Talk:Jesus/Archive 80

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

Archive 75

←

Archive 78

→

Commentary on the Poll

I had hoped that some of those who had chimed in on earlier discussions might register an opinion in the poll but they have not. Nevertheless, it is clear that there is no consensus for change. I hope that at point some of you who have registered opinions here will do some research to check the facts that you base your opinions on. I have been surprised in my own research in recent years to discover how many "facts" I once took for granted turn out to be more conjecture than anything else, albeit conjecture which has existed for hundreds of years. As such, these revelations have taught me to be more understanding of others' beliefs as I realize that much of what I believe really has as much to do with faith than objective fact. --Mcorazao 20:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, BTW, for participating. --Mcorazao 21:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

William Lane Craig debate

Because I was reverted, I felt I needed to explain a little further. The recent addition of WLC's opinion is surely cited, but is it relevent? It is a citation of a debate at a the "College of the Holy Cross". Because it is a debate, we cannot see the sources behind WLC's statement. We have to take his word for it that he is telling the truth, instead of exaggerating for rhetorical purposes. On top of that, his debate opponent disagrees with him. So should we cite Ehrman as well? Who are we to believe? I strongly believe that not only is this citation problematic from a WP:V and WP:RS stance, but it is also incorrect. We scanned a lot of literature and came up with as many points as a very diverse group of scholars could agree upon. That is how we came up with the second paragraph. Should we be adding things that may or may not be found in our huge list of cited sources (in the previous sentence) just because WLC said so?-Andrew c 19:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It is always difficult to discern what the majority of scholars agree on. Also, there is a right way to use sources and a wrong way, and this seems to be a real push, one we should be cautious about. I have seem the position before, though - I think Habermas says a similar argument in one of his books, "historical evidence for Jesus" or something like that. That might be a better souce. Lostcaesar 19:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fair. Reason I reverted was because I misinterpreted original edit statement to mean something like "we can't cite him, he's an apologist" - which effectively means "we can't cite him, he believes in a view he's arguing for". I see now that my objection to that line of reasoning was completely irrelevant.TheologyJohn 20:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Non-Christian views of Jesus

An article called Non-Christian views of Jesus was created recently. I have proposed it for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-Christian views of Jesus. Editors here may be interested because the topic is a spinout of this parent article. Thanks.-Andrew c 20:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

you can't delete it without deleting the Christian views of Jesus also. with expansion, Non-Christian views of Jesus can be a good article. Goalie1998 22:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. There are other articles that present non-Christian views of Jesus. On principle I think articles about "What Everybody Else Thinks" are a bad idea. There should instead be articles about the views of specific "Everybody Elses" (which, in fact, exist in this case, at least to some degree).

This specific article looks to be really more about random musings regarding Christianity. The fact that they are non-Christian appears to be more incidental. So maybe this article is more mistitled.

--Mcorazao 02:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The principle misconception here is that any of us are qualified to define what a Christian view should be. Everybody who wants to be associated with Christianity wishes to be known as a Christian. How many of us know if Jesus himself would approve of our individual interpretations and views of his teachings or his biography? We have people here who call some scripture heretical, and others canonical! Others say historical views and scientific experiements produce a superior picture of Jesus' life in comparison with scripture. All views are equally subjective at best because even the 12 disciples knew not the whole perception that Jesus had! Nobody knows the true quality/orthenticity of any scripture/historical text/'scientific evidence' for certain. Nobody can objectivly judge any version of any bible in any religion for certain.

Thus I claim that nobody is excused/justied to silence or bias any views! Nobody is perfectly qualified to judge one view is better that another, there is always reasonable doubt. There is no scientific process to adequately judge historical sources. Nobody knows for certain what is the true christianity, so nobody is qualified to define 'non-Christian views' or 'Christian views'. It is better therefore to give a name label to all views eg 'Roman Catholic views' or 'Jesus myth views' or 'Ebonite views' or 'Coptic views' etc. Label a view for what it is saying, not for whom is saying it! Similar views should be listed together as a grouping to make it easier for readers. For NPOV all views should be listed in the main article about jesus, even those one might label as made up (all views are made up by somebody). This requires each view to be listed as succintly as possible, with side links to expand upon the views ethos properly. The main page should not bias toward so called 'mainstream christian views', as those mainstream views are not justifyible superior in any perfect objective sense. The problem with the main article is that it is too big, and filled with excess detail about views deriveing from 'mainstream Roman Catholism'. NPOV should dictate that the main page of any article should be non bias toward any one view point. The only thing everyone can agree upon is that everyone has different views. This should be reflected in the design of the main page. All views of Jesus need to be defined so that there is no duplication pages. If two pages contain similar views but with some differences, you homogenize the similar views from the two articles and merge with them the different views so that no content is lost.86.4.59.203 23:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Pharisee.

Teachings of Jesus

Can we please have a brief section on the teaching of Jesus? + probably a main article on that? --Aminz 03:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I too have advocated such a section for some time. I originally created a layout at User:Aiden/Jesus, but stopped working on it after Andrew c and I put effort into condensing the section for the sake of readability. However, I would still like to see some summary made, following my layout or not, of Jesus' most important sermons. —Aiden 05:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Searching for scholarly sources, I have found the following sources on ethical teachings of Jesus. Would you please add any sources you might have so that we can start working on the section. It would be good not only to describe his teaching but also to specifically point out the "new" teachings he introduced:

[1][2][3][4][5][ [6] The Message of Jesus to Our Modern Life, by Shailer Mathews, The Biblical World, Vol. 44, No. 4. (Oct., 1914), pp. 297-300.

[7], How Relevant Is the Ethic of Jesus?, by S. MacLean Gilmour, The Journal of Religion, Vol. 21, No. 3. (Jul., 1941), pp. 253-264.

[8][9], A Professional Reading Course on the Ethical Teaching of Jesus., Clyde Weber Votaw, The Biblical World, Vol. 46, No. 4. (Oct., 1915), pp. 249-257.

[10],The Ethical Teaching of Jesus, Erwin R. Goodenough, The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Ser., Vol. 57, The Seventy-Fifth Anniversary Volume of the Jewish Quarterly Review. (1967), pp. 243-266.

[11], Ethical Emphases in Teaching the New Testament, James T. Cleland, Journal of the National Association of Biblical Instructors, Vol. 2, No. 1. (1934), pp. 24-26.

[12], Trends toward Individualism in the Teaching of Jesus, Paul E. Davies, Journal of Bible and Religion, Vol. 24, No. 1. (Jan., 1956), pp. 10-17.

[13], The Ethical Principles of Jesus, Alfred Williams Anthony, The Biblical World, Vol. 34, No. 1. (Jul., 1909), pp. 26-32.

[14], The Ethical Teachings of Jesus in Relation to the Ethics of the Pharisees and of the Old Testament. Outline of Nine Studies, Ernest De Witt Burton, The Biblical World, Vol. 10, No. 3. (Sep., 1897), pp. 198-208.

[15], Self-Sacrifice in the Teaching of Jesus, The Biblical World, Vol. 21, No. 5. (May, 1903), pp. 323-326.

[16], The Significance of Jesus,A. C. McGiffert, Jr., The Journal of Religion, Vol. 11, No. 1. (Jan., 1931), pp. 47-62.

[17], The Question of the Relevance of Jesus for Ethics Today, Jack T. Sanders, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 38, No. 2. (Jun., 1970), pp. 131-146.

[18], The Ethical Element in Jesus' Teaching: The Ethics of Jesus by Henry Churchill King and The Ethic of Jesus according to the Synoptic Gospels by James Stalker, Review author[s]: C. W. Votaw, The American Journal of Theology, Vol. 15, No. 2. (Apr., 1911), pp. 282-286.

--Aminz 08:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

These sources are all third hand sources (views/interpretations upon scripture). It would be better to use second hand sources (canonical and non canonical writtings) which already contain all the information one requires to cite. A scholor is going to give his interpretation of what is written about Jesus' teachings. Wiki encylopaedia does not need to bandy about interpretations. People can read a quote from scriptures (or compare two contrasting views from different scriptures) by themselves. They don't need a scholor to judge what has already been written.86.4.59.203 23:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Trinity.

View of Majority of scholars on Death and Resurrection of Jesus

My addition was removed [19]. Would you please discuss it. Please also see the talk page of historical Jesus. --Aminz 03:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the user who removed your addition did so on the basis that the source was not up to Wikipedia standards. However, if this scholar did make such a claim, I'm almost positive we can find it in published material such as a peer-reviewed journal. —Aiden 11:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If there is a college discussion, it is either based on the professor's own speculations (in which case, we shouldn't consider this an authority) or it is based on assigned readings (which could be in peer-reviewed journals, academic textbooks, including stuff written by the professor in question) - it is those published works we should draw on as sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a question: Is there any difference between biblical scholars and historians? --Aminz 12:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes; historians study all manner of things, from the English Civil War to the Investiture Contest. Even one who studies the Antique Near East is operating in a field much different from Biblical Scholarship. The latter are scholars who study the events in the Bible. Sometimes the fields overlap, and so this article can use both. One may also say "scholars of the historical Jesus", which is really more akin to a Biblical Scholar who specializes in a narrow field, rather than a historian who does the same (its really too narrow for a historian). There is also the related field of apologetics, which in a sense can be understood as those scholars of the historical Jesus whose scholarly opinion is that the Gospels got it right (that is a simplification, but you get the idea). Basically what we must to is ensure that the source is fitting for encyclopedic use - after that we should have little prejudice against it. Lostcaesar 12:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

But individual historians do not cover the large range you imply. Biblical Scholars cover about as much range as the average historian.128.211.254.142 08:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Aminz 13:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Another thing we need to be cognizant of is the Western academic notion of "modern languages" which has a big impact on the study of history, because traditionally the study of history is the study of historical texts. Many universities have Departments of Modern Languages (Spanish, French, German etc.) and most History Departments focus on historical documents in those languages in effect French, Spanish, English history. There are of course other languages that are "modern" in the sense that they are spoken today (are contemporary) yet are often in different departments - thus Quechua and Swahili may not be taught in a "Modern Language Department" and the history of Quichua and Swahili apeakers may often be taught in an anthropology department rather than a history department! Similarly, non-modern languages, like Greek and Latin and Hebrew, are generally not taught in a Modern Languages Department, and the study of historical documents in these languages is often not taught in a History Department. Some universities have a "Classics Department" which teaches Latin and Greek, and studies both Latin and Greek literature and history (even if they use the same methods as people who study French or Italian literature and history). Similarly, some universities have a "Biblical Studies" or "Ancient Near Eastern Studies" department where they teach Hebrew, Aramaic, Uggaritic, Akkadian, as well as the literatures and histories of the people who wrote in these languages. Again - and this is the key point - a person may have a PhD. or teach in "Biblical Studies" but when it comes to method and theory is as much a "historian" as someone in the History Department teaching American history. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Just pointing out that I am the user that removed the edit, and I did discuss it here on talk (look 3 topics up). It didn't come out of nowhere. My main point was we did a whole lot of research (look at all the cited sources in the 2nd paragraph) and came up with the basic elements that the VAST MAJORITY of scholars could all agree upon regarding Jesus. We do not have information about the burial and post-resurrection appearances because not all of our sources supported those claimed events. It's an odd situation, do we trust WLC wasn't exagerating for rhetorical purposes (because he doesn't cite any sources), or do we trust the research we put into the article. I know this is a lot of work to ask, but the best thing to do (IMO) is to track down all the books we cite in the 2nd paragraph, and see if you can find page numbers for these authors supporting (or not supporting) Craig's 4 points. The reason the paragraph is worded the way it is, is because every single point is cited in every single source. I do not think we can simply add on to that list based on what an apologist said in a debate (when his opponent disagreed with him. why not cite Ehrman instead?).-Andrew c 16:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Andrew, Craig does cite his sources, and they are standard texts, have a look. Lostcaesar 20:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, LC, you can see for yourself that the statement In summary, there are four facts agreed upon by the majority of scholars: Jesus’ burial, the discovery of his empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection. is unsourced. He cites Brown supporting one statement, Robinson and Kremer supporting another, Lüdemann supporting a 3rd, and L.T. Johnson and N.T. Wright supporting the last. This is the majority of scholars supporting all 4 statements?-Andrew c 21:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Craig in such an academic debate wouldn't make such a big claim if it is wrong. Maybe we can email Craig and ask him for sources (?) --Aminz 22:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind that the current and longstanding 2nd paragraph reads "most scholars in the fields of history and biblical studies agree that..." Ehrman, replying to Craig says "the majority of historians do not agree with Bill’s conclusion.... [and] the majority of critical scholars studying the historical Jesus today disagree with his conclusion that a historian can show that the body of Jesus emerged physically from the tomb." (we'll have to assume that Ehrman wouldn't make such a big claim in such an academic debate if it wasn't supported by sources, right?) Craig himself just uses the word "scholars", while Ehrman says Craigs claim is only accurate if you are talking about Christian-believing New Testament scholars. Because exactly whom Craig is referring to by saying "scholars", and because the word "majority" is disputed, I cannot support the proposed edit. I will repeat my suggestion. Dig through our already cited sources and see if they agree or disagree with Craig. If we can find more points of agreement between these scholars, it will only help the article. But I believe the proposed changes are vague and misleading as they stand.-Andrew c 22:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, Craig says: "Even the most skeptical NT scholars admit that the earliest disciples at least believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead". [www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jesus_resurrection/chap4.html]. Britannica Encyclopedia also confirms it("It is difficult to accuse these sources, or the first believers, of deliberate fraud. A plot to foster belief in the Resurrection would probably have resulted in a more consistent story. Instead, there seems to have been a competition: 'I saw him,' 'so did I,' 'the women saw him first,' 'no, I did; they didn't see him at all,' and so on. Moreover, some of the witnesses of the Resurrection would give their lives for their belief. This also makes fraud unlikely.") Ehrman also didn't deny that the early disciples thought that Jesus was raised from death. He is just argues that we can not approve that a miracle happened.

So, I think there should be a consensus on that and it could be added. --Aminz 01:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a specific wording you could propose?-Andrew c 01:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Something along these lines(probably more NPOVed): "While the scholars are splitted over the historicity of Resurrection, however they hold that the earliest disciples sincerely believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead"--Aminz 02:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not followed this discussion, but the proposed text needs to be worded better: "While scholars disagree over the historicity of the Resurrection, most hold that the earliest disciples sincerely believed that Jesus had risen from the dead" CBadSurf 02:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm still a little concerned over sources (I'll look into my books a little later), but how about something like "While scholar disagree over the historicity of the resurrection, most agree that some of the earliest disciples claimed to have had visions of the risen Jesus."-Andrew c 03:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

A claim can be sincere or not. "sincerely believed" is better. But I understand we need reliable sources for that. --Aminz 05:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew when I wrote it that "claimed" wasn't the best term because of negative connotations. But you are also correct that "sincerely believed" is fairly strong language.-Andrew c 06:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone, I think Aminz (sorry if I am mistaken) revelas a BIG slippage in this discussion when s/he writes, above, "Well, Craig says: "Even the most skeptical NT scholars admit that the earliest disciples at least believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead." This sentence means we are not just talking about what some, many, most, or almost all scholars believe. We are also talking about what scholars believe about Jesus versus what they believe about Jesus' followers. There is a world of difference between saying that most scholars believe Jesus's post-mortem appearances occured, versus they believe that many of Jesus' followers believed they saw Jesus. My point: we should keep these separate. This is an article on Jesus, and in the introduction we should state only what shcolars believe about Jesus (not what his followers believed). The article has sections on Christian and NT views and there it would be very appropriate to have sentences like, "The vast majority of scholars believe x about the NT" or "According to the vast majority of scholars, jesus's early followers believed ..." Slrubenstein | Talk 12:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, but wasn't sure how to phrase it. It felt like the follower's beliefs fell more under the Christian views section than the scholarly/historian section. There is some overlap because these are historical Christians, but this article isn't exclusively about early Christianity, or the early follower's belief, so I do feel that this information (while clearly relevent) may not fit so neatly in the LEAD, or at least not in the 2nd paragraph.-Andrew c 15:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I did a little more research into this. According to G. Theissen and A. Merz's The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide, Gerd Lüdemann (the person that Craig cites for one of his 4 points) "argues... emphatically for a subjective vision theory. For him the tradition of the empty tomb is an unhistorical apologetic legend." After reading that, I wanted to post it here and hold back my attacks on Craig cherry-picking his sources to support his 'majority'. Furthermore, after some discussion Theissen and Merz conclude "the empty tomb cannot be either demonstrated or refuted with historical-critical methods". They point out that scholars who say the empty tomb is unhistorical typically also "attack" the burial as well. (strike two for Craig) They say it is hard to tell if the empty tomb created the resurrection stories, or if these visions were later explained by creating an empty tomb story. They conclude "the story of the emplty tomb can only be illuminated by the Easter faith (which is based on appearances); the Easter faith cannot be illuminated by the empty tomb." When considering scholarly opinions, they believe "the balance would tilt towards the possibility that the tradition of the emplty tomb has a historical nucleus. But only a little way." I'm sorry if this is all irrelevent because the proposed change only dealt with Craig's point 3 (maybe 4), not points 1 and 2.-Andrew c 16:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact remains these points concern what historians believe about early beliefs of Jesus' followers, not what historians believe about jesus. This distinction is crucial. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Without meaning to sound argumentative, I think that the fact that the subject of discussion is, as it were, not really about the "life" but possible "afterlife" of the subject, that it might be better if that information were included in the Death and Resurrection of Jesus article. (By the way, I am a Christian, just trying to be NPOV, OK?) However, I do think that a section to the effect that "As described in the canonical Gospels, there is reason to believe that the body of Jesus was found to be absent from the tomb on the third day following his crucifixion. Several scholars, prominently including Bart Ehrman, have stated that the evidence available indicates that the majority of Jesus's followers believed that he had arisen from the dead, as described in the New Testament. They also seem to have believed in the post-mortem appearances Jesus is described as having made in the New Testament. For more information, see Death and Resurrection of Jesus." I do not have the materials Ehrman used to make these points when he was speaking against the Jesus Seminar, who held that these appearances could not be justified by fact, readily available, but I think that I might be able to find them rather quickly if it were indicated that they would be useful. Badbilltucker 01:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Q document

"While the earliest surviving manuscripts and fragments of these texts are dated later than the earliest surviving manuscripts and fragments of the canonical Gospels, they are probably copies of earlier manuscripts whose precise dates are unknown."

I think the correct word here is POSSIBLY - the Q document is NOT the consensus view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.211.254.142 (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Joshua

The first paragraph explains that Jesus is an anglicized for of the Greek for Yeshua, and even tells us what this name means in Hebrew, but does not tell us that this is the same name as Joshua in English.--Counsel 21:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It does now, and that information is verifiable by the same source already cited there. Badbilltucker 01:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Folks, I personally think these edits should be reverted and not reintroduced until people have reviewed these past discussions: [20] and [21]. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Rather than expect everyone to dredge up musty archives in order to understand your meaning, why not explain why you don't think this article should mention this? Arker 10:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to cut and paste what many other people have said. What I did do is I went through all the archives - a very time-consuming a tedious process - to find the relevant discussions and I provided links. I do not think discussion from last year (concerning a topic two thousand years old) is "musty" and I do not think that my asking you simply to click on a link is asking too much of you. I already did the dredging, and put it in the form of two simple links and all you have to do is click on them. And you complain? It will take you far less time to read the links than it would for me to write uop a summary for you - FAR less time. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, here's the thing though. I've read the archives. I don't see any convincing reason to omit this information (thought I do see reasons to phrase it very carefully, perhaps.) So if you see something in the archives I don't see, you need to bring it up. Arker 11:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your looking at the archived discussion. If you think careful rewording would suffice to address the various concerns, then that is fine by me. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I also have read the archives. I am also a lifelong practicing Christian (and a bit of a biblical scholar as well) and have never heard any convincing argument against it. The "scholarly arguments in favor of something are not sufficient for inclusion in an article" response could also be applied to everything from gravity to childbirth. Perhaps a more subtle phrasing than that which I used might be called for, or a short statement with a direct link elsewhere, but it is I believe useful to point out that it is extremely unlikely that Jesus had a unique name, which is something that I have heard expressed repeatedly by people who are I believe ill-informed on the matter. Badbilltucker 15:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem mentioning it in the article, but what makes it relevant enough to mention in the intro? That Yeshua was also transliterated into Joshua isn't the most pertinent thing to discuss. —Aiden 05:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There is too much drivel in the main page86.4.59.203 23:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Neo.

Possible external influence and Reinventing Jesus

There has been a little back and forth regarding some edits (see my and SOPHIA's talk pages). The work Reinventing Jesus is aimed towards a popular audience, and written and praised by a number of theologians and Christian apologists. While it may be true that they cite actual scholars, within the greater context of the book, I believe the bias is questionable. Therefore, I would request that we cite the actual scholar's work (outside of this book) instead. Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to say that there isn't criticism of the mysteries/mythist view. I know there is, but I just think we can do better sourcewise than Reinventing Jesus. It is just odd to cite a popular, apologetic work in the historical section when there are actual scholarly works we could use instead. --Andrew c 23:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c, thank you for comments. Please accept my apologies for misposting my comments. I'm still finding my way round, even after a few years!

Can I also complement you on your edit which I like very much. I think it's a great improvement on my original.

Regarding using 'Reinventing Jesus'. I choose that partly because it's very current and partly because, though a scholarly work, it is aimed at a lay audience and would therefore be more readily available and accessible. I also felt that if I cited some of the original sources it would be unfair as I'd not read all of them myself.

Keep up the good work.Mercury543210 13:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Good article review

Doesn't an article under constant semi-protection fail #5 of WP:WIAGA? Hbdragon88 03:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Umm...#5 says that it doesn't apply to semi-protection. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Beat me to it. I was going to self-revert this, but this talk page is too active. Hbdragon88 03:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Correction

Another Question: How can Jesus be listed as being born 8–2 BC/BCE ? Hello people, BC/BCE is Before Christ/Before Culteral Event...either way he IS the dividing line, he cannot have predated himself.

It's is now a commonly accepted fact that the traditional year of Jesus's birth was wrong. Please get the facts before you ask a question. Zazaban 04:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No need to be rude; but yes, if you read the Chronology section of this very article you will find a pretty good explanation of the dating issue. —Aiden 12:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be rude, I was just pointing out that he really should get the facts. Really! Zazaban 02:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That is what encyclopedias are for, and how convienent that people who are confused can actually ask the probable contributors of the article how something works. Homestarmy 03:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that "cultural" is not spelt "culteral" as well as BCE means Before Common Era or Before Current Era.Squall1991 08:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Dates of Jesus/John the Baptist

However, the gospels do indicate that John the Baptist was born in the Jewish month of Nisan (which is now Mid-March to Mid-April). The Gospels also indicate that Jesus was born 6 months after John the Baptist which corresponds to the Jewish month Tishri (which is now Mid-September to Mid-October).

Where do the gospels say this? Grover cleveland 06:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This is likely based on Luke 1:35-36, which seems to say that Jesus was conceived 6 months after John the Baptist was conceived. 35 And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. 36 Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing will be impossible.” (NKJV) Elsewhere in Luke 1 and 2 it says that both Elizabeth and Mary gave birth 'when their time was completed', suggesting that the pregnancies lasted the usual nine months. Wesley 17:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The gospels disagree upon how long Jesus was on the cross. One can't really rely on quotes about time, but its well spotted non the less.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.4.59.203 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 18 February 2007.

Comparing all four gospels, it can be worked out (see [22]) ^ross ^nixon 00:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your comments. Seriously.-Andrew c 01:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

BCE/BC - CE/AD

What exactly is the logic behind having Julius Caesar's dates given in BC/AD form and Jesus's dates in this hybrid slash style? If anyone should have the old AD tacked on the end you'd think it'd be this guy.Theotherkg 21:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Ugh... please read WP:LAME#Miscellaneous_lameness's entry on Jesus and don't open Pandora's Box!--Isotope23 21:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It just reflects badly on Wikipedia to start off an article with something that silly. So sorry to disgust your eminence, but if you could indulge me a bit further, why is this only the case with Jesus? Why do all these poor pagan Romans have BC tagged on their dates?Theotherkg 22:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that both are accepted as valid, so whatever way the article starts should probably be left unless there's a very good reason against it. ElinorD 22:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has ruled that AD and CE are both acceptable, so users are not to go changing one to the other. We had a vote on it almost a year ago, and the consensus was to use both. I'd personally prefer just BC and AD, but individual users who start unilaterally changing it will simply be reverted. Musical L inguist 22:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No matter how this is changed, people will become enraged. This is a guarantee of an edit war and nobody wants that, do they? It simply is not worth the effort AT ALL. --BenBurch 23:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Please no - not this one again. Both are ok and either would be fine. I have never understood what this fight is about as it sooooo doesn't matter. I agree BC and AD make the most sense for this article due to the context but it's not worth the trouble to try to change it. Sophia 23:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not worth the trouble of any kind of edit war. But the slash is so ungainly looking I'd prefer to see CE stuck up there than AD/CE. And even so, it's a bit odd. As I said, Jesus seems to be the only article with this format. Most of the others I've seen, classical figures included, have been BC. Pretty strange that only Jesus should be singled out. Kind of poor taste, too. Someone had best accuse me of violating "assume good faith." Theotherkg 02:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why people don't realise that Wikipedia is secular, and doesn't take a religious bias. The usage of CE is more appropriate than AD/CE or just AD alone. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 02:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

While the first resolution (and longstanding 'consensus') for the AD/CE notation began over a year and a half ago, we had a large vote to reaffirm (or rather, no consensus to change) the system in place back in September. You can find that discussion in archives 72/74. Jesus is the only article to my knowledge that uses both notations. There are, however, a large number of articles that use BCE (even a few featured articles). However, you are correct that BC is more common. If you look through the Manual of Style, (and past arbitration discussion), you will find that both era notations are correct and it is strongly suggested against changing from one to the other. There have a been a few editors who try to go on crusades and push one system over the other, causing edit wars on multiple pages. This compromise, while sloppy, has kept the peace here for over a year and a half. It isn't perfect, but there has never been enough people on either side to support changing it away from the compromise. So we are stuck with it (so it seems), and I for one think there are much more important things to consider (such as the two do list, and the fact that we aren't a FA yet) before we discuss the era notations again.-Andrew c 02:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Andrew. Nail. Head. —Aiden 07:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I just gotta say this. CE and BCE are still based on Jesus's birth, so you'd have to be a dumbass not to use AD and BC. It's easier and makes a lot more sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.119.119 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You guys must realize that its discussions like this which are indicative/symptomatic of having far too much spare time!!. Its not like you haven't had this discussion a gazillion times already!!86.4.59.203 23:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Jesus Christ.

islamic view of jesus

It is quite surprising that in such an important article the last paragraph of the introduction contains a mistake.

disclaimer: first I should mention that I am not a theist and have no interest in influencing anyones religous or spiritual views. I am a an australian of athiest parents with iranian heritage whose grandparents were shiite muslims, I have extensively studied religion (out of intelectual interest) and am familiar with shiite sunni ismaeli, and other sects of islams view of jesus as well as ofcourse the christian views (inluding the jahovahs witness's rejection of crucifiction etc).

"Most Muslims also believe that he will return to the earth as Messiah in the company of the Mahdi once..."

This is a mistake, in the all the muslim accounts (though any scholar would tell you these vary widely in many aspects) the main charactor is always mahdi, and jesus is merely a background charactor. In anycase stating that, most believe that jesus "will return to the earth as MESSIAH in the company of the Mahdi" is at the very least misleading, this statement gives the reader the false impression that muslims believe that jesus is the "Messiah" (the saviour). A reader who leaves this article with this impression would be misled and be rudely awakened during a conversation with a muslim about the later's beliefs. A christian, informed by this wikipedia article, commenting: "atleast we both believe jesus is the messiah..." would be corrected by his muslim friend, "I believe that mahdi is the messiah, the saviour, the one who will fight the last battle on earth" etc.

It is true that muslims refer to jesus as Isa Maseeh (Maseeh being arabic for messiah)but this is out of convention and respect and does not have the same corresponding meanings and historical implication as the english word "Messiah" which is used here, and its use particularly in this context with mahdi not stated as the actual percieved saviour is misleading, and will lead to misunderstading.

thankyou. 58.106.16.99 15:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, that difference in Messiah is discussed in the Messiah article.... Homestarmy 22:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This dissagreement is somewhat semantic and irrelevent. A saviour in the Christian religion is a person who teaches the true nature of our relationship to God, and how to live our lives in that service of God, rather than in the service of one's own selfish desires. This is also what a prophet does. In this aspect, Mohamed, Jesus, and Buddha have that in common. They are all prophets, all saviours and all servents of God. All three religions in their devouter aspects promote celibacy (eg the views of sufists). Essentially, no prophet or saviour is on a par with God. God is by consitution un measurable and nobody can know him totally. Therefore, whether Muslims believe that Mohamed is their saviour or Jesus is irrelevent. Both prophets do their duty to God and do not promote themselves as God. Both prophets promote the same core message.

It doesn't matter which prophets message you take on board, both will serve the required purpose. Therefore it is emminently better to serve God than it is to promote division by arguing over human viewpoints concerning the prophets. More is needed about the message of Jesus in this article. There is a saying; 'A house without a foundation will not stand'. This article lacks a foundation concerning the real reason for the existence of Jesus. Who cares where Jesus travelled, who Jesus met, and which historical viewpoints carry more weight? Why debate issues that cannot be resolved? Isn't time better spent on exploring the message which Jesus brought about the true purpose of human life (to serve God, and to become liberated from sin by purifying one's actions, thoughts and behaviours)? Another usefull saying here is; 'Concentrate on learning the basics well, because all the flash is just trash'.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.149.206.5 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 15 February 2007.

A saviour is a person who saves. A prophet teaches. Christians believe that Jesus is our saviour because through His person and work, He restores our relationship with God (as well as teaching). Mohamed and Buddha, so far as I understand, don't save people. They just teach. Regarding the practical value, it's important too, because (among other things), it helps reinforce that fact that we're talking about a real person and real events. NigelCunningham 05:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are lost, you might ask for directions. One who shows you a map and how to read it is teaching you the correct way. If you arrive at your destination you are saved, if not you will be lost! Ergo, if Mohamed/Buddha shows people the true path or correct way, then they are also helping people to find salvation, similar to Jesus. There are many paths to Rome and many ways to shear a sheep. What matters is that you shear it sucessfully. Jesus, Mohamed, Buddha etc are many things. In the various canonical and non-canonical Christian scriptures Jesus is called many things including Prophet, Teacher, Rabbi, Lord, Son of man, Son of God, even Jesus. Didymus Thomas told Jesus he was incaperble of properly describing who Jesus is like. It is because Jesus is a devotee of God, and God is infinate and cannot be catogorized adequately by description.86.4.59.203 22:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Pharisee.

"Become liberated from sin by purifying one's actions, thoughts and behaviors"? What verse is that? (In either the Qu'ran or the Bible) Homestarmy 19:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"In Islam, Jesus is considered . . ." Wait a minute, is the introduction to Jesus appropriately served by having paragraphs of differing faiths commenting on their impressions or perspectives of him? I think not. Islam is a major religion. But, there are scores of other major religions. Should Wikipedia support each of their views [one paragraph at a time], for the next several hundred paragraphs, starting with Islam? The Islamic view (as well as others) of Jesus is worth noting: but, in a separate subheading listing other world views (including secular) of Jesus, not in the first opening paragraphs of the introduction. For Moses, Muhammed, Buddha, or other significant spiritual personas, there is no mention of the Christian impression of them at all, much less in the opening few paragraphs. Making an exception for Islam, alone, to comment on Jesus, speaks of a bias and inconsistency not worthy of encyclopedic standards. --Curious2george 00:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The roots of Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Sikism, Christianity etc etc are the same. Just as the foundations of any house must serve the same vital function. The window may have a personal view of the plumbing system, and the roof beams may have opinions about the kitchen fittings. Christianity is just another part of one house, and its opinion upon Jesus are no more valid than that of other religions. There are many branches steming from the tree, but all branches search for knowledge of the roots. Remember that the bible is a Roman church opinion of Jesus! Most people living in Galilee/Nazoreth now are Muslim, yet the Roman empire asserts its opinion on Jesus to be superior. That is like the Roof saying it knows the Front door better than the foyer. Yet if Jesus is like the front door, it is still the foundations which Jesus was teaching. What is the point of building a house without foundations86.4.59.203 22:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Pharisee.

It is my undertanding that Jesus has an importance in Islam second to no other religion save Christianity itself. It is not the importance of Christianity or Islam per se, but the importance of Jesus in Christianity and Islam, that account for their being mentioned in the intro. I certainly see nothing wrong to adding to the introuctory pararaph on Moses that he was an important prophet for Christians and Muslims too. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Curious2george about the inappropriate placement of the Islamic view so prominently in the introduction to Jesus. No argument that each religion's view of Jesus should be mentioned, but only as part of a subheading. We learn what Islam embraces and rejects with respect to Jesus. Where is equal depiction of what Hinduism embraces and rejects of Jesus? The Islamic editorial is describing, as much as anything, how unimportant or irrelevant his influence on Islam. Again, something worth noting; but, in the first few paragraphs? If so, then other views of Jesus deserve equal introductory placement. --Free4It 22:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to the anonymous (perhaps Muslim) editor, it's totally true that Jesus appears in lots of religions. But Islam makes a bigger deal about Jesus than Hinduism does, and Christianity even more so. Jesus the Christian Savior is what most people mean when they talk about Jesus, especially English-speaking people. So this article is mostly about Jesus as a religious figure. I imagine that the Arabic article is different. In addition, the Bible is not Roman. Like the trinity, it is mostly a product of the early church, before it split into Greek and Roman parts. Jonathan Tweet 00:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC) I trimmed some out of this section. It has a main article, so it only needs a summary here. I removed this reference and I'm posting it here because I don't like to just delete referenced material.

Muslims believe he will descend at Damascus, presently in Syria, once the world has become filled with sin, deception, and injustice; he will then live out the rest of his natural life. Sunni Muslims believe that after his death, Jesus will be buried alongside Muhammad in Medina, presently in Saudi Arabia.^[1]

^ Mufti A.H. Elias, "Jesus (Isa) A.S. in Islam, and his Second Coming", Islam.tc Network, accessed May 10, 2006.

Jonathan Tweet 02:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

For non-religious people learning what Muslims or Hindus or Jews believe about Jesus is only dryly barely interesting; something akin to learning of Darth Vader's opinion of Jesus. Islam is a very young religion of only a half-dozen, or so, centuries. Not one Muslim, Muhammed included, was even alive when Jesus was making history. Without doubt the Jewish view is highly relevant, but their angle on Jesus is so restrictive, that the net gain is diminished. For religious people, only their personal pet theories [endorced and enforced by their god(s)] hold relevance. So, comments outside the faithful mindset, are unwelcome [read not worth understanding] to them. --Free4It 22:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Upon reflection I am sure you will regret some of your views. During Jesus' ministry exactly your logic was used to critisize Jesus' personal take upon the scriptures! How dare an upstart assert his new fangled liberal views over long standing Jewish tradition (said the Pharisee's who opposed him). So what how old the Koran is! Surely its content over age. Jesus was Jewish from Israel. The bible is Roman, from Italy. The Koran is Saudi (nearer Israel than Rome). Which view is more relevent, one formed 1000's of miles from Isreal, or one formed in Israel, or one formed nearby in Arabia? I suggest the answer is that 'an interesting view has nothing where it was formed or from the religion of the contributer'. Rather it has to do with the contributers broad knowledge combined with reason to form a persuasive perspective. On a lighter note, you might consider this, Darth Vader got his salvation in the end, by killing the Emporor Darth Sidious, hence giving up his power, so he ain't so evil. Oh and Emperor Constantine (Darth Constantine) wasn't alive during Jesus' ministry either. That didn't stop him from shaping the fate of Christian views using facist violence against desenters. The same facist violence used in the Spanish inquisitions, and against the Cathars. A Jewish view is only restrictive if it counters one's own viewpoint, how inconvenient for us. All views are equally imperfect yet equally formed using human reason. Why not promote them all, we are big boys and we can make up our own minds. One's mindset is limited by one's knowledge. Read more from all religions you can, the broader and more insightfull your comments will be.86.4.59.203 02:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Master Yoda

Thank you 86.4.59.203 (Master Yoda) for your contribution. So what how old the Koran is, you say, surely content over age. The quality of the content is my very point. To non-religious views, what consideration should one allow documentation that comments on events of an equal arms length as present day observers. Master Yoda you should write a leaflet, we'll call it M.Y. Wisdom. We'll learn of your truths re Jesus. Those observations, to a non-religious reader, will have as much significance as the Koran. --Free4It 22:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Jesus is an important figure in Islam, and plays a role in their eschatology. This cannot be said of any other religion (maybe Bahá'í), except Christianity. However, Muslims make up over a billion people on this planet. NPOV says we must present all relevent POVs, without giving them undue weight. Not mentioning Islam would be hiding a very, very large POV on this planet, in accordance with WP:BIAS. For an example of another religious figure embraced by a number of religions, check out John the Baptist. Hope this helps. -Andrew c 00:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Color

It would only be right to put a short paragraph on the idea that Jesus was a man of color, given multiple scientist and common sense conclude that from the region he was, he had middle eastern characteristics. Of course, I am guessing that is to much to ask. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.149.207.175 (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

The concept of "person of color" was not relevant in Jesus' time, and is not central to His influence in todays world. Justin Eiler 18:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

His favourite colours are green (trees), blue (sky) and red (blood). ;-) ^ross ^nixon 00:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Jesus said; It is not important what enters one's mouth, as much as it is what comes out of the mouth.

I ask you, what is more important, a cars exterior, or its ability to function? What is more relevent to you? Also, do you believe that it is important to debate issues where no valid scientific proof can be brought to the proceedings? Obviously, it is likely Jesus took characteristics from his mother and therefore of her people. You need DNA to prove his exact cultural background don't you?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.149.206.5 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 15 February 2007.

....why do you only use bold for your text? Homestarmy 19:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to employ a text with a darker skin colour ;-)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.4.59.203 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 17 February 2007.

Please SIGN your posts.-Andrew c 22:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay as much as it pains me to do this. I think it is relevant to the article to mention the pigmentation (trying for a PC word and probably failing) and/or race. Alot of people believe that Jesus was a black man (doubt it) and another larger group believes he was a white almost european-looking man (also unlikely). No matter how unlikely either of these extremes or how few people believe either of them (hope its a few) it is still a controversy that exists and that is given a decent amount of attention from time to time. (personal belief is he was obviously a semtic Mediterranian Jew but meh). Anyway it should probably be in the article somewhere with Biblical evidence cited as well as geographical evidence and whatever else. Btw the parenthesis just make me feel better this posting can be read totally without them. Eno-Etile 12:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I have a crazy idea, how about if a citation from a reliable source can be provided then we mention it, otherwise not? ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

We already say "Though depictions of Jesus are culturally important, no undisputed record exists of his actual appearance." rather prominently in the caption of the first illustration. I think that covers this issue too. --BenBurch 01:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Meh controversy is controversy and controversy is important and suitable for encyclopedias. I'm sure theres a source somewhere...Eno-Etile 03:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It always bothered me that Jesus was/is presented as a white anglo/saxon. I recently visited a website that had a poll on what people believed he looked like and the white a/s version won with 26%. Second with 13% was a tie between the version in the link I post below and the Shroud of Turin face.

I support something in the artical to give perspective on the real person. The picture on this site may be a good start as it is definately NPOV. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/25/face.jesus/index.html "Using archaeological and anatomical science rather than artistic interpretation makes this the most accurate likeness ever created. It isn't the face of Jesus, because we're not working with the skull of Jesus, but it is the departure point for considering what Jesus would have looked like."

A letter by Publius Lentullus (Roman governor of Judea) that includes a limited physical description of Jesus conforms with the picture above in regards skin colour but with a few differences. Lentullus said Jesus' eyes are grey, his hair is parted in "the manner of the Nazarenes" and his beard was forked. Wayne 14:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No one alive today has any authoritative support to justify a clear encyclopedic affirmation of Jesus' colour. Still, the letter of the Roman governor should find some room in some subheading. --Free4It 22:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

All of this is the worst kind of pseudo-scientific speculation. There are documents from Romans mentioning their encountering people they thought were Roman and then learned were Jews. The point is NOT that Jews "looked like" Romans. The point is that around the Mediterranean there is a wide range of skin tones and facial features and Romans understood that not all Romans look alike, not all Jews look alike, and there is no reason why a Jew can't look like a Greek or a Greek like a Roman etc. Yes, it is anachronistic and just stupid to think Jesus (incarnate) looked like Sting or David Bowie. But then again, what does an "Anglo Saxon" look like? As for composite images to represent some average Galilean, well, one thing we do know: very few people in the world are average. I don't see this as at all helpful. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Publius Lentullus is fictional. All these issues are discussed in the article Race of Jesus. Paul B 15:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Jesus' title

Jesus of Nazareth

The place name Nazoreth did not exist during the time of Jesus. It is a second century place name. Jesus was refered to in the new testament scriptures as 'Jesus the Nararite'. A Nazarite is a person who belongs to a subsect of Essene Jewdaism. For instance, upon the cross the Romans nailed the sign 'Jesus the Nazarite, King of the Jews'. It is a mistake of translation between Greek to other languages that 'Jesus the Nazarite' became 'Jesus the Nazarene'. Later this mistranslation was interpreted as 'Jesus of Nazareth', but only after the 2nd century. Prior to the second century no Narareth existed in Palastine, or Jordan (where Jesus was babtized by the Nazarite John the Babtist). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.149.206.5 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 15 February 2007.

you are wrong. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Quote me the evidence, show me the first century map with Nazoreth in it? You won't find it, but you will find lots of 1st century maps without Nazoreth in it. The phrase 'you are wrong', how is that going to teach me or anyone anything? If you have some evidence we don't know about proving your case, wouldn't it be in the spirt of wiki to share it?

Further to this, your own view appears to be contradicted on the Nazareth page on wiki!!! I shall quote it for you: "“Nazareth is not mentioned in ancient Jewish sources earlier than the third century AD. This likely reflects its lack of prominence both in Galilee and in Judaea,” writes American archaeologist James Strange.[4] Strange variously estimates Nazareth’s population at “roughly 1,600 to 2,000 people” in the time of Christ, and in another publication at “a maximum of about 480.” [5] However, some historians argue that the absence of textual references to Nazareth in the Old Testament and the Talmud, as well as the works of Josephus, suggest that a town called 'Nazareth' did not exist in Jesus' day.[6] "

Also later in that very article::

Some historians have called the city's traditional association with the life of Jesus into question, suggesting instead that what was originally a title (Nazarene) was corrupted into the name of his hometown (alternately, Nazara or Nazaret or Nazareth). Alfred Loisy, for example, in The Birth of Christianity argues that Iesous Nazarene meant not "from Nazareth", but rather that his title was "Nazarene."

Alternatively, there is biblical indication that Nazarene was a mistranslation of Nazarite, a person who had taken a vow of holiness and was thus 'separated out' from the masses. Matt. 2:23 says of Yeshua` (Jesus), "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." Not only is there no word translated ‘Nazarene’, as well as no reference to a city of 'Nazareth' in the Hebrew Scriptures, but reference bibles state that the prophecy cited in Matt. 2:23 is in reference to Judges 13:5 concerning Samson's description as a Nazarite. Frank Zindler, managing editor of the American Atheist Press, has asserted that Nazareth did not exist in the first century.[31] His arguments include the following:

No "ancient historians or geographers mention [Nazareth] before the beginning of the fourth century [AD]."[32] Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, the Talmud, nor in the Apocrypha and it does not appear in any early rabbinic literature. Nazareth was not included in the list of settlements of the tribes of Zebulon (Joshua 19:10-16) which mentions twelve towns and six villages Nazareth is not included among the 45 cities of Galilee that were mentioned by Josephus (37AD-100AD). Nazareth is also missing from the 63 towns of Galilee mentioned in the Talmud—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.149.206.5 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 15 February 2007.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! ^ross ^nixon 01:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

All major historians of the time accept that Jesus was from a small and otherwise un-noteworty town, Nazareth. My sources: Crossan, Sanders, Vermes, Eriksen. You show me one major historian who disagrees. Also, you are simply wrong that Nazarites were a sect of Essenes and I can't believe you have any evidence to support this bizarre claim. Be that as it may, it is highly unlikely that Jesus was a Nazarite because he did things that violated their vows - he drank wine and approached the dead. And he didn't do anything Nazarites are supposed to do. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

None of your sources can produce a shred of physical evidence to substantiate the name 'Nazareth'. The nearest sounding name on any 1st century maps is Nazar (Nazor). I am not suggesting that Jesus could not at some time lived in a place like Nazareth, it is just the fact that during Jesus's time nobody would have called him 'Jesus of Nazareth', because there was no such name 'Nazareth in use'. It is possible that Nazareth is Nazorite mistranslated, and its not such a big leap to see how that might have happened during the 3rd century (after all lots of other Gospel mistranslations have been exposed by experts). If all four gospels (probable post 3rd century editions) made an translation error, its likely all future literature copied this error. Its not that your sources are less valid than others, its the lack of physical evidence supporting a 1st century settlement in Nazareth. No maps showing Nazareth (whilst other small towns/villages) are seen on 1st century maps! Then you have the lack of any mention in any Jewish texts pre 1st century. It is likely that small settlements existed where modern Nazareth exists, its just that no 1st century artifacts have been found by arheologists. Thats the kicker for me, no artifacts, no settlement. If you have some evidence of such physical evidence, then the official wiki article on Nazareth sould be updated??? As for Jesus being an Essene Jew and possibly one who had taken Nazorite vows; 1) John the babtist was an Essene, and Jesus was babtised by him. 2) In one of the dead sea scrolls, Jesus supposably turns down meat offered him at the last supper. 3) Early Christians put there scrolls in Qumran, also associated with John the babtist, and Essene Jews. 4) Jesus was known to have been associated with the Essene Jews (in Galilee) who were famed for their skills in medicine and healing. 5) Jesus wore white robes consistent with Essene tradition. 6) Nazorite's were not always life Nazorite's, (for instance; some were known to take vows for 3 years).

It is notable that Nazorites were (if you like) devout people but not necessarily bound to one sect of Judaism. One might take a vow, similar to the way in which Opus Dai members chose to become numoneries. Also, Jesus was known to interpret Jewish beliefs differently (in an almost buddhist manner), it is possible that whilst taking Nazorite vows, he also took other austerities consistent with Essene traditions (my point is he was not orthodox). Well about approaching the dead, you can only claim that Jesus approached the dead if you are claiming Jesus raised the dead. It seems far more likely to me that he resucitated the unconcious using his skills as a medic, but for those who prefer the 'outside the box' belief that Jesus was God incarnate, in which case he could not have been a Nararite. I know which historical accounts seem more likely to me. I would admit that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, as Nazareth only occurs in any literature over 200 years after after Jesus's birth, I fail to see any decent evidence to substanciate the Gospel version of events either. The fact that the bible canon was heavily sensured post coucil of Nicea, and bits were added to the Gospel of Mathew suggesting the vigin birth etc casts heavy doubt on the validity of many claims in the bible. I think that other views deserve more prominance especially as they tend to be more realistic, don't you? The medival bible claims lots of things about Jesus that are probably fabrications built in to fit the prefered life styles of the 3rd century. So many of the 'other scriptures' promote more asthetic beliefs that simply didn't fit in with the layman Christians who were and are in the majority. Anyway down to references you asked for.

Kersten, H., Gruber, E.R., 1992 The Jesus Conspiracy: Turin Shroud and the Truth About the Resurrection (Paperback) ISBN-10: 1852306661
Ahmed Osman claims in his book Out of Egypt that the name "Essene" is to be translated as "follower of Jesus (Essa)."
Essenes characterized into two groups

Nazarean" Essenes:
"The Nazarean - they were Jews by nationality - originally from Gileaditis [where the early followers of Yeshua fled after the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus], Bashanitis and the Transjordon . . .They acknowledged Moses and believed that he had received laws - not this law, however, but some other. And so, they were Jews who kept all the Jewish observances, but they would not offer sacrifice or eat meat. They considered it unlawful to eat meat or make sacrifices with it. They claim that these Books are fictions, and that none of these customs were instituted by the fathers. This was the difference between the Nazarean and the others. . ." (Panarion 1:18)

"Ossaeanes" Essenes: "After this [Nazarean] sect in turn comes another closely connected with them, called the Ossaeanes. These are Jews like the former ... originally came from Nabataea, Ituraea, Moabitis and Arielis, the lands beyond the basin of what sacred scripture called the Salt Sea. . . Though it is different from the other six of these seven sects, it causes schism only by forbidding the books of Moses like the Nazarean." (Panarion 1:19)

Anyway, look at the wiki page for a start huh! Essenes—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.4.59.203 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 16 February 2007.

This discussion is silly. Guess what? No one in the 1st Century AD called him "Jesus," either. Should we delete the article because of that? Man, the hairs some people feel they need to split... Jinxmchue 21:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. --BenBurch 21:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my point, it should be the purpose of scholars to promote knowledge. You and other scholars that contribute to these articles have the ability to bring our learning to the layman!! Why should laymen not have easy access to information that scholars have to read volumes of books to know. So much rubbish is put out by the Church concerning Jesus, there ought to be better counter argument. I don't wish to split hairs, I wish to use the correct hairs in the first instance. Why promote ignorance in the interest of politics. I suggest modifying the article to reflect the reality of modern theological thought on Jesus. If people thought that Jesus might be a Nazarite, they might even check to see what a Nazarite is, and therefore learn something. Nobody cares about a place, places are where we go on holiday. People do care about concepts. He might have been an Essene Jew! People can read that and ask what is an Essene Jew, and how would that have effected Jesus's own values? If people knew that the name Jesus is not the name used by his diciples, they might begin to realise that translation has altered the bible to the extent that corruption of information has occured over the ages. There are so many people who refuse to believe that the King James version of the bible isn't the exact word of God. It is the duty of scholars to chalenge ignorance not overlook it!!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.4.59.203 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 16 February 2007.

You are spouting crank theories by people who are simply making things up about the Essenes and the Dead Sea Scrolls. These claims are so far beyond rigorous academic scholarship that you may as well say Jesus was really an alien and that the reason the cave in which he was entombed was later empty was because he had beamed back up to his starship and by the say the Dead Sea Scrolls include blueprints for a teleportation device. Pure BS. And it has no place in an encyclopedia, unless you want to contribute to "the Crank's Encyclopedia of BS." Slrubenstein | Talk 12:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

At last we see your true colours. Those scholars don't fit your opinion so you assume them cranks and fraudsters. I've never read anything about aliens and teleportation devices, guess I don't read the right journals lol. I'm sure you'll send me the references hehe. Go to study theology it might open your mind to new perspectives.. You do make me laugh,,,, BEAM ME UP SCOTTY—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.4.59.203 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 17 February 2007.

Please be civil and Assume good faith. I have studied theology, and it did open my mind to new scholarly perspectives. I have seen no evidence that most of these ideas you are presenting are remotely accepted by any serious academic. TheologyJohn 15:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a "undue weight" clause in our neutral point of view policy. This means that we are to try our best to represent the majority scholarly view as such, and not give a disproportionate amount of space to minority view. In fact, some view are so obscure/minority that they don't belong in some top tier articles. Wikipedia is not a place to present The Truth, nor is it a place to catalogue every possible view on a topic. This is why some other editors have asked for sources and questioned the significance of your cited scholars. You see, everything on wikipedia has to be reliably sourced and verifiable. Original research is forbidden. You are claiming that the majority view is wrong and that we need to tell everyone The Truth, because it is theologically significance. Unfortunately, wikipedia is not the appropriate platform to disiminate your ideas. While it may be possible to mention in the article the minority view that Nazereth was not a 1st century town, we'd also have to qualify it by saying most scholars accept it as a very small village. That is how wikipedia works. I hope this clears things up. I suggest you read some of the linked policy points and ask question before assuming this is the place to publish fringe ideas as if they were The Truth. Thanks. Also, please, pretty please, start signing your comments by typing four tildes ~~~~. It will help everyone keep track of who is saying what.-Andrew c 19:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of accuracy how about changing the phrase "in the Bible" to "by scholars" in the line "Jesus' childhood home is identified in the Bible as the town of Nazareth in Galilee." ?

The Bible by describing Jesus as a Nazarene does not necessarily mean he was born in a town with that name as it is the name of a major religious sect of the period that at no time, then or since, had a connection with any town of that name. The Koran also calls Jesus a Nazarene and in this case it is clear it means he was a member of the sect. Wayne 01:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The Colour of Jesus' skin is not important? someone please tell that to the KKK and all those who wquate christ with being white aryan and therefore good.

Martin125.239.93.156 10:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Error in the article

In the introduction to the article it is infered that the Gospels support the view that Jesus is an incarnation of God,, or God incarnate. The phrase 'Son of God' is meant as a metaphor. A Son follows his fathers instructions, therefore anyone who lives to serve only God can call himself a 'Son of God'. Jesus was without sin because he never had or acted on selfish desires, only with intent to act on Gods wishes. In the same way, early followers would refer to themselves as brothers, when in actual fact there was no blood relation!! In the bible and other scriptures always there is prayer before a miracle is performed. The inference is that it is necessary to ask God to 'make it so', and it is not the diciple or the prophet who has the power!!! This mistake to think that some how Jesus is a God comparable to the supreme God is also challenged in The Gospel of John. The diciple Thomas does not believe that Jesus is alive when Jesus visits his diciples in Galilee after his crucifixion. Jesus quite clearly states that he is flesh and blood, he shows Thomas his wounds to prove it!! The inference is that he did not die on the cross but was resurected (more commonly refered to as recuscitation). These errors of doctrine are the false basis for a belief that one man could die for all our sins and that simply believing Jesus was 'Son of God' we can be freed of all sins. Thats why modern Christians wear crosses, despite the fact that their prophet was cruely tortured upon one, which is ironic. There are mentions of Jesus' humanity in Matthew also. The gospel of Matthew states that Jesus is of water and blood, not simply of water. At the very least, the article should state opposing view points to the orthodox lies that only really became prevailent after the emporer Constantine destroyed all opposing views. Now we have the Dead sea Scrolls and the Nag Hamandi library should we not balance the article to reflect all the availible litrature on the life of Jesus? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.149.206.5 (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

You do not understand our POV policiy. Wikipedia never suggests anything is true, only that some people believe something to be true. All you are really saying is people believe lots of different things abiout Jesus. SO what else is new? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well not exactly, I'm suggesting that some belief's are based on reason and proper interpretation of metaphoric parable's of the Bible scriptures (which were the in vogue teaching method of the time), and other belief's are based naive literal interpretation or simply unreasoned dogma. One can believe what one wants of course, but aught not this article clearly point out which things are controvesial when they are first mentioned in the article? We have a resurrection link biasly suggested to be a divine occurence when alot of historians and theologians believe resurection is an old term for what we call resucitation. Both views, only one mentioned when resurection first appears in the article. NPOV neutral point of view, surely that sould mean no one view predominates over the other to the extent that the article appears to accept medival historical opinion. Its as if the article has been written by those who believe the King James version of the bible to be 'Gospel truth'..Wiki can be better than this can't it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.4.59.203 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 16 February 2007.

It is not Wikipedia's place to define "proper" interpretation--or even to investigate what is the proper interpretation. The sole purpose of the Wikipedia Encyclopedia is to report on the views that are present. As editors, we are strictly enjoined against preferring one particular interpretation over another.

If your beliefs are unique to you and you alone, then I fear they would not pass the notability guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia--but please do not be dismayed, because my individual beliefs also would not meet those guidelines. If you belong to a group or denomination that holds to a specific view, then I think the odds are good that your denomination is represented in the Encyclopedia. But this particular article cannot possibly contain the views of every possible group--just a representative sample of the larger groups. And this article will NEVER be changed to adhere to any one particular group's dogma, as doing so would violate WP:NPOV. Justin Eiler 22:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The irony is that reading theology doesn't make one more qualified to write an article for an encylopaedia any more than an ignorant layman who goes to church on a Sunday once a month and who believe's what ever the pries is allowed to say. All priests know what they say in Church is guff, but they can't say anything else because doctrine can't be changed. Taking all views as equal is perverse as promoting ignorance is it not? Jesus spoke in parables to make people think, a fat lot of good it has done him. Now modern encylopaedia's are promoting the views of theistic armchair warriors. Fine, then the purpose of wiki is to allow people to see their own ego written as views in print and online! If wiki really worked, then this article would be more balanced. I would rather encourage people to challenge their conceptions, that would be a better use of wiki, to encourage people to take a journey accross the academic world that they can't normally get at home. Academia isn't just a place where people read a load of books, its a place where rational opinion can be formed and misconceptions exposed for what they are. The dead sea scrolls turned doubt on many doctrines promoted by the holy sea. That is not reflected here. What is the use of wiki if people read an article yet do not come away with an appreciation of the views of the experts as a community? Wiki isn't peer reviewed by experts, but by everyone. Wiki's rules are meant to inforce NPOV, but in this article there is a very notable bias towards church on sunday beliefs! Dogma is for church! I don't want dogma, I want curiosity promoted not dogmatic zeal. I don't belong to any faith or creed. So I can't be labeled with it. My views are not Dogmatic, but open. Thats why I don't like the bias I read in the article. I'm encourageing you all to open the article up to difference, not just any difference but reasoned difference. Wiki reports the views, yes. Here the article also promotes a bias by its treatment of the suject. At the very least, the article should compare christian dogma with modern views better than it does presently??—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.4.59.203 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 16 February 2007.

Wow... Usually the relgious guys (my side of the spectrum) try to push thier beliefs. Didn't think the atheist were that forceful about it. You can't argue a metaphorical interpretation over a literal since (to the best of my knowledge) nowhere in any book of the Bible (New Testament or Old) does it say please PLEASE interpret this metaphorically (or literally). Myself I argue for a literal interpretation since a plea or indication for a metaphorical one is missing from the texts, but thats POV aswell. As for Ministers knowing thier sermons are "guff" that seems a bt offensive to them aswell as to thier congregations (no insult policy on wikipedia btw), and it seems like they wouldnt waste thier time (most of them don't make that much money). Eno-Etile 12:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Jesus didn't take payment for sermons, not even to have enough to purchase food. That is the example for priest to follow. All ministers take theology, so factually they know that the medival doctrine is out of date with existing knowledge. I feel sorry for them that Church rules prevent them from fully sharing their knowledge with the community. An analogy: Its like when your at work and you want to tell your employee's that the board has decided upon a layoff, but the board wants you to keep it quiet to avoid causing a stir and effecting company productivity! It is difficult to take a literal view of the bible. Try pulling a plank out of your eye for instance. But more subtley as we are talkin about; The gospel of John is an example of a text littered with hidden meanings. The early christians loved metaphor, parable and hidden word play. That is why in the bible we see statements eg in Isiah 43:8 "Bring out the people who are blind, even though they have eyes, those who are deaf, even though they have ears!" They are talking about those who see but do not understand! Again in Isiah 6:10. "Make the hearts of these people calloused; make their ears deaf and their eyes blind! Otherwise they might see with their eyes and hear with their ears, their hearts might understand and they might repent and be healed"

Gospel of John: John 6:35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst They know Jesus exists, so they don't need to believe that he is real, its his teaching that Jesus is asking people to take on board.

John 6:51 "I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread also which I shall give for the life of the world is My flesh."

John 6:58 "This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate, and died, he who eats this bread shall live forever."

Again more clearly in Mark And leaving them, He again embarked and went away to the other side. 14 And they had forgotten to take bread; and did not have more than one loaf in the boat with them. 15 And He was giving orders to them, saying, "Watch out! Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod 16 And they began to discuss with one another the fact that they had no bread. 17 And Jesus, aware of this, *said to them, "Why do you discuss the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet see or understand? Do you have a hardened heart? 18 "HAVING EYES, DO YOU NOT SEE? AND HAVING EARS, DO YOU NOT HEAR? And do you not remember, 19 when I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces you picked up?" They *said to Him, "Twelve." 20 "And when I broke the seven for the four thousand, how many large baskets full of broken pieces did you pick up?" And they *said to Him, "Seven." 21 And He was saying to them, "Do you not yet understand?" (Mark 8:16-21 NASB) Now what do you think? Can you really eat Jesus?

By the way, is it not important to encourage people to hear new perspectives? Don't you find some people consider themselves fully Christian, but they do not give up their old ways or even gradualy improve their position. When a man trudges through antartica he must keep moving. Stopping for too long leads to hypothermia and death. Life is like this don't you find. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.4.59.203 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 18 February 2007.

No one article can do justice to all the POV's concerning Jesus - whether Christian or secular or critical or rational or what have you - for practical reasons, this page would simply be too long. Thus, we have created content-forks and much of the material the anonymous user thinks should be here is in fact in a linked article. This article is NPOV compliant: in introduces Jesus in an NPOV way and then summarizes the main source material we have on him, and then provides summaries of the other linked articles that go into detail on all related themes. That is all we can fit in one article. Follow the links if you want more!! Slrubenstein | Talk 13:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Your right one can't do everything straight away, but in time all issues can be balanced I think. It is the trick of the cell to wind thousands of miles of DNA into a space 10 micrometres thick, so it is possible! Content forks are usefull. To be NPOV complient would require a more balanced introduction so people can be aware of the content forks. Or, to say from the outset that the introduction passage supports the Vatican approved version of Jesus', so stating that later in the article other views are registered and disscussed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.4.59.203 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 18 February 2007.

HEY Please sign your comments, type four tildes after your comments.-Andrew c 01:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There instances in the Bible were the metaphor is made obvious (then of course it should eb considered metaphor) such as parables and comments about him being the bread. But I don't see how statements proclaiming that Jesus is the son of God or God himself made flesh can be taken metaphorically as they are never applied to other persons. Also most of the religious principles and beliefs in the Bible and preached by ministers ( protestants at least) predate "medieval ministry." Also sign your comments to aqvoid confusion (also it seems a bit dishonest at the worst and insulting at the best not to)Eno-Etile 08:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh you don't huh? I have something new to give you, for your consideration. Well firstly we take a literal meaning of what a son is for comparison. Traditionally a man and woman etc blah blah, and they produce offspring who are daughter for female or son for male. But God is not a man nor a woman. In the old testament we see that God is everything, and can't be quantified. One can't get over him, around him or through him. We call him God the Father (not because he has a penis) but as a metaphor because our Fathers always do what is best for us, and not what we necessarily desire. That is a key characteristic of God (he does what is right, and is beyond corruption). In the same way, it is traditional that the son does as the father teaches. In the hebrew bible it is said that one should serve one's mother and father. Jesus is the son of God not by genetic lineage but because he serves God the father of us all. In that way anyone may become a son or daughter of God, if one becomes devoted to doing the will of God the Father only. The early Church wanted to paint Jesus as some divine off spring beyond human flesh and bone, as their belief was as such. But in other early Christian writings that did not meet this view, we see a different philosophy. Take the Coptic Gospel of Thomas verse 13; Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to someone and tell me whom I am like!" Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a righteous angel." Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher." Didymus Thomas said to him, "Master, my mouth is wholly incapable of saying whom you are like." Jesus said, "I am not your master. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring which I have measured out."

So here we have Thomas realizing that God can't be quantified, he is everything, dynamically changing all the time. Jesus has no personal desires of his own, yet speaks and acts to serve God. As Thomas realises that you cannot pidgeon hole a devout servant of God, because he will do as God wishes him to do, Jesus tells him that Thomas is no longer subserviant to Jesus, as Thomas understands the truth whereas Simon Peter and Matthew as yet do not. Thomas and Jesus are singing from the same hymn sheet. It is from the 3rd Century onward that other views contrary to the divine Jesus were silienced under a unified Church patronised by Emporer Constantine. From 300AD onward (your right I should have said the Dark ages and the medieval times), all opposing views were draconianly extinguished (the Cathars being an example). Prodestant ministers did not exist until Henry VIII's time, or if you like post Martin Luther (the german). Unfortunatly, anglican prodestant and catholic ministers today may only teach those views concordent with Constantine Christianity even though ministers know theses views to be limited from their studies in Theology. Many double entendre's exist in biblical metaphor's. So although some of them seem obvious, when one's knowledge grows, one can see other hidden meanings, a double lesson (two for the price of one). See how many you can spot in the Gospel of John for instance. Signed-DD

And what exactly is the point of all this again? I must say, you sound quite a bit like a fellow I met on Talk:John Hagee with this "everyone can become a son of God" stuff, and he didn't provide proof verses for that part of his argument either, nor did he seem interested in providing any. Homestarmy 19:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There are many scriptures written accross multiple cultures concerning incarnations of the supreme God (eg Lord Krisna proved he is the supreme God by expanding himself >16,000 times to satisfy >16,000 wives simultaneously, a feet impossible for a mortal). Other times, scriptures record figures who have some special abilities that appear partly divine but who are not considered a complete incarnation of God. Other figures in historical legend concern people who attain spiritual realization of God, and by doing so purify themselves of sin and lead a life as prophets bringing the message about God to the people. There is debate as to whether partly divine incarnations and devout servants of God and quantitatively any different, as both can pray to God and expect prayer to be answered (eg miracles).

What does it matter how many religious works are polytheistic or henotheistic in nature? This article is about a figure who features most prominently in Monotheistic religions such as Christianity, which as the founded religion of the article's topic is logically the one getting the most weight in the article, along with Islam as second, which has just as much stake in Jesus not being some reincarnation of another God as much as Christianity does. Krisna doesn't sound like he proved much of anything other than that when the controls of modern society aren't present in a culture, you can really do a whole lot of adultery in a lifetime if you set your mind to it, that doesn't sound so impossible to me. Special abilities are often ascribed to various people in Scripture because these abilities mostly result from power from God being given to people, such as various OT prophets and the like, not because they're "partial incarnations". I don't know what having "spiritual realization" of God means, but it certainly doesn't purify anyone of sin simply to acknowladge God's existance, it's like telling a judge in a case against you "Well, judge, I know i've done wrong, but I know you're the judge, so let me off!" It makes no sense at all. I don't know who is having this so-called debate about people either being partly deified or just being acted through by God, but it doesn't sound like any debate i've heard in Christianity or Islam. Homestarmy 19:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly I think it important to clear up a few misconceptions about Hinduism as you brought it up. Read the Srimad Bhagavatam (its online). Hinduism is not Polytheistic, its foundation is exactly that of Judaism. In Hinduism there is only one God. The hindu's call him by many names some personal(after incarnations) and some discriptional (almighty, all seeing etc). Some sects call God Krsna/Krishna (the Vaisnaivites) some call him Siva/Shiva (the Shivites), others the supreme Brahman, others still Ishvara. They all agree that knowone is equal in power to supreme one God. Hinduism promotes one supreme God. They describe him as everything that exists (and out of him everything is made). In Hinduism God lives in a spiritual world (Eden in the bible). He expands part of himself to create Maha Visnu (an expansion of God responsible for creating the material world). Maha Visnu is described as being asleep in the Brahmajyoti (a watery boundary between the spiritual world and the material world). In his dreamy state he expands parts of himself to create the many universes. Into each universe another from of Visnu enters (a second partial expansion of the supreme and one God). From this second Visnu, Brahma is born. Brahma is called the first born (one born without father or mother). Brahma is the first Devas or demi God. Demi Gods in Hinduism are equivalent to angels in Judaism. They are not other Gods, they are partial expansions of the one supreme God. In Hinduism the Devas Brahma creates all things within the Universe from matter. Living creatures (Jiva's in Hindaism) are made of inert matter into which a soul occupies (individual souls are known as atma's). Brahma is the partial expansion of the supreme one God (Allah in Islam, YHWH in Judaism) who created mankind. In Judaism we have the tower of babel, Jonah and the whale and Noah and the great flood. These events are also documented in the Srimad Bhagavatam. Judaism and the Vedic Hindu religions are definatly linked and at one point would have been the same religion before the tribes of man migrated and diverged (post tower of babel). It is interesting that Zoroasterism (Persian religion) shares many linguistic terms with Sanskrit Hinduism, and Zoroasterism as a religion is very similar to Judaism with its belief in Heaven and hell,the devil and demons. Partial expansions (partial incarnations) means that the resulting being does not have the same power/knowledge as God. In a way, we are all partial expansions of God, some more partial than others. For instance, angel Gabriel is less partial (more powerfull) than a human being. To understand a God and his actions is impossible, just as it is impossible to recognise the picture of a Jigsaw looking at one of the pieces. As a God, Krisna can expand himself into anything. Also he can expand himself without losing energy. His expansions are describe analogous to our dreaming! We dream many things without expending energy. Because God is able to satisfy an infinate number women simultaneously by his expansions he is justifibly able to have an infinate number of wives whilst incarnated upon any planet in his many universes. Humans only have the energy and time to have limited number of wives, hence it is better for us to only bite off what we can chew. We can best handle affairs when we only have one partner. But in the middle east it was not uncommon for wealthy Jews to have many wives. In Islam a similar view predominates. Adultery does not apply to Gods therefore. Krisna is God incarnate and is not a partial expansion but God appearing (as an illusion) as human form. Despite the many names for God in Hinduism and Dravidian religions, they all aspouse one supreme God. Spiritual realisation is the start process to becomeing devoted to God. As you know from Genesis, Eve was tempted by a snake like creature to eat an apple off the Tree of life. The snake wanted to convince Eve that by eating the apple she could become as powerfull and knowledgeable as God. The initial sin is that of humans believeing they can be equal to God. From that moment on, Eve and Adam are thrown out of Gods spiritual domain (Eden) and sent to roam the world untill they die. Every human after this has the illusion that he/she can be a God and rule over everything he/she puts their mind to. Such illusion causes despots to create empires etc. The first step required for humans to re-establish relations with God is therefore to accept that we are not caperble of equaling God, nor even caperble of percieving his plans. We have to reject our own initial sin. We have the ability to reason (qualitativly the same as God), but not the volume of knowledge to have God's perspective on things, so we are quantitativly inferior to God. Spiritual realisation is simply realising our subserviance to God. To reside with God requires far more than just this! 'Liberation' or 'ascension (the language used in the bible)' requires that the individual devote life to serve God. In order to have any chance of achieving this, one must learn to control one's own desires for uncontrolled gratification of the senses. In order to serve God, one must be able to follow Gods requests, not those of one's own disires. This is what Jesus is promoting. Jesus suggest we should not buy what we don't need, therefore we don't need lots of money. Infact chaseing money in order to better provide for one's own desires and excessive is heavily critisized by Jesus ("it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven"). As one does not have Gods full perspective we are advised by Jesus not to personally judge anyone's actions or beliefs (we as humans are all similar in that we have the illusion that by eating the apple we are equal to God). You might recall Jesus teaching "Before you pull the twig out of your brothers eye, first pull the plank out of your own". It is the illogical belief that through believing Jesus died for our sins on the cross we are liberated from sin, that causes lazyness among Christians. Jesus promoted changing one's behaviours as a path to liberation from sin. Jesus promoted people to believe in his reasoned teachings rather than illogical Jewish traditions. The first step to altering one's behaviour is to alter the attitude that controls one's reasoning and logic. Therefore spiritual realisation is the first step to liberation, certainly not all that is required. Perhaps now I have described the terms in a way you can relate, you might recognise the theology.

86.4.59.203 22:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Pharisee
In all religions except Buddhism there is a concept of a supreme God whom generates/creates all things whether living entities or inanimate matter. Quoting verses for this generalization is not necesary for this I hope, can we agree? Given the nature of creation, all created beings belong to the one who created them, can we agree at that? Now it is also common agreement that God is infinite and indefinable by anyone, most people would agree to that to right? Ergo, one can say that either Jesus is an incarnation of God himself, or he is imperfect and therefore not God but something else. In fact we can more clearly say that although Jesus is qualitativly comparible to God, he is quantitativly inferior. If we are saying Jesus is God himself, he would have no need to label himself 'Son of God', as why would a God incarnate describe himself as his own offspring? Why would a CEO discuise himself as his own son and go around telling employees what to do, when he could do the same as himself? By this reasoning, we can suggest that Jesus is not God in totality because it makes sense. Why pray to one's self? I'm not asserting that everybody can be a son of God. I am implying that God created us all, and we are therefore all constitutionally Sons/daughters of God. Mankinds sin is to deny our relationship to God, and believe we ourselves can run our own ship independently from God. This sin in its extreame eventually leads us to completely deny the existence of God, leading to atheism.

Actually, Deism is likely to be ambiguous on the matter since it has few highly defined doctrines about much, and I presume Pantheism would say that god never needed to create the universe since pantheism says that the universe is God. (In fact, isn't Hinduism like that too in a certain way?) While I would agree everything that God created does belong to him ultimatly, that doesn't automatically mean Jesus is either an incarnation of God or not God, ever wonder if perhaps He actually is God? You seem to of left Christian scripture out of your thesis. Jesus is God, and yet is still an individual, this is all Hypostatic union stuff, which reconciles the many instances where Jesus does something which doesn't seem like God, and the instances where Jesus does seem like God. An individual can describe himself as his father's offspring, and can worship his father. What is this "Constitutionally"? There is no definition of children in the U.S. constitution that I know of, and God certainly cannot be legistlated into obeying whatever standards of modern society people these days would prefer Him to obey. Who is that quote from, it sounds like one of Pope Benedicts speeches.... Homestarmy 19:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Homestarmy: I dealt with the nature of hinduism in my reply to your earlier comments above. My position on Deism is that God prefers to work in mysterious ways. Miracles tend to draw attention away from Jesus' teachings, which I think Jesus would have used them spareingly if at all. Jesus had links to the Essene Jews of Galilee. They were well known healers of the first century. Ergo it is plausible that Jesus did not raise people from the dead, rather he recusitated them. However, Jesus could have prayed to God and had miracles to occur, or alternatively he could have been a direct incarnation of God who called himself a son of God because Jews would have stoned him for blasphemy if he proclaimed to be God incarnate. All possiblities are interesting. Judaism states God to be everything, therefore that includes our universe. Think about it, God the creator makes everything, only we have the illusion of God creating things indirectly, when infact his intentions are empowered through beings he created designed for Gods purposes. Evolution is Gods system, nature is Gods design. He does not design without purpose, so everything created is created with direct intention. The argument can be made for Jesus being divine. From the language Jesus uses, it is my opinion that Jesus is a sinless being whom was sent to do the will of God the father, as the son does the will of a father. He is not human because he is sinless (all humans cary the sin of Adam and Eve), yet he has a body that appears mortal. In the bible it says of Jesus "he is of blood and water, not water alone", and water is often used in a spiritual context. I have no problem with Jesus being able to call on God to exact miricles (in the way other disciples did after the crucifixion). It is Gods way to empower those who are doing his will. I'm not saying its inconcievable for Jesus to have been a complete incarnation of God, but his own language used in the bible hints that is not so. Others may be illusioned by a God into thinking an incarnation of God is in fact only human, but Jesus uses language to describe himself as the son acting for the father. Look up constitution(ally) and read the alternative meanings, I shall say no more about that. Actually I am not entirely sure Jesus is not an incarnation of God. There are other powerfull arguments, but my purpose here is to expose alternative valid explainations that have basis in scripture. It is true that in the 'Acts of Thomas', Jesus' youth is described. Here, Jesus causes the death of children that insult him, only to bring them back to life when his father Joseph chastises him. Also other stories in this 'Acts of Thomas' generally paint Jesus to be a mischievious boy, which is similar to the way that 'Krishna's' childhood is described in the Vedas. However there are also powerfull physical evidence based arguments (see books by Holger Kersten concerning the turin shroud) suggesting that Jesus never died upon the Cross! Instead these arguments suggest he was treated by Essene healers similar to himself, and escaped by fleeing to Galilee where he showed Thomas his wounds, and then escaping from the grasp of the Roman empire by travelling to the lost tribes of Isreal (in Afganistan, Persia and Hindustan/Nepal). Indeed, old testament scripture predicts the messiah to tender to all the 'people of God' (ie the Jews). In order to do this, Jesus would have to spread the message to the lost tribes in Asia, and Africa. It is therefore at the very least interesting that Buddhist writtings from Nepal speak of Issa the Messiah (Issa being an aramaic deriation of Yeshua). Then there is the documents suggesting Myriam Magdalane traveled accross the mediteranian (which passes by North Africa where some of the other lost tribes of Israel are settled to this day) and ended up passing through Spain and France (where Jewish people were also present at the time of Jesus). It seems plausible that Jesus had in mind meeting the scriptures exactly, with the help of his 'favourite' disciple. It is claimed that Jesus died in Srinigar age 120 years old by those who hold these writings. There is even a tomb in Srinigar containing two bodies! One of which is buried in the Jewish manner from east to west, where as the other body in the sepulchre faces north to south in the manner of the buddhists. As well as that, in Srinigar has and other area's artifacts have been found with Aramaic on them, as well as Sanskrit and Greek. On a lighter note, I can assure you I don't write speeches for the Pope, as you have no doubt worked out, I don't ascribe to Constantinian views concerning Jesus and the nature of salvation lol.

86.4.59.203 00:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Pharisee. Jesus' purpose was to reconnect people to their creator, to help reestablish people's relationship to God in order to serve him. When people realise their relationship to God, they develop a love of God and decide to serve God by spreading the message to others. Thus they are liberated from their original sin and realise themselves to be son's/daughters of God by their behaviour and resultant actions. A son does as his father tells him, as the commandment says "Love your mother and your father and honour them"! Please understand me, I'm not suggesting that people can become powerfull and do miracles themselves as is written in some scriptures! For me God works indirectly as a preference. As only God exists, it follows that everyone is made of God; out of himself he creates everything. We are all parts of God, as a jigsaw piece is a small part of the whole image. Therefore, if any miracles were performed through Jesus, they were done by God in response to prayer, not by Jesus. Also, miracles can only be achieved if the prayer is for the benefit of God. The central observation is that if Jesus were God, he wouldn't need to pray to God himself in order to work a miracle. Jesus is like God, as he does as God wishes. That is what Didymus Thomas is saying in the verse quoted which you replyed to. As God cannot be compared to anyone, Thomas realises that Jesus is like God, as a son is like a father. Didymus Thomas does not say, Jesus you are incomparable to anybody. signed DD—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.4.59.203 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 19 February 2007.

Jesus' purpose according to scripture had many aspects, of which reconnecting people to their creator was not the primary one. The Jewish people already knew the creator, I mean come on, they were God's people. According to Christianity, Jesus came to sacrifice Himself for the sins of the world, since as God, only He would be powerful enough to take the punishment for our sins that an infinitly just God should give to us all. Becoming born again, which is what someone who has accepted Jesus' gift of salvation becomes, does indeed cause a person develop a love of God and often want to evangelize themselves, but not because doing so will save them, but because they are already saved and are now driven to serve Jesus. I don't know what theology you're using, but your message doesn't sound like it was the primary message of Jesus at all. For you, God might work indirectly and we might all be part of God as per a mix of Hinduism or Pantheism it sounds like, but that doesn't mean this Wikipedia article should reflect that Jesus' primary message somehow reflects your beliefs which, I have to say, I never remember hearing before anytime in my life. What is with the weird change of beliefs in mid thought though? You just got done above saying that many "scriptures" recount different events of God creating the world, then say that there is no creation at all, but rather that only God exists. It is not "the" central observation that Jesus wouldn't need to pray to God, but rather "a" central observation of what I presume is your belief, which by the way, contradicts the Bible, which recounts Jesus praying in the Garden of Gesemene. Now, this quote you claim from Thomas sounds like heresy if it really says that Jesus is merely like God without actually being God, is this from the Gospel of Thomas, a Gnostic and non-Christian text? Homestarmy 19:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

According to Constantine's christianity "Jesus came to sacrifice Himself for the sins of the world". Many sects of Christianity did not belief this statement, most of them were 'silienced' (i think you know what I mean by this' by the instruments of the Catholic Church. For instance, when is killing the cathars an exceptable part of Christs teachings, not to put to fine a point to it! We are responsible for our own sin, just as it was Adam and Eve's choice to eat the apple and defy God. Nobody dieing on a cross can remove our sins, even if we believe Jesus is God. Like you said earlier, you can't gain salvation from simply believing a God exists. The message the holy see promotes is that salvation is a simple matter of belief that Jesus died on the cross for our sins. There is as I have mentioned in other replys to you, considerable doubt that Jesus actually died during his crucifixion, nobody died within 3 hours, and most crucifixee's were tortured just like Jesus. Also, James the righteous (just) also suffered horribly for his affiliation to Jesus, so the act of myterdom is not unique to Jesus (if we presume for a second that Jesus even did expire on the cross). Born again christians are an American invention, and that term 'born again' is 20th century. Most born again Christians don't bother themselves to investigate the Jesus anthology to the extent that they might form reasoned belief in God. They simply blindly accept that Jesus died for their sins, and for them that is enough basis for their salvation. Most born again christians (note i'm not suggesting all but rather a large majority) don't even know what the 'council of Nicea' did to the christian world, they'd rather not complicate their belief's because proper research is hard work and challenges one's faith. Yet a faith unchallenged by reason, and based upon very little exploration is not really a faith at all is it. It would be very nice (and far too easy) for salvation to be granted by accepting a historical statement that Jesus died for our sins. Nothing that important comes from so little effort. They don't serve Jesus anyway. Most evangelicals only go to church, and give to charity. This is not serving God. In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus says "do not give alms for this will bring sin upon you", ergo giving people material help such as food or blankets to the homeless does nothing to bring Jesus' message to those who are ignorant. Again I notice you make a misconception about hinduism. Only some sects of hinduism believe in the impersonal concept of God. The largest of the schools (the vaisnaivite school), believe in the personal God in the same way Jesus taught. Do not make the mistake of believing that Hinduism is a pantheistic religion for it is not. There is only one God, and his angels, or one supreme God and his demi gods, its one and the same. The primary message of Jesus is one to correct the corruptions or bad interpretations of the Torah and old testament. An eye for an eye became 'love thy enemy'. Observe the Sabbath became 'have compassion even on the day of rest. These challenges to Jewish sentiment was one of the key purposes of his ministry. Salvation cannot be attained by believing that Jesus died for our sins upon the cross. That is not enough, and is certainly only the views of post Constantine christianity (as shown up by the dead sea scrolls and the nag hammandi library. The fact that you have not heard these views is not so suprising. Unless you study the dead sea scrolls/nag hammandi library in theology college, and make a concerted effort to check the lay of the land in regard to your beliefs, your not likely to know more perspectives than your own knowledge can support. We are all parts and parcels of God. Our souls are eternal, like God. From your perspective you will probably tell me that you don't know about the 3 different energies of God. You won't probably know (or correct me if I'm wrong) that God has internal energy (or that which is spiritual and exists in the predominatly in the spiritual world) and external energy (that which makes up all physical parts of the material worlds). Living beings are made up of a soul (from Gods internal energy) which inhabits the body (which is made of external energy, or that which science can measure). Therefore it is correct to say that there is a bit of Gods personal touch or spirit in every one of us. Also within us is the Gods supersoul. The supersoul is what most people refer to as conscience, but other than that it reports our every action during our lives, and this is how we can be judged after death. So that is an explaination of how we relate to God, are souls are a part of Gods internal immortal energy which can never be destroyed. Salvation (also called ascension meaning to rise up) is where the our spirits transmigrate to the spiritual world if we obtain liberation. If you fail to reach liberation or salvation, you are judged for you sins, and you pay for you bad actions in purgatory before you are reborn in the material world again. After all, why would god completely destroy his own creations when it was he who made them who they are? Don't anwser that, you can't, knowbody can know Gods perspective. It is logical to assume that if Jesus was God, he wouldn't need to pray to himself. Its not a belief as much as it is a reasoned thought. Simply, I brought this up to highlight some strangeness and contradictory aspects of official new testament scripture. I know its not what is taught, but the fact is that the scriptures in the bible were not written by Jesus or God or even by the disciples as most of them couldn't write or died of Roman or Jewish persecution. It is plausible that alot of discordant works were fused to make the bible. You would need to research this for yourself because you probably won't believe it at face value until you look into how the bible was compiled and how those who compiled it made their decisions as to what was and what wasn't to be included in the final cannon. Suffice to say that mear humans (corruptions and all) had the final say as to what was and what wasn't the truth. Thats why alot of verses in the new testament bible contradict themselves here and there. The final decisions about what was included were based on certain core beliefs which many sects of christianity did not hold. Those texts that didn't go against these beliefs were included. The fact that those texts didn't always agree in philosophy didn't matter to the church, so long as the core beliefs weren't directly critizied. God is complex, and it is not possible even with all the time in the world to ever know all. To be certain, whether Jesus is God or not is immaterial to the question of which beliefs you adopt. If you take the decisions of only one kind of christian philosophy over all the other suppressed beliefs, you allow yourself to be a victim of the draconian slaughter of opposing views by the early version of the vatican. You call them heretical views but those are not your words. Heresy is what the vatican calls any beliefs about Jesus which don't fit their dogma. It is ironic that the entymological root of the word Heresy means 'choice', which is exactly what was extinguished when the Roman church suppressed other christian sects. Political corruptions of the legitimate scriptures of various religions have occured throughout history, christianity being the most well documented. To really know God, one needs to drop one's attitude that one religion has it all. If you research many religions you will see the common thread of what is true and also the malicious tyre marks of corrupt beliefs. You usually find that corrupt beliefs are not shared accross many religions whereas true ones are. Here is a paradox for you as we shall say no more now we clearly understand each others views. If God is omnipotent as it says in the bible, then he must know what is in the hearts and minds of men. Therefore he must know what we need and when. Therefore when you pray for something, are you not telling God what he already knows? Would not God know exactly Jesus' feelings in Gethsemany Gardens without Jesus praying? Was not the purpose of prayer at Gethsemany for Jesus to remind himself that all events happenings no matter how painful for Jesus would have to occur because it was Gods will, and he was a servant of God? Is not Christianity only a name (not even in use by early christians)? Whom do you accept the word of concerning what is and isn't Christian, and how well do you know these arguments? Are you willing to risk failing to reach salvation during this life because you didn't check who, where, how, and why one book was compiled the way it was? Can you stand up infront of St Peter (or Yama in Hinduistic belief) and justify being taken in by a lie because you couldn't care enough to research that which didn't fit one version of events? Do you know the difference between a gnostic and a Mandaeist, and Essene and a Nazarene, a Nazarite and a Nazarene, a facist Hitler and a facist church who killed to extinguish choice? If you knew well all the views, history and how religions differ/relate would you be in a better position to Choose?

86.4.59.203 01:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Pharisee.

"Here is a paradox for you as we shall say no more now we clearly understand each others views". So now you won't even listen to any reply or answer I give, and won't even let me correct your understanding of salvation in Christianity? I'd be interested in seeing this non-existant Bible verse that advocates that simple acknowladgement of Jesus' sacrifice gives someone salvation, that's certainly a new one to me. Homestarmy 14:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort to "sign" your posts, but the way we sign our posts on wikipedia is by typing four tildes (~~~~). This automatically generates a timestamp and helps keep track of who is saying what. You can see that every other user on this talk page is signing their posts in this manner. If you want a user name, you can easily register one. It's fast and free. Once you are registered, you can create a custom signature. Finally, you do not need to type any html elements, like the line breaks (<br />). Wikipedia automatically codes a carrier return as a line break. You can see that other users are typing colons before their paragraphs in reply to you. This indents the comment and is another common method of seperating your comments from other comments. Hope these things help.-Andrew c 01:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Andrew. 86.4.59.203 23:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)DD.

Okay 1- Everything you said is BS. 2- Trying to understand, define, and limit an all powerful being is impossible as your finite comprehension can not grasp the infinite. 3: Neither my POV nor yours is suitable for an encyclopedia. ANd as the majority believe that Jesus claimed to be God/ Son of God then the majority reigns. The only source we have for the words of Christ (that I'm aware of) is the New Testament and as people interpret it many different ways its not exactly easy or logical to assign one interpretation as an absolute.Eno-Etile 03:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ordering

While I have no quarrel with the material here (few articles could have been as thoroughly developed) I question the order of topics. This is a secular encyclopedia, it would stand to reason to begin with the section on historicity and then follw with the religious view. Haiduc 16:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say this is one of situation where the religious view of the subject is more pertinent than the historical record (Along with Mohammed, Krishna, etc.)--Isotope23 16:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I would also have to agree with the order as is--not that it's necessarily more pertinent (that's a matter of subjective interpretation), but that the religious view has had a far greater impact than the scholarly. Justin Eiler 16:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That is actually what I meant by pertinent...--Isotope23 17:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I will not go against the general opinion in this case, but I wonder to what extent it is determined by the perspective of the editors. As a non-religious (but not non-spiritual) person, I would prefer the more neutral "this is the man and this is why he was important" approach, rather than the other way around. I imagine that the reason the prophets are done in reverse order is some proprietary interest by those who are especially interested in them for their religious roles. I think that an illustrative example is to see how a relatively minor figure is treated. Look at Joseph Smith, Jr. and you will see what I mean. Here the editors were able to put some distance between themselves and their subject. With Jesus it has not happened - not that it is not an excellent article, just that the ordering betrays a devotion that is not shared by all. Haiduc 18:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, secular is not the same as reasoned. One can be a dumb secularist. Wiki should try to stick to reason as opposed to biased view points predominating. We owe our universities, schools and education establishments to the religious establishment (the Vatican and Anglican establishments) who funded, developed and ran our 1st universities. As such, reason in europe was promoted heavily by the Church. It is over time that reason became suppressed, and usually as a result of political interference. Now that the Church and state have become separated, it is our governments who wish us to think that the church has always been irrational. Not so, the Church has always been used by politians/feudal kings to promote government lines of thinking. Views on the history of Jesus are interesting, but for a person interested in Theology they are of secondary importance to the philosophy taught to us by Jesus. Signed DD—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.4.59.203 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 16 February 2007.

Sufic views

This section is very poor. It is unsourced, POV, and probably giving undue weight to a minority view. What can we do to improve the section? I feel having a concise paragraph could help this article, but do not have enough knowledge on the subject to write it up. I do not feel the current text is workable and would propose removing it for the time being, but wanted to come to talk first. -Andrew c 15:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

parables

I added the gospels' explanation for why Jesus used parables. If we're going to mention parables, and we should, we should also explain Jesus' motivation for using them in the first place. I understand that not everyone is going to be happy referring to Mark 4:11-12, but parables are key to Jesus' teaching, so his motivation for using parables seems worthy of mention. Plenty of folks interpret these verses to show Jesus implicitly rejecting the Jews, but I avoided that controversial interpretation. Jonathan Tweet 15:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you are taking a verse out of context and thus presenting your own interpretation of the text. Mark 4:23 suggests a different interpretation. My point is not that my interpretation is better than yours. I am not a fundamentalist; I think there may be many interpretations of the text. But our NOR policy insists that we not do the interpreting. If you know of scholars or clerics or theologicans who have forwarded this interpretation I am sure there is an appropriate place to present their view, properly sourced. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No interpretation of Mark 4:11 is necessary, but the words in posted in the article by Jonathan Tweet are a bit extreame! Jesus did not wish to prevent newcomers from understanding his teachings. More likely Jesus realised that simply literally explaining a philosophy (without relating it to people's life's) would appear distant and abstract. Parables are a way of explaining a concept within a story. Mark 4:11 its a literal statement that anyone reading the text would agree with. It reads: "He told them, "You've been given insight into God's kingdom--you know how it works. But to those who can't see it yet, everything comes in stories, creating readiness, nudging them toward receptive insight or the other King James version "He said to them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those outside, everything is in parables". Jesus is clearly using parables to gently introduce his teachings, hardly suprising. No scholar would come up with a theory on this because its a plain as the nose on one's face! Also, Mark 4:23 pretty much backs up Mark 4:11 because those who had "ears to hear" and "eyes to see" are those who could interpret the parables, (ie those who had already insight into what Jesus' teachings were about) could relate to the parables, whereas those who were unfamiliar might not see the true meanings straight away but would have something tangible to go away with and ponder. Putting it this way would avoid POR contravesy. The bible verse does not need interpreting! No metaphor exists in Mark 4:11, therefore NOR policy would not be crossed by adding a sentence. We are not interpreting anything as Christ's words are being quoted direct from The Gospel of Mark. Perhaps a comprimise would involve using different wording to clarify what is meant. For instance:

"At the height of his ministry, Jesus attracted huge crowds numbering in the thousands, primarily in the areas of Galilee and Perea (in modern-day Israel and Jordan respectively). Some of Jesus' most famous teachings come from the Sermon on the Mount, which contained the Beatitudes and the Lord's Prayer. Jesus often employed parables, such as the Parable of the Prodigal Son and the Parable of the Sower, to provoke thought among those new to his teachings, to encourage them gradually toward a receptive attitude. (Mark 4:11–12). 86.4.59.203 22:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Pharisee

Curious readers are instructed to review the verses in question [23]. If I'm taking the verse out of context, show me. I've been wrong before. The section in question is Jesus according to the gospels, and I'm just taking what the gospels say at face value. There's no interpreting going on so there's no need to find a scholar to say "Jesus meant what he said."(Meanwhile, the very next sentence in the section makes a broad, summary statement with no Bible verses or scholarly statements to back it up. Why hasn't that been reverted?) Jesus is plainly saying that the purpose of the parable format is to prevent at least some in the audience (and apparently most) from being forgiven. It's the gospel truth. In what sense is this out of context? Here's Jesus himself telling us why he uses parables. Not relevant? False? I don't understand the issue. Are there other verses where he plainly gives a contradictory reason for using parables? I'd love to see one. Mark 4:23 is in line with 4:10-12; Jesus' message isn't for everyone, only for those with ears to hear. Furthermore, 4:23 doesn't answer the question, "Jesus, why do you teach in parables" as 4:10-12 does. And on the tangential topic of reverting, I was quite surprised when I read WP policy on the topic (WP:Revert) because it doesn't match how I see reversion being used. Jonathan Tweet 15:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Jesus would not want to prevent anyone from understanding God. Imagine being Jesus for a second. Your teaching a bunch of people a new philosophy and selling it as a better interpretation of the Jewish religious scriptures than traditional interpretations. The main issue for Jesus is how to deliver his message without causing immediate contempt from Jews with intrenched views (you can lead a horse to water but making it drink is another matter). One way to teach someone is to relate what you are teaching to the listener through a story. This way, the Jewish listener is forced to think about the situation and the reasoning before he/she realises that the message is not traditional Judaism. Now lets say that Jesus wishes to explain something to those closer to him such as the 12 disciples (something that will further their higher understanding of Jesus' message). But he can't deliver the teaching plainly because there are neophytes (people new to his teachings) who have not heard the foundation of Jesus' message and so therefore have no point of reference. Therefore he uses a parable within which he hides his message, using language and metaphor that only his disciples (and those close to him) have heard before and are familiar with. Using the parable, Jesus allows those who are ready for higher teachings to recieve instruction without causing confusion among those new to the message. Mark 4:10 and 4:23 touch upon these issues. 86.4.59.203 21:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Pharisee

The idea that Jesus is using parables to make it easy on his listeners makes sense, but that's not what Jesus himself says about why he uses parables. Jesus says "everything is said in parables so that, 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'" He says he uses parables in order to fulfill prophecy that his listeners will fail to understand and therefore fail to be forgiven. Jesus' own words. If he also says somewhere that he's using parables to make his message easier to take, then find the Bible verse where he says that. This section is about what the gospels say, not about what we think makes sense. Jonathan Tweet 21:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The answer to this valid point you raise is as complex as God himself. Why would Jesus or God wish to prevent people reaching salvation, surely God would prefer his flock to be gathered! You must see the absurdity of a God who wants to favouritize and only alow some and not others to find salvation? Consider this! Jesus has probably said a great deal of things about parables, much of which was never written down. A more sensible view based on the compasion of Christ is that Jesus teaches to people with different levels of knowledge, and that parables sort out those who are advanced in his school of thought from those who are less ready to hear what is said or to see what is really painted. Jonathan, the bible was compiled by a select number of religious scholars at the expense of those who were not in favour with the Roman empire. Rome wanted to quell Christian insurgency, therefore it devised a cunning plan. Make Christianity the official religion of Rome, then make everyone follow it. Therefore, the Christians would stop causing disruption to the authoirities in Rome. There first problem is how to make Christianity ( a term covering alot of differing sects located accross the middle east, Asia and Europe) all part of one Church? The answer they came up with was to define one position that suited the Roman viewpoint of religion, and thow all other views and their adherents into oblivion. Over time, most so called heretical views were quelled. The cathars and the Knights templar being the last to be killed. Unfortunatly for the Roman Church, two of those sects managed to preserve scrolls hidden away for centuries and centuries until the 20th century AD. What I'm trying to say is that the bible is not words directly from God, politics has corrupted, the bible is not to be the only source of a thinking mans arsenal of knowledge concerning Jesus! 86.4.59.203 01:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC) Pharisee

That's marvelous, really, but what does it have to do with the article...? This is an article talk page. --Deskana (request backup) 02:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

People contribute to the encyclopaedia. To promote people to think, question and explore different views will eventually lead to a better article, and also help those people find better perspectives on their own search for God. I bet you yourself could think of a dozen equally valid reasons for talking about these things in a Jesus discussion forum ;-) 86.4.59.203 02:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Pharisee

This isn't a discussion forum, though. It's meant for discussing the article, not its subject. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

We are discussing the core values that hold the article up. To develop the article one needs to allow effective communication between the editors about all aspects of it. We are discussing the article and the merits of what is written, and also the merits of the sources used to establish credibility. To deny that discussion is to promote ignorance. The rules should allow editors to debate issues pertaining to parts of the article. That is all we are doing here, and it is one use for the discussion page. The other is to discuss matters of wiki doctrine. We are following on from one of these matters which was a discussion the rational basis for taking out an edit made by Jonathan tweet. In that we are respecting him. 86.4.59.203 02:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC) Pharisee

"In that we are respecting him." Aw, thanks!

OK, I can accept that certain verses are not to be referred to in the body of the text -- too touchy. I stuck it in a footnote. Jonathan Tweet 04:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC) That is no solution - NOR applies to footnotes as well as to the article. Here is another interpretation of the verse: Jesus was doing what Pharisees typically did, which was to tqake a verse from the Bible and, without claiming to contradict it, put it in a new interpretive frame that changes its meaning (this was a widespread and well-documented process among Jews in the 1st century). In this case there is a verse from Isaiah that suggests that God will make people blind much as he hardened Pharoah's heart, in order to justify acting on his wrath by destroying 90% of the Children of Israel; Jesus suggests instead that it is not God that makes people who might otherwise see and thus repent blind, but rather simply that some people of their own accord are capable of understanding and others are not. This seems to me to be a much more generous apporach to human folly than Isaiah's and is perhaps why Christians commonly contrast the wrathful God of the OT with the loving God of the NT. This distinction certainly became well-established in Christianity. Rabbinic Judaism instead reinterprets the Bible (in a way rather similar to Jesus) in order to claim that God really was/is not as wrathful as one might think. In any event, all I want to do is show how more than one interpretation of this chapter of Mark is possible. The fact remains, editors' interpretations do not go into the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

We agree that opinions stay out. Let's just use Jesus' plain words, that he obscured his message to prevent (at least some) people from being forgiven. Let's not interpret anything. Jonathan Tweet 03:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Listen, you are just going to have to accept the fact that not everyone is a Christian fundamentalist. You take the text literally and think you are not making any interpretations. I respect a Christian fundamentalist's right to read their Bible however they want to. But you cannot impose your views on Wikipedia. As soon as you say "that he obscured his message to prevent (at least some) people from being forgiven" you are interpreting the text, and the fact that you claim that this is the plain meaning of the words doesn't change the fact that you are expressing your fundamentalist POV which others do not share. NPOV means that we do not provide only one interpretation, and we never put in our own interpretation. Selecting which words to quote is itself an interpretive act. The only way to do this without interpreting would be to quote all the Gospels and that is not going to happen. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking the text at face value because that's what this section is about, "Jesus as revealed in the gospels." Or perhaps I'm mistaken. Maybe this section is "Jesus as revealed in the gospels as interpreted to match modern sensibilities." That would explain why there's such scant reference to Jesus promising to destroy people. Anyway, I left out any interpretation of the verses. Can we agree to let Jesus speak for himself on this topic, or is Mark 4:10-12 just not suitable for a summary of Jesus' ministry, even in a footnote? Jonathan Tweet 16:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I repeat: NPOV applies to footnotes as well. Taking the quote out of context is itself an interpretive act. We should summarize Gospel accounts insofar as they are non-controversial. But when we get to anything that is a matter of interpretation it is best to leave it for another place where we can go into different interpretations. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If, by "controversial," you mean "not clear what it means," then we should be cautious. If, by "controversial," you mean people don't want to see the plain meaning of the text, then that needs to be handled in the religious perspectives section. This section is what the gospels say. The Religious Perspectives section is what people interpret the gospels to mean. "I don't think Jesus would say that" is not a controversy, it's POV. So the issue is whether Jesus' meaning is clear. Is there another, contrary gospel verse that throws this one into doubt? Maybe there is, Let's see one. If not, if this is Jesus' only explanation for why he speaks in parables, then it is relevant to the extent that his parables are relevant. Jonathan Tweet 14:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I mean the former. And I agree with you that we should not be asking ourselves whether Jesus would have said that. But if we are workign on an encyclopedia I think we must do research and research on Jesus does not mean reading the Gospels, it means reading commentaries on the Gospels (e.g. the Anchor Bible, as well as various Chrisitian commentaries) and books by historians to see how scholars and others have interpreted the Gospels. in some cases there may be consensus on the reliability of a passage and its meaning. In other cases, they may not be - and that is where I think we need to be especially cautious. What this page needs is fewer people who are trying to interpret a primary source (the Gospels) - and thus violating NOR, and more people doing research on real secondary sources (again, the Anchor Bible springs to mind, I am sure others have other commentaries). Then we can have articles on Christology or Jesus' ministry that are real encyclopedia articles and comply fully with our policies, and perhaps spend less time trying to fight POV battles out on this page (Jonathan, much of this is directed at general readers, not just you personally). Slrubenstein | Talk 14:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The article currently says "Jesus' explanation that he intentionally obscured his message Mark 4:10-12 is not to be taken at face value". Should we be telling the reader how to "take" Jesus' words? I do not care for this phrasing, and if we are going to be interpreting Jesus' words, we need citation (and possibly moving it out of this section into the corresponding 'views...' section).-Andrew c 01:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Slr: Boy howdy, but now I'm REALLY confused. Currently, the whole gospel section is innocent of scholarly footnotes or intrepretation. It seems to be pretty much the gospels speaking for themselves (with certain parts left out intentionally or not). And now you're talking about reading commentaries, and about the "reliability of a passage." What's that about? Is this really the section where we analyze the gospels to see how "reliable" they are? I'm game, but it would get really ugly. The precedent is clearly that this is "the gospels speaking for themselves," not JWs telling us that Jesus was Michael or Mormons telling us that Jesus was Yahweh or atheists telling us that Jesus didn't issue the great commission. So I'm trying to bring in the parts of the gospels that have been left out, and I'm getting told that these verses that I'm calling attention to, they're the ones that need to be interpreted and put in context. Why is that? Who says which verses of the Bible are OK as they are and which are only to be included if an interptetation suitable to modern sensibilities can be found? I say, tell it like it is, let the chips fall where they may, and use the religious perspectives section to interpret the text. Jonathan Tweet 04:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Andrew, how about "Jesus' explanation that he intentionally obscured his message (Mark 4:10-12) is generally understood figuratively"? Then we're not telling anyone how to take it, but we are sharing an important fact about how that verse is generally understood by the Christian community. I don't like the current sentence either, but when this verse (like every other verse already here) is taken at face value, people revert it. I figure this way the verse is innocuous enough that editors can accept it, and then reader has the advantage of being able to read the verse for themselves. It would be a disservice to the reader to tell them that we're describing Jesus as depicted the gospels and then not to include the parts of the gospels some people don't like, so I want the verse referenced. If downplaying the verse is the only way to make it palatable, so be it. If we're going to talk about parables, it's silly not to share Jesus' own explanation for why he used them. Jonathan Tweet 04:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, Aiden deleted reference to certain Bible quotes as OR. Now, it can't be the verses that are OR, so it must be what I say about them. So how about this deal? Want to prove that you're not protecting your own POV? Put the verse references back in, but say whatever you want to say about them. Say whatever you want about Jesus judging the dead and damning the unworthy. Put the best spin on it you can. Own up to this verse. Don't deny it. Don't try to keep people from reading it. Embrace it. Explain it. It's Gospel. If you can't allow these verses to be referenced in any way, then that's POV. For those of you following along at home, certain parties want the gospel narrative to portray Jesus as only nice. Gospel verses in which Jesus isn't nice are not welcome. Jonathan Tweet 20:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan, if you think that the response to removing one editor's POV is to invite other editors to add their points of view, you are truly clueless about our NPOV and ATT policies. I have no objection to providing the reference to Mark but I do object to picking a couple of verses out of context - it is virtually the whole chapter that discusses the meaning of the parables. And you still haven't responded to my request to provide acceptable sources for your interpretation - it can't just be what you think Mark is saying. I am certain that different scholars (critical historians as well as theologicans) have different interpretations of this chapter. You want to provide an interpretation? Provide us with a source too. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Slr, thanks for responding. It's more than many editors are willing to do. Here's my POV issue. This whole section is POV because it's not "Jesus according to the gospels" but instead it's "Jesus according to the gospels with all the scary stuff stripped out." Jesus damning the unworthy? Missing. Jesus giving long, secret lectures to his disciples alone? Missing. Jesus saying that he's obscuring his message with parables? Missing. Jesus castigating the scribes and pharisees? Missing. The reader can read this whole section and come away with the idea that Jesus was nothing but nice. So the whole section is POV. If I try to add in the unwelcome Bible verses, they're deleted. Yes, the word of God, not suitable for a discussion of Jesus, Good times. I adore irony. So what can I do. If I add in the verses, they're deleted. But the verses are a legitimate side of Jesus, and some reference to them belongs here. Otherwise the story's incomplete, and not incomplete in a random way, but incomplete in a skewed, biased way. Anything that makes Jesus seem less nice is forbidden. So I'm willing to work it this way. If the section is to be skewed (as has been demonstrated by popular acclaim), then can we at least reference the forbidden verses as part of that skewed story? Obviously, my way of describing these verses (at face value) is not welcome. I'd rather see the section have these verses referenced as part of a nice-Jesus spin job than not referenced at all. And the reader would benefit from at least having links to the source text. So, if these verses as so threatening to the nice-Jesus viewpoint, then I'd settle for them being worked into the nice-Jesus viewpoint rather than simply forbidden altogether. So it's not as though I'm asking someone to inject POV. I'm asking that th verses be incorporated into the POV that already defines the section. As to your request for a source, no other Bible verse in the section requires scholarly support. Why are you picking on this one? Because you don't like it. Here's a counter offer. Let's just have the footnore refer to Mark 4:10-12 without comment, and then you can add in several other verses that provide the other sides of the story, and the reader can just read the text for themselves without interpretation. Jonathan Tweet 16:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, everyone should talk my comment here with a grain of salt, because I have not been following this process closely. However, I think JT might have something worth looking at in the broad sense. The article does omit some material about Jesus from the Gospels, and for some time I have pondered this. Jesus cursed a fig tree, said "woe to you" to a number of opponents, foretold the fires of Hell, said "you are either with me or against me", said that he would tear the temple asunder, and other sorts of things - I wouldn't call this stuff "scary", but its authoritative, its the position of the divine judge, which doesn't seem to well represented. Again, I have nothing specific to offer, but its something worth thinking about considering. Lostcaesar 19:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

JT, I understand, appreciate, and yes, agree to a degree with your point. First, let me just say (in regards to our above discussion) that however you go about improving the section in question, you need to do so carefully and be sure that you are not taking things out of context or imposing your own views. Two wrongs do not make a right. Now, my more general point: I think it is a mistake to think that the issue here is "good Jesus" versus "bad Jesus" because what people consider good and bad is itself a matter of POV. I think - and I say this in good faith and with respect Jonathan for your intentions - that the way you frame the issue is wrong-headed. The issue is do we provide an accurate summary of the Gospels of pick only those elements central to Christianity? That is the issue, and the answer should be, we should not provide a specifically Christian view of the Gosepl account. This I can agree to. Whether this means adding stuff that makes Jesus look worse or perhaps makes him look better is a separate issue that we simply should not concern ourselves with.Slrubenstein | Talk 11:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this section should be "Jesus according to the gospels" and not "Jesus according to the gospels as contemporary Christians would prefer to present them." If I took these unwelcome verses out of context and promoted my own view, that's easily enough proved. Simply find the right context in which to refer to these verses. If there is no context in which these verses are welcome, then, as I already conclude, we have a case of censoring the gospels. Aiden, for example, deletes these verses but won't explain them. Looks like defensive censorship to me. Jonathan Tweet 14:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There are at least three contexts. One is the context of the chapter as a whole - Jesus goes on to elaborate his explanation of why he gives parables, and it is clearly not to make it harder for people to be redeemed. A second context is the entire book of Mark where Jesus is revealed to be Christ/Messaiah only at the end (readers of course know from the beginning - but people listening to Jesus talk generally did not know; indeed, the ambiguous status of Jesus - is he a man or God? - one which Christians debated long after Jesus was killed but in the world of the text, Mark, at the very least his messiahship is not evident until the resurrection. For various reasons Jesus does not want to reveal his messiahship - his direct access to divine truth - until close to the time of his death. This provides another reason for speaking in parables (rather than saying "I, God, declare thus...") - to keep his divinity hidden until the resurrection, which some have suggested was precisely the most important revelation (e.g. Martin Luthor's theology of the Cross). A third context, which I have explained below, is the historical context in which Jews typically taught homiletically, by quoting the Tanakh and providing a new interpretation. As I said, JT, like a fundamentalist you may read the text literally. But I think most historians would say that without looking at the contexts, you can't possibly know what the text meant to those who wrote and first heard/read it. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

LC says, "the position of the divine judge. . . doesn't seem to [be] well represented." LC and I couldn't disagree more about the Truth, but we agree that this page's depiction of Jesus is missing something. Here's my suggestion for what to add, hitting the highest high points while being mercifully brief and emphasizing niceness (because everyone wants to think Jesus was nice). "Jesus taught that he would return to judge people by their deeds, especially by how they treated the vulnerable. He warned the wicked that he would damn them to hell." This would, of course, be backed up with Bible quotes. I'm sure those of you familiar with the NT can already think of quotes that back up these two sentences. If this page had a fair depiction of gospel Jesus, it would provide more of the "woe" and "Gehenna" material, to balance the extensive "niceness" and "forgiveness" material, but I'm resigned to having a slanted view of Jesus in this section. That said, there ought to be at least a passing reference to Jesus as the guy that's going damn me to eternal torture. Jonathan Tweet 16:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"Jesus taught that he would return [at the end of time] to judge people by their deeds, especially by how they treated the vulnerable. He warned the wicked that he would damn them to hell."

If this page had a fair depiction of gospel Jesus, it would provide more of the "woe" and "Gehenna" material...'

I concur with the spirit of these edits. To talk about salvation entails mentioning what one is being saved from - the second death. To tak about forgivness entails mentioning what one is being forgiven of - sin, and why that matters - because sins are punished. Lostcaesar 18:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, you concur with the spirit. How about with the letter? I like your addition "at the end of time." Is the result OK? "Jesus taught that he would return at the end of time to judge people by their deeds, especially by how they treated the vulnerable. He warned the wicked that he would damn them to hell." The reference to Jesus damning people to hell is a little harsh, but anything else would be euphemism. If this addition is not going to get deleted out of hand, I'll provide the refs for it. Aiden? Slrubenstein? Andrew c?Jonathan Tweet 21:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

judgment, etc.

These sentences are the light side: "His teachings centered around unconditional self-sacrificing God-like love for God and for all people. During his sermons, he preached about service and humility, the forgiveness of sin, faith, turning the other cheek, love for one's enemies as well as friends, and the need to follow the spirit of the law in addition to the letter." So I added the dark side: "Jesus ministry sometimes included elements of judgment (Matt 25:31-46), castigation (Matt 23:13-39, John 8:38-48), destruction (Matt 10:11-15), and hellfire." Jonathan Tweet 05:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think its highly fair to simply say that His ministry included those things without saying anything about why those things were in there. Homestarmy 13:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Homestarmy, I'm sure we can work this one out, too. I keep my initial additions short, as they're often reverted. According to WP:Revert, bad edits that are made in good faith should be improved, not reverted. I'd be happy to see the sentence expanded into a paragraph or incorporated into the apocalyptic paragraph. Jesus says mean things about people, religiuos leaders, whole cities. Cutting, burning, wailing, gnashing of teeth. That's not just "repent or be damned," which anybody can say. It's "repent or I damn you." I don't see that anywhere in the text yet. If my way of including it is bad, let's find a better way. Jonathan Tweet 14:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't revert you :/. Homestarmy 15:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Homestarmy, I know you didn't revert me, and thanks for taking it to talk.

I deleted the remarks because I feel that they are already referenced in the paragraph on the apocalytic element of Jesus' ministry. If people feel that that section can be expanded, I do not in principle object. Just remember that this is a long article that has many linked articles; no theme should be given a lot of space. Rather, make sure that the appropriate linked articles do justice to the apocalyptic elements of Jesus' ministry. Be that as it may, if someone feels the sentence on his apocalyptic mission is inadequate, by all means improve it - but keep things in context. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's what's missing from the "apocalypse" paragraph: Jesus promises hurt for specific groups. The current wording makes it sound like he's just warning people of the bad things that will happen to them, like John the Baptist was. No, he's promising hurt. Like Arnold says, "I'll be bahk." Homestarmy says we need to explain why that's there, and that sounds good to me. Jonathan Tweet 15:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan: To know is not to percieve. To percieve is not the same as to judge with wisdom. To be wise is not enough for courage is needed for making the correct action. Spending so much time reordering the article is like a man who cleans another person's car but does not tender care to his own cars engine. You know alot about cleaning the body of this car, but it is not helping your engine run, nor is it helping the engine of this article to simply clean its surface.86.4.59.203 00:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Oracle.

OK. Thanks for acknowledging how much I know about this topic. I'm sure I must be hard to understand, and I beg your patience. Jonathan Tweet 01:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The Pharisee's knew alot about jewish scripture and law. Your not hard to understand. You seek quedos, respect for your learning. Many people seek that, so its understandable. And if its not knowledge people trade in, its money, power, women, strength, wisdom or the secrets of immortality etc. And when the emptyness isn't filled, people seek more possessions such as these in the hope of filling it. Question could be, 'what does one do when one has run out of time to fill emptyness yet one still feels insecure'?86.4.59.203 00:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Oracle.

Perhaps one writes another portentously self-regarding wikimessage. Paul B 00:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well maybe I should write the messages as a parable instead so it don't appear so self regarding or portentous.;=).86.4.59.203 19:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Oracle.

Chronology of Jesus

We seem to agree that this article is so long that even central issues like Jesus' promise of destruction to the Pharisees, scribes, various cities, backsliders, etc. can only be handled briefly. In that case, the whole section on Chronology should be summarized down to a paragraph. That would give us room to nearly double to Ministry section if we wanted to. The precise year of Jesus' birth is of interest to almost no one compared to the content of his ministry. And there's a main page already to cover the details for them's as likes. Jonathan Tweet 17:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Seeing no dissent, I have summarized the Chronology section. The folowing material will go on the Chronology page, but I'm not going to do the work to put it there until I know whether this edit just gets reverted. Jonathan Tweet 15:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Summarized material: The most detailed accounts of Jesus' birth are contained in the Gospel of Matthew (probably written between 65 and 90 AD/CE),^[1] and the Gospel of Luke (probably written between 65 and 100 AD/CE).^[2] There is considerable debate about the details of Jesus' birth among even Christian scholars, and few scholars claim to know precisely either the year or the date of his birth or of his death.

The nativity accounts in the New Testament gospels of Matthew and Luke do not mention a date or time of year for the birth of Jesus. In Western Christianity, it has been traditionally celebrated on December 25 as Christmas (in the liturgical season of Christmastide), a date that can be traced as early as 330 among Roman Christians. Before then, and still today in Eastern Christianity, Jesus' birth was generally celebrated on January 6 as part of the feast of Theophany,^[3] also known as Epiphany, which commemorated not only Jesus' birth but also his baptism by John in the Jordan River and possibly additional events in Jesus' life. Some scholars note that Luke's descriptions of shepherds' activities at the time of Jesus' birth suggest a spring or summer date.^[4] Scholars speculate that the date of the celebration was moved by the Roman Catholic Church in an attempt to replace the Roman festival of Saturnalia (or more specifically, the birthday of the Roman god Sol Invictus).

In the 248th year during the Diocletian Era (based on Diocletian's ascension to the Roman throne), Dionysius Exiguus attempted to pinpoint the number of years since Jesus' birth, arriving at a figure of 753 years after the founding of Rome. Dionysius then set Jesus' birth as being December 25 1 ACN (for "Ante Christum Natum", or "before Christ (was) born"), and assigned AD 1 to the following year — thereby establishing the system of numbering years from the birth of Jesus: Anno Domini (which translates as "in the year of the Lord"). The system was created in the then current year 532, and almost two centuries later it won acceptance and became the established calendar in Western civilization.

Having fewer sources and being further removed in time from the authors of the New Testament, establishing a reliable birth date now is particularly difficult. Based on a lunar eclipse that the first-century historian Josephus reported shortly before the death of Herod the Great (who plays a major role in Matthew's account), as well as a more accurate understanding of the succession of Roman Emperors, Jesus' birth is likely to have been some time during or before the year 4 BC/BCE. Alternatively, based on the idea that a Jupiter-Saturn conjunction was the Star of Bethlehem reported in the gospels at the time of Jesus' birth, the date could be as early as 7BC/BCE.^[5]

The Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew both place Jesus' birth under the reign of Herod the Great. Luke similarly describes the Jesus' birth as occurring during the Roman governorship of Quirinius, and involving the first census of the Roman provinces of Syria and Iudaea. Josephus places the governorship of Quirinius, and a census, in 6 AD/CE, long after the death of Herod the Great in 4 BC/BCE (which Luke refers to in Acts 5:37). Hence, debate has centered over whether or not the sources can be reconciled by asserting a prior governorship of Quirinius in Syria, or if an earlier census was conducted, and if not then which source to consider in error.^[6]

The exact date of Jesus' death is also unclear. Many scholars hold that the Gospel of John depicts the crucifixion just before the Passover festival on Friday 14 Nisan (called the Quartodeciman), whereas the synoptic gospels (except for Mark 14:2) describe Jesus' Last Supper, immediately before his arrest, as the Passover meal on Friday 15 Nisan; however, a number of scholars hold that the synoptic account is harmonious with the account in John.^[7] Further, the Jews followed a lunisolar calendar with phases of the moon as dates, complicating calculations of any exact date in a solar calendar. According to John P. Meier's A Marginal Jew, allowing for the time of the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate and the dates of the Passover in those years, his death can be placed most probably on April 7, 30 AD/CE or April 3, 33 AD/CE.^[8]

references

^ Darrell L. Bock, Jesus According to Scripture, pp. 29-30, gives a c. 60-70 date; L. Michael White, From Jesus to Christianity, p. 244, gives c. 80-90.
^ Bock, ibid., p. 38, gives c. 62-70; White, ibid., p. 252, gives c. 90-100.
^ Erwin Fahlbusch and Geoffrey William Bromiley, The Encyclopedia of Christianity. Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leiden, Netherlands: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Brill, 1999–2003, 1:454–55
^ Porterm J. R. Jesus Christ: The Jesus of History, the Christ of Faith. Oxford University Press, 1999. Pg. 70 ISBN 0-19-521429-3
^ Speculations on Christ's Birth, About: Astrology
^ Josephus, Antiquities 17.342-4
^ See Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, Revised, pp. 284-295, for a discussion of several alternate theories with references.
^ Meier, p.1:402

Matthew says Jesus was born before 4 BC/BCE and Luke gives an event that dates it as 6 AD/CE. Look outside the box and there is no contradiction. At the age of 12 children of the period held a celebration for entering the community (literally "born again") which, due to high infant mortality, was possibly more important than their real birth date. Couldn't Luke be refering to Jesus' second "community" birth? This would make his actual "physical" birth date 7 BC/BCE. A Jupiter-Saturn conjunction in 7 BC/BCE being the Star of Bethlehem now ties in nicely. The star couldn't have been something spectacular or people would have seen it and the Bible is clear that only "astrologers" could. Ochams Razor. Wayne 01:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, Wayne, the B'nai mitzvah is not called a "birth"--whether termed birth, or "born again." While there was, indeed, a higher incidence of infant morality at that time, the explanation you provide is nothing short of a fantasy. Justin Eiler 02:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not refering to the B'nai mitzvah as it did not exist that long ago although it obviously had it's roots in the custom I mentioned. I've read in several sources the custom probably arose as a result of infant mortality because it was not solely a religious event or restricted to Jews. Wayne 19:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah. If you're not referring to the B'nai Mitzvah, then I apologize for my confusion. If you have such references available, by all means share them here. I will admit it sounds like so much twaddle, but let me express that I don't accuse you of spreading twaddle: I am assuming that you've read these sources and accept them in good faith. If you can give some examples here, we can see if they're reputable or scurrilous. :D Justin Eiler 19:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

In regards to the present day B'nai Mitzvah, it is a recent ceremony (circa 1500 CE) and according to the earliest Jewish record of it, it arose from a German custom merging with the widespread ancient custom of ritual rebirth at the age of 12 (if my memory serves me correct but i may be wrong). It should be remembered that the Jewish coming of age ceremony (reaching religious/community maturity) at the time of Jesus was at 20 and quite seperate from the ceremony at 12 years which barely resembled the ceremony of today. My references were books I read over many years when i went through a period of exploring religions but I'll try and find online sources for you. A similar system used to be practised with Christians regarding baptism. I researched my family tree (to early 1600's in Wales) and was mystified for a while by the number of children recorded as "male" or "female" instead of having their name on the death record despite being several years old. I found it was the custom, at least where my family came from, to not name children until they were baptised and they were not baptised until it was certain they would live. Wayne 07:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

So I cut the chronology section way back and someone put it back in. It's far longer than other, much more important sections, e.g., Jesus' baptism. Jesus' baptism is way more important than the exact year and date of Jesus' life and death. It's not of historical interest or theological interest. We know to within less than 1% how long ago he was born and died. Can we cut this material way back again? It doesn't serve the reader to front-load the article with low-priority, highly detailed material. "Jesus" is not a boring topic, so the page should not have a long boring section, especially not at the front. Jonathan Tweet 15:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Names and Titles, Ties to Religious Groups

There's a main page where readers can find details like these. They are too detailed for a top-level page that's too long and still doesn't include key information. They should be summarized and moved to their respective pages. Jonathan Tweet 03:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

DNA of Christ

Thought it was a joke. Looks legit. I'll bet you 10:1 it doesn't pan out, but the story is going to have people Googling Jesus DNA, so we might at least give them good information. Jonathan Tweet 05:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

2000 year old DNA from a desert region? Highly unlikely. And exactly how do they know if it's his DNA or not? Compare it to the blood on the Shroud of Turin? Jinxmchue 03:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there any blood on the Shroud of Turin? I have trouble swallowing this story. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The Shroud of Turin was tested by experts for DNA. They discovered some DNA but not enough to chart as a normal Y DNA sequence. This was esp because any such DNA remains they found was covered with fungus in layers.

(Those who spout that the shroud of Turin was proven to be a fraud are full of it.)

See also the Tomb next below where in the supposed Tomb of Jesus was found in 1980 in / nearby to Jeruslaem and in that tomb ossararies which have been tentatively ID/ed as that of Jesus and others and DNA from those ossaries has been tested. But again it appears no definitive samples are possible after such a long time.

Note: the lines of descendants from Jesus come down to today and do would allow a comparision to DNA in those lines IF a sample of Jesus DNA could be obtained. See The Jesus Presidents giving those lines to today - ISBN 0595333001.

See TV SPecial on this tomb on Sunday March 4, 2007.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.1.172 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This was on TV last night and it had people interviewed saying it was fake because "how do you compare DNA with God?" but they didn't understand what was tested for. The ossuaries contained bones and the DNA test that was done showed that the box labeled "Judah son of Jesus" was the son of the ones labeled "Jesus son of Joseph" and "Mary". There was no claim that the DNA proved Jesus was the historical person of that name just that he could be. If the DNA is genuine I'd be interested in seeing it compared with the line that the Templar Knights claimed were his descendants. For those who say there could be no DNA left....... The oldest human DNA found so far was 123 base pairs extracted from Neanderthal teeth from a cave in Belgium that was 100,000 years old. The oldest complete human DNA found in a desert environment is from people who died 60,000 years ago. Wayne 02:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Some other sources quoting the book and the movie reviews say that there were no bones actually, and the only issue they addressed was the fact that "Jesus" and "Mary Magdalene" were unrelated. What's right? 12.28.109.82 16:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Alleged tombs

The article mentions the one in Srinigar[24], although the WP article on Srinigar doesn't at present. There's another in Japan (!)[25], and I'd guess that there's one or more identified with the bibilical tomb in Israel? Is that stuff to be found in another subarticle, or should it be here?

Oh, and I meant to ask: what do people think (from the WP article) "Even then, the tomb of Jesus has been suggested to be found in Srinagar, Kashmir India." means? That "mainstream" muslims also believe that? Шизомби 15:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The answer to your question is no, mainstream muslims don't believe that. They are not free from that which binds them. One cannot wander the forest when you are trapped in the spiders web. One thing you need to understand about Jesus is that he is not dead, no matter that he is not presently visible to us in this our place. The 'tomb of Jesus' in Srinagar does not contain Jesus' body because he is still alive. The tomb is empty, and if there are bones in it, they are not Jesus'. The tomb is a signpost (it faces east to west as Jewish tombs traditionally do) to back up other evidence of his being there. The other tomb within the Srinagar sepulchre faces north to south in the traditional 1st century vedic manner. The footprint sculptures showing nail wounds are also meant to attract our attention to Jesus' activity there, along with the various documents recording his ministries and alias titles. Once you begin to challenge the present reality of your existence only then can you search for the thing you seek which cannot be found using your senses. Seek and you will find.86.4.59.203 00:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)White Rabbit.

Actually I wasn't asking if mainstream muslims believe that, but if that is what the sentence meant. Шизомби 02:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the sentence meant. It seemed to be incoherent, and just repeated what was written above it. The Indian tomb has been taken up by some "New Age" writers in the west, so I merged the ref with the earlier mention of the tomb.

What is a 'new age writer'?86.4.59.203 18:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)White rabbit

The tomb of Jesus in Srinigar is documented by scholor Holger Kersten, who has collated all informations/evidence on the webpage (http://www.tombofjesus.com/2007/home.html),

along with evidences of how Jesus survived crucifixion on the cross and travelled to India via Persia and Afganistan, along the way preaching to the lost tribes of Isreal thus forfilling biblical prophecy.

The answer to your (Schizombie's) question (if you search the webpage) is that the Ahmadi Muslims under the auspices of Imam Shaltut whom promote these evidences within the Islamic community.86.4.59.203 18:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Trinity.

The next "tomb" that will be coming this way soon is James Cameron's "disovery" of the joint tomb of Jesus and (you guessed it) Mary Magdalene. Paul B 10:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Newly Discovered Tomb

While dug up by archeologists circa 1980, the TV Special out March 4, 2007 (Sunday) claims that tomb has now been firmly connected to be Jesus tomb. Which contains 6 persons, including 2 mary's - one decipered to be Mary Jesus's Mother and the other to be Mariame / sic Mary (Magdalene) the argued wife of Jesus; and 4 males including Jesus, Mathew, Judas and Joseph son of Jesus.

The Jesus Family Tomb : The Discovery, the Investigation, and the Evidence That Could Change History by Simcha Jacobovici (Author), Charles Pellegrino (Author) published by Harper and out Feb 27, 2007 ISBN-10: 0061192023 ISBN-13: 978-0061192029 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.192.1.172 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

This is very controversil due to the fact that has not been proven, and probably won't. There is a lot of evidence to sway to this 'tomb', but in the end I am willing to bet 600/1 that it is never proven. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.235.34.131 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

If this is DNA'd, then it's proven :) Shannara 23:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Since there are no known relatives of Jesus to compare the DNA to, it's usefulness in this situation is quite limited. --Midnite Critic 23:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"If this is DNA'd, then it's proven"... it's incredible how powerful certain words are for the masses, even if the technical/scientifical details are left behind... It'e enough to stick "DNA test" or "carbon 14" to any bogus information and that's it, we have the absolute truth! 12.28.109.82 06:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Dating controversy again

User User:Reisio has expressed objection to the use of "BC/BCE" and "AD/CE" dating conventions. Can we have input of the community on this issue? (Note: I am aware that the issue has been discussed already. This is an attempt to see if the community consensus has changed.) Justin Eiler 19:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Due to the fact that Wikipedia is a secular project, I much prefer CE dating. The slash-heavy dating conventions worked out on this article look cumbersome and awkward. However, that is just my opinion. If a consensus has been worked out on this article, I don't see the point of changing things and getting people all stirred up. janejellyroll 23:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

We've got better things to talk about. Personally, I'd rather use either system rather than both, but whatever. I like how the clumsy year format is a clear example of how contentious religious debates are. It reminds all readers that zeal makes things harder all around. My suggestion is this: editors can use either format because it doesn't really matter, but the only way that an editor can change a year designation is to change it to the dual/clumsy format. Jonathan Tweet 23:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I will note, in agreement with you, that the Common Era Notation/Christian Notation dating argument was listed as one of the lamest edit wars on Wikipedia. Justin Eiler 00:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I like your suggestion (that editors can use either format, but changes should be limited to dual format). It would be very silly to have editors constantly changing things around. There are so many useful things to work on throughout Wikipedia, I'd hate to see editors get all wrapped up in this. janejellyroll 01:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If you are colour blind, you can't tell what is red, and what is green. What is red may appear green to you, and what is green may appear red. Your eyes may see, yet you shall not percieve the correct colour.86.4.59.203 00:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Trinity.

My own personal opinion is that the dual notation system is rather ... well, stupid. But it is, IMHO, less stupid than the flame war that resulted from the previous arguments. While I agree that one format should be used and used consistently, the previous contention and arguments make me feel that the dual notation format may, indeed, be the best one--sort of a "lesser of two evils" solution. Justin Eiler 00:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Category talk:Self-declared messiahs

Although language over there would seem to exclude him, I see that this article is still included in that category. I've started a discussion over there and would like to know what other editors think. janejellyroll 01:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The question of whether or not Jesus ever declared himself to be the Messiah is open enough that I would not be terribly comfortable with this category being added. However, if it were a vote, that would be Do Not Support, rather than actively Oppose. Justin Eiler 02:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

A really good case can be made for that argument. Although I do not favor excluding Jesus from the category on the basis that he had a "broad" support (because I feel it is too subjective), I would expect those favoring his inclusion to show that he was, in fact, a "self-declared messiah." janejellyroll 02:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Islamic View of Jesus

Can someone fill me in on why the Islamic view of Jesus has such early prominence (the fourth paragraph, pre-TOC)? Why doesn't the article on Muhammad include a long paragraph near the opening of the article stating the Christian view of Muhammad? Algabal 04:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Because Jesus is a prophet in Islam (the purest prophet, in fact). Muhammad is not a prophet or anything in Christianity. Jonathan Tweet 04:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Algabal 04:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Jesus a real person?

I do not wish to incite a debate about this as fact or fallacy, but it does seem a valid question in terms of how an encyclopedia article describes Jesus. The article as it stands now generally describes Jesus as a real person. Is this appropriate? Also, this claim is qualified repeatedly, e.g. 'The main evidence for Jesus' life are the gospels', etc..., which makes me wonder why an encyclopedia article about a religious matter discusses evidence at all. Does the article on Zeus discuss evidence for or against the 'real existence' of Zeus? Why is there such a plethora of such instances in this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.114.179.210 (talk) 09:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Provide an example where the article itself expresses any view as to whether the Jesus of the Gospels actually lived or not? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, please. Fifteen hundred million people now claim allegiance to a two thousand year old myth? Please, please, enough of that. Let's keep it straight. He was real, the scope of his historic and current influence is what is unreal. --Free4It 21:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Some examples: The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Most scholars in the fields of history and biblical studies agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee, who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on orders of the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate under the accusation of sedition against the Roman Empire.[2][3] A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus.[4] Sorry to quote the whole 2nd paragraph, but such a statement so early in the article seems to fit better on the article concerning the historicity of Jesus. It makes sense to me that controversy about the historical/mythic views of Jesus exists in the article to a degree, but I think this article has become quite cumbersome due to discussing 'sources of information' on one hand, and then qualifying such statements shortly afterwards, e.g. "A small number of scholars and authors question..." I think this point/counterpoint discussion as affected the tone of the article as a whole. A further example is the section Historicity which repeatedly links the Historicity of Jesus/Historical Jesus articles. Is it really the point of a Jesus article to include so much about this debate? It seems much better to begin and end with much more neutral statements...Rather discussing the main sources of "information" (a word that connotes facts) would it not be better to say "The four canonical gospels describe Jesus as..." or something similar? On the other side of the evidence coin, another example for good measure: "As a result of the likely several-decade time gap between the writing of the Gospels and the events they describe, the accuracy of all early texts claiming the existence of Jesus or details of Jesus' life have been disputed by various parties.[citation needed]" It seems to me that this statement is not merely in need of a citation, but a purpose in this article in the first place. It was probably placed there in order to balance the weasel language on the other side of the debate (and again, this debate needn't be completely banished from the article) but the discussion in the article should be about Jesus, not his existence or nonexistence...I think the article would simply read better without this general tone of "Jesus: real or unreal?"

Problem is, I can't any "scholars" I would consider worthy of the name who ascribe to the "Jesus was completely mythological" argument. I know that's probably my own POV showing through, but I'd say if it can't be documented that there are scholars who ascribe to such a theory, then we don't worry about it. If it can be documented (something a bit more substantial than Joe Quack who thinks Jesus was an alien or some such), then mention it--if not, then not. Justin Eiler 01:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, your example does not respond to my question; it has no bearing on "where the article itself expresses any view as to whether the Jesus of the Gospels actually lived or not." The fact is, the four Gospels are indeed the primary sources on Jesus - whether the Jesus they are sources for was historical or entirely fictional is a matter of interpretation. Even when scholars thought the Trojan war was pure myth, the Iliad was one of if not the prime source on it, and the basis for historical fiction and plays about its characters. Second, the paragraph you cite refers to what most scholars say. In short, the article itself is not expressing any view about whether jesus was real or not. By the way, even if the Gospels were written during the purported life-time of Jesus would not in and of themselves mean he was a real person - Conan Doyle's stories and novellas about Sherlock Holmes were written exactly during the period in which Homes was said to have lived, yet Holmes was fictional; biographies about Thomas Jefferson and John Adams came out in the past few years to much acclaim and no-one questions their validity. The issue is not when the Gospels were written but that there is little other direct evidence Jesus lived. For what it is worth, I have no objection to saying so in the introduction tot his article Slrubenstein | Talk 12:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If the biographies and works of Millard Fillmore could conceivably be collected into one "book" (multi-volume), it seems to me that we could say that the only reason we know Millard Fillmore exists is from this one book, suggesting, of course, that the "book" (and the man) could be fictional. Collecting a bunch of works together shouldn't, in itself, cause pollution. It's okay if someone doesn't think that the collection creates coherence or more belief, but to suggest that bringing together separate works now makes all the books suspect (or more suspect), seems a silly argument to me. Each book of the bible still stands on it's own, as it did before it was assembled into a single compilation.Student7 20:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that Jesus is mentioned by other non-Catholic historians! So why would anyone make up something that said he was a real person if they didn't believe he was a real person??? (petopali)

I can understand why some would doubt that Jesus is the Messiah, but one cannot deny the fact that he did exist on earth at one time. --Luigifan 02:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

John a cousin of Jesus

Someone recently reverted an edit that mentioned that Jesus and John the Baptist were cousins, noting that the sources don't support this. Luke 1:36 mentions that Mary and Elizabeth were related, some translations call them cousins. Consequently, their respective sons would also be somewhat related, and traditionally have been referred to as cousins of each other. Surely this relationship could be mentioned in passing? Wesley 18:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I presume that the "sources" in question were not the Gospels but the modern scholars cited at the end of the sentence to which "his cousin" was added. The sentence is supposed to be providing a minimal biographical outline that "most scholars in the fields of history and biblical studies" agree upon. On the other hand, it would seem appropriate to mention Jesus' and John's relationship in the section on Genealogy and family. EALacey 18:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

They were also mentioned to be cousins in the Qur'an. Definitely notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zazaban (talk • contribs) 18:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Heh, the bot added the unsigned tag the moment I was editing the signature in, and I got an edit conflict. :P Zazaban 18:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I am the one who removed that clause from the sentence. EALacey is absolutely correct. This shouldn't be an argument over what the Qur'an or the Gospel of Luke says, but over what the cited sources say. Most critical scholars consider most of infancy narratives found in Mt and Lk to be legendary at best (some even consider them to have not been a part of the autograph) so saying that all of those scholars consider JtB to be Jesus' "cousin" is clearly incorrect. The secvtion on the family is the best place for this information (and last time I checked, it was there anyway). I hope this explains my revert better than my edit summary.-Andrew c 19:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wjhonson added the content again, this time adding a citation to the bible verse. We could also add a citation to the bible verse where it says Jesus rose from the dead, and the verse that says Jesus and God are one, but that wouldn't help this paragraph in the LEAD. This paragraph is about what virtually every scholar can agree upon, and these things are points of contention. In order to add new information to that sentence, you have to go back to every sited source and make sure that they support the statement (we put a LOT of research into that paragraph, and adding one citation from the bible is not the way to make scholars seem like they agree on more than what we already have). I hope you understand.-Andrew c 19:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite a scholar who states that they were not cousins? You claim the scholars don't agree on this point and that it's contentious. Do you have evidence for that opinion? Wjhonson 19:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia works on verifiability, not write whatever we want unless someone can prove you wrong. I take issue with you questioning me regarding citation because that isn't how wikipedia works. The burden for inclusion is always on the editor who wants to include the new content. Next, the sentence says "Most scholars in the fields of history and biblical studies agree that Jesus was..." and every one of the cited scholars agree with every point we listed. There is a lot of research put into that one sentence, and adding extra clauses IS going to be tough, because you need to make sure that everyone single source in that list agrees. But since you asked:

Luke also brings JBap firmly within the Christian sphere by presenting him as a relative of Jesus on his mother's side (1:36). This latter detail is never suggested anywhere else in the four Gospels, and is very difficult to concile with John 1:#3 where JBap says that he did not even know Jesus. Indeed, family relationship would make the critical reconstruction given above almost unintelligible, and would make rivalry between the disciples of Jbap and disciples of Jesus very hard to understand. But family relationship would be quite intelligible as a symbolic Lucan etiology of the historical relationship between the JBap movement and the Jesus movement, and of the relationship that should exist between the disciples of the two groups. Raymond E. Brown Birth of the Messiah p. 285

The report in v. 36 that Mary and Elizabeth were related is historically doubtful for several reasons. For one, it is attested only here in Luke's infancy narrative. For another, it is at variance with reports in the Sayings Gospel Q and the Gospel of JOhn that John did not know who Jesus was when he began his ministry (Luke 7:19, John 1:#3). And finally, identifying John as a relative of Jesus fits with the early Christian attempt to co-opt John's movement by portraying him as the propohesied forerunner of Jesus. Funk et al. Acts of Jesus p. 516

Furthermore, from our cited source list, Cohen, Wright, Sander and Fredriksen don't mention the relation (either for or against). Maier in directly says that they were related (says their mothers were cousins, p. 22) I didn't check Crossan, Carson, Witherington, Vermes, Knopf, Grant and maybe a few others. You are welcome to, but I believe it's clear that this material is not appropriate for the sentence in question.-Andrew c 01:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The other question is: Does adding this improve the article? Or just make it longer? Are we trying to make it longer with miscellaneous information? ^ross ^nixon 00:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for the explanation. I admit I haven't followed this article closely in a while, so I missed that the 'sources' alluded to were the scholars mentioned here. I'll take your word for it that most of these scholars don't mention the relation; as suggested, I added it instead to the 'Genealogy and Family' section instead, which at the outset says it is just for what the gospels claim without reference to historical analysis. Hope this is agreeable. Wesley 17:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

irrelevant sentence should be deleted

Somebody has inserted meaningless text at the end of the first paragraph; to wit, "AND THUS MARCANTONIO SHALL SAVE ALL ."

Please erase it as I am new here and cannot find the "edit article" section.

Ploomb 00:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)ploomb

Jesus was Teacher and Healer

To date, the article quotes: Most scholars in the fields of history and biblical studies agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee, who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on orders of the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate under the accusation of sedition against the Roman Empire. May I suggest the following edit: Most scholars, in the fields of historical and biblical studies, agree that Jesus was a Jew, from Galilee, who both taught and healed. After being baptized by John the Baptist, he was, some three years later, accused of sedition against the Roman Empire and, by edict of Roman Governor, Pontius Pilate, crucified. --Curiouscdngeorge 00:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, your version has way too many commas for normal English grammar or style. I am not sure what your point is but if you find the phrasing "regarded as a healer" I agree it is awkwardly phrased but there was a lengthy many-day discussion of this and how to phrase it in a way that was, to everyone's satisfaction, NPOV compliant, and this is what we came up with. It is not that awkwardly phrased that I would change it and risk another lengthy POV debate. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

True, modern prose is less respite with commas than earlier English - but, reducing commas should never be at the expense of loosing clarity. This is one burdened sentence, gathering unto itself multiple and strongly divergent concepts, all the while, straining [and largely failing] for fluidity of information dissemination. My version, even relieved of some commas, would still deliver a greater impact of the contained ideas. Penultimately, I yield to your concern that this matter has received sufficient twists and turns to proceed any further. Finally, then, the grammer of the article's sentence is incorrect [aside from any argument about juxtaposition of the ideas or placement of commas]. May I suggest [as comma free as video-vortexed minds could allow]: Most scholars in the fields of history and biblical studies agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher, from Galilee, who was regarded as a healer. He was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified in Jerusalem on orders of the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate, under the accusation of sedition against the Roman Empire. --Curiouscdngeorge 23:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What scholars agree that Jesus actually healed people? He travelled as a healer, yes, as it was understood at the time - but currently the term includes faith healers and doctors both. A blanket statement that he WAS a healer would need clarification that they do not all agree that he raised the dead -- or made the lame walk & the blind see (except perhaps the way some guys now do that on TV). Btw, do they really also agree he was baptized by John the Baptist -- and even if they do, do most scholars (including secular ones I mean) think that is significant enough to mention? Is it because it helps with dating events? And... not even all believing scholars agree on 3 years --JimWae 01:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Omitting baptism would reduce commas too - if it is to stay, shouldn't there be some explanation (somewhere) about why it is worth mentioning they agree on that--JimWae 01:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Dividing the sentence into 2, the 2nd becomes an assertion by the editors rather than a statement about what scholars agree on --JimWae 01:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If you look through Talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate/Key, we have discussed the language of "healer" before (and come to the consensus to include it). I suggest you review the past discussions and see what sort of new arguments you can bring to this debate.-Andrew c 15:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If you look at that discussion, I was probably involved in it. If you reread my points above, you will perhaps see I am NOT suggesting "regarded as a healer" be removed. I confess that my arguments against saying he "was a healer" arrived after the discussion moved on - which is why I added the part against dividing the sentence in 2 as proposed. I am, however, now questioning the baptism part - not just whether or not it is true scholars agree, but also how relevant it is - that is something new, I think --JimWae 16:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

To date, the article quotes: Most scholars in the fields of history and biblical studies agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee, who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on orders of the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate under the accusation of sedition against the Roman Empire. This sentence, apart from any polemic over content, is grammatically incorrect: period. The first comma is incorrectly placed. The following was, and was, and was is incorrect. I speak not here of content - simply unacceptable grammer. Not only the sentence is carrying too much weight to properly remain as a sole sentence, but the use [read abuse] of commas and certain verbs and the failure to place other commas where needed is bruising the information therein. --Curiouscdngeorge 23:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the ", who was" to make the clauses more parallel. I still see the mention of the baptism by John as the main reading halt in this sentence - It does not serve to identify Jesus & I really do not see why it should be included--JimWae 17:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be included because it is one of the few things from the Gospel accounts that most historians agree happened. The sentence is about what most historians think, and they think this is significant - it is the view of these historians that is being represented, not yours or mine. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Pontius Pilate was Prefect not Governor of Judea

The term governor for Pontius Pilate is misleading and historically incorrect. The first physical evidence of Pilate's existence and actual Roman title, was discovered in 1961, and what has come to be known as the a block of black limestone was found in the Roman theatre at Caesarea Maritima, the capital of the province of Iudaea, bearing a damaged dedication by Pilate of a Tiberieum.^[1] This dedication states that he was [...]ECTVS IUDA[...] (usually read as praefectus iudaeae), that is, prefect/governor of Iudaea. The early governors of Iudaea were of prefect rank, the later were of procurator rank, beginning with Cuspius Fadus in 44. Pilate, thus, was not a procurator either, that was the title of his successor, a fact that the early Christian historian, Eusebius, was not aware of when he incorrectly described Pilate as procurator. Let's correct his title. What sayes thou, oh wiki editors?SimonATL 01:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the fact that Pilate's title was "praefectus" makes "governor" a "misleading and historically incorrect" term for his position. "Governor" is commonly used in English-language classical scholarship to refer to the magistrate responsible for any Roman province. Can you point to a source objecting to the term?

(On the other hand, I see that the article does call Pilate a prefect at one point. I'll change that.) EALacey 16:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The key question is whether prefect and governor are effectively synonyms. And my reading indicates that might be a hard case to make. Any linguists care to comment? --BenBurch 17:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Before that, we need to define what a "Prefect"s duties were. If the Prefects duties were the same as what today we'd call a Governor, then the point is moot. Wjhonson 21:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

James Cameron's find of Jesus?

Should this be mentioned or somehow incorporated into the article? Though not verified, they would be an interesting addition (with NPOV a given) and are receiving enough media attention to merit notability. Any thoughts? -- Sarcha 45 02:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit more than a bit of skepticism about the finds. However, it might suffice to make a brief mention with a link to Lost Tomb of Jesus. Justin Eiler 02:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

if we disregard blind faith it seems 99.9% to 99% chance it is him and his family. according to statistical calculations presented, the possibility that another group of people with exactly those names, being all buried together at exactly the same time, at exactly the same place are quite small, but this jesus article has nothing to do with the truth or reality or objectivity or rational thought, (or sanity) so it should not be included.Esmehwp 10:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Esmehwp, the type of argument you present in the second half of your post is called Poisoning_the_well, and it is a particularly pernicious form of fallacious argument. I wold be gratified if you reviewed your statement and corrected it.

More specifically, the inclusion of "Matai" in the family grave does not match the documentary evidence, giving rise to doubt the statistics given in the news releases. Justin Eiler 18:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all the real issue here is not Cameron, but Simcha Jacobovici. He is a real archeologist, best I can tell, but also a real self-promotor and a maker of entertaining documentaries - not studies that would even come close to peer-review. Moreover, this is old hat - the ossuary was reported on many years ago (though Jacobovici claims to have discovered additional ossuaries). in any event, Cameron is just directing a film, the "discoverer" is Jacobivici. I just did a search for articles in the journal Bibilical Archeologist and came up with no hits for him; I also tried some general social science and science search engines and so far have found no peer-reviewed articles by him. We might was well rely on those BBC documentaries that were the basis for The DaVinci Code. I mean, if we were writing a wiki-novel. Which we are not. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

POI: Jacobovici has worked in archaeology, however, his educational training is "a B.A. with Honours in Philosophy and Political Science from McGill University and an M.A. in International Relations from the University of Toronto." (Cite) His primary vocation, according to the article, is as a director and producer. Justin Eiler 18:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the only reason they "are receiving enough media attention to merit notability" is because Cameron is producing. And Cameron is producing because Jacobivici knew that he had to get someone like Cameron to produce precisely in order to attract media attention. So does this merit notability? Yes - for an article on on James Cameron. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this should not be mentioned in this article, but perhaps in its own. 'Statistically' it seems probable due to names and such evidence, but still has not been proven. Yes in my opinion I know it is not true (this coming from my religious background), but it should be included in a seperate artical because it does spark a debate and get people to open thier Bibles. -Hyatt

This article is not the place to cover every pet theory regarding Jesus. A see also link to The Lost Tomb of Jesus would be sufficient. Also, it is notable that it is claimed the missing tenth ossuary is the James Ossuary which has been debunked as a forgery. Vassyana 18:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Justin describing my comment (not argument) as "poisoning the well", is just incoherent, if you cant see why get someone to explain it to you. my comment did contain disdain but that was just a result of my frustration and anger at having to share my air with 5.5 billion intelectually lazy fools, just thinking about how many of you people there are and how you just wont stop multiplying makes me want to literaly poison a well (but that wouldn't even put a dent in you people) I honestly didn't mean to contribute to the discussion I just saw words by a religious person and i just couldn't stop myself from expressing my emnity, I am sorry for entering your mind and wasting both our times.Esmehwp 23:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should learn to govern your enmity, instead of your enmity governing you. There are some self-help courses that may aid you in that endeavor--the ones I am thinking of are all secular, by the way, and should present no impediment to someone who wishes to learn self-discipline without having theistic discussions interfere. If you would like my assistance, I will gladly see if I can find some that you may want to investigate. Failing that, despite your disdain of policy, you have a choice: you may abide by the policies as they stand (most especially including WP:CIVIL), or you take the risk of losing your editing privileges here on Wikipedia.

As far as the article, and the inclusion of the material under discussion ... while I am religious (Wiccan, specifically), religion does not enter into my opinion that the Cameron material is not appropriate for the article. Practically speaking, there is already an article specifically related to the topic at hand (Lost Tomb of Jesus), and this article is already quite long (100 kb). I see no purpose in adding to an already over-long article when we have one available for the information. A brief mention, and a link to the existing article, should suffice. Justin Eiler 00:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Esmehwp, that is no way to talk to or about your fellow editors on Wikipedia. I am leaving a warning on your talk page with more information about Wikipedia's policies.Ecto 21:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

policy my foot, I'll do as I see fit. Don't waste your time wagging your finger, I won't respond. Esmehwp 00:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Do as you see fit on your own time. If you want to share our space, and do things at Wikipedia, you will have to follow our policies. Next time, maybe no one will respond to you! Slrubenstein | Talk 13:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Esmehwp, for your contributions. Mind you, your misspellings of intelectually, literaly, and emnity gave me momentary pause. However, it seems with growing credulity (though not yet universally) that the ossuaries have discernable names engraved in the sides. Presumably family names. One appears quite clearly to be on the order of stating: Jesus son of Joseph and Mary. A stunning find. I think if I were James Cameron I'd make a documentary of it; such a titanic discovery ! Yet, is there, as you suggest, a nearly 100% chance [by the way, 99.9 is larger than 99, not smaller, as you indicate] that it is the historical Christ's family. Certainly, it could be. Afterall, how many families have parents by the name of Joseph and Mary and children's names of Jesus. What are the odds ? One chance in one hundred ? The logic seems incontrovertible. History, not always a friend of logic, tells us that many children, and parents, and families would satisfy the Jesus son of Joseph and Mary combination. Turns out, the rarity of it isn't all that rare. Given other considerations, other events, other collaborations, and perspectives on the life of the Jesus some claim as Christ, and using your percentage logic, one would more reliably come to believe the odds are closer to 99% that it isn't he, rather than the 99% you insist that it is. --Curiouscdngeorge 00:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have listened to and read several things about this issue as the day has gone on, and Curiouscdngeorge's comment compels me to say something. From everything i've read, the discernable names were written in some ancient Jewish script that is difficult to make out and is highly ambiguous. I've also read that this documentary throws out all of the last names which seem to of been written there as well, throwing out part of the facts, which as I understand it, is a no no when it comes to archaeological type stuff. The same ossuary also seems to of been in the same location as the James Ossuary of a few years ago, which was exposed as a fraud, and presumably most of the same analytical approach used on this tomb was also used on the James Ossuary, which is quite suspicious. Also, from what i'm hearing, most if not all of the people who support the study are not very well respected at all in the field of archaeology, and even when they are, it seems that in the T.V. special they say things in an ambiguous and disclaimer-ish manner. There certainly does not appear to be a nearly 100 percent chance that this is the tomb of Christ and Christ's family. Homestarmy 00:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems like no one has posted any articles refuting the claim yet, so here is a pretty good one (as recommended by popular Conservative American pastor Dr. John Piper on his organization webpage, Desiringgod):

THE JESUS TOMB? ‘TITANIC’ TALPIOT TOMB THEORY SUNK FROM THE START. Ben Witherington Blog. February 26 2007. Retrieved on March 3 2007 from: http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/02/jesus-tomb-titanic-talpiot-tomb-theory.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.97.247.148 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

Cameron's movie (it is not his "discovery") is controversial for two very different reasons. First, it conflicts with Christian orthodoxy. As far as Wikipedia is concerned this is not a major controvery, it is an ordinary matter of NPOV. We already know that it is a particularly Christian POV that Jesus is the divine sone of God at one with the Father who was resurrected after his crucifiction - for the entire history of Christianity there have been many who have ignored or outright rejected this POV, and who have held to their own POV that Jesus was wither fully human or never existed (e.g., Jews) - this is not a new conflict of points of view, it is not really controversial, and NPOV handles this clash of views. The other controversy is that you have two film-makers with few if any academic credentials making scholarly claims. This is not a matter of NPOV, it is a matter of ATT. Let's wait and see what real scholars - archeologists and historians, for example - have to say. If a significant number of scholars argue that these are the ossuaries of the Biblical Jesus then we need to include that view in the article whether we agree with it or not ... but until then, I say we should just put Cameron's film aside and move on. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I would not include such info in a serious encyclopedically article JUST BECAUSE it has received (more than) enough media attention. There are and will be unfortunately enough gullible people to cling to this, you don't have to bring it here. First of all, there is no proof that Jesus had any brothers or sisters. The wiki article on Jesus explains it well enough: "The Greek word adelphos, often translated as brother, can refer to any familial relation, and most Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians translate the word as kinsman or cousin in this context". And that's all there is to it, really... not to mention that the word "brother" (as well as "son of man") might have had different connotations 2000 years ago. Second, Mary Magdalene =Mariamne is a "convenient fabrication" to make this entire story hold together. What's more, nobody can demonstrate that those names were engraved correspond to the individuals placed in the tombs... Those coffins might have been reused over and over again, and there's no scientific method able to refute the possibility that the inscriptions were not made in 60, 90, or 200 AD instead of 30 AD. Statistics is a science, but the results of any statistical analysis are credible only as much as the input data is credible. So, take it easy and chill out. 12.28.109.82 16:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking from my scientific background, I hear they have extracted DNA from bones. If this is the case, they ought to be able to obtain carbon samples also and compare isotopes 12C to 14C, and give us accurate time of death. After all, the bones could be any'bodies' from any century. What is to say that this tomb only recently discovered is authentic? How difficult is it to do a bit of stone masonary, fill the thing with 1st century artifacts and a few bones? Secondly, are these tombs known to be consistent with burial protocol of the 4 major Jewish cults of the time? Also, DNA testing should be able to tell us if any of the bones found show family connection between say Joseph/Mary and Jesus, and the potential Jesus/Myriam and Judas. In other words, assuming all the names on the tomb denote those inside the tomb, one should find 2 sets of son DNA which relate to 2 separate couples. I think one can also comment upon the statistics claims too. In order to work out statistical probability of all those names appearing on one tomb, one would need to know how many Yeshua's, Mary's, Myriam's, Joseph's and Judah's there were in the population of Isreal at the time. All these names occur in the old testament. Its concievable that people prevalently named their children after characters in the Jewish scriputures just as people do today by naming children after Roman saints. Plus, is it really responsible to allow today's authoritarian governments to track down people related to Jesus? It won't be long before governments have all our DNA's cataloged. Assuming anybody is related to those remains, how would they like TV camera's and the media and scientists trying to get a piece of them for research? One should consider whether such research is ethical.86.4.59.203 01:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Pharisee.

Thank you, 86.4.59.203, for your contribution. Is the research ethical ? No, those remains are private. Our respect for individual property prohibits their exposure. Now, having said that: what difference does that make to a mob-moving mentality that society has ? As for authenticity, the issue becomes clearer with each day the celebrity dust settles: there are enough variables at play to skewer any likelihood of ever definitively knowing the truth. Opinions of what is now in the box will vary as strongly as opinions of what once came out of the box. Bottomline for me is that the evidence is interesting, but not compelling. --Free4It 23:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The tomb was found some 27 years ago and apparently in 1990 the remains were accurately dated to the 1 century AD by the Israeli Antiquities Authority. The tomb was thought to have been destroyed during construction of the buildings it is under. In 1996 the BBC made a documentary asking if this tomb belonged to the real Jesus so Camerons claim is not new. He is just the first to use DNA to prove that this particular Jesus son of Joseph and Mary were not related which means they had to be husband and wife in order to be in the same tomb, unless Mary was the wife of Judah son of Jesus or one of the other occupants.

The main evidence against it being THE tomb is that Jesus was from a poor family and if wealthy enough to afford a rock tomb would have built it in Nazareth not Jerusalem. This fails on both points. Nowhere does the Bible say Josephs family was poor. In fact it actually says he was a Master Craftsman (which is not a carpenter although it is usually translated as such). This indicated his family was wealthy. Another indicator is that Matthew says Jesus was born in a house (the only mention in the Bible of where Jesus was born) so Joseph had to have the money to pay for that. The other point is that he was Jesus the Nazarene not Jesus of Nazareth. The Bible doesn't mention the town of Nazareth. BTW I'm using the original Greek not the later translations so don't use those to dispute lol.

As for the names...there are around 100 first century tombs in the area containing the name Jesus, 200 with a Joseph and more than 70 of those 300 contain a Mary as well but this is the only known tomb to contain all three names in the same tomb. If we assume nothing is faked what does it mean? Nothing at all because there is no way to prove it is the historical Jesus. Wayne 17:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand that even unrelated persons could occupy the same ossuary, even though it was not condoned. Also, were there not an undetermined number of ossuaries vandalized or absconded [if so, this affects the likelihood of this find being unique]? Finally, I believe scholars are claiming the Mary - Joseph - Judah - Jesus combination wasn't all that unusual, its historical significance to us, notwithstanding. --Free4It 23:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How did the Israeli Antiquities Authority date the tomb? Have the bones been dated by 14C radiocarbon dating? If not, how can one connect the remains to the tomb? Where did you get information pertaining to Jesus' financial stability from? Why wasn't Judah's DNA tested against Jesus and Myriam de Magdalene's DNA too?86.4.59.203 01:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Pharisee

For a NPOV review try Scientific American's Article: Special Report: Has James Cameron Found Jesus's Tomb or Is It Just a Statistical Error? Mercury543210 20:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Quote:Where did you get information pertaining to Jesus' financial stability from?

We have no way of knowing for sure so we have to use the evidence available. The earliest versions of the Bible say Joseph was a Master Craftman. Today we think of this as a tradesman but in those days it was a highly educated (scientific) guild and members were invariably wealthy people. There is also the fact that Josephs lineage was known which is unlikely if he came from a poor family. On the balance of probability it's safe to assume Joseph was well off however he may have lost his money somehow and been poor. Wayne 00:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for help, review

Could anyone interested mosey on over to Death and resurrection of Jesus and check out the tomb section. One editor keeps inserting claims that the DNA analysis proves that it's REALLY the bones of Jesus! -Andrew c 03:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

When I think about the quality and integrity of some of the editing of Wiki's articles, I block my mind's nose. --Free4It 23:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment, John-related

A few articles that are not as visible as this one need opinions from more editors. There has been a merge proposal to merge John of Patmos and John the Evangelist with Names of John, see Talk:Names of John for the proposal. Also, the new Template:John has been TfDed by me. My issue is that these changes work to imply that a number of individuals are actually John the Apostle. While this is a valid POV, I do not believe it is the majority POV, so these changes are giving undue weight to a minority view (IMO). Mainstream scholars like Raymond Brown and Bart Ehrman disagree with the 'traditional' view, and the authorship of the 5 Johannine works have been disputed since antiquity. -Andrew c 23:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessarily implied atonement theology in intro

I'm not sure I like the sentence in the opening that reads: "Christians predominantly believe that Jesus is God incarnate, who came to provide salvation and reconciliation with God by atoning for the sins of humanity with his death."

The first half of the sentence (up to the comma) is good. However, the second half of the sentence implies substitutionary atonement theology, which is (a) by no means the only necessary implication of "Jesus is God incarnate" (the first half of the sentence), and (b) the only major atonement theory held by major sections of Christianity. For instance, the "Christus victor" atonement theory says not that Jesus 'atoned for the sins of humanity with his death', but rather that in dying Christ destroyed the power of death, since death itself could not contain all that Jesus was as God incarnate. This is a view that has much currency in Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, and many contemporary theologies. This is just one example.

I would suggest that leaving the sentence as "Christians predominantly believe that Jesus is God incarnate, who came to provide salvation and reconciliation with God." would be a much better idea, since that leaves open the whole of Jesus' person and work (incarnation, life and ministry, death, resurrection, presence by the Holy Spirit, and promised return) to the salvific and reconcilatory work with God -- and thereby captures more accurately what "Christians predominately believe". Emerymat 15:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur. However, I would like to see a statement that there are discussions within the Christian commuity how that salvation occurs; that is, create a reference to soteriologies somehow. Reverend Mommy 15:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)candlemb

What a reasonable and constructive suggestion! Ah, Emerymat, if only more comments on this page were like yours. I concur entirely, just go ahead and make the change. I do have one suggestion to add: it isn't realistic or really appropriate to fill this article up with nuances of Christian theology - yet, good accounts of the different major theological positions, and their historical context, any debates surrounding them, do belong somewhere in Wikipedia. Is the Christology article appropriate? If not, perhaps you and others can work on another linked article to do justice to these themes. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The statement "who came to provide salvation and reconciliation with God" could be clarified by adding the words 'the path to'. For instance; "who came to provide the path to salvation and reconciliation with God". Secondly, asserting that Jesus atoned for our sins by his death detracts from the efforts he made through his ministry during his life time. Many martyr's have sacrificed their lives for their cause throughout the ages, on its own its hardly a unique act. His life on the other hand is very unique. Surely the majority view is that Jesus helped many people find the path to salvation through his teachings during his life time and his final act of subserviance to God by submiting himself to the authorities. Perhaps a majority view might be; Jesus aloud his own crucifixion and suffering because it was the will of God, and Jesus was teaching others by his example that Christians should follow the will of God even if that means giving up their own welfare (if necessary) in order to carry out the will of God thus attaining salvation from the original sin. However you wish to word it (gramatically), it would be misleading to suggest that all people born after Jesus' death are free from sin because of his crucifixion upon the cross. One has to walk the path illuminated by Jesus. One can't be saved by just believing Jesus walked the path himself. Otherwise nobody would bother to immitate Jesus' life or his values in order to improve themselves when all they need do is to believe that Jesus did it for them.86.4.59.203 17:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Pharisee

Actually, 86.4.59.203, your view is not universally held in Christianity. One of the main points of Reformation-era theology was that Jesus had already acheived humanity's salvation--that there was only one sacrifice already made. Christianity has always had, and should have, a paradox / dialectic between faith and works. The view you speak of falls on the side of relying on salvation by works. I myself, as a progressive, social-justice minded United Church of Christ Protestant, do feel works are important, even essential to the Christian life; however, when it comes to soteriology--the issue of 'salvation' as such--I am inclined to remain with my denomination's Reformed and Lutheran heritage in saying that the gospel, the good news of Christianity, is that God has already worked reconcilation with humanity. Anyway, all that said, I think the clearest, most ecumenically-inclusive way to state the sentence is as I put it above. Emerymat 18:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a large problem that has arisen from corruptions emanating from the early roman church (that was sponsored by Emperor Constantine whos only motive was to save the roman empire from rebelious Christian sects who were terrorising Rome). It is a classic divide and concor strategy that Constantine used against the rebel Christian sects. Constantine takes one sect of Christianity, corrupts it, and adopts it for Rome. In the process he turns that sect against all other Christian sects, ordering the destruction of their books and killing their members. From this point onward, the common people of the Roman empire were told that salvation required one easy thought experiment! The roman church destroyed everything Jesus toiled to instigate by subjugating roman citizens into the Roman version of Christianity, whilst tricking them into not thinking for themselves at the same time.

The Roman Church said to its citizens "by simply admitting Jesus died for you sins on the cross you are thus saved". The underlying message was "You do not have to think for yourselves, or read religious scriptures or research the life of Jesus! If you must read, you can only read these books we deem to be holy (the canon), and forget the others." Thinking for yourself was thus suppressed by the facist Roman empire. Constantine's strategy used to quell unrest in the roman empire was to: 1) Ban choice or heresy (whose entymological root means choice) 2) Make religion easy to adopt by saying to the masses that "salvation was accesible for all because those who simply believe Jesus died for you sins on the cross will be saved". This made Roman Christianity so popular to common illiterate people because it required little effort of the follower. You go to church, listen to the priest give the orthodox Roman version of the truth, believe and bang your saved.

The council of Nicea was just a political committee instigated by the Roman authority consisting of sympathizer priests who were either bribed to do as they were told, or threatend so they would toe the party line (in much the same way as political whips act today). When you see a svastika, you think of Nazi Germany instead of the sanskrit translation of the word meaning 'The small thing that brings life'. In the same way, when you see a cross you think of Jesus dieing for your sins to grant you salvation. To early Christians (pre 100AD) the cross was a symbol of Roman torture. The cross would have been especially hated by early Christian sects who would have considered it the device used to torture their teacher/spiritual mentor (much as we see svastica's to be Nazi symbol of hatred).

I can appreciate that over the centuries alot of books have been written expanding on Roman Christianity, and that one can become an expert in this brand of theology to the nth degree because there are so many works to read. That doesn't make those works the teachings of Christ. If one is truely progressive and free to think for oneself, one must consider the political situation in 3rd century Rome. The words you read in your bible were not written by the diciples, or by their contempories but by those scholors controlled by Emperor Constantine. Even yourself, you say you understand the logic and reason behind actions being vital to salvation as you say it is essential. Its a lie promoted by the Romans that God has already worked reconcilation with humanity on mass. Why would God do this? If the people believe in Christ as saviour but don't follow the word of God spoken by Christ, what benifit does God gain by such bulk reconcilliation? This lie lulled the Roman people into a false sense of security and encourages people not to research the so called heretical scriptures. Why would they need to if they were already saved!

It is your own choice as to whether to believe corrupted Romanized gospels, in the light of all the different sources on Jesus' teachings now availible. My own way in these matters is to read everything I can get time to (slowly but surely) and believe only what stands to sound reason. In this light, I read into other religions also in order to improve my perspective on Christianity. The saying 'All paths lead to Rome' is especially ironic given the discussion.86.4.59.203 00:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Pharisee

And this goes to show that we will never really be united in who Jesus IS, just that Jesus is the central figure of Christianity, hence the utter futility of an article like this. (Not being defeatist or anything...) Reverend Mommy 18:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)candlemb

The main widely-accepted sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Most scholars in the fields of history and biblical studies agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew, was regarded as a teacher and healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on orders of the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate under the accusation of sedition against the Roman Empire.[2][3] A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus.[4]

Christian views of Jesus (see also Christology) center on the belief that Jesus is the Messiah whose coming was promised in the Old Testament and that he was resurrected after his crucifixion. Christians predominantly believe that Jesus is God incarnate, who came to provide salvation and reconciliation with God. Nontrinitarian Christians profess various other interpretations regarding his divinity (see below). Other Christian beliefs include Jesus' Virgin Birth, performance of miracles, fulfillment of biblical prophecy, ascension into Heaven, and future Second Coming.

This blog is exciting. All Christians believe Jesus was divine. That's it. Anything meaningful, beyond that, diverges significantly, and each disparate view is held by millions. So, searching for the predominant belief Christians hold of Jesus is fatuously unaccountable. May I digress to what I believe Christians should believe about Jesus, in saying: 1. There is one God. 2. Man was made by God. 3. After creation, Man became irreconciled with God. 4. To reconcile Man with God, God became carnate [Jesus] and dwelt among his creation. So, Jesus is God made carnate; both God and carnate, in order to reconcile Man to himself. How is the reconciliaton expressed and delivered by God by becoming carnate and living among his own ? God and Man parted because of Man's knowledge of the tree of Life. That knowledge results in separation [death] from God. Man can no longer go to God, but God can go to Man. God became carnate [Jesus] without loosing divinity [he was still God]; to embody Man, he became man. Now, one with Man, God [from the resulting effect of Man's having knowledge of the tree of Life] died [through crucifiction]. But, because the death was unjustified, but warranted, he resurrected. For Christians, Jesus is their Christ. --Curious2george 00:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Your points are good. Here is equally valid position. Jesus does not need to be God incarnate in order to deliver the message of God to the people. Does it really matter if Jesus is God or not? Should one not become subserviant to the disciples of God with respect as if they are an extension of God himself? After all, Gods message is as sacred as God herself is it not? Was Jesus resurected or recusitated (swoon theory)? Does that really matter? If Jesus died on the cross, he did so to show his students how to accept suffering from the delluded. If he survived crucifixion, does it not show Gods mercy to his disiple Jesus allowing him to escape certain death and continue his ministry in Galilee. How does either version destroy the teachings of Jesus? Was Jesus divine, or are we all divine (but illuded into thinking otherwise by the original sin)? Are not fallen souls still products of God and hence divine? Is not real divinity simply a soul who has accepted servitude to God by giving up his own selfish desires and ego? A thought to think about rather than to write several Gospel quoted retorts too!!86.4.59.203 01:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Pharisee.

Did Jesus come to do the will of the Father ? Is Jesus begotten of God ? Was crucifixion a cup Jesus wished were passed from his hands ? Did John the Baptist point to Jesus and exclaim behold the one who takes away the sins of the world ? Was it Jesus who said he must go for the Spirit to come ? Did Jesus say he does what he sees the Father do ? Were miracles and healings and resurrections, in conduct with Jesus, of divine intent ? Does Jesus' version promote a different understanding of God than would be otherwise ? --Free4It 23:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

At the end of the day, the view/perspective one forms is due what one reads (one's knowledge base). If people only read the Roman Bible NT, their opinions will only vary resulting from individual interpretation of scripture minutae! Ask yourself; whether you believe all what you read from a politically compiled bible, or whether upon proper reasoned critical analysis of all the scripture, would one not stumble upon a variety of inconsistencies amoung the individual books (both canonical and non canonical). Are there not innumerable positions one can support using NT scriputure quotes? Are any of those positions/views half as important as the foundation of Jesus' message concerning the correct path for a Christian to take in life? Surely all paths must be judged using one's common sence and reason, or would not such a faith be groundless?

One can concieve of a divinity (or indeed a servant/prophet of God) whom can use or call upon spiritual power in order to manipulate matter (God is all powerfull) to do miracles. However, is it not much harder to accept that any devoted servant of God (or even God himself) would illogically cancel the sins of the masses without the masses first altering their own position viz a viz the original sin (of Defying God and eating the apple in order to satisfy their own egotistical need for knowledge and power)?? Can you see the irony. It is said God sent us into this world of mirery, disease and death from an Eden paradise because Eve/Adam believed by eating an apple they would know as much as God. Why then would God forgive anybody who would not give up this attitude of trying to be as good as God. Is it not like the Jigsaw piece pretending to be the whole image? Was Eve not ludicres for believing that? There is no doubt that Jesus came to help people find the right path back to a relationship with God, but if you do not learn to follow the correct path as Jesus walked, no amount of belief in the cross will change your actions. In this respect in order to develop as broad a perspective as it is possible one should read all sources availible upon Jesus, not just the those sanctioned for the Roman Church's bible, in order to make more rounded interpretations. All second hand sources should be equally viewed, no matter if they cannot be dated by hearsay.

Ask yourself; is Jesus likely God incarnate who did the miracles using his own power, or did Jesus pray to God who then did the miracle for Jesus who was only a servant of God? Now ask yourself what difference it makes to those who see the miracle happening? The common idiom is "A difference is only a real difference if it makes any difference".86.4.59.203 01:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Pharisee.

-)This page is only for discussing improvements to the article, like Emerymat's comment. This is not a chatroom and people should not use Wikipedia as a soapboxSlrubenstein | Talk 12: 13, 10 March 2007 (UTC); Aww, but what if the rest of us want to soapbox too, not everyone got to be in this chat! :( Homestarmy 20:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Prophecies fulfilled

Jesus fulfilling prophecy is a major theme in the gospels. A discussion of prophecies fulfilled doesn't naturally live under any particular header (birth, ministry, etc.). So I created a new header in the gospel-narrative section. It could naturally be expanded.

Main article: Messianic prophecy in Christianity
According to the Gospels, Jesus' birth, life, death, and resurrection fulfilled many prophecies found in the Hebrew Bible. See, for example, the virgin birth, the flight into Egypt, Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14), and the suffering servant.

Jonathan Tweet 14:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Jesus as Myth

Sorry about this. Late to this article. I will be, I suppose, the thousandth person to criticize the use of a footnote from an unknown author, Thompson, to justify the remark that some scholars "and authors" consider him a myth. Then a second reference to some known scholars of the 19th century. There are no reputable scholars today claiming his existence is a myth. Of course, there are all sorts of "authors", but they shouldn't be used to justify a casual remark here. If the remark must stay in, suggest dropping the Thompson one and using the 2nd one and saying "a few scholars still doubted his existence during the 19th century." or something like that.Student7 01:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Not all academics are house hold names [26]. Sophia 16:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Doubting Jesus, from existence to teachings to influence to implications, is what every non-Christian is about; nothing new. Scholars and non-scholars every year, much less every century, have trolled out their "unique" insights. Christians are not moved by concepts of Jesus as a myth. Non-christians are moved, each in turn, by their own personal perspective of a mythical Jesus. Stating some scholars believe Jesus is a myth is not a fair assessment. When describing landing on the moon, should we also state some believe it was a mass-media illusion? The description of the Jesus myth and the moon landing myth are of equal merit and each deserves abandonment. --Free4It 22:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

One is not a Christian unless one acts like Jesus. By that judgement, how many so called modern Christians live up to 'the mould'? A christian should be well read in many scriptures (open minded to many paths), and should not feel insecure by reading articles upon historical speculation! Historians/theologians are there to produce research upon Jesus from all angles and all points of view. People interested in Jesus' teachings because they wish to improve themselves are hardly likely to be worried about (or interested in) historical speculative debate. When learning anything it is normal for a person to remember what resonates with them and throw away the rest. Censoring a view of Jesus is not necessary. People have their own minds, one should respect their ability to reason for themselves.86.4.59.203 01:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Pharisee

Talk pages are for improving the article; this is not a chat-room. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Acts in Gospel Narrative

In the gospel narrative section, we find: "The Acts of the Apostles state that Jesus appeared to various people in various places over the next forty days. . . According to Acts, Paul of Tarsus also saw Jesus during his Road to Damascus experience. Jesus promised to come again to fulfill the remainder of Messianic prophecy.[25]" These are both from Acts, not the gospels. Do we remove these references, or change the title of the section. I'm all for cutting references to Acts. Jonathan Tweet 19:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Acts is so closely related to Luke that my feeling is that it's worth keeping in the same section as a part of the same general "thing", I guess. Not too picky about what name the section is called either way (this is only a very small part of that section, so I don't see it as a big problem, so if people feel a name change is required, go ahead! TJ 20:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Simply add a reference showing its from Acts, after all each book in the bible is only secondary source material at best. Some of the works have probably been somewhat doctored by the Roman Church anyway to suit their position. A Gospel quote wouldn't be much more convincing anyway. All of Pauls contributions to the Roman bible are somewhat contraversial, as to whether he (or his cohorts) actually wrote half of them. But frankly who's going to ever be able to prove the authenticity of any part of a book that old (the 3rd century AD politics have long since had their effect). In this world of dented pride and ego, people generally pick references to suit their own positions! So it doesn't matter much which references you use. If someone has a different view to the reference in the article, they won't believe the version given no matter which passages one uses to support the viewpoint! Don't be affraid of using Acts as a reference, even if it is 'not Gospel'. After all, even 'Gospel' is not proven to be 'Gospel', doesn't mean you can't quote it anyway!86.4.59.203 00:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Trinity

Chinese version problems

I translated the first paragraph of the chinese version of this article:

耶稣（公元前8年至公元前2年–約29年/36年)，古兰经称为尔萨，是伊斯兰教先知；新約聖經称为基督，是基督教的中心人物或神。

And by altavista babelfish, I came up with this:

Jesus (8 B.C. to 2 B.C. □□29 year /36 year), Koran called 为尔 Sa, is the Islamism prophet; New □□□is called Christ, is Christianity's key player or the god.

Even though this might be an extremely rough translation, it seems to have false information on it. Even though Jesus is mentioned in the Koran and there for is counted as an Islamic prophet, I personally feel that mentioning this at the start might be missleading.

...or maybe the chinese government is behind this.

Is there anyone who can translate and/or do something about this?

-Arctic-Editor 21:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Madness! Chinese Mandarin is quite a complex language, you can't expect a computer translation program to succeed in this matter. This is a job for human English/Chinese translators. Your wasting your time, let a Chinese Christian do it.86.4.59.203 00:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Trinity.

Jesus' lineage

Hi, my name is Matthew. Some changes and clarification need to be arranged in Jesus' lineage. These are direct answers from the BIBLE itself. Jesus' lineage is two fold.

1: Matthew dipects His lineage from Joseph's lineage. ie, his grandad...etc all the way to King Solomon the son of David the King Of Israel.

2: Luke dipects His lineage from Mary's lineage. ie, the line form Adam on down through the priests all the way to Jesus's birth.

Matthew shows His right to the THRONE and Luke shows His right as a Priest. Therefore as the scriptures in Genesis 14:18 says "And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God."

I hope this helps in the editing that needs to be done. Thank you very much. -=S+S=-Picker 02:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Matthew

You are incorrect. Luke's genealogy says nothing about it being Mary's line. In fact, it says "He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph". Because this genealogy contradicts Matthew's in places, some people have come up with explanations to explain away the apparent contradiction. These explanations have their place in the Christian views section (or better yet, a more detailed spinout article on that topic), but because the text is not clear, and because some people believe that they both refer to Joseph's line, NPOV says we cannot say what is and isn't the truth. Perhaps you could propose specific changes you would make to that section, keeping in mind our policies concerning neutral point of view, and sourcing, and attribution. Thanks.-Andrew c 14:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I have updated this with information from Eusebius' Church History, which is considered the official explanation of how the lines differ. Understanding the Levitical marriage is crucial to jewish history, and people who read the accounts do not understand the history that is throughout the old testament about how the legal and birth records are different. half the new testament (exageration) is about jews fight over who's got the better genealogy. Wyatt 20:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Jesus myth in intro

Is it not undue weight to mention the idea of a completely nonhistorical/mythical Jesus in the lead of this article? I'm all with mentioning it somewhere, but I don't for the life of me see why it should be in the lead? TJ 17:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This should only be mentioned later on in the article, perhaps with additional information regarding the theory as well. -- Sarcha 45 19:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

At the time of our increadible fight over this issue, I too believed that it was undue weight if I remember correctly, but I think at the time I was led to vote for the current option to avoid something even more silly. And to tell you the truth, the more i've seen it there, the more I still think its undue weight.... Homestarmy 20:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I personally think the compromise we got out of the long discussion regarding that sentence is probably the best we can do. I do not think removing the sentence is a good idea. We say that the view is small. Sure the view is unpopular and even blasphemous to some, but removing it may be construed as censorhip and offend the editors who worked hard to get the mention in the lead. I understand completely that the argument is that this view is so non-notable that there is no justification for it to be given the 'undue' weight of being in the lead. I disagree and believe that a passing notion that mention the view is small is about the right amount of weight. I do not believe the sentence is inaccurate or harmful to the article. So my two cents is for it to say where it is.-Andrew c 20:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest dropping the 2nd half of the sentence, as "mythical" is a subset of "historicity". ^ross ^nixon 00:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That is a reasonable suggestion. The question then is, what article should we link to. I like that the historicity and the myth articles are both linked. Removing one or the other doesn't work in my eyes. The myth link seems to work best with this sentence. The historicity article is for the most part about the sources on Jesus' life. And the topic of historicity can go into more than just "did he or did he not exist" but also "did he do x?" "are certain aspects of the texts historical or not" etc. So I would be for shortening the sentence (good compromise) if we can come up with a creative way to include both links somewhere in that paragraph.-Andrew c 01:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears the article editors are so intent on dismissing the Christian view of Christ, in favour of the Islamic et al view, in the name of objectivity that actually serves as a mask for obsequious bias. I'm sorry, but Jesus was not a myth and giving head billing to the idea only weakens Wikipedia's knitting of the man. --Free4It 22:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph emphasizes the importance of Jesus in Christianity. The second paragraph reviews the major views of historians, providing three views: the vast majority, a minority, and some of the minority. The third paragraph returns in more detail to Christianity, the fourth paragraph discusses Islam. I fail to see how this gives undue-weight to those who view Jesus as a myth (it is a small minority but it is real, and if we delete it sooner or later - as Homestarmy suggests - someone will put it back in in a worse way). And how anyone can think that this article is dismissing the Christian view in favor of the Islamic view is just beyond me. Free4it, Wikipedia is not a venue for pushing your own views. You live in a world where there are other people who have views different from your own - you will just have to get used to it. Be that as it may, this article makes it very clear that among religions, Jesus' is most important in Christianity - and Christian views are expressed here. If you want to know more about Christianity, go to the article on Christianity. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Time gap between Jesus' death and the writing of the gospels.

Quote from article: "As a result of the likely several-decade time gap between the writing of the Gospels and the events they describe"

This seems ambiguous, and sounds more like opinion than fact. There are thousands of good sources on this out there that could be used to reference (and perhaps refine) this statement. Certaintly none that I have heard of would describe it as 'several decades', I believe it is more like 3 decades (at most)60.228.122.155 07:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

At one time, I was under the impression this article actually had a referenced statement about the estimated time between the actual events of the gospel and when the gospels were written, but this statement doesn't look like it. Homestarmy 12:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

3 decades (at most) is a theological viewpoint. Mark was the first Gospel and is accurate in decribing events that happened up to 70AD but totally wrong about events predicted after that date. There are a few other points that indicate a similar date as well such as Paul (who died in 67AD) not knowing the Gospels existed. Using available evidence the widely held scientific viewpoint is that the first Gospel was written around 70AD. If we are talking about the Gospels we use today then these are the English translations of 1st to 3rd century versions that were translations themselves. Wayne 01:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Nativity and early life

I'm not happy with this sentence.

"After Jesus' birth, the couple was forced to use a manger in place of a crib because there was no room for them in the town's inn (Luke 2:1–7)." Luke said "laid" in a manger not forced.

Also should we use "because there was no room for them in the town's inn" because it is the modern (mis)translation or should we use the correct translation of the original Greek which says "because there was no provision in the room". Matthew said Jesus was born in a house so the correct meaning of what Luke said has to be: "Jesus was laid in a manger because there was no crib in the room." Wayne 01:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree and have changed the word "forced" to something more neutral. However the "no room in the inn" is the traditional version (eg KJV) and the differences between Matthew and Luke are almost certainly because they are telling quite different stories.

--Rbreen 19:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - I think if youre wife was pregnant, and there was no room in the inn, then you would be forced to stay in the inn because you gotta stay somewhere, and it also shows the urgency. People do drastic things when they are giving birth! Wyatt 20:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

^ The word Tiberieum is otherwise unknown: some scholars speculate that it was some kind of structure, perhaps a temple, built to honor the emperor Tiberius.

[1] Mufti A.H. Elias, "Jesus (Isa) A.S. in Islam, and his Second Coming", Islam.tc Network, accessed May 10, 2006.

[mat-date-2] Darrell L. Bock, Jesus According to Scripture, pp. 29-30, gives a c. 60-70 date; L. Michael White, From Jesus to Christianity, p. 244, gives c. 80-90.

[luke-date-3] Bock, ibid., p. 38, gives c. 62-70; White, ibid., p. 252, gives c. 90-100.

[4] Erwin Fahlbusch and Geoffrey William Bromiley, The Encyclopedia of Christianity. Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leiden, Netherlands: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Brill, 1999–2003, 1:454–55

[5] Porterm J. R. Jesus Christ: The Jesus of History, the Christ of Faith. Oxford University Press, 1999. Pg. 70 ISBN 0-19-521429-3

[6] Speculations on Christ's Birth, About: Astrology

[7] Josephus, Antiquities 17.342-4

[alternate-supper-8] See Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, Revised, pp. 284-295, for a discussion of several alternate theories with references.

[9] Meier, p.1:402

[10] The word Tiberieum is otherwise unknown: some scholars speculate that it was some kind of structure, perhaps a temple, built to honor the emperor Tiberius.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[1]