "Jesus of nazareth" and "the Nazarene"....but why do we need both in the intro instead of jsut explaining it later...aren;t hey just different tiles to Jesus, but both mean the same thing (he is of Nazareth). I still don';t see why we need both in the intor of they really mean the same thing. I think we shuld just choose one and move on or else were jsut clutteitng up the intor with all the titles of Jesus (of whcih there are many).Gator (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

They do not mean the same thing. Never did. We do not see everything eye to eye. Nazarenes are/were Essenes. A separate and conflicting subsect of Judism.--Tombombadil 17:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Meant necropolis, a place of the dead. No one lived or was from there. You went there when you died. Be carefule to not assign a modern meaning to a past event.--Tombombadil 17:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think I see how one title is different, but in their modern inaccurate usage, how do they mean anything other than Jesus is from Nazareth. The Historical odditites are besides the point at this stage. You obviosuly feel very sterongly about this, so if you do then Iw on;t argue anymroe adn you can keep it. It's not wroth fighting over. I really am eager to learn here, but the fact that one means something else to those who know Greek adn the history of the title, is irrelevant to what he is know as today by layman in the vernacular. Whatever. Thaks the for the lesson. Doa s you like.Gator (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• The difference would be that if Nazareth was never of any importance in the life of Jesus, there's no need to call him "Jesus of Nazareth" except as a footnote regarding bad translations. If scholars were in agreement on the meaning of "Nazarene", then it could be significant. But lacking such agreement, I don't see a reason to have either title in the opening paragraph. Put them somewhere where contextual explanations can be more detailed. (See Nazareth#Nazareth in the New Testament) --Dystopos 19:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Jesus of Nazareth is a commonly used title of Jesus, also called Christ, the Jesus of Christniaty, Jesus, Son of Mary, etc etc etc etc when one is trying to avoid both religious titles and ambiguity. I think its a commonly enough used title--Tznkai 19:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

For what its worth, Jesus of Nazareth is pretty common. A bit short of 2 million google hits [8]

Tombombadil is right to distinguish between "Natzrat" not "Notzri." Notztri is usually represented in English as Nazarite, not Nazarene. However, Tombombadil is wrong that this is the same thing as the Essenes. It is possible that some Essenes were Nazarites. But non-Essenes could be Nazarites as well. Samson for example was a Nazarite and not an Essene. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

o contrar Slrubenstein, I have lookedall over the net and all info that I came across stated that Essenes and Nazarene were part and parcel. i even contacted sveral self proclaimed Essenes and Nazerenes(not the christian church) and they bothe stated that they were the same. Several rabbis stated the same or were non-commital. Like to know where why you think differently. Please. --Tomtom9041 16:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, including original research. Jpers36 17:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

since when, heve you read the Darwinism article?--68.85.27.47 15:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

trinity

I don't understand the most recent edit. I thought Christians believe Jesus is the messiah. The most recent edit suggests that there are three members of the trinity: God, Jesus, and the messiah. I am confused. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Trinity is God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost. The previous version isn't much better. Perhaps you should reword it? Deskana (talk page) 22:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Has been reverted. Never mind. Thought actually, it seems that version says the trinity is Jesus, God and the Messiah? Weird. Deskana (talk page) 22:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Right! I was commenting only on that weirdness. But I leave it to Christians to make the appropriate correction; it isn't my place, I don't think. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I tweaked it a bit. KHM03 23:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

...most Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, one of the Trinity of the three persons who are God (along with God the Father and the Holy Spirit), and the Messiah (Hebrew for Greek - Christ or English - Annointed One), who became human...

I have a couple of qualms on this above statement. First off, a trinity by defintion includes three of something. And since this one includes Jesus, a person, it can be inferred that this trinity includes three persons. Secondly, The parentheses doesn't make a whole bunch of sense. If it is saying that Messiah is Hebrew, Christ is Greek and Annointed One is English and they are all synonymous, it needs to be more explicit. Pepsidrinka 00:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible that the person who made the edit — and it was a very recent edit — was just plain wrong? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I made the edit (I think)...what I meant was to clarify that the Trinity is not God, Jesus, and the Messiah (which is how it read to me), but rather Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit...and Jesus is also the Messiah. Obviously, it needs a bit more tweaking! KHM03 01:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The whole section on Christian views is terrible. I revised the opening paragraph - First I took out uneccesary stuff that just adds to the length of the article - like when it says naturally, Christians hold a deeper meaning to Jesus than other religions do. All it has to say is what the Christian view is and what the other views are and then it will be clear that Christians hold the deepest meanings. Then I made the confusing part about the Holy Trinity much more clear. Let me know what you think. I have other concerns about the section. Why does it contain an extensive quote from Genesis? I think the concept (that Jesus reconciled sinners with God the Father) can be explained more directly without the quote. If we have to quote anything shouldn't it be something from the New Testament? (like the John quote that is already in there). I would like to sort of revamp the section by taking out the Genesis quote but i dont want to do that if others maintain that it should be in there. So i will wait until i have support before i make those changes. TheTruth12 10:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Divinity vs equal to the Father

It says that some interpret the Gospels as attributing divinity to Jesus... the definition of divine is godlike or being a diety. Since it already says that the Gospels claim Jesus is the son of God, they thereby necessarily claim his divinity, so saying he is the son of God and saying he is divine is redundant. What I think that sentence really means to say is that the Gospels can be interpreted to claim that Jesus is the Divinity (with the word the and with Divinity capitalized). But this really isn't even quite accurate since the common interpretation is that Jesus is part of the Holy Trinity. So better than this would be to say that it has been interpreted that the Gospels claim Jesus is equal to God the Father. I am going to make this change and if anyone disputes it please explain why on here. TheTruth12 09:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This sentence: "Since it already says that the Gospels claim Jesus is the son of God, they thereby necessarily claim his divinity, so saying he is the son of God and saying he is divine is redundant" is false. It may mean that Jesus is divine. And it is verifiable that many believe that it means that Jesus is/was divine. But it does not necessarily mean that Jesus was divine. "son of God" was a colloquial phrase used by Jews in the Second Temple Period to mean "righteous person" and did not mean that someone was divine. And it is verifiable that some historians acknowledge this and have suggested that the Gospel appelation of Jesus as "son of God" meant that he was righteous, or that (because of his righteousness) was adopted by God - but adoption did not change his essense which was fully human and not divine. In short, we can say no more than: "some believe that in identifying Jesus as the son of God, the authors of the Gospels were claiming that he was divine." Slrubenstein | Talk 16:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I see, i did not realize that. thanks. TheTruth12 20:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome. By the way, there may be other verses in the Gospel that claim that Jesus was divine, it is worth looking. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Jesus' teachings

The section on Jesus' preachings/teachings is weak and largely misses the mark. The Golden Rule was not really taught at the Sermon on the Mount. The Golden Rule comes from the Old Testament, but on the mount Jesus expanded it to include not only your "neighbor" but also your "enemy." This is a very significant Christian teaching. Later on, when speaking with the Pharisees in Jerusalem, Jesus stated that the Golden Rule is the second greatest commandment. The current entry says Jesus preached "resurrection of the body." He in fact only preached the resurrection of his own body, so this phrase doesn't really belong in here. Beyond that, the paragraph is very misleading because it makes it appear as though the main focus of Jesus' preachings were the apocalypse, and it leaves out two concepts he preached most about - Christian love and faith. Again I will make the changes, though my wording may not be perfect. Let me know what you think. TheTruth12 09:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

TheTruth12: I agree with you that Jesus's call to love one's enemies is a significant extension of the commandment in Leviticus. It seems to me thaat by changing (well, adding to, at least) the object of love, Jesus is also suggesting a different kind of love, or a different function of love. Could you look at this [9] and see if more can be said about the Christian view of love, and how Jesus's call to love one's enemies implies or creates a difference between the Jewish and Christian understandings of love? I am satisfied that the section on the Jewish view of love is pretty complete, but your comment here makes me wonder that perhaps the section on the Christian view is incomplete. Thanks. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I will take a look. Thanks again. TheTruth12 20:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Slrubenstein | Talk 20:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Once i started writing about Christian love, i couldnt stop, because it is such an awesome concept. Anyway, i went a little crazy on it, but i think what i wrote is so good im going to put it into its own article. TheTruth12 06:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Lead section

First it was too long, now it is too short! Can we not find a happy medium? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added some general concepts of Jesus according to Christianity in the intro to provide a more general overview before moving into the more detailed sections. Aiden 04:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, I have edited your phrase twice; once today. I have no problem bringing up the concept of the Trinity in the opening paragraph, but insisting that all Christians believe is going to far. Many are not strict Trinitarians. I have edited it to what all, or the vast majority, of Christians can accept...that he was the Son of God. My objective is to make it as least POV as possible. Please explain yourself here before further reverting. Thanks 18:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I restored the link to "incarnation", which is certainly appropriate; I also added a qualifier to the sentence, to make clear that it isn't necessarily universal. I didn't mention the Trinity. I also removed the link to the immaculate conception, which is a Catholic belief not generally affirmed by the rest of the Church, and refers to Mary, not to Jesus. KHM03 18:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I should have provided the link to Virgin Birth but the intro is quite satisfactory as it is in my opinion. Storm Rider, it is common knowledge that accoring to the New Testament, Jesus is both the Son of God and the human incarnation of God. Thus, I don't see how including one of the basic principles of Christianity in an introduction about the founder of said religion can be considered POV. Aiden 22:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I will dispense with the indent given the length of the thread. I have not changed the intro since KHM03 edits, which I have agreed with. As I said several times above, I sought the most basic beliefs for the opening paragraph. I still think it would be better to limit the statment to "Son of God" because all Christians agree with the statement. However, to introduce the concept of the Trinity is not necessary in the intro. It limits agreement, just as the introduction of the Immaculate Conception limits agreement (besides being off-topic). My definition of a Christian is more inclusive than most...it is those that accept Jesus as their personal Savior, that he died for thier sins, that he was resurrected the third day breaking the bonds of death that all might be resurrected; and only through Christ may all enter the presence of the Father. The concept of the Trinity is not taught in the Bible; it is a third century thought. This is not the forum for a discussion of the Trinity and its merits. Suffice it to say that, in reality, I support the majority of its thoughts and disagree with others. The Godhead is a mystery, at rare times it is as if I come close to grasping its meaning, but then it quickly excapes my grasp. I would say that it is beyond our comprehension. As a preacher would say, we can apprend, but not comprehend. Peace. Storm Rider 23:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I simply fail to see how mentioning Son of God does not constitute mention of the Trinity, but God incarnate does. I consider it a fundamental belief of Christianity, and I think most would agree, that Jesus be not only a messiah, but divine as well. If you are speaking from the viewpoint that Son of God is similair to as mentioned in Daniel, and not denoting divinity, I would consider that not within the mainstream Christian faith (hence "only begotten Son"). I feel that both aspects of Jesus are fundamental beliefs and represent both his human and divine nature. Aiden 01:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• right now, intro deals only with religious views of Jesus & does not present the breadth of the article that follows. How is "final" in "final sacrifice" explanatory? The 2nd sentence is long and, by trying to say too much in one breath, has a number of syntax problems--JimWae 01:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, I have commented and disagreed with your additions to the intro. I favor using the most basic principles of Christianity, Jesus is viewed as the Son of the God, the Messiah, the promised one of Israel. To go further begins to complicate the intro by introducing concepts that not all Christians find accord (i.e. Jesus is God the Father). As I have said already, this is not the forum for this discussion. Storm Rider 09:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that the intro should include the most basic principles of Christianity, I interpret our source (in this case the New Testament) to explicitly state these principles to include 1) Jesus was sent by God to atone for humanity's sins 2) Acceptance of Jesus as savior is the only way to attain salvation. You have removed these references (attributed to John 3:16 and countless other versus) from the introduction for reasons I do not know. Secondly, as the gospels make statements concerning Jesus' birth, death, resurrection, etc., I consider these also basic principles, which you left in the intro. I feel that all these listed are basic principles, and that it does not make the intro too long nor does it make it POV to include briefly a general overview of these principles, as they are all key to the traditional Christian belief of Jesus. Aiden 17:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The main issue seems to be that the idea that Jesus was "God incarnate" is not a universal basic principle, but is in fact much debated, and as such, presenting it in the lead of the article as "traditional faith" is too POV. <Oscillate 18:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)>

The Incarnation has been the traditional Christian belief since at least the fourth century. It was a mainline Christian belief before then, but became explicitly stated when the church developed a concise statement of faith. Both the Western (Catholic and Protestant) and Eastern (Orthodox) branches abide by the Nicene Creed, although the branches continue to debate the "proceed" clause. The creed explicitly states that Jesus is God the Son incarnate. This statement is backed by Bible verses (see below). If it wasn't, the statement wouldn't have been accepted as creed. It is true that there are religous bodies identifying as Christian that do not accept this belief, however these bodies aren't always recognized as Christian by mainline churches. archola 00:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems as if people have an issue with presenting in the introduction the believe that Jesus is God according to mainstream Christianity and that Jesus is a sacrifice for humanity's sins. Here are just a few of the versus that I believe illustrate these principles.

• Concerning Jesus as a sacrifice for sins:

Hebrews 2:17: "For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people." (NIV)

Hebrews 9:15: "For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance -- now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant." (NIV)

Hebrews 9:28: "So Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him." (NIV)

• Concerning Jesus as human incarnation of God:

John 1:1,14: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." (KJV)

John 8:58: "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." (KJV)

John 10:30: "I and my Father are one." (NIV)

John 14:9: "Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou [then], Shew us the Father?" (KJV)

Titus 2:13: "while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," (NIV)

1 John 20:28: "And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God." (KJV)

Aiden 18:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The existance of the nontrinitarian article and the Opposing views sections of Trinity and the devotees of groups that do not hold the belief that Jesus is God is more than enough to keep this from being presented as a factual statement in the first paragraph of the article. If you want to make it such that it says 'this belief is held by the majority of Christians', or something along those lines, fine. Just as long as it's not presented in such a way that this is the only viewpoint. All those scriptures presented (and interpreted) above have well-formed counter points and there is a long list of scriptures that back up the view that Jesus was not God. This is not the place to discuss either. You simply cannot state up front that this is a fact or the way everyone believes. That's all the issue is. <Oscillate 19:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)>

Is anyone opposed to somethign along the lines of saying that mainstream Christianity hold that....? Oh and who are these "Christians" sects that don't believe that? I'd be interested in knowing for my own info. Thanks.Gator (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

And calling these groups "sects" in such a manner is very POV. <Oscillate 19:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)>

Lol. Oh please.Gator (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That's my question as well, Gator. It seems that even though we preface these principles with "According to traditional Christian faith..." and "Christians generally believe..." some still have an issue with what are obviously Biblical principles. Aiden 18:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That's just the point, "obvious" to you and your interpretation, others see that it's obvious in the Bible that Jesus wasn't God. Because of this, you can't push it as universal in the introductory section of article. <Oscillate 19:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)>

KHM03, You're saying that the view that Jesus was not a sacrifice for humanity's sins is "traditional, quite mainstream, & quite prevalent"? How? Aiden 19:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

(see below) KHM03 19:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, you have changed the introductory paragraph and I reverted your changes several times with explanations. Let’s go over it one more time with the goal of coming to a conclusion: 1) It is the introductory paragraph and should be kept to the most fundamental tenants of Christianity. This means keep it so simple that there is no chance for disagreement. All Christians agree that he was the son of God. 2) The introductory paragraph is not the place to quote scripture. There is more to the Gospel than John 3:16. Nor is WIKI the place to quote scripture. As Oscillate stated well above, there are well formed scriptural references that would cast doubt on some of your statements and WIKI is not a place for scripture bashing. The fact that there is disagreement is reason enough to keep the introductory paragraph simpler than your proposal.

Please note that I am limiting these comments to the INTRODUCTION. I encourage you to make the same comments, but do it later in the body of the article. My disagreement is just as much about style as about content. I understand that you have deeply held convictions and my intentions are not to invalidate them. I can rejoice in them with you, but please attempt to grasp the distinction I am making about the purpose of an introductory paragraph and the body of the article. Storm Rider 01:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, as I state above, the tradition of Jesus as God the Son incarnate dates back to at least the 4th century (see Nicene Creed). That's the "tradition" in "traditional Christian beliefs." The creed was of course based on Biblical principles as recognized at the time. It is true that not all churches believe in the Nicene Creed, but then in what way can they be called traditional or even mainstream? archola 00:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup, you are right and that is just the point...it is 4th century thought and doctrine. No, you are not right, Jesus never taught the Trinity; it was a concept developed later. Yes, I am familiar with the verses in the Bible that would support that issue, but you will also find just as many that would not support that position. If this was an article limited to the group with the most adherents, hang it up and call the Catholic Jesus. Fortunately, this article is not limited to that construct.

This is like talking to brick walls sometimes. Does anybody get the concept of limiting the Introduction to simple statements and expanding upon those statements in the body of the article. Put your committed beliefs aside, this does not slight them, it is not meant to invalidate them. Do you lose anything by limiting the introduction to simple statements? Is your position invalidated? Does it belittle your faith? Whether one considers those who do not support the concept of the Trinity is a great subject for another article, but it is not the place for this article. Do you find any difficulty in expanding upon your position later in the article? In doing so, all of us can be happy with the article rather than it be one sided. Storm Rider 01:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

If you think it's too POV, why not attribute the Son of God/Incarnation belief to Nicene Christianity and note that there are non-Nicene groups that would disagree. I'm sure this could be done as a simple statement in the Introduction without offending anyone's beliefs. BTW I am a Lutheran, so obviously I don't agree with many Catholic beliefs. But I don't mind reading that Catholics believe what they believe, that seems NPOV enough to me. The intro already briefly states Muslim and Bahá'í beliefs, so a short sentence or two indicating the range of Christian positions seems in order here. Again, I'm sure that be can done simply: just state there are Nicene and non-Nicene beliefs, and indicate the difference. Perhaps you can link Nicene to Nicene Creed or a similar article so that those interested can follow the issue there—but I still think a brief statement acknowledging the issue is important to the introduction here. archola 02:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

So you think an Introductory paragraph should give a summary of all the beliefs of Jesus rather than obtaining a full explanation in the body of the document. You also misinterpret my comments. I tend to find far more in common with Catholics and Eastern Orthodox than with Protestants. My issue is not about respect of one's religion. It is about keeping an introductory paragraph limited to simple statements. Instead of sidestepping everyone one of my questions, WHAT IS LOST BY LIMITING THE PARAGRAPH TO READ AS FOLLOWS: "According to traditional Christian faith, Jesus is the Son of God. Christians generally believe Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides at the right hand of God until the Second Coming."? When you introduce scripture, John 3:16, not even Catholics would limit being saved to that sole scripture. The Gospel of Christ is more than that; NOTE, I don't disagree with the statement, it is just incomplete. An introductory paragraph should not have to discuss all the different nuances of views of Christ...that is the purpose of the body of the document. What am I missing; did anyone study composition in school? This really is not complicated. Storm Rider 06:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I tend to find far more in common with Catholics and Eastern Orthodox than with Protestants.

That should be a BIG BRIGHT FLASHING warning signal. Ronabop 08:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

"According to traditional Christian faith, Jesus is the Son of God.

Somewhat. You run into Arian and agnostic and reform christians pretty fast. Some believe in a genetic son of god, some believe in an ordained son of god, some believe in a "called" son of god, no different than any other human.. Ronabop 08:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Christians generally believe Jesus was born of a virgin,

Again, uhm, no. Different texts specify an unmarried woman, a maiden, a child too young to give birth, and an unmarried woman. Different christians attach different meanings. Ronabop 08:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

crucified and buried,

This seems common to me Ronabop 08:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

resurrected on the third day of death

There's an argument about that, too. It may be four days, 8 days, or seven. Ronabop 08:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

and ascended into Heaven where he resides at the right hand of God until the Second Coming."?

"How can he be at the right hand of god if he *is* god"... welcome to the Trinitarianism debates. They're pretty old. Ronabop 08:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

What am I missing; did anyone study composition in school? This really is not complicated.

You may be missing out on a massive amount of biblical scholarship, or religious studies or education in greek, aramaic, and hebrew. I don't know. Maybe you haven't been exposed to texts beyond study of how to teach your particular versions of your faith. Maybe you don't know about the Q, or Sayings, or the other works involved in generating the texts we have left today. Maybe you haven't been exposed to the vast number of religions that reject prior beliefs.

Suffice to say that we need to treat this article based on all religions and beliefs that consider Jesus important to their faith. Ronabop 08:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

"So you think an Introductory paragraph should give a summary of all the beliefs of Jesus rather than obtaining a full explanation in the body of the document."

Um, both, not rather. I feel an introductary paragraph should introduce, with simple statements, and a summary is an appropriate way to do that. The body of the document should develop the ideas further, ie, offer a full explanation. Yes, I have Bachelor's degrees in English and Journalism, so I did study composition. I'm sorry if I misunderstand your point, Storm Rider, but I feel that an introduction can be both simple and comprehensive no matter what the subject. Journalists do it all the time; good journalists do, anyway. Ronabop's also got some good points. The article needs to address the range of "beliefs that consider Jesus important" or it will always be POV. A good introduction can do this and still be structurally simple. To put it even more simply: why not do both? archola 09:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I contributed the general information in the introduction for INTRODUCTORY purposes. It is not meant to outline a detailed account of Jesus as other sections do (and should.) It outlines basic concepts of Jesus according to mainstream Christianity just as the Vishnu article does in relation to Hinduism, the Moses article does in relation to Judaism, and the Muhammad article does in relation to Islam: (I could go on.)

Muhammed, and sometimes Mahomet (Latin Mahometus), following the Latin or Turkish), is believed by mainstream Muslims to be God's final prophet sent to guide mankind with the message of Islam. He is referred to as "The Prophet" (in Arabic النبي) within the faith.

Exactly why it is not suitable to generally describe the subject's position in the related religion still has not been explained in any way other than that you don't like it there. And to my chagrin I make note that you have only raised this issue in the article concerning Jesus. The Background and subsequent sections are meant to provide a more detailed account of the subject and such introductory information belongs in the introduction. Try looking at some other online or printed encyclopedias if you don't understand this concept. Aiden 22:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Since when was this article only about Christianity? Muhammed isn't a figure in Christianity, hence it doesn't say anything about Christians' view of him in the introductory section. I see, even in the introductory paragraph, where Jesus is an important figure in other religions. Why must you insist on having that info in the introductory article, it work great in the Background or Christian views sections, but not in the introduction. The fact that Jesus is considered to be the Messiah and the Son of God in Christianity is enough of an introduction, quoting scripture and all that can be done elsewhere. Especially when what you have there is debatable by various Christians. Stop putting it back. <Oscillate 22:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)>

Did I say it was only about Christianity? No. I said general information according to Christianity should be included in the introduction as Jesus is the central figure of Christianity. This applies to the countless other articles on religious figures, where general information according to the relevant religion is provided in the introduction. As the introduction stated, Jesus plays important roles in other religions, but is not a central figure. If you would like, simply remove the reference to John 3:16 if you have a problem with explaining why Christians view Jesus as atonement for sins. But this removal of extremely relevant and general information amounts to nothing less than vandalism in my mind. If you insist on maintaining double-standards, I feel we may need the arbitration committee to rule on the issue. Aiden 22:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed "Nicene" revision

Current version:

According to traditional Christian faith, Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to atone for humanity's sins, and acceptance of Jesus as Christ saves one from sin (John 3:16). Christians generally believe Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides at the right hand of God until the Second Coming.

Proposed revision:

Christians who follow the Nicene Creed believe that Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to atone for humanity's sins, and that acceptance of Jesus as Christ saves one from sin. They believe Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides at the right hand of God until the Second Coming. However, there are also Christian groups who reject the Nicene Creed as a misinterpretation of scripture.

This is just a rough draft, but I believe it is both relatively simple and relatively comprehensive. It explicity mentions the tradition behind "traditional Christianity" and sounds less POV than "Christians generally believe." I considered making reference to the Trinitarian/Nontrinitarian distinction, but Trinitarian thought is only part of the Nicene Creed. Of course, the issue can be discussed more fully under Jesus#Christian views, and in related articles such as Nicene Creed, Trinitarianism and Nontrinitarianism.

Any comments? archola 12:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the introduction is prefaced with "According to traditional Christian faith..." Ronabop's mention of “Arian and agnostic and reform Christians” does not reflect "traditional Christian faith" in this sense. Those alternative views should be noted in a separate section; this introduction should include basic principles that mainstream Christians believe. Stating Jesus is the "Son of God", while quite agreeable to most Christians, does not fully illustrate mainstream belief. Such a term does not denote the divinity of Jesus that most Christians accept. In fact, the term was used in the Tanakh several times without such meaning. Thus, in order to illustrate a fundamental belief in traditional Christianity, as based on scripture, it must be noted that most Christians, termed "mainstream" or "traditional Christianity," believe Jesus was both the Son of God and human incarnation of God. I feel the introduction in its current state illustrates this without engaging in a Trinitarian debate. No change is needed. Aiden 20:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Until you reverted it back, it was so much better with the disputed part in the Background section instead of the introductory paragraph. As long as you keep insisting on keeping that information there, when it really works better in another part of the article, this debate will not go away. The revision by Anonymous editor was much better than what you keep putting in. The introductory paragraph is not supposed to be so explanatory, nor put forth disputed ideas, whether they are mainstream or not in your opinion. The article is not who Jesus is in Christianity alone anyway. <Oscillate 20:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)>

Yes, "According to traditional Christian faith" meaning those churches that affirm the tradition that the Nicene Creed is the correct interpretation of scripture. It's also the most widely accepted creed, ergo "mainstream Christians" and "Christians generally believe." I was just trying to clarify what we mean by "traditional", "mainstream" and "generally" in this context. If that's not what you meant by these terms, then it demonstrates that some may find these terms vague. OTOH, if it is what you meant, than what's the harm in the change? Clarifying that there are groups identifying as Christian that are neither traditional nor mainstream in this sense simply lends balance to the statement (ie, NPOV). Beyond that, I feel that the statement looks fine under the either the Introduction or the Background section. To me, "Background" is also introductory. archola 22:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Not all "general information" has to go in the introduction, especially what is being considered. Why must it be in the intro and not in Background? Why are you being so difficult about this? You're insisting on putting statements that are debated even by Christians into the opening paragraph. If you want to call an arbitration committee, great, I think everyone here would be happy to put an end to this constant reverting and needless discussion. It's not necessary, though. It's a fine solution to keep that info in the Background section, and is nothing anywhere near "vandalism." <Oscillate 23:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)>

I'm trying to maintain consistency within articles. Just as the other articles on religious figures, this article should include some of the fundamental concepts of Jesus according to Christianity in the introduction. I feel Archola's suggestions are a good beginning to a discussion and compromise, but I won't accept this complete gutting of the intro because it doesn't fit your POV. There are several concepts outlined in the introduction that I think we can say safely ALL Christians by definition must accept, so your all-or-nothing approach certainly is not well-founded. Further details need to be in seperate sections, but the general info that was in the introduction is just that, general info. Aiden 23:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, please review the entire conversation we have been having. You really think it deleting a small phrase is a "complete gutting" of the intro??? With a straight face tell me you actually don't feel you are not the one with a POV that is intractable or inflexible? I think I can agree with you, given your total unwillingness to compromise than an arbitrator is needed. BTW, who else is drawing lines in the sand? Pull your head and realize this is WIKI, a public forum where one's personal views are not the end all of all conversations. Traditional Christianity is not the total defnition of Christianity. If anything Ronabop demonstrated above the diverse and comlex concepts found within Christianity. When you push so hard for your specific views, then everyone else needs to get their views included to achieve balance. If you have been paying attention to this article you will have noticed that the intro paragraph was recently "clipped" in an attempt to make it less wordy and basic. With your continued inflexibility it will become a huge paragraph. What do you lose by putting your phrase in the body?

As an aside, this same dispute has been a topic in various other articles; check out Christian and Christianity. In many ways I can agree with the doctrine you are insisting on putting in the intro, it is just that I seek to have a more basic intro and then provide a complete description of those beliefs in the body. Storm Rider 23:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

There are several concepts outlined in the introduction that I think we can say safely ALL Christians by definition must accept - I and many others highly disagree to this. That's the point here, you keep saying these things are without contestation, when they are. And no one said all-or-nothing. A simple statement is fine and it can be elaborated upon later. <Oscillate 23:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)>

I've added Archola's proposed Nicene revision to the introduction (with disclaimer at the end of the paragraph.) I hope this provides some accord on the introduction. It seems to have satisfied Anonymouse editor. I also find it satisfactory. Please discuss. Aiden 00:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, DID YOU SEE ANY ACCORD IN ANY OF THE DISCUSSION ABOVE??? ARE YOU "LISTENING" TO WHAT ANYONE SAYS??? I CAN SEE NO EVIDENCE OF EITHER! Why should anyone discuss anything? Let's just have an edit war and wait to see who gets blocked first? You have violated the 3RR multiple times without suffering any consequences; that will not last. Please save me the time of accusing me of threatening you, I am not. It is just the rules of WIKI and they have been ignored to date in your case. Storm Rider 06:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I was content to leave it here on the talk page for now, although I appreciate Aiden's support. Some found the shorter intro to be incomplete or misleading. Some disagree with Aiden's version. Rather than debate theological points, I find it more productive to acknowledge that different Christian groups have different understandings of Jesus. I believe the main point of contention to between Nicene/Non-Nicene congregations. As the introduction stands now, it does not seem too long to me. It does discuss Christian views a little more than Islam or Bahá'í, but I believe that to be because Christian views of Jesus differ enough to complicate the issue. As far as I know, Shi'ites and Sunnis do not debate the nature of Isa, but let me know if I'm mistaken. archola 07:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Storm Rider, what exactly is your problem? Archola's suggestion was a perfect compromise and you still complain. Oh, and you just broke the no yelling rule. Aiden 07:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, my friend, conversation with you seems to be impossible. You do not listen to others and then have the audacity to ask "what the problem" is when people don't do exactly as you want them. I don't see any further reason to converse. Oh, and I was not yelling, I was screaming at the top of my lungs trying to get you to listen. You have proven that listening and compromise is beyond your current ability. Good luck. Storm Rider 08:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I should point out that Storm Rider's "According to those who support the Nicene Creed" is closer to my original "Christians who follow the Nicene Creed believe" construction. Nicene Christianity is a redirect to First Council of Nicaea, but Storm Rider's revision makes it clear that we mean more than just the fourth century Church. I also agree that we should keep the sentence about those who don't recognize the creed. The last two sentences are not redundant. Rather, the paragraph follows the classical thesis, antithesis, synthesis rhetorical form. archola 09:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Understood. I was just concerned that the use of "those who follow the Nicene Creed" may appear to those less familiar with Christianity as if Nicene Creed followers are not Christian. Perhaps we should use your original proposal of "Christian who follow the Nicene Creed..." Secondly, Storm Rider, I was saying I hope instituting the compromise Archola suggested would bring accord, in case you misunderstood me.

One more thing: As the Nicene Creed article states, the creed is accepted by Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Coptic, Nestorian, Roman Catholic, Anglican, and most Protestant churches. Thus, I think it should be in some way noted in the first sentence mentioning the creed that the vast majority of Christians accept it, which I why I had "According to mainstream Christianity..." there originally. Perhaps, "Most Christians believe..." or "Most Christians, followers of the Nicene Creed, believe..." Aiden 17:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. However, I reworked the introduction to accomodate those who desire a simpler lead, while keeping the more nuanced discussion of Christian views as a second paragraph. I've also provided a link to Christology for those who want to study the issues in more detail. archola 00:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Good work, Archola. Intro is general yet informative, well-rounded, and NPOV. Aiden 04:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, but I was wondering if Midnite Critic was correct to limit my Restorationism reference to merely Latter Day Saints. I don't know enough about Seventh-day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, et al to know if MR was accurate. I must plead ignorance on this one. Anyone care to comment? archola 04:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, Midnite Critic answered below. archola 06:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed the last sentence in the opening back to the more neutral statement "Other Christians" without identifying churches or members. My reasoning is twofold: 1) the intro begins by identifying Christians that believe in the Nicene Creed. Then moves to those who don't accept the Nicene Creed, but qualifying it as "self-identified" as Christians. This is POV; although I am fully aware of the many groups that attempt to limit the definition of Christianity to those who only believe in the Nicene Creed, I have yet met anyone on this earth capable of "knowing" one's heart. 2) In attempting to limit those who don't believe in the Nicene Creed to JW's and Mormons, you do so without any reference. Further, you undermine the vast numbers of people who worship Christ, but do not practice within organized religion. In addition, you are speaking of a Church's doctrine, not the beliefs of their members. Does anyone actually believe that all members of any church believe all doctrines taught by that church? In truth, I am not aware of any study that identifies all people who believe in the Nicene Creed and those who don't. Keep the paragraph limited to what we know, and in keeping with the statement that beliefs are diverse and complex; there are Christians who believe in the Nicene Creed and those who don't. Storm Rider 02:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. The list of beliefs are all affirmed by the creed, so I thought it might be less vague to identify (for want of a better term) non-Nicenean Christian beliefs beyond just saying that "other Christians disagree." It just seems odd to me to define a subject by what it is not. My initial reference was incorrect, but either way I did not mean to imply that these were the ONLY examples. Midnite Critic did the rest, including the "self-identified" qualification. archola 03:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

On taking another look, the first part of the paragraph identifies "Most Christians" rather than particular Churches, so for the sake of balance the last sentence shouldn't reference particular bodies either. But there's always this section of the Nicene Creed article, which does list four bodies in particular (again, probably not a complete list). For myself, mea culpa. Others will have to speak for themselves. archola 03:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

My objective from the beginning was to present/have a very brief introduction. I honestly feel that Christianity is diverse and complex and to attempt to summarize those characteristics up in the Nicene Creed is folly at best. However, that is what we now have. We could enlarge upon exactly how the other peoples, such as muslims, feel about Jesus rather than the limited statement we currently have, but I am not a resource for such editing. Archola, I appreciate the cooperation we share; thank you. Storm Rider 06:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I can certainly adhere to my own Nicenean beliefs (and recognize them as such) while still recognizing that there are other viewpoints. I'm not sure if it's possible to have a very brief introduction without being simplistic. Any article on Jesus is going to bring up Christian views rather quickly, and that is indeed a diverse and complex subject. archola 08:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

With the Islamic details moved up this morning (I believe by JamieHughes), the intro is starting to get long again. Is everyone fine with that, or...? archola 16:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

That's fine I guess. I only pause to ponder what would happen if we put the Christian/Jewish view of Muhammed (most consider him a false prophet) in the intro to that article, however. I'm sure there would be fireworks. Aiden 19:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Undoubedly, although neither the New Testement nor the Tanakh/Old Testement mention Muhammed by name. The Koran (er, Qur'an) does mention Isa. Hence the difference.

Darn, this talk page is taking forever to load. archola 01:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

By about the year 80, Christianity had become quite distinct from Judaism.

Earlier than that. In 64, Nero blamed the Great Fire of Rome on Christians, not Jews. In 49, Claudius expelled Jews who were promoting a "Chrestus". In 19, Tiberius expelled the Jews from Rome. Obviously, Christians didn't exist in 19 (but the Septuagint translation did as well as the "God-fearers" who were non-Jews attracted to the Septuagint), they may have existed in 49 when there would have been confusion of the terms "Chrestus"[10] and "Christus". But, one can say with certainty, that by 64, Nero was aware of Christians as distinct from the Jews. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.201.27.234 (talk • contribs) .

This is an interesting argument, but is it your on view, or one presented by an established scholar (because you do not want to violate our NOR policy). Also, I wonder, could Nero have identified them as "Christians" but thinking of them as a Jewish sect? When today we identify someone as a "Baptist," we never interpret that to mean that the person is not a Christian. On the contrary, it is known that Baptists form a Christian sect or denomination, and their being Christian goes without saying. Wasn't there a time in europe when bad things were blamed on "Protestants" or "Catholics?" IF someone blamed something on "the Catholics" is that proof that Catholics are not Christians? If this is true about Christian sects today, could not the same thing have been true about Jewish sects 2000 years ago? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You're on a slippery slope. Technically, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all sects of the Abrahamic religion. The question is, when was "Christianity" seen as distinct from "Judaism"? An alternate question is when were the "Nazarenes" seen as distinct from the "Pharisees"?

No, you are misunderstanding me. By "sect" I do not mean a religion that originated in another religion, I mean "sect." Judaism was once divided into sects - the Pharisees and the Saducees, for example. Each considered the other to be "Jewish" though there was practically no intermarrige between them. Many historians claim that after the destruction of the Temple there were two Jewish sects, Christianity and the Pharisees, and the Pharisees fought all sectarianism, claimed that they alone represented "Judaism" and established Rabbinic Judaism as Judaism, as Christianity broke off to become its own religion. I agree with you that the question is "when was "Christianity" (or Nazarine) seen as distinct from "Judaism"?" — I just think the answer is later than you think. But what sources do we have? I am in transition and my copies of the main historians (Cohen, Fredricksen, Sanders) are all packed away. Do you know what they say? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• This is going to be a Q with several interpretations - at which time did the Romans distinguish Xians from Jews, when did the Jews consider Xians separate, and when did Xians themselves conclude they were separate. Articles on Jewish-Roman wars draw attention to 2 turning points - after the destruction of the temple, Xians emphasized they were not part of the rebellion - and at one point Jewish authorities were proposing someone else as a possible Messiah. Differences in religious/cultural practices - esp like circumcision - could still be interpreted as sectional (like vegetarianism, belief in afterlife). Relevant to Roman distinctions would be the proportion of Jews to Xians there at the time. --JimWae 20:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

From memory, there are two data points: The exclusion of the Nazarenes from the Synagogues ~90 and the recognition of Christianity in Rome during Nero. Those two dates seem close, but are actually distinct, one is before the revolt, the other is after.

• Strengthening this claim would require finding Nero's usage of Christian as distinct from Jewish, not just one term. For all we have so far, Nero might have used that name for any Jew in Rome - which is why I wonder about how many Jews vs Christians would be in Rome. --JimWae 20:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with JimWae that there is likely to be several answers. I am pretty sure that Fredericksen does not consider Nazarene's exclusion from synagogues to be a marker of the break between Christians and Jews. My recollection is that her interpretation is this: Romans would crack down hard on any sign of sedition. Anyone preaching in a synagogue that the Kingdom of God is at hand, or that the "king of the Jews" or "the messiah" is about to return, is preaching sedition and endangering the synagogue. In other words, the problem is that Nazarenes are still considered Jews and what they are preaching is taken (by Jews terrified of what the Romans think) as evidence of Jewish sedition. This is not a theological split creating two religions, but a sectarian split over politics. Anyway, I am pretty sure this is Fredericksen's interpretation. As I said, here is a case where we just have to resist our own speculation and look for historians whome we can cite. As JimWae suggests, we will likely find different historians dating the break at different times according to different criteria. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

My understaning has been that as late as the 70s and 80s, Christianity was viewed (even by Christians) as Jewish sect. The writer of the Gospel of Matthew, in fact, whomever it was, was at least in part trying to claim that Christianity was the true, legitimate Jewish faith. That Gospel dates to the 70s or 80s, scholars believe. It wasn't until the council at Jamnia/Javneh circa 95 CE that the big split occurred. At least that's how I've understood it, for what it's worth. KHM03 23:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is the same. Still, I think in this matter it is really worth looking to see what different historians say, acknowledge different criteria for dating as well as different dates, and provide verifiable sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Council of Jamnia is a bit of a misnomer, see wikilink for details (actually that article could use some work also). Clearly, before and after 70 is a major division, because of the destruction of the Temple, which changed both Judaism and Christianity, instead of temple religions, they became synagogue/church religions. There is the issue of a rebuilt temple, but I won't go there. As for Nero, that's here: Tacitus on Jesus. If you want a modern reference, Meier's A Marginal Jew should have it. I haven't checked out Dunn's A New Perspective on Jesus: What the Quest for the Historical Jesus Missed yet, but I'm sure that's an excellent reference. One more point, JimWae argues that Nero might have used the term Christian for any Jew in Rome, I doubt that. The Romans knew who the Jews were, no mystery there. The term Christian (and possibly the earlier Chrestian) were new, thus the need for Tacitus to define the term, which see for details, notice he mentions only that it started in Judea, not that it was the Jews as a people or a particularly troublesome subset of the Jews, as for example Josephus attempts to explain the Jewish wars on "bad Jews" (the term is my invention) which he more or less calls the Zealots. As for the ratio of Jews to Christians in Rome under Nero, I suspect that is unrecoverable by the historical method and available sources. As for when Christianity formally split with Judaism, that's a slippery slope, there was no formal split, Ignatius may have dumped the Sabbath, but then again Socrates and Sozomen record it still be observed by Christians in the 5th century, and Ethiopian Orthodox still observe it today, the First Council of Nicaea may have dumped the Quartodeciman, which is just a Christian name for Passover, more or less, Marcion attempted to dump the "Old Testament" but interestingly enough this was rejected by people like Irenaeus who accused him of being unapostolic, i.e. rejecting the Twelve Apostles as too Jewish.

A few other comments: a reference possibly worth reading: [[11]] And, it is certainly possible that Tacitus' source was just Christian propaganda, after all Christians in Rome under Nero dovetails nicely with Paul and even Peter in Rome, however Tacitus' version isn't particularly flatering of Christians, if the source is propaganda, it is unusually creative propaganda.

Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 2.25[12] "The Roman Tertullian is likewise a witness of this. He writes as follows: "Examine your records. There you will find that Nero was the first that persecuted this doctrine, particularly then when after subduing all the east, he exercised his cruelty against all at Rome. We glory in having such a man the leader in our punishment. For whoever knows him can understand that nothing was condemned by Nero unless it was something of great excellence.""

Anonymous user, could you please sign your contributions so we can keep track of them? In any event, it seems like you have done some good research - why not put it in this or the relevant article? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Jesus, a historical reconstruction, part X

According to this log:

(cur) (last) 16:35, 7 January 2006 152.163.100.70 (No justification for this new addition)

(cur) (last) 14:13, 7 January 2006 Paul August m (Reverted edits by 152.163.100.70 (talk) to last version by JimWae)

(cur) (last) 14:12, 7 January 2006 152.163.100.70

152.163.100.70, whoever he/she is, for no reason mentioned, removed the link to Jesus, A Historical Reconstruction Paul August tried to put it back, but again, for dubious reason, 152.163.100.70 stroke again. The website had been posted for weeks so Paul August did not add anything. Instead, the removing by 152.163.100.70 has been done with no justification.

Mullerb 05:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to go through all of those external links and provide reasons why they are particularly noteworthy. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably not a bad idea. KHM03 11:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I gave plenty of justifications before, and apparently the website was checked OK by some. Do you mean that should be an everlasting process? The fact is someone under the cover of 152.163.100.70, at what seems each one of his/her visits to the Jesus page, erased the link (about 6 to 10 times), and only this link, even when new others were being posted. This person is the only one for the past 2 weeks to delete the website. Sure, it is not meant to please everyone, but I wonder why an anonymous editor should prevail on the many who like it, including the ones who put it back repeatedly. The site is certainly noteworthy. The last time I looked, under "historical Jesus", the website was in 9th position on Google, 5th on Yahoo! and 4th on MSN.

Again, I am listing some of the comments from its readers:

"Congratulations! ... easily the best documented & most objective piece of Jesus research that I have found on the internet in almost a year of surfing. ... independent evaluation of the historical evidence that you demonstrate so well. ... such historical clarity ..."

"I really appreciate your efforts to your homepage. It's great and informative."

"I am fascinated and impressed ... This is a fantastic effort."

"You have done a very thorough job researching your material."

"You are to be commended on your extensive study of these matters."

"I have just stumbled across your work, and have spent a few hours reading it. Most impressive!"

"I was researching some information ... and sifted through 10 or 20 documents before finding yours. The others were not helpful in the slightest, and your site was clearly and concisely organized and had the information I needed."

"I have visited your website on the historical reconstruction of Jesus and I have found it very interesting. You have done an excellent work on it ... Your website has helped me understand a great deal of Jesus and life of early Christians."

"Your work is impressive, and valuable to those like myself ... but have immense difficulty accepting all the add-ons ... Again, thanks for your work, and for sharing it with others who care to explore the truth of religious matters."

"This is where your rational approach is most helpful ... by using historical research and factual information. It really takes a careful eye to spot these things, some of which are buried under layers of "over-familiarity". This is not a criticism, rather more a compliment, but I do want to say that your site is demanding careful attention."

"Good Work. I have been reading your account of the life of Jesus, and I find it very insightful."

"I have just finished reading Jesus a historical reconstruction ... What I found in your online book is something very believable ... Thank you very much for your dedication to these matters."

"You have an excellent site. It's obvious you have put a lot of work/thought/effort into its construction."

"Bernard D. Muller provides a beautifully presented picture of the historical Jesus ... he brings to the table, mostly, a lot of common sense. It's a deep site, with a lot to think about and ponder over. Highly recommended ..."

"Your history of Jesus is fascinating! Very thorough and impressive. I was just surfing through the net and came upon your site, and I must say, I spent a lot of time going through everything you wrote ... Again, congratulations on your work!"

"The author clearly writes with a great deal of knowledge ... Furthermore, Bernard does not break any academic rules ... The amount of valuable resources available at the site is exceptional and should not be ignored ... this website should not be overlooked in any study on Jesus."

"I recently found your site and I am very impressed, you did a lot of work! I never read about the events at Cesarea before and I can see how they could inspire John the Baptist and Jesus to do what they did. ... I find your reconstruction very believable ..."

"... the eloquent cases you make for a later (and real) 'Q', 'Thomas' and the like have given me pause over taking John Crossan's opinions as the last word ... I really think you are closer to disentangling the NT mess than most."

"I just read your website about "The epistles of Ignatius: are they all forgeries?". I was absolutely impressed. Zwingende Argumente! Great work! Will this be published in a "Fachzeitschrift"? ... I appreciate good scholarship - as you call it: "highly inquisitive" ..."

"... what I found most refreshing about your work is its objectivity and impartiality. I've been searching for some time for someone who could help fill in the gaps and mostly have found Jesus bashers full of the same sort of hate and prejudice I see in the world religions. These people are no better than those they criticize. Thank you for bringing me closer to the truth without inciting bad emotions. And thank you for providing such a gold mine of information. Your site is at the top of my bookmarks! ... Keep up the good work."

"Here he does a good job of logically reconstructing the life and ministry of Jesus. It's a fascinating read whether you are a Christian or non-believer."

Mullerb 23:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

JimWae's Edits re "Part of a series on Xty"

JimWae, please explain how Jesus, the central figure in Christianity, is not part of the Christianity Series (especially considering he is listed at the top of the series-bar itself). Secondly, the article makes specific note as to what information comes from the Bible, and also offers the viewpoints of other religions, and as it is concerning the central figure of a religion, it is understandable that it will include the beliefs of that religion. I really don't see your point in these reverts. Aiden 02:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• As I have commented here numerous times, the nav bar does NOT point people in a general way to other articles on Xty, but is heavily weighted to Xian theology - it is either proseltyzing, misnamed, or both. Once there is a link to the Trinity, there is no need for specific links to each person. Major links that would help a non-Xian understand Xty are missing - Paul, Augustine, Luther, the Inquisition (or Counter Reformation). There are an abundance of links to churches - several of which articles are extremely short and do NOT explain Xty at all. "Part of a series" implies continuity. The editors of this article never agreed to become part of a series. I have put a less POV nav bar in here a couple of times - only to have someone remove it as "improper" - followed by the "proper" one's POV reinsertion. That template is not NPOV and its insertion detracts from the credibility of the article. --JimWae 02:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Then address such issues in the bar itself, not in this article. Aiden 02:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• I have - the NPOV of this article should not depend on the NPOV (or LACK of such) of other articles or templates--JimWae 02:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, concerning your other edits. Do you not see that all the sub-sections you're claiming are POV are under a main section titled Life and teachings, based upon the Gospels? Aiden 02:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

JimWae, please stop adding qualifiers to every sub-section like you're doing. It is entirely redundant and not needed since the entire section is interpretation according to the Gospels, as explicitly stated in the section title! Aiden 02:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• If you think Easter is April 16th - as you keep insisting - I find it difficult to take anything you say seriously--JimWae 02:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It isn't that I insist on keeping that, it's that you make so many sweeping changes with misleading edit summaries that I'm forced to revert the article. Aiden 02:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• The heading does not say "according to the gospels" (nor should it) but rather "based upon the gospels" Such a bald statement is easily interpreted by anyone that Jesus WAS RESURRECTED. There is every benefit in making the NPOV explicit - so that NOBODY can claim that wikipedia has taken a stance on whether or not Jesus was resurrected. The "sweeping" changes seem to be coming from the one pointing the finger here --JimWae 03:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• I repeat: recently a number of edits have been made which are presenting the "religious" view and deleting other views. This compromises the NPOV & credibilty of the entire article. This article especially needs to be presented as NPOV as possible --JimWae 04:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

In order to avoid an edit war, I recommend that if you view the article as inherently POV, you provide specific examples and recommended changes and let us discuss such changes and come to a concensus. As far as I can tell most people here will disagree with you. Nor did I say the section was titled "...according to the gospels." Though frankly, I find little difference between "according to the gospels" and "based on the gospels." As the subject of the article is the central figure of Christianity, of course it will focus mostly on Jesus in the context of Christianity. That said, the entire section on Jesus based on the Gospels is prefaced with such a disclaimer. I honestly fail to see any grounds for a POV complaint in this article. If you feel opposing views are underrepresented, you should expand them in their respective sections, not alter Christianity-oriented information you personally disagree with. Aiden 04:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• From the edit history, it seems to be you who is making alterations. I have made several attempts to return paragraphs roughly to the wording they had had for months. --JimWae 04:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The content I added to the introduction provides a general overview of Christian concepts of Jesus, nothing more. They are prefaced with "According to traditional Christian faith..." and "Most Christians generally believe..." and thus are entirely NPOV, but do provide a good general account of Jesus in the context of Christianity. I see, and no one else has raised, any issues with the introductory content I've added. Concerning your edits to other sections, like I've said (n+1)th time now, there is no need to preface every sentence with "According to Christianity..." or an equivalent when the entire section is from a Christian view and is labeled as such. Until you can provide some substance to your objections I'm inclined to stop this pointless debate. Aiden 04:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• We'll see what others have to say on how explicit NPOV needs to be in this article --JimWae 04:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• by the way, Aiden, it seems you reverted to a previous version by adding the template 5 times in one day. Are you aware of 3RR?--JimWae 04:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As our understanding of Jesus is practically entirely derived from The New Testament, it makes sense to mention this clearly once somewhere near the beginning of the article. This then means we don't have to put "according to" in front of nearly every sentence. Much easier to read! RossNixon 07:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I must say I have enjoyed reading this current discussion. As a Latter-day Saint I find it interesting when the tables are turned how some of our Christian brothers react. The principle you are discussing is a constant debate on Mormon related articles. I hope we all can learn some lessons from it.

I will add my two cents. I think religious articles need to be told from the point of view of the religion. If the section is already entitled as based upon the Gospels no further clarification is needed. In this context, I see further clarifications to be redundant. Storm Rider 09:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

(StormRider, I have moved the second issue you raised concerning the intro to the above lead section so we can keep our issues in order. I hope you do not mind, and if you do please feel free to move your comments back down here.) Aiden 17:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this a religious article?

According to a contributor just above

"I think religious articles need to be told from the point of view of the religion."

• There are plenty of wiki articles on Jesus from a religious perspective, such as:
  • New Testament view on Jesus' life
  • Christian views of Jesus
  • Religious perspectives on Jesus

  This article is about a person who is both a religious & a historical figure. No POV should be condoned or allowed.

• The template is NOT about Xty in general, but about Christian religion(s) and Xian theology. This article is NOT "part of a series" on any religion or theology. It is about a person who has greatly affected history.
• Headings are NOT statements and are easily overlooked. How does it benefit the reader to omit the sources for claims about the Resurrection? Stylistic preferences do not override NPOV on wikipedia - particularly not for bald-faced assertions that "Jesus was raised from the dead on the third day after his crucifixion." Many other, less controversial portions of the article are qualified by giving the source. Even the religious articles mentioned above have the good sense to qualify statements about the resurrection.
• Looking at the article now, I am ashamed that I ever put my time into it --JimWae 02:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The article covers a complex topic, so I find it appropriate to address both religious and historical perspectives on Jesus. We're still working out the appropriate balance. The template is certainly more appropriate here than, say, Historicity of Jesus. Many of the subsections include a link to "main articles" that develop each point further, three of which you mention. archola 07:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Lead section: Atonement

Mentioning the atoning mission of Jesus is fine, but let's not tie ourselves down to any one particular theory of the atonement. That would be quite POV. KHM03 19:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

There are several prominent theories of the atonement. While I personally subscribe to the governmental theory, which is sacrificial in nature, others are less so. It's a very Western idea, and not nearly as prominent in the East...which, in terms of historic continuity, is about as "traditional" as one can get. KHM03 19:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

How is it POV to strictly interpret the New Testament, the definitive source for Christian views on Jesus? In many places it is explicitly stated Jesus atoned for humanity's sins as a sacrifice through his death.

Hebrews 2:17: "For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people." (NIV)

Hebrews 9:15: "For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance -- now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant." (NIV)

Hebrews 9:28: "So Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him." (NIV)

The point is that these other "theories" do not represent a mainstream view. Aiden 19:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

These views have been mainstream for 2000 years (see Orthodox Christianity for starters...or read up on the ransom view of the atonement), and are quite traditional. We can mention the atonement...that's great...but let's not favor any one particular interpretation of that doctrine or any one interpretation of the Scriptures. Some of the most brilliant minds in the civilized world have wrestled with these issues and not come up with one definitive answer. Let's be POV, accurate, and fair. Thanks...KHM03 20:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Sacrifice, yes. This is traditional and biblical. But what is the meaning of sacrifice? Sacrifice does not necessarily imply "satisfaction" or "propitiation" any more than "to atone" means, in and of itself, "to satisfy" or "to propitiate." This is an anachronism, reading Anselmian and later categories into what came long before. "To sacrifice" simply means "to sanctify by offering to God" and implies, when dealing with a living subject, that the subject is killed. --Midnite Critic 05:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

non-trinitarians and restorationists

I changed the reference, referring to Mormons and JW's as examples of groups which reject the Nicene Creed and the Trinity (which pretty much comes to the same thing; I can't think of any group which accepts the Creed and rejects the Trinity, although many groups, among them trinitarian restorationists, would reject the notion of the binding nature of the creed while accepting the Trinity and therefore, the creed's contents, at least with regard to the statements concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) and dropping the reference to restorationists. Most restorationist groups, such as the Churches of Christ, Christian Churches, Disciples of Christ, et. al., are in fact trinitarians. However, the Latter Day Saint strand is not, at least the Mormon Church and its offshoots are not (Not sure where the Community of Christ, formerly the RLDS Church, stands; they may be). The SDA Church is trinitarian, if not exactly creedal, and not restorationist. JW's are not trinitarian, creedal, OR "restorationist". --Midnite Critic 05:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

"I can't think of any group which accepts the Creed and rejects the Trinity,"

Me neither, but there are non-Nicene trinitarian formulas, so they're not exactly the same thing. (This is why I proposed "Nicene" rather than "Trinitarian.") However, thank you for clearing up the introduction. As I said above, I must plead ignorance. More specifically, I may have misunderstood the Restorationist concept of the Great Apostasy. archola 06:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The Community of Christ, formerly the RLDS church, is trinitarian. Baptists are traditionally non-creedal, but are Trinitarian.

We are discussing what churches believe, but I would still offer that what chruches teach and what members believe are two different things. I believe it is always best to clarify what churches teach while leaving room for what Christians believe. I am not sure I know many people who believe every single doctrine taught by a given church; very few actually know all the doctrines of their respective churches. When we only describe what churches believe, we ignore the actual beliefs of many, many Christians.

When discussing LDS theology, one must be careful. They worship one God, the Father. They approach the Father through his Son, Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit, the third member of the Godhead teaches all mankind the truthfulness of the Gospel of Christ. He is the second comforter promised by Christ. There is one Godhead manifested in three separate, distinct personages, but one in purpose. They do not believe in creeds and view them as the doctrines of men created by men. Scripture teaches, but he Spirit reveals the truth to mankind. They/we seek to be as Peter when Christ said, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. They appear subtle differences, but there definitely differences. Storm Rider 07:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Good job, and nice summary. Ronabop 08:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Love?

"Jesus introduced and preached the concept of "Christian love"."

Is it very objective to say that Jesus preaches love, without mentioning that he also preaches hate? 'Love' and 'hate' are opposites. If Jesus commanded both, it seems highly biased and value-laden to only mention that he taught one over the other. Consider Luke 14:26:

""If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." (RSV)

I would like to discuss this with others, and come to some consensus before removing/changing this sentence. --Elindstr 06:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Does Jesus really and truly call us to hate our family? No. To the contrary, the Scriptures are quite explicit when they tell husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church (Ephesians 5:25); mothers to love their children (Titus 2:4); and for children to honor father and mother (Ephesians 6:2). Indeed, we are even taught to love our enemies and those who persecute us (Matthew 5:44). So then what does Jesus mean when he says that those who wish to be He disciple must hate father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters? This is a figure of speech. Jesus is calling for a commitment that is so great that anything by comparison will be deemed as hatred. This is in contrast to the parable in the previous verses where one of the invited guests declined the invitation because he had recently married a wife (14:20). RossNixon 10:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

"This is a figure of speech." I am curious how you can know Luke 14:16 is a "figure a speech" and that the "love" verses are not figures of speech? You seem to be picking and choosing how you interpret verses, which serves to support my claim that labeling Jesus as a teacher of love, while not discussing his teaching of hate, is highly biased and value laden.

In Luke 24:16, the Greek word that has been translated to result in "hate" is miseo. If we compare its usage throughout the Bible we find that it is always used the same way:

So Samson's wife wept before him, saying "You hate me; you do not really love me. (Judg. 14:16)

Hate evil and love good, and establish justice in the gate; it may be that the Lord, the God of hosts, will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph. (Amos 5:15)

No slave can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be decoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth. (Luke 16:13)

In every usage of miseo, the meaning seems to be the same: 'hate X,' is always opposite of 'love X.' Since miseo is interpreted literally as the opposite of love everywhere in the Bible, and since there is no other indication that miseo is not literal in Luke 14:26, then miseo probably means the opposite of love in Luke 14:26. --Elindstr 18:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Elindstr, I don't see how either the Judges or Amos references apply, since both are originally from Hebrew and not Greek. Jpers36 22:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Because they were translated into Greek. --Elindstr 23:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but then we're getting into second-order assumptions. If the ancient authors of the Septuagint translated the Hebrew term X into the Greek term Y, but modern linguists translate the Hebrew term X into the English term Z, that's a much different situation than modern linguists translating the Greek term Y directly into the English term Z. Jpers36 16:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I would say that Jesus taught love much more than he taught hate. He does seem to contradict himself when he says to hate your family, but i think since "love" is mentioned vastly more in the gospels than "hate" is, people interpret the hate comment to be taken some other way than literally. It would be difficult for one to argue that his teachings do not favor love over hate. TheTruth12 10:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that "I would say" is never relevant because we do not put our own views into articles. Surely there is secondary literature we can cite on different views of Jesus and love, right? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where a discussion of this would fit in the article, or if it should at all, but looking at the context of the scriptures, where it clearly states that one should love his family, given that and the possibility for Jesus' statement here to be interpreted either way, which way fits better with the rest of the scriptures? This is a question one must ask when seemingly ambiguous points arise. Then you will see the real meaning and that it's not really ambiguous in this context. Jesus means that putting the way of the truth first and foremost in your life comes before all else. If the family members of the disciples refused to support the disciple in his beliefs and actions, what must they do? Put family first, or follow Jesus first? That's what Jesus is talking about. How does it harmonize with the rest of the scriptures? Jesus said the greatest commandment was to love God first, followed by loving your fellow man, including your family. <Oscillate 16:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)>

very well put, oscillate. and to elindstir let me rephrase... "ANYONE WOULD SAY" that he taught love more than hate, otherwise that person would ignoring most of the gospels. i guess you are right - i was being too passive in my original statement. TheTruth12 18:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is about what Jesus said, not what "the scriptures" said. The scriptures were were written by a large number of individuals. Even most of the NT citations given by RossNixon are from epistles, not quotations from Jesus. Sure, Christians believe that all "the scriptures" collected in the Christian bible were inspired by God, and so form a totality. But not everyone believes that, and this question is about what Jesus taught, not what Paul of Tarsus thought, or what earlier Jewish writings teach. Paul B 16:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok then, Matthew 22:37-39 (KJV): "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Certainly neighbor includes family.
He also uses "love" and "hate" in Luke 16:9, 11, 13: "Make to yourselves friends of the mammon [or riches] of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations. If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true [riches]? No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Here Jesus is saying that you should love God and "hate" riches, yet at the same time one must be "faithful" with them. Is he really meaning to "hate" or to "love less"? <Oscillate 16:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)>

Yes, of course. No-one denies that there is a message of love, but as you acknowledge here, there is also one of hate. The two messages require some effort of interpretation to be reconciled. In other words, both emotions seem to be required in some way, and the acknowledgement of that complexity and ambivalence was all that Elindstr was requesting. As we all know, people have have been burned to death out of Christian love. Paul B 17:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not acknowledge there is a message of hate as in the way Elindstr is proposing in regards to Luke 14:26. I was attempting to point out how one might better interpret it as a figure of speech, given Jesus' other statements and context, as was requested. But certainly, mention can be made in a NPOV manner. <Oscillate 17:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)>

I think it's clearly a mistake to think of 'love' and 'hate' in these contexts as emotions; if they were just emotions, than one could only engage one's 'heart' and perhaps 'soul' in loving, and not also one's 'mind' and 'strength' as Jesus said, quoting the Old Testament. When Paul speaks of people having been burned to death out of Christian love, I'm sure he's referring to people like Polycarp who demonstrated greater love for God than for the Roman Emperor. Indeed, such examples abound. But wikipedia needs to avoid the temptation to engage itself in interpretation of the Bible or any other sacred text. As Slrubenstein said, there's no shortage of writers who have done that interpretive work who can be cited appropriately. Wesley 17:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. <Oscillate 18:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)>

Archive?

On another subject, this talk page is 205 kilobytes long. Are we ready for another archive? archola 12:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Common Era / Anno Domini reword

I propose that since nobody seems to want to use either solely the AD terminology, or solely the CE terminology on the Christian page of Jesus, we should at least alter the manner in which is is presented.

---

100 BC/BCE looks just plain stupid and too long.

100 BC(E) is much better suited.

---

20 AD/CE isn't too bad but for consistency with the above change maybe it should be;

20 AD (CE), note the brackets.

---

Any against this proposal please state so here. If no one is against this, I'll post the changes. 24.222.79.90 21:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC).

I'd give it a day or two to get some feedback...just my two cents. KHM03 21:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, approximately 98% of the English-speaking world uses only AD and BC, so that's hardly no-one. Of course, if you wish to address the remaining 2%, you should go for CE and BCE. No-one at all regularly uses the constructions you propose - and playing to an audience of 0% seems perverse, jguk 22:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Agh, don't you see what I'm trying to do? Look at the Jesus page right now, the constructions currently in use are even more ridiculous than the ones I'm proposing, I'm just trying to help. Nobody will let me showcase AD alone or CE alone, a recent vote declared that both shall be used. 24.222.79.90 22:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC).

• Given the length of time this AD/CE notation has been here & how much debate it took to arrive at that compromise, I think that it is especially incumbent on an infrequent contributor to get some positive feedback on such a proposal BEFORE making the change (even if it were in only one article).
  • ALSO: wikifying isolated years is against MoS - see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting
  • ALSO: Your arguments are entirely about your style preferences - one could just as easily say BC(E), besides being stylistically awkward, is less understandable.
  • ALSO: you have created redirects with Common era instead of Common Era
  • ALSO: AD/CE already has some currency [13] as does BC/BCE [14] that neither of your proposals have --JimWae 04:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I must also point out that, despite efforts to the contrary, this is NOT a Christian article on Jesus (as was stated above) - it is a wikipedia article on Jesus.--JimWae 06:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding JimWae's comments; firstly, I'm sure the (BC/BCE) manner of writing is not understandable for a good chunk of the English-speaking public that read Wikipedia, plus it takes too much space. At least if we have (BC(E)) with only the "BC" linked, people who don't understand the BCE term will be satisfied, and those in support of BCE will also have that satisfaction. Also, CE/BCE doesn't have enough currency to be used on huge Wikipedia pages like this, especially when this very Christian article is all about the man who actually influenced the creation of the original, anno Domini system/terminology. And finally, the link should be to Common era, not Common Era. What makes you think "era" is to be capitalized? "Domini" is capitalized because it refers to God. 24.222.79.90 21:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC).

I'm against using anything other than BC and AD or BCE and CE. Anything longer is clumsy. Why don't we go with the first good faith edit we can find, which appears to be in 2002 and uses BC and AD? There is a similar convention with spelling - the first author's usage (British or American English) should be retained throughout the article. RossNixon 08:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm with JimWae - and tired of others who keep raising the same issue. By the way, is anyone familiar with Karen Armstrong's A History of God? She is a former nun, and this is a best-selling book. If anyone has a copy handy, check out what her policy on dating is. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Most publishers use ONLY AD and BC. There is a persistant minority, but the vast majority only use AD and BC. Our target audience is laypeople. We don't want them wondering what the hell is BCE and CE, frankly it is a distraction. Dominick ^(TALK) 12:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100% with the poster and with Dominick. That is a great suggestion AND is in keeping with Wikipedia rules.JohnFlaherty

Suggested Era guidelines

Please visit my User subpage which details and outlines a suggested Era notation policy that was created by myself. Please, visit my page. Thanks, Darwiner111 02:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC).

Has anyone else noticed

There are 18 pages dedicated to tea, it's forms and uses, and only 12 pages for Jesus. Even if you are not a believer you have to admit he had an impact on the history of our world. Why is there an arguement about the size of this article?

And there are 40-odd pages devoted to SpongeBob SquarePants. We can't censor that on the basis that status distinctions must be maintained. However, I think that there are probably a great many more pages that the 12 you refer to. Paul B 12:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Jesus answered Pilate vaguely when asked if he was King of the Jews

John 18:37 (NWT) reads: “Therefore Pilate said to him: ‘Well, then, are you a king?’ Jesus answered: ‘You yourself are saying that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone that is on the side of the truth listens to my voice.’” Pilate, having heard that Jesus was said to be the king of the Jews, had previously asked, “Are you the king of the Jews?” And now again he asked, “Well, then, are you a king?” To his first question Jesus had replied, “Is it of your own originality that you say this, or did others tell you about me?” This time he replied: “You yourself are saying that I am a king.”—John 18:33-37.

Thus we see that Jesus here was neither affirming nor denying his kingship. Why? So that he could not be charged with sedition against Caesar. This is clear from what the Jews further went on to say in their attempt to influence Pilate to have Jesus executed: “If you release this man, you are not a friend of Caesar. Every man making himself a king speaks against Caesar.”—John 19:12.

In other words, Jesus was here himself following the counsel he gave his apostles when he sent them forth, to be as cautious as serpents, and that especially when brought before rulers.—Matt. 10:16-18. User:Kujoe (signature added by Sam Spade 13:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC))

Your point? KHM03 12:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This is particularly signifigant if you study both the history of this era and the scripture very closely. Jesus was clearly a potential revolutionary, and was not alone in being viewed as the messiah. Numerous others, generally revolutionaries, were regarded in this way in this time period. The incident in the garden, Matthew 26:47-56:

51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear. 52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. 53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be? 55 In that same hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me. 56 But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.

makes an interesting contrast with one which shortly proceeded it, Luke 22:36:

36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Sam Spade 12:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

But what is the relevance for this article? KHM03 12:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't follow. The article is about Jesus, yes? And we (Kujoe and I) are discussing an important particular, namely Christ's claim to kingship, and the likelyhood of him having taken that throne in an immediate and material manner (or presenting some sort of threat to roman authorities), as others tried to do. Why you insist on these inane interjections is beyond me. Sam Spade 13:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, cowboy! I just didn't know what the point of this thread was; the "claim to kingship" bit was already changed, and no one's disputed it. If you guys have another thing going on, sorry! Didn't mean to get in the way...but maybe you ought to take a private conversation to your user talk pages, esp. if you're excluding the community (also, please review WP:CIVIL). I meant no offense; I only wanted to see if problems could be resolved. KHM03 13:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The only problem I am aware of is that you seem to be antagonistic to article related communiation on this page. I am aware of no lack of civility on my part. There is nothing private about this communiation, and I have no objection to your participation in it. I stand by my assessment of your comments in this thread so far, which I have found confusing, inane, and frankly unhelpful. There is no other problem here I am aware of a need for resolving. Sam Spade 15:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I was merely adding this in the discussion page as more information that didn't really seem to fit in the main article at the moment. I'm the one that changed it in the main article and the information is significant in that Jesus never outright claimed to be King of the Jews, while some think that he did. If Jesus had made such a claim he would have been charged of Sedition and probably killed from that statement alone. Kujoe 00:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course this discussion is assuming that Jesus was a real person and not a composite of others. Archeological and recorded evidence outside the bible notwithstanding.--68.85.27.47 16:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? Do you know what kind of archaeological evidence there is of Jesus existence on earth? Outside of the Bible in fact? Kujoe 00:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Better evidence than any of our existances, thats for sure. Sam Spade 00:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with talking about the claims Jesus made or did not make concerning himself. My question regarded the specific changes/edits we might make as a result; in short, what would you like to see change? Calling my question "inane" is a sad example of incivility and outright nastiness, which is too bad. KHM03 00:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Was Jesus really that concerned with whether he was convicted or not? It doesn't appear like he was. He ultimately got the worst penalty anyway, and hardly did anything to try to avoid it. The reason he was vague when asked about his kingship is found in John's gospel- "My kingdom is not of this world." Having a kingdom beyond this world is not the easiest thing to explain, so he was vague. (On the other hand, how the gospel authors knew what was said in a private conversation between Jesus and Pilot is beyond me.) And on the other point- of course Jesus existed. It was recorded in several historical writings besides the Bible. TheTruth12 00:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a private conversation. It was an illegal trial, in which many were present, including Jesus' apostles. Kujoe 05:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Which apostles would Pilate have let in to that palace room? - and doesn't the NT say the apostles went into hiding? --JimWae 05:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Luke 23:1Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. 2And they began to accuse him, saying, "We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ,[a] a king." 3So Pilate asked Jesus, "Are you the king of the Jews?" "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. 4Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, "I find no basis for a charge against this man." (NIV)

The Bible may or may not be verifiable enough for Wikipedia, and I don't know where this conversation is supposed to be going. I'm just trying to show that, according to the Bible, (1) Jesus clearly agreed to being King of the Jews, and (2) this exchange occurred in the presence of a crowd. Jpers36 05:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that in phrasing Jesus' reply, the NIV is almost alone in having a "Yes" there. The Greek reads "su legeis" - "you say [it]". What exactly is being implied is a matter of discussion between people, but the Greek doesn't literally contain "Yes". If Jesus had said straightaway "yes", I doubt Pilate would have immediately declared "I find nothing wrong with this man," because Jesus would have been clearly putting himself in Caesar's position at that moment, leaving Pilate no option.<Oscillate 15:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)>

I see, I guess it was in the presence of a crowd. I guess I picture it in private because I saw a few movies where it was spoken either behind closed doors or so quietly that no one else could hear it. So I'm blaming the movie-makers for misrepresenting the Gospel lol. TheTruth12 20:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should blame the Bible for misrepresenting itself :)

Golden Rule

The Golden Rule wasn't really from the Sermon on the Mount. It comes from the Sermon on the Plain in Luke's Gospel. I already edited that out before, and someone put it back in. Owell, i guess it doesnt really matter if it was on the mount or in the plain he still said it so i'll leave it there but now you know and if somebody else cares to change it go ahead. TheTruth12 00:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Semi-Protect

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm tired of the lame anon vandalism, so I've requested a semi-protect for this page.Gator (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hooray! <Oscillate 00:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)>

What about the "vandalism" of not allowing factual comment about there not being any genuine contemporary documents that show "jesus" existed? This page should not be protected. It reads, at present, that "jesus" was historical - there is no contemporary evidence of this. Robsteadman 07:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

You honestly believe that there was no evidence of Jesus' existence? Kujoe 08:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

If you care to supply the name sof documents of CONTEMPORARY evidence of "jesus" existence I would be very interested. The earlist that scholars refer to are from at least 20 years and most much longer after he was supposed to have died. There is NO contemporary evidence at all. The article should have a statement of this in the opening and I would like to see the inclusion of a phrase such as "Mythical supernatural character" as an accuarate description. Robsteadman 09:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you name a single contemporary document that mentions him? I think you'll find there are none. there is no proof that "jesus" ever existed. He is as real as Robin Hood. Robsteadman 18:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

That's right, the criteria should be contemporary evidence, that's all that counts and if we can't produce that then we should ignore all of the other evidence and declare he never existed! Because we all know that if its not contemporary...it's garbage....that about sum it up?

The great majority of scholars believe he existed, and would not endorse any comparison to Robin Hood. But that's not the point. We have an article devoted to this question (Historicity of Jesus). It's reasonable also to have a short discussion here, but the introduction is not the place to be polemical. Paul B 18:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I think a sentence, such as that I've just put in, needs to be in the intro - it is important to say there is no evidence of his existence. Robsteadman 18:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

And as for "great majority of scholars" - hmmm.... maybe they're "christian"? Robsteadman 18:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The great majority of secular/non-Christian scholars also believe he existed. It is false to say there is "no evidence of his existence", only that there is no evidence from during his lifetime. The earliest evidence we do have is generally accepted to be from within living memory of his lifetime. It would in fact be very surprising if direct evidence from within his lifetime were found. Even evidence for Pontius Pilate is scarce - and he was the governor, with his name spattered all over documents, monuments and proclamations. It's far too optimistic to expect to find documentary material about some minor preacher/troublemaker. Paul B 19:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, we have no contemporary proof of the existence of the Roman Emperors Gaius Caligula, Nero, or Domitian. Seven texts of Plato survive from the Middle Ages, so of course there is doubt that he ever existed. In fact, almost all of our accounting of the ancient world comes through the filter of surviving documents, many of which were transcribed for hundreds of years and only survive to the present day because of that transcription which in most cases is several hundred years after the event and in no way contemporary. Therefore, for anything older than roughly the 13th century AD or so, we have no contemporary documents (this is of course, just a general statement). Therefore, in keeping with Robsteadman's beliefs regarding the truth and authenticity of history (and he would know, being a musician), that we delete everything in Wikipedia that references anything before... say 1000 AD. How does that sound? pookster11 01:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Err, don't exaggerate. We have coins from the reigns of all these emperors, and in most cases inscriptions from surviving monuments. The age of a manuscript is a different matter. It's very unlikely that we have manuscripts from within living memory of Jesus. The case of Plato is rather different too, since he is the author of the books, not somone mentioned in them. It's a logical necessity that somoeone has to have written a book at some time. But if there were not other evidence, we might well find scholars arguing that the "Socrates" character in Plato's Dialogues is a fictional creation. The Jesus-was-a-myth theory is legitimate, but it's not considered to be very plausible by most scholars. Paul B 09:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Domitian was declared an enemy of the state, and all memory of him was ordered to be destroyed by the Senate. Any images, coinage, etc, that you see that are attributed to be Domitian are all assumed; in some cases, its a good assumption, but 99% of the time its an archaeologist or historian putting the pieces together. For Caligula, there is a single document from Philo of Alexandria that is contemporary, and the copies that we have of that are later transcriptions. Similiar to Domitian, statuary and busts of Caligula are rare and most of the time assumed. Nero is probably one of the best and worst cases, as we have coins, titulature, and statuary and busts of him contemporary to his reign, but there is a striking difference in the physical characteristics of some othese portraits, in some cases it almost has to be a portrait referencing a different person. As far as Plato goes, it is far more likely that Plato never existed than that he did. What manuscripts we have that claim to have him as the author come to us from the Arabs, where they have been translated into Koine Greek, then Arabic, then back into Ancient Greek, and all of them at least a millenium removed from whatever original there may have been, and once again, seven manuscripts is all we have; whether or not we even actually have anything of Plato in the first place is a debate in and of itself. This is the problem that we face with ancient history, namely how reliable are the sources that we have, let alone the question of why do we even have the sources that we have. All I'm saying is if you want to start this debate about the historicity of Jesus, then you open a whole area or historical debate that, in essence, leads us to the fact that what we really know about the ancient world could probably fit quite easily into a single article. 164.67.226.214 10:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous surviving coins from Domitian's reign. They have his name written on them. This is not "assumption". The claim that "it is far more likely that Plato never existed than that he did" is downright silly. He is commented upon in the writings of other philosophers, and anyway, as I say, the books weren't written by the holy spirit. Paul B 10:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08375a.htm - a "christian" site clearly showing that there is no contemporary evidence. Robsteadman 19:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you really have to "quote" "Jesus" and "Christian" every time you write them? We can all clearly see your opinion without you having to do that every time. You don't quote "athiest". <Oscillate 19:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)>

Scholarly views

There has been an EXTENSIVE discussion between me and Robsteadman on his user talk page. Read if you're interested. -- Deskana (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I readded a paragraph on scholalry views. These views must be included if the intro is to comply with NPOV policy. Moreover, the paragraph itself complies with NPOV, NOR, and Verifiability policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

And if you;re having scholarly "views" it is essential to point out, for NPOV and balance, that there is NO contemporary evidence that he ever existed. Robsteadman 19:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadman, Wikipedia edits are not judged based on facticity, but rather verifiability. While it may or may not be 'fact', in a restricted sense of the word, that no 'contemporary' accounts of Christ exist, it doesn't matter in terms of Wikipedia acceptability. Cite a verifiable and reputable source that claims this and explains why it matters. Jpers36 19:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

He's been, correctly, blocked for violated the 3RR. Not soon enough for me. Classic POV warrior.Gator (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Are we now going to go through every ancient historical figure and add a line that there are no contemporary historical sources for their existence? Otherwise, this conversation is ridiculous. pookster11 02:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. And with all due respect, although I thank you, Deskana, I am not interested. It is evident that Robsteadman simply does nto understand our NPOV and NOR policies. Unless someone can fault the paragraph I (re)inserted as violating NPOV, or NOR, or Verifiability, I see no grounds for removing it. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that the scholarly viewds in the intro=(naming the names) makes the intro too long and cumbersome. They have a place, later in the article, but not there. As for NPOV - I think to not include a statement that there are no extant contemporary documents gives the article a POV that cannot be justified and is unencyclopedic. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08375a.htm It seems a very biased article at the moment and contrary to even accepted "chrsitian" scholarship. Robsteadman 19:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added a sentence to point interested readers to the Historicity of Jesus article where there is more room to discuss this. SOPHIA 19:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

While I think this debate is ridiculous, I agree with your edit. Rob....STOP REVERTING. That's what got you in trouble yesterday. it had nothing to do with the substance of your edit, it was that you broke the 3RR. You're halfway there AGAIN after JUST coming off a completly justified block. Stop.Gator (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

No one likes to have their edits referred to as "ridiculous". Rob is bound to get frustrated if he thinks he's not being taken seriously. Don't use the 3RR rule to get round the fact that he had a valid point but no one was interested in helping him find a way to add it that did not offend anyone. The joke in all of this is that the burden of proof should be required to show Jesus did exist - proving a negative is impossible.SOPHIA 20:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I was clearly not referring to the edits. Read it again. If he wants to be taken serisopuly he eneds to change his behavior. Revert warring and then getting blocked is not the way to get taken seriously. I don't think he has a valid point nor do I think you have a valid point, but I am willing to keep an open mind and compromise..thus, I support your edits. Well done. That doesn't mean I have to agree with your POV though. Enough said.

I'm making the point that emotive words such as "ridiculous" have no place here. They raise the temperature of a discussion and cause people to entrench their positions. We don't need to agree, and it is not "compromise" to not revert an factually correct edit that links the interested reader to other relevant articles. SOPHIA 20:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I got your point and I stand by what I said. You're being far too sensitive if I can't say that I happen to think a debate is ridiculous. I think it is. We're going way out of our way and wasting a lot of time to accomdoate a fringe minority view. We do it all the time here and it's getting old. I compromised plenty when I didn't revert what you edited which (by the way) was very different han what Rob wanted. I felt it was a good compromise edit and I agreed with it. That's a fine compromsie I think and lpease don't dismiss anotehr person's work here so casually, we're all working hard an a very conroversial article. Finally, I dont where this "keep it calm" stuff is from, everyone has been very civil so far. We're now talking about nothing important, let's move on to something else, shall we?Gator (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Jesus' legacy

Jesus' legacy is mixed. I have no objections to including the positive parts of his legacy. But NPOV requires that we include the negative as well. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with some mention of his legacy, but your paragraph goes way too far off topic. Sorry.Gator (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Off topic? No. SLrubenstein's text is entirely appropriate. Indeed, it is an essential aspect of any minimal account of Jesus' impact on the world. The grammar could be cleaned up, however. — goethean ॐ 16:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not see any discussion concerning Gator2's deletion of the paragraph in question. Since it is necessary for the article to be NPOV and violates no policies, it is wrong to delete it. The "topic" is legacy and that legacyincludes the material in the paragraph in question. As a rule, Gator1, add useful content - do not delete it. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I'll keep that in mind. Thanks.Gator (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the paragraph is appropriate under NPOV. In what sense do you feel it's off-topic, Gator? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to it now. Thanks.Gator (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Time for archive 22?

~ Pattersonc 19:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Goethean

You seem to be out to protect the content and not allow anyone to edit the page. This is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. My second version was grammatiucally correct and factual correct and verifiable.Robsteadman 19:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Dude

Dude, don't vandalize Jesus. That just ain't cool.