Talk:Jesus/Archive 107

Archive 100

←

Archive 105

Archive 106

Archive 107

Archive 108

Archive 109

Archive 110

Boxy thing

why is there a boxy thingy around the whole life story bit of jesus? I'd fix it myself, but i'm not very experienced in the ways of the wiki. 69.151.232.211 (talk) 04:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Images

Why? They were so much better, and generally in keeping with the dominant (mannerist) theme. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but who's opinion? Discuss such whole sale changes. Someone might think they're simply "better." Lihaas (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Very well. Keep the ugly pictures. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't call them ugly just because you have lost an argument; you are offending all Christians who venerate the image of Jesus Christ. Gabr-el 20:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

ummmmm sorry to jump in you guys argument but those pictures of jesus are not valid......the most renound pic of jesus is a pic of julius caesar's uncle because he painted his aunt unle and nephew for some paintings of jesus a long long time ago and those pics we still use today.....jesus prob looked like an arab of some sort look at where he came from not america lol if you dont think so listen to RAS KASS, Nature Of the Threat he will let you know —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.205.146 (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There was no argument to be lost or won. The fact is that many images on this article are featured in favour of superior work. They are in this way 'ugly'. But far be it from me to impugn the sanctity of idolatry. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Woah, my firend, do not get personal with this. I was warning you that your comment would have offended Catholics, Orthodox and Anglo-Catholics. If you want to start a debate about iconoclasm, I will gladly take up the challenge in our respective talk pages. Gabr-el 21:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in arguments, debates or challenges. The only people who could have been offended are those who prefer the work currently featured: calling paintings ugly on an aesthetic basis isn't a disrespectful lack of reverence. I hope you're not really speaking for "all Christians" (..especially Catholics, Orthodox and High Church Anglicans apparently..) in finding my comment personally offensive. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Then in that case you should know that to put forward an argument based upon your own aesthetic opinion is ridiculous, since wikipedia is about verifiability; taste would require a consensus amongst users since taste is not objective, of course. Back to my point, for the Christians that I mentioned, no image of Christ is "ugly". Anyways, you said you were raising an aesthetic point, and I have addressed that. Gabr-el 21:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that no image of Christ is ugly.. some are. Please take a look through the article for a few prime examples. However I suppose that spiritually, those who venerate those images 'see' beyond such aesthetic concerns. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Its also not nice to call veneration "idolatry", that has a negative POV attached to it. That was what I was also having issues with. Gabr-el 21:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, apologies. I have problems with the legalism implicit in various faiths but have no problem using the prefered term "veneration" if it suits you any better. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice too much difference aesthetically between the images, except for the lead infobox image. A picture of an altar, a crucifix, and a painting of Jesus behind them is great for a Christianity article. But as the lead article for Jesus? The image currently up was made in the 6th century, and it's an image of Jesus alone; not a picture of a picture with other images in the background. The replacement picture probably has a different place, but I don't think it needs to replace the historic image in the article currently. -BaronGrackle (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

ummmmm sorry to jump in you guys argument but those pictures of jesus are not valid......the most renound pic of jesus is a pic of julius caesar's uncle because he painted his aunt unle and nephew for some paintings of jesus a long long time ago and those pics we still use today.....jesus prob looked like an arab of some sort look at where he came from not america lol

I think the "image within an image" dymanic works for this article: it expresses something unique to Jesus. The mosaic isn't terrible, but it's one in a never-ending succession of imaginary portraits. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"Imaginary portraits", well, yeah, but there are no photographs or actual contemporary portraits of Jesus. The replacements you suggest were made just as recent and in some cases much more recent as the others, and they take just as many artistic liberties. I'm not saying the replacement pictures are bad... I do like them; I just also like the current images. The main reason I'm posting is so you don't get the impression that Gabr-el/Tourskin is waging an individual war against you. :-) -BaronGrackle (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The picture I replaced the leading image with expresses who/what Jesus is in a more authentic way than some 6th century mosaic. I see that this is difficult to understand. Regardless, it wasn't Tourskin who reverted my edit.. and if I suspected his actions meant to wage "an individual war" against me, I'd take issue with him in a more appropriate way :) the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think your lead image was an improvement, and fail to see why you have to be so dissmissive of "some 6th century mosaic". This is a biographical article, so an image of this sort seems to be more appropriate than the one you used for the lead. No-one thinks it's a "photo" of Jesus, so honesty does not come into it. Paul B (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I propose ending this thread. Kalindoscopy has stated that "I'm not interested in arguments, debates or challenges" and also does not care for our policies either. WP:DNFTT. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup, disagreement=troll. Glad to see you're off your blocking rampage, though. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You know I was gonna let it rest since you gave that apology, but you continue to insult without regard - "imaginary images" and "legalism" in religion. Buddy, I don't care what words you want to use, but don't call it imaginary and I won't call it real for you. Why do I sound legalistic? Because your POV is beyond opinion. No, Christians do not believe that these images are imaginary, and many Christians believe that these artists were inspired by God - I safely speak for every devout Catholic and Orthodox, and this is their official teachings. I am not saying "YOU MUST BELIEVE", I am asking you to stop using words like legalism - stop being so obnoxious; you can't prove the images to be "imaginary" anymore than I can prove it to be divinely inspired. Thus, with a stalemate in hand, we shouldn't be making any assertions about them with regards to whether they are real or ugly since this cannot be proven, and you have shown yourself uninterested in "discussing and debating". Gabr-el 20:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

They are indeed 'imaginary' because they are works of the imagination (divinely inspired or not). 'Legalism' is a perfectly valid description and I never said I wasn't interested in discussing things, just not arguments. It was never my intention to offend you: if you spent a moment looking at the edits I made, you'd see that. But I understand that I went about it in a non-policy way (heaven forfend!) and have acted obnoxiously. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Imagination --> Fantasizing; construction of false images (wikitionary)

Divinely inspired --> Revealed by God.

There is no legalism here, only a desire to maintain civility in discussions. Don't bother responding to this, I know you will probably reply with more cheeky Latin crap, save it, I won't reply to it, you don't get my point. Gabr-el 23:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It was an admission of wrong doing and that "Latin crap" is the language of the church you (supposedly) form a part of. I hope G-d grants you some peace. G'nite. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Latin is the language used by the Church; so what? If someone made a cheeky insincere remark in Latin, is it all of a sudden a sacred wording? Does God all of a sudden permit it? No, even Latin has foul words and words that can be arranged in a cheeky manner. Latin is the language of the Church only because it was the language of the Empire it converted, the Roman Empire. If there is ever a language that can be associated with Christianity, it is Aramaic, since Jesus, the early Christians and Apostles and so many books in the Bible use it. My Priest uses English in mass, but I can assure you that cheeky comments can be made in English. Gabr-el 23:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Guys, this discussion is not about improving the article. Please take it to your talk pages. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Latin crap? You do realize that a fair bit of the English language is based off of Latin? So that would mean that part of the English language is crap because it was based of of Latin--75.73.207.233 (talk) 03:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thats not helpful Slrub; the whole discussion was pretty pointless from the start, as you yourself have suggested - I would also like to end this. Gabr-el 01:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

FINIS :) the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 04:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the original opening image. While the new one was perhaps more appealing to the eye, the original one has a greater historic value, which I believe trumps the value of the image used to replace it. Some of the others do appear to be nicer, and just as useful, but there were multiple images that were sandwiched, that is violation of MOS. If you want to change the images lets just take the one at a time. Which one do you want to change first, and why would changing it add value to the article, besides "visual appearance". Please do not continue to be antagonistic, and stick to the topic and hand. Charles Edward 11:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The one picture that I think has real value, other than aesthetic, is the image/caption I included depicting/describing the Transfiguration, which is nowhere in the article adequately mentioned. On the other hand, I believe the tondo by Botticelli merits inclusion simply because it very, very beautiful. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 13:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Christian fanatics censoring offending images. Does it remind you of other fanatics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.238.46 (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Noone seems to be censoring images. the roof of this court is too high to be yours appears to be Jewish; certainly there is no evidence that he is a "Christian fanatic". Paul B (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Offending? Fanatics? Let me give you some advice User:92. If you don't know what you are talking about, don't talk at all, it makes you look less smart. Gabr-el 20:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Christian fanaticism is not something I've ever been accused of before and I'm not sure what part of the changes I made were fanatical to any cause other than Mannerism. Now accusations of obnoxious needling, I can understand..

I still think the Transfiguration image, and the tondo, are appropriate to this article. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Subtle, User:Kalindoscopy. But your tarnished past will remain, your words are little more than personal attacks, and the fruits of your efforts amount to no change. Gabr-el 05:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This was ages ago.. but I hadn't realised you'd left a little jab Tourskin :) My 'tarnished past' is hardly your concern, and anybody bored enough to read my past association with you will realise just what sort of a Christian you are. And now, no more. That's more than enough pearls I've cast before you.. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

May I be cursed, spitted and beaten for being the Christian that I am, for I don't deserve to be the Christian I am. Gabr-el 17:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Lulz the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You guys are killing me. I say leave the pics as they are, or simply have no pics...Hey, I'm a Southern Baptist from Mississippi, and I've seen plenty of "ugly" pics of Jesus...One of my Bibles has pictures that are pure American cheese....Mikepope (talk) 06:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

no pictures of christ is 'ugly' and they arent imaginary either. and the person who started this whole thing..you did offend some christians. really, if you dont really know anything dont say things as boldy as offending Jesus's picture. and if you dont like it, well, some advice. dont look at it. Randomlife7 (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

actually they are pretty imaginary......those are not the real pics of jesus thOse are what julius caesar {the painter} was paid to paint he painted his aunt uncle and nephew and ever since they have used that pic for tha face of jesus but may i remind you that jesus is not from america so how would he look lik that?????how could his skin be so pale living were he did?????it's impossible guys im sorry it just is WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT JESUS LOOKS LIKE THOSE PICS ARE IMAGINARY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.205.146 (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

huh, well, does it not seem disrespectful to call the pictures imaginary? ..where did you get that from? julius caeser was painting his aunt, uncles and nephews?! and jesus is in fact not from america..so..? it's like saying (if) you had a relative living in another country, it doesnt mean that you dont know how they look like..and the pictures dont have to look exactly like jesus..they may have run out of dark peach when they were painting the pictures for all we know. and seriously, this convo is starting to turn to: all pictures of jesus are imaginary Pictures of jesus could have been drawn by the people who were living with him, the ones who he talked with, and most likely, there should be many of these. Randomlife7 (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I hate it when people say that pictures of Jesus look white and therefore are blatantly how white people perceive their God. Anyone who says stuff like that clearly has never seen someone from the Middle East, because plenty of them are very white. Eugene-elgato (talk) 09:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

JEWS/JESUS

IT STATES THAT JEWS BELIVE JESUS IT PART OF THE HOLY TRINITY. THIS IS INCORRECT AS ALL SECTS OF JUDAISM STATE JESUS IS NOT OUR SAVIOR, MESSIAH, OR GOD. WE DO NOT EVEN CONSIDER HIM A PROPHET, AS THE ARTICLE EVEN STATES PLEASE CHANGE THE INCORRECT FACT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.3.246 (talk) 06:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please learn to disable the caps lock key. Our article makes no such claim. I don't know why you think otherwise, but maybe looking up heresy might help. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oy.. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 00:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The letter J was not even in the alphabet back then it is one of the last letters to be added yoshua be yosef was his name..........and how did he {jesus} be killed and rise from the grace if pontius had him killed before that for sedition against rome..........and if you have ever heard the stories of gilgimish you would know something was wrong....thw whole book of genesis was stolen from the book of gilgimish including the serpant,the tree,the forbidden fruit, all of it stolen from a story written over 1000 years before the bible was —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.205.146 (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

IS THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.17.243 (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

why is this article also locked like bible? 59.92.187.96 (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

uuhh, I know that Jews do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah, or the Son of God, or any other holy title. Why is there debate?Prussian725 (talk) 03:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

In Albanian language: TI IE=IE(you are)+ZEUS(greek god) = IEZEUS (you are god)

Hostile parties to this thread.

I have often come across hostile members to a thread, that appear to have a conflict.

My post on this talk page was not only quesitoned, whichis acceptable but it was deleted.

Preaching? To other religions ?

This is a site about Jesus Christ a preacher, and I was pointing out how a most important concept to this topic was missing....and still is...wonder why ?

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree - comments on talk pages should not be deleted unless they are clearly nonsense or irrelevant. The point I think you were making is actually included in the page to some degree - it could be argued that it could be included more emphatically - but it is a valid opinion, and no adequate reason was given for its removal. We have plenty of comments on this page which are less useful and less relevant. --Rbreen (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Here is a section, that I believe very important, a direct challenge to Christians...

• Often ignored is the important challenge that includes the outcasts in (Matthew 25:40), "'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me' in answer to the questions posed by the righteous,"Lord when did we see you", and Jesus answers, "For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat,...I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.') (Mathew 25:35–37)

I believe this section should be added somewhere...

Thanks...

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 04:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not meant for preaching to members of certain faiths. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 04:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This was the conversation I deleted. Erik the Red 2 seemed to have believed it was irrelevant enough to warn the user against "preaching", and I went further to delete it. I am sorry if I offended you, but I did nothing wrong intentionally. Gabr-el 21:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

So why is it so important? We can all pick out passages of the Bible that we think are important "messages". This is not an article about the Wise Thoughts of Jesus, or about what we think is most important. Paul B (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not intending hostility in any way towards any parties involved, but merely pointing out that "direct challenges to Christians" and our Favorite Mathew Chapters do not belong on Wikipedia. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that too many fingers are being pointed at what was a mere maintenance job. Gabr-el 23:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not about you. It's about the sentence that The Man With Really Long Name wants to include in the article. Paul B (talk) 23:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, if something is being proposed to add to the article, it should have a reputable source that supports the position. Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes or a series of opinions. Nothing that has been proposed is something that meets the policy.--^StormRider 23:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Reliable source...? Mathew....etc. is not reliable. Its an important statement that creates a very unique paradox, that is biblical.

As to preaching...if i were to suggest my research into the discovery of a dark side to truth that confirms the original sin, and how the message of Jesus Christ links to that, then I would have been preaching.  ;)

I can't believe the amount of 'protectionism' against truths in this world...even quotable ones.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 14:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

We should allow open discussion of the topic, even the 'most politicvally unaceptable' because we may never know the whole truth...about most all things...so that does leave a door open to.

My post was to emphasize a critical point, that most of us Christains fall to connect to and this appears to be politically incorrect. A direct reference to God on earth; the "Christs" on earth...

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone here is a Christian, so it is inappropriate to include messages to Christians on an encyclopedia article. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 04:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

does it really matter whether you're a christian or not? its not "inappropriate" to include that quote in there. its just that noone really bothered. and why can't it be included..its not like its offending anyone, and even if you did add that in, it doesnt mean you're preaching, you're just adding a fact to the page, something that was written down and was said by Jesus when he lived. Randomlife7 (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The easy answer to this particular question is that it is not Wikipedia's task to provide comprehensive lists of quotes (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). More complex answers need to take into account issues such as adopting a neutral point of view with respect to how such a quote is presented, including establishing sufficient weight for it to pass a basic threshhold for inclusion. So far, no particularly compelling reason has been given for including it. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

sure Randomlife7 (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

3rd paragraph

It contains a self-contradiction

It is also generally accepted that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.[7][8] Aside from these few conclusions, academic studies remain inconclusive about the chronology, the central message of Jesus' preaching, his social class, cultural environment, religious orientation, or the reason for his crucifixion.[9]

Reference 9 [ Amy-Jill Levine, The Oxford Dictionary of the Biblical World, Oxford University Press, p.370] is not available to me, so perhaps someone could check. Could one page in a dictionary be a good source for all that? Searching [ "Oxford Dictionary of the Biblical World" levine ] brings back only mirrors of this article --JimWae (talk) 04:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a contradiction, since the reason why his actions were considered to be sedition might be disputed, but the fact that it was sedition, not. However, it's not well worded. Paul B (talk) 09:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

We could just drop the last dependent clause and simplify everything. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Paul B's assessment, but I think people will see it mostly Jim Wae's way, so I think it should be dropped Gabr-el 03:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabr-el (talk • contribs)

I have fixed 2 of the logical problems with that paragraph. Now, we need to deal wth the fact that her curricula vitae does not list that work - and it is listed as a ref TWICE in the lede --JimWae (talk) 04:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does, as ""Visions of Kingdoms: From Pompey to the First Jewish Revolt (63 BCE-70 CE)." M. Coogan et al. (eds.), Oxford History of the Biblical World. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999". The OHBW is a collection of chapters by individual authors, she wrote chapter 10. See [1] (you may need to search for "Levine"). The quote should probably be refined, but I'm off to the office now. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

As suspected, it was not a dictionary that dealt with this - the correct title of the work is Oxford History of the Biblical World. We still need quotes to support this sentence --JimWae (talk) 01:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words in intro

"Most critical scholars believe that ancient texts on Jesus' life are at least partially accurate.[6][7] Most scholars in the fields of history and biblical studies agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer. It is also generally accepted that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.[8][9]"

The sources do not support the claim that "most" scholars agree on the assertions in this paragraph; in fact [7] refutes it by citing scholars which disagree with the claims. [8] cites several names, but no evidence of a consensus or majority opinion of any kind, while [9] simply quotes a single author. —Memotype::T 23:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

8 cites all the major contemporary scholars, who agree. 7 mentiones people who are less notable. Moreover, it cites scholars who support the jesus myth hypothesis, which is neither exlusive nor inconsistent with the claims you quote. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This should just say "The ancient texts on Jesus' life are at least partially accurate. As they report, Jesus was a Galilean Jew, regarded as a teacher and healer. He was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified in Jerusalem on orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire." Yes, some scholars disagree, but this is the finding of mainstream scholarship. Leadwind (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this rubbish is still there! What does "partially accurate" mean? Is that like 'a little pregnant', or 'slightly dead'? The phrase is meaningless... actually it is misleading. It is implying accuracy that it fails to substantiate. Which smells like POV to me. To paraphrase the actuality of what is being said: 'The Gospels are mostly not accurate about his life.' No? Would 'Some scholars believe that there was a man called Jesus who lived in that area at that time that sort of fits the bill', be a bit closer to the mark? Isn't the choice of the word "accurate" completely inappropriate for something so woolly and lacking in hard facts and clear archaeology? As it stands it read like 'Scientists think Jesus really existed and by extension the Bible is a really reliable source of data' 212.139.72.88 (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that we are intending to find not the truth about Jesus, but rather the truth about what scholars studying the subject feel is true. What is being said is, essentially, "Most scholars believe that there was a man called Jesus who lived in that area at that time who said and did most of the things that Jesus is credited with." Whether or not there was indeed such a man is not the concern of the article; whether or not the majority of mainstream scholars believe so is. The references are intended to demonstrate that indeed the majority does so believe - do you have references which demonstrate otherwise? -- MatthewDBA (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If you knew anything about science, you would know that there is no such thing as 100% truth - a theory can never be proven correct, only proven wrong. Gabr-el 16:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"If you knew anything about science, you would know..." That was a little rude, don't you think? I also found issue with the "partially accurate" sentence when reading the article. I checked the references and I also don't think they held up that wording. --74.93.118.129 (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The Intro states : The principal sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical gospels though some scholars argue that other texts (such as the Gospel of Thomas) are as relevant as the canonical gospels to the historical Jesus. This sentence is kinda chunky. While other texts may in fact be as relevant, this does not make them principal sources of information regarding Jesus. 64.122.70.121 (talk) 03:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I actually do not know of any notable scholar who uses Thomas as a principal source on Jesus' life. Can someone provide a citation? Otherwise we should cut it. Slrubenstein | Talk 05:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Should be cut, but I can't Jzeise (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Existence

I know original research is not allowed to be cited, but can we add citations for the arrest trial and death section that aren't from the bible, but other original documents? Soxwon (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This section is specifically and explicitly a summary of the Gospel account - not because this account is right or wrong but because this is the principal account used by a range of people - not just clerics and theologians but people who promote the Jesus as myth theory and historians also cite the Gospels as sources (= source for some view). This is because the Gospels are the oldest primary sources on Jesus' life (Paul's epistles are older but he didn't write specifically about Jesus life). What do you mean by "original source?" If you mean what we call "primary sources," what other primary sources that explicitly talk about Jesus do you know of that are (1) older than the Gospels and/or (2) cited as often by scholars (of whatever view/belief)? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The section on the gospel accounts is a strange work of original research, essentially an original harmony of the gospels. If we want a section on what the gospels say about Jesus, that's what the section should be about: according to experts, what to all four gospels say? what do the synoptics in common say? what do they each uniquely say? what does John say? Instead, this section is OR, it's content verified only by the consent of the editors. As for the original question, Josephus and Tacitus both refer to Jesus and state that he was executed under Pilate. That's our only touchstone for the span of his life: he died while Pilate was governor. The idea that Jesus didn't exist at all was popular among scholars a hundred years ago when they though that the gospels were 2nd-century fabrications, but for about a hundred years standard scholarship has accepted that the gospels were written c. 60-100. Work on Jesus as a historical figure has developed tremendously in the last forty years. Leadwind (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Please correct these categorization errors

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change [[Category:Jesus|Jesus]] to [[Category:Jesus|*]]. Jesus is the topic article of the category and thus should be sorted specially, not simply as if it was just another article in the category. Also, because Jesus is the topic article, it should be in almost all the same categories that Category:Jesus is in, such as Category:Founders of religions. Please add the appropriate category tag, [[:Category:Founders of religions]]. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of categorization errors, for some reason this article is in the non-existent and mis-spelled "A-Class Chrsitianity articles" category (see below). I don't know where it comes from, but it should be deleted. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note, the article is already in the Category "A-Class Christianity articles", but somehow it's also been added to that misspelled cat too. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done: The problem was in Template:Anglicanismproject. I fixed the spelling. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 04:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I am having a bad day, I spent a good minute looking at Anglicanismproject before realising what it said- Anglicanism Project, Anglican Ismproject was how I first read it...dear me. Gavin (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Jesus

I consider myself a Gnostic. Here is my question: Why is Jesus dying on the cross consider to have washed away our sins? I've always been confused as to why it was necessary for Jesus to die to rid us of our sins, or to have our sins forever forgiven. I believe He died trying to deliver the truth us, is that what is meant by died for our sins. I believe he came to teach us, because we were getting it all wrong. Does that mean before Jesus came everyone went to "hell" even if they asked forgiveness and changed their ways. I guess my question in a nut shell: Jesus died for our sins, how so?--Cinshif (talk) 00:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You have a good question, one I will gladly answer. Please go to my userpage, and email me your question or leave me a discussion thread on my talk page. I am not allowed to answer your question here, since this page is suppose to be for the article, not the content. Gabr-el 00:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Does this page have a clear answer to the question? If not, shouldn't it? Like, "According to Catholics, Jesus' sacrifice on the cross accrued an infinite amount merit to the Church's treasury, which the Church dispenses as part of its saving mission"? Or "Evangelicals commonly teach that human transgression is so dire that it merits horrific punishment, and Jesus' acceptance of that punishment on the cross allows Christians to enjoy a heavenly afterlife that they don't deserve"? Leadwind (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Leadwind, watch it. I know your Protestant POV, and I don't like how you've addressed Catholics and Evangelicals as two seperate groups. What you have cited as the Evangelical belief is also the belief of the Church; namely that our sinful nature warrants a loving sacrifice by God and that we don't deserve it. Gabr-el 01:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Christians seem to me to have so many ideas about jesus I think they merit their own article. I propose calling it ... Christianity. Actually., Christians just seem so full of ideas, I suggest we create a new article just on what they think about the crucifixion ... how about calling it Christology? Leadwind refers to some different kinds of questions, Leadwind do you think you could work up a stub on Roman Catholicism and another on Protestants? It just see these Protestants or whatever have so many thoughts they could use their own article. Just an idea. Mull it over. (by the way, I do not knock any of this, I think having ideas is cool!) Slrubenstein | Talk 02:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

SLR, I'm not sure where you're coming from. Are you implying that if a topic is covered in depth in another article, then it shouldn't be treated at all here? Or is there some particular reason that the issue of how Jesus' sacrifice on the cross saves people is not an appropriate topic for this page? Leadwind (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Gabr-el, don't worry, I was just dashing off examples of the sort of thing we could address. I'd be careful to get it right before we went live. Leadwind (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Im an agnostic and i wanna believe but it's just to many flaws so plz help me..............1st question i was told that the cross wasnt invented when jesus was crucified how can this be.......#2 how could he have set the egyptians free if he was killed by pontius????? #3how can ppl pray to a vision of a man that is not even jesus that is a pic of juluis caesar's uncle or nephew he was paid to paint that after jesus's death and he used his aunt uncle and nephew for inspiration and millions of ppl use that as face of jesus proposterious.......#4 last but not least THE WHOLE BOOK OF GENESIS IS STOLEN...from the book of gilgimish it's the exact same story written over 1000 years before the bible was so how could it be true....i fell the bible was used for entertainment a long time ago and we use it as a religion once again proposterious....someone plz help me wit my dilemma.............I feel jesus was a good man and had a good reason to be here but believing he walked onw ter and made earth wit a snap of the finger and all the other magical stuff i have to say i dont believe it one bit listen to the song Nature of the Threat, by Ras Kass —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.205.146 (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I appreciate your interest and concerns; but keep in mind, the purpose of this talk page is to collectively improve the article, not primarily to discuss questions about the topic in general. There are no doubt many resources available both on and off the Web that will answer your concerns; but this isn't really the appropriate place for them. MatthewDBA (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

well sir i have been lookin 4 answers all over ive even tok cross country trips to religious sites n still have came up empty handed so if u could step out of your comfort zone just this once and answer my questions i would greatly appreciate it........... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.205.146 (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a matter of comfort zones. This is just an place to discuss the article itself, not questions like that. Some editors here have shown interest in answering these questions. Check above, email them. 157.182.29.91 (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Isus

Isus redirects here to Jesus, but nothing further is mentioned about the name Isus. Perhaps someone "in the know" could add something to the article explaining how Isus fits into this? Thanks. --Rob (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't imagine why it would come here; it makes more sense redirecting to Isis or Issus. Is there some linguistic or historical spelling reason for "Isus" to come to "Jesus"? -BaronGrackle (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Isus" (ee-sus) is Jesus' Romanian name. However I was unaware of Issus, so I guess it should changed to redirect there instead. Diego_pmc ^Talk 08:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If there are several articles it could reasonably redirect to then it should be a disambiguation page. Paul B (talk) 08:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Or that. Diego_pmc ^Talk 09:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

In Albanian language: TI IE=IE(you are)+ZEUS(greek god) = IEZEUS (you are god)

So you're using Albanian and English? What mess is that? Gabr-el 21:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Disputed tag

I've added the disputed tag because I feel this article meets the guidelines for it. Before removing the tag, please provide clear evidence to support that the factual accuracy of this man's existence and the actions attributed to him in the article really happened. Thanks. Retoru (talk) 08:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not how it works here. If there is no clear and concise reason provided, usually resulting from an actual dispute on the talk page, you should not add a dispute tag. Until you provide a clear and adequate reason to mark it as disputed, the tag needs to stay off. Simply because you feel that the article meets the guidelines is quite literally no reason at all. Farsight001 (talk) 11:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, then. There is absolutely no verifiable factual evidence cited anywhere in the article that lends any credence to the events depicted in the article. The only real citation from the period in question is the bible, which is not an accepted book of history by either the historical or scientific communities. All other sources in the article cite the bible in their own bibliographies, which as I've already established is a questionable piece of literature.

I don't mind articles on fiction being on Wikipedia, it's a repository for all human knowledge, real or fictional, but putting up articles that cannot be proven as nonfiction as such is misleading and a warning is needed to show that the content of the article has not been proven to be accurate by respected historical or scientific sources. Retoru (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

As stated already reverted due to inproper use of disputed tag. The information about the historical and scientific accuracy is already mentioned in the first paragraph of the article. There are sources other then the Bible that mention Jesus, example include stories of Jesus not in the Bible and letters written by 1st century people. I suggest reading through the archives where the historical Jesus has been talked about numerous times.Marauder40 (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you're confused here. This article is about Jesus Christ, all information about him that can be verifed has been added in. Your own religious bias against the Bible, as "questionable piece of literature", demonstrates your poor knowledge of the Bible's composition and will not be used in wikipedia to stop a source of information from being presented. Jesus Christ probably did exist, considering that so many Christian and non-Christian primary sources exist mentioning him. Meanwhile, the historicity of Jesus Christ has its own article. Gabr-el 19:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If you cared to ask real historians, the bible is in fact, an accepted book of history right along side all of the other books that didn't make it into the bible when it was compiled - though probably not in the way you might think. And again, you're ignoring how it works. Even if you were right about the bible, you are still improperly adding a dispute tag. I highly suggest you brush up on wiki policy so as to better understand this. Farsight001 (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that Retoru doesn't understand our NPOV and V policies. Until she does, she should not be thowing tags around. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the Bible is "an accepted book of history" for citing what the Bible says about Jesus. Second of all, Jesus' existence is confirmed by Roman historians such as Tacitus and many other historical accounts and artifacts. To deny Jesus' existence because the Bible is the only source that says he exists is nonsense and ignorant. (Note that I am and atheist.) The only thing about Jesus' existence that could be POV would be to say that Jesus was the divine son of god, which this article doesn't say. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering that this page concerns probably the most contentious topic of the last 2000 years and there probably hasn't been a year in the last 1900 when there haven't been people slaughtered in the name of Jesus, or in the name of a particular sectarian representation of Jesus, I found it astounding how balanced this article is and how it succeeds in being highly informative without being inflammatory, except perhaps to people who regard any statement contrary to their beliefs as a provocation.

I think Slrubenstein may be mistaken identifying the issue as due to misunderstanding of WP policies. Retoru seems to misunderstand the nature of history when referring to 'articles that cannot be proven'. Even in the hard sciences, nothing is proven - except in two senses that we are not concerned with here: (1) proven "wrong", and (2) proven "if" (i.e. mathematical proof). Historical references are evidence, not proof. As evidence, they are always suspect, as their authors may be mistaken or may be deliberately fabricating or manipulating information for their own purposes. In my view the Jesus article treats the Bible as a historical document in absolutely the right way: the way a juror should view a witness's evidence. When I read it, I found it to support my view that the (official four) gospels were partisan documents, partly because of the discussion, and partly because it indicates clearly that they date from after Paul had started fabricating the Christian religion which immediately raises questions as to how much actual memories or traditions were subverted in favour of invented dogma.

If the article claimed that the gospels represented historical fact or divine truth, then it would certainly be contentious, but it does nothing of the kind.

Anyone wondering what bias is implied by my user name is referred to my user page.--Alkhowarizmi (talk) 05:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your "support" Alkhowarizmi, but keep your offensive opinions - that Christianity is a fabrication, aside for now and maintain your focus on the article, as your thread promises. Gabr-el 05:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Gabr-el, I've responded on my own talk page to avoid disrupting this page. However it's possibly just a matter of you misunderstanding me (which could be my fault) or vice versa. I find ludicrous the idea that Christianity is a fabrication, so to anyone who is offended on that basis, that's not what I meant, I apologise for my poor wording, and, hopefully, there's no problem. If the ""historical"" view that a number of propositions were fabricated during about 200 years beginning with Paul, propositions that became central tenets of the dominant form of Christianity for the next 1000 years and more, if that view is offensive, then I think my comments and my response are relevant.--Alkhowarizmi (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Gabr-el, you should not insult anothe editor like this. Alkhowarizmi was not making a claim about Christianity (Christianity is a fabrication), he was making a claim about historians (historians approach all sources as suspect because they make be mistkaen, fabricating, or manipulating) and his claim about historians is correct, this is how historians view texts whether we believe they were authored by Mark or Thucidides or Benjamin Franklin. Wikipedia is a place that welcomes all significant points of view. The Christian point of view is welcome here but you have to learn to live with the views of historians as well. And Alk. was accurately explaining how historians view any and all historical sources.Slrubenstein | Talk 17:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

In what shape or form have I insulted anyone? If anyone believes St Paul to have fabricated some stuff, let them keep that view; it is irrelevant to improving the article. Simply stating ones bias without accusing religious figures like St Paul is acceptable. Erick the Red did not for example, as an atheist, state that he thinks the idea of God is no true, and you wouldn't like it either if I stated, as a firm Christian, that I believe Muhammad to be nothing more than a fabricator as well - you see my point? Lets both keep out such opinions. Gabr-el 19:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)\

To call his account of how historians work, which is both accurate and made in good faith, an offensive opinion is an insult and shows a failure to assume good faith on your part. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's stick to discussing the article at hand, everyone. No one benefits from discussing each other's religious beliefs. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 19:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

But to mention the key figures of Christianity as fabricators is obviously not insulting - nice logic there Slrubenstein, but why don't we take Eric the Red's advice here and not involve any religious opinions...Gabr-el 00:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Alkhowarizmi: "I found it astounding how balanced this article is." Me, too. WP must be doing something right to let this page, of all pages, be relatively balanced. Leadwind (talk) 06:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I just saw the message in the text after I made an edit

I edited the lead to qualify the sentence that included mention of the Gospel of Thomas. I then saw the message asking editors to come to the talk page before making any changes. Sorry, I missed that before my edit which can be reverted since it is unreferenced. My point in making it though is to raise the issue that mention of that Gospel is not followed by the fact that it has been roundly rejected as a viable source by a substantial majority of the world's Christians and Muslims, not just in our own time but for centuries (millenia!) I think the sentence, unamended is misleading Reader. NancyHeise ^talk 17:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that most scholars reject it as a source for Jesus' life. However, scholars definitely DO accept it as a very important source on movements and debates within early Christianity. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Powers and abilities

shouldnt this be listed? all comic-book characters have this listed, can we get a heading of all his superpowers. i know he isnt a comic-book character but, he did have superpowers right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.0.172 (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You yourself have defeated your own ridiculous argument. If Jesus Christ is not a comic book hero, why are you judging him as such then? I will play the devils advocate and answer you that if Jesus is God (Christian view) than he will have infinite powers and therefore listing them as opposed to just saying he is God or the Son of God is moot. Gabr-el 00:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

riduculous?, Here i thought there were no stupid(or ridiculous) questions? i simply wanted to know all his powers he demonstrated during his tenure. besides i never judged him to be a comic-book character did you not read the part where i said i know he wasn't? also, if an omnipotent being becomes flesh/mortal i would only assume his abilities would become finite but no less powerful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.0.172 (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh this is not school boy, this is wikipedia, where we discuss the article. Now whilst your question seems to address the article more than the content, it is stupid in that you know that Jesus is not a comic book character and yet you speak about him as if he is one. Did you not read my post? I know you know hes not a comic book character - if you realize that Jesus is not a comic book character than why treat him as one? Anyways, I have already told you the Christian view that he had God's powers (which are infinite). Muslims believe that everything he did came from God - so in one sense he could anything by this interpretation as well since it would come from an infinite God.Gabr-el 01:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

what a condescending attitude! i am no "boy" nor am i "stupid" i may not be a snob but i felt my question was valid, perhaps could have been posed "heey make a section that stated a listing of his miracle abilites or whatever that should be a significvant point in an article of jesus, no? . perhaps you need tact, actually please just disregard and delete this then if it is so stupid and ridiculous. i never should have said comic book right? i just have to defer to your wisdom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.0.172 (talk) 01:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

you're right. You never should have said comic book. I think knowing not to would be called...um...tact! Farsight001 (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

i know this convo was posted some time ago, but 67.70.0.172, your question woulda been valid, if you had asked it another way. comparing a comic strip to Jesus offends many, and in many ways offends Jesus himself. since like Gabr-el#top said, Jesus's powers is infinite, so don't refer it as though he has a limited amount of it, and do not treat him and everything about him (including his powers) without any respect, even in speech and in typing. if i were you, i would have asked instead for a list of miracles Jesus preformed that were recorded down to be put on the page, that, i think is more 'relevant' and appropriate than referring Jesus as a character in a comic strip or anything else you may refer to him as with lack of respect. Randomlife7 (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

scholarship and gospel accounts

Again, I am adding scholarly references to the gospel accounts section, a section that otherwise violates verifiability standards (it's all referenced to primary sources). Leadwind (talk) 01:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Defteri countered my scholarly references (from a university-level textbook) with praimary sources (scripture) and personal interpretations, so I had to revert it. Here on Wikipedia, we don't interpret the issues ourselves. We find scholars who have interpreted the issues and cite them. If the material that I've cited is not as clear-cut as my source makes it out to be, then someone can surely find a reliable source that interprets the same material in another way. Until then, however, individual editors are not to use their personal judgment to counter scholarly opinion. Leadwind (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Defteri, as I mention on talk:Historical Jesus, we should all be familiar with the proper use of primary sources and the dangers of trying to interpret primary sources to make a point. This page's gospels section is almost entirely based on primary sources. It needs more scholarly sources, not more primary references. Please find reputable scholars that agree with you and cite them. Leadwind (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Leadwind is mixing up two very different questions. The first is, "What do the Gospels day" and the Gospels themselves are fine sources for just (and just) that. The second question is, what "really" happened and here NPOV becomes a major concern because different people have different beliefs. What historians think and what Christians think for example are often different. Here we definitely need secondary sources, but these views belong in other sections (where indeed they are already found). It is very dangerous to mix up "what the Gospels say" with "what actually happened" as Leadwind is doing. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I think debates over what the individual Gospels mean, as well as debates over manuscripts and the history of the texts themselves, is legitimately covered by ood secondary sources, and does merit its own article - ideally one article each for each o the Gospels, going over the history of the scrolls or folios, and diferent interpretions, and a fifth article on "the Gospels" as a section of the NT. I do not oppose dawing on this research, i just think it belongs in other articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

SLR, please find a reference to WP policy that supports your contention that primary sources are OK for the Jesus article. In my reading of policy, quotes from Mark are OK in the article on Mark. They're not OK (by themselves) in an article on a different topic. Leadwind (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

SLR, more to the point, please show us where WP policy says scholarship doesn't belong in this section. Leadwind (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The section is "according to the Gospels" Not according to the Catholic Church, not according to Bart Ehrman. What policy says we cannot use Mak in a section that tells us what Mark says? We use secondary sources for forwarding arguments, interpretations, and explanations. My point is that arguments over explanations and interpretations, including arguments over the validity or use of the sources, belongs in other sections of the article. My point is about the organization of the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

SLR, please find WP policy or guidelines that say that primary sources can be used in this way, and find WP policy or guidelines that editors on a page can decide that a section can be designated as not including scholarship, only primary sources. The way I look at it, every article and section has an implicit phrase before its title: "(what reliable sources say about)..." The Abraham Lincoln article describes (what reliable sources say about) Abraham Lincoln. The Islam article describes (what reliable sources say about) Islam. The Jesus in the Gospels section should describe (what reliable sources say about) Jesus in the Gospels. If this section (and the section on Christian beliefs) are to be exceptions, find the policy or guideline that allows such an exception. I'm not aware of any provision for editors agreeing that they're going to do their own work from primary sources for a topic. Reliable sources belong everywhere. Leadwind (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, dude, the burden is on you. You want to alter something that has been in the article for at least a couple of years. The burden is on you to show that it is in violation of policy. What policy says this is not allowed? Quote, please. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised to be asked for a reference to a fundamental WP policy that everyone should be familiar with, but a reference is easy to find. See wp:v, where it states: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. . . In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." I want to add RS material to this section, and you apparently don't want me to. My main source is a popular university-level textbook. Since reliable sources are fundamental to WP, could you find some guideline or policy that says it's OK to section off part of an article and exclude RSs from it? Furthermore, the whole project of creating an original harmony of the gospels, as this section does, is original research. Also from the same page, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Same page: "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed..." I read that to mean that I could delete all the primary-source material in the gospels section, and editors should only restore it if they can back it up with reliable source references. Now I'm not about to do that. My goal is much more modest: add RSs to the section. Leadwind (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I repeat, please provide me with a policy that supports your view. V does not. Ve demands that the article be based on reliable secondary sources and this article meets that standard and then some. Primary sources can be used in Wikipedia, thsy just cannot be used to further an argument. This section uses primary sources only to summarize what the Gospels say; not to make any argument.

You, Leadwind, are injecting your own POV into this article by taking one section of the article - and it is only one section of a MUCh longer article - that does not make any argument, and you are rewriting it to further an argument. As i said, this article is not the place for discussions of arguments over the interpretation of the Gospels - that belongs in an article on the Gospels. And your selective use of sources does dot do a fair jo of illustrating the wide range of interpretation and argument over the interprettion of the Gospels. Do it, but do it right, and in articles on the Gospels. This article states that most historians rely on the Gospels as the main source on Jesus' life; it is reasonable to have one section of the article summarize what the Gospels say. And if ll we are doing is using Mark as a source for what mark says, well, that is fully compliant with our policies. it is clearly verifiable as anyone can get a copy of mark and see that mark says what we claim he says. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

SLR, I quoted policy in support of my stance, that we should cite reliable sources. Can you cite policy in support of your stance, that editors can choose to segregate certain sections of an article and exclude reliable sources from them? You make an argument that this section shouldn't include references to RSs, but can you cite policies or guidelines to that effect? Leadwind (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, I agree that we should have a section summarizing what the gospels say about Jesus. Where should we look to find out what the gospels say about Jesus? To the gospels? No, they're primary sources. If we read the gospels and decide amongst ourselves how to summarize them, that's original research. We should look to the reliable sources and ask, "Hey, reliable sources, what do the gospels say about Jesus?" Leadwind (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I repeat, provide a policy that supports your position. As i explained, WP:V does not support your position. there is no Wikipedia policy that flatly prohibits the use of primary sources. Mark is a reliable source, as I explained. If English is not your primay language I should explain that "reliable" and "secondary" do not mean the same thing. Primary and secondary sources refer to whether the sources provide information or interpretations or arguments about that information; reliability has to do with the confidence we have that the source is the appropriate one for the information it claims to provide. There is no more reliable source for what the book of Mark says than the Book of Mark.

This is not a debate about sources. This is a debate about information versus argument. The section on the Gospel account does not provide any interpretation or explanation of the Gospels it simply describes what the Gospels say. Now please provide a policy explaining that this is omehow forbidden. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to eliminate the Bible quotes from this section. I just want us to add scholarly opinion on the topic. You say we shouldn't add scholarly opinion here. Obviously, properly cited reliable sources are fundamental to good editing. If there's some policy or guideline about what sections of an article should have scholarship excluded from it, just cite it. If not, accept scholarly citations in this section. Leadwind (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Once the section becomes a section that is about interpretations rather than a straightforward description of the sources, then we are obliged to include every notable interpretation. I hope you have the Anchor Bible by your side. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

SLR, you make a compelling case, but it's not about what you and I agree is prudent, it's about policy. Here are more quotes about reliable sources and primary sources. "Primary sources can be reliable in some situations, but not in others. Whenever they are used, they must be used with extreme caution in order to avoid original research. Primary sources are considered reliable for basic statements of fact as to what is contained within the primary source itself (for example, a work of fiction is considered a reliable source for a summary of the plot of that work of fiction). Primary sources are not considered reliable for statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion (for example, a work of fiction is not a reliable source for an analysis of the characters in the work of fiction). For such statements, we must cite reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia articles should be based around reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources." The gospel and the Christian views section use primary sources far too liberally. In the gospels section, well-meaning editors have combined selected information from four distinct primary sources in order to create a single overview of Jesus. That's too far. The section needs reliable sources. Leadwind (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is about policy, and I agree that primary sources cannot be used to forward any editor's interpretation or argument. This article uses plenty of secondary sources - I know, i have added many - and i am glad it does, and these secondary sources are a huge part of what makes this a great articles. But th policy does not forbid primary sources. As long as we use the Gospel as sources only for an account of what the Gospels themselves say, without using them to make any of our own interpretive claims about what the Gospels "mean," then we are not violating policy.I respect your concern about people combining quotes from different Gospels to create a synthesis that is not in any one Gospel. I do not think that this requires us to abandon using primary sources, but if your point is that we must use them carefully I am glad to say we are in full agreement. I see a value in a section on "according to the Gospels" under one condition and one condition only: that it provides only straightforward an account of what the Gospels say, without using them to forward any argument. I see value in this and would not want to sacrifice it, but I would agree that the citations cannot be combined to say something not in any one Gospel. What I propose is this: instead of looking for secondary sources to ass to the "according to the Gospels" section's argumentative claims, we should delete anything that is not pure description of what the Gospels say. In other sections I think you and I already agree: any interpretive or explanatory argument needs a secondary source. I realize you may still not agree but i hope at least i am presenting my view clearly. I hope you will consider that it is forwarded in good faith and is meant to comply with our NOR policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me add an opinion here. Is it ever going to be possible, in reality, to have a 'pure description of what the Gospels say?' Quite apart from the issues of authenticity of the text, and of appropriate translations of the text, there is the important issue of how we select what is presented and in what context. Certainly the Gospels can be used as references for themselves (Does Mark 10:45 say the Son of Man came to give his life as a ransom for many? Yes). But that is true only of individual statements. Summaries are a different matter. What quotes go in? What ones are left out? How can that ever be decided in a neutral way? Can it ever be neutral to have an article which quotes 'what the Gospels say' without making a POV decision that the Gospels say one big thing in different ways, as opposed to looking at what each individual Gospel says separately? When stating what one Gospel says, do we mention that other Gospels say different and sometimes contradictory things, and others fail to mention them? Do we draw an inference from that, or ignore it? Are we not making an interpretation either way? Is it not better in this circumstance to give an opinion from a notable authority on each view? --Rbreen (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think these are all very reasonable issues to discuss. Just to share some history: I was not the person who created this section. When it was created, I had the same concerns. there was real discussion involving many editors here and there seemed to be a consensus to keep it, as long as descriptive claims (this is found only in mark vs. this is found in the three synoptic gospels vs. this is in both Luke and Matthew, but in different versions) were as straightforward as possible. Now, Rbreen, if you and Leadwind want to reopen this discussion, I have no objection, but I would suggest you take ten or fifteen minutes to see when the section was added and by whom, look at the discussion from that time to see who supported it, and try to get their attention and bring them back to the discussion. For the moment, my opinion is this: the concerns Rbreen raises are the critical ones worth discussion. I know Leadwind's efforts and comments were all in good faith, I just think they missed the mark. We either have a section "According to the Gospels" which stickes solely to primary sources but only to provide the most limited and direct account i.e. NO interpretive claims at all, OR we delete the section in its entirety. And just to repeat a comment I made earlier because it is apropos, I would encourage Leadwind's work of looking for the significant views in secondary sources concerning analysis, interpretation, explanation, of each of the canonical Gospels as well as the process by which the four were made canonical but put all of that in the specific articles on Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. i say this because i acknowledge the great value of the work Leadwind started, but I do not think it (meaning an account of all significant interpretations of each Gospel etc.) can be accommodated in this article. To comply with NPOV, once we start providing interpretations and textual or literary analysis, we have to include all significant views, and this is more appropriate to the articles on each specific book. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Rbreen, I agree that one of the major flaws of this section is its attempt to harmonize four different accounts of Jesus' life. If this section were "what the synoptics say about Jesus," that would make things a lot easier because the synoptics have a lot in common with each other (Marks' narrative and teachings from Q). But this section follows canonical boundaries, making the harmony even trickier. Editors are called on to use their judgment how to put these four texts together. That's why we need scholars, to tell us what the gospels say about Jesus, rather than us tackling that task as a committee of amateurs. Leadwind (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

What you are proposing is nonsense. If you think trying to spin together 4 accounts on Jesus' life is problematic (and please note, I strongly disagree with the idea of that is what we have done here in this article), trying to spin together what ALL SCHOLARS say about Jesus is pure pandemonium. Do you know how many different opinions there are on the historical Jesus? Do you know how vastly different the picture of Jesus varies between Meier, Ehrman, Wright, Borg, Funk, and Sanders, just to name a few of the big wigs. What do we do when we get to the part on the Wedding at Cana? Say that Wright and Meier say it is historical, say Ehrman and Borg think it is pious fiction, and say Funk thinks part of it is semi-historical (please excuse any liberties I have taken with my example). Trying to harmonize what all scholars think would be the worst form of original research, and trying to present a neutral balance is what the historical Jesus article is intended. I agree with what SLR said above. I believe you misunderstand what this section is about. All it is doing is giving a plot summary of the major historical works (primary sources) on the life of Jesus. Christians interpret the stories in countless ways, historians analyze the stories in countless ways. We go into detail in other parts of this article (and spin out articles) on what exactly Christians and scholars and various other POVs think about these stories. But I think it is entirely appropriate to give a simple plot summary on these four major primary sources. It sets up the basic background on what follows in the rest of the article. When you brought this issue up months and months ago, I disagreed that the article was attempting to harmonize the 4 accounts, and challenged you to point out where exactly the text did this. Finally, when you add a historical source to a statement like "Jesus replies that it is the sick who need a physician, not the healthy" you are giving the false impression that the historical community is in consensus In my not so humble opinion, what you have done to the "Life and teachings, as told in the Gospels" section with sourcing has a) basically ruined the article and b) grossly misrepresented the historical position c) grossly misrepresented the views of the Jesus Seminar and d) introduced huge mounds of bias by focusing on such a liberal and controversial organization's sourcing. I strongly, strongly urge a revision back to a version that only included primary sources in this section, and deal with the historical view in the... ummm. HISTORICAL VIEWS section. I apologize if this is a bit harsh, but really, I think your efforts, while diligent and clearly in good faith, have added bias and confusion to the article.-Andrew c ^[talk] 04:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Andrew, I respect your opinion on this, but I think you are wrong here. Firstly, Leadwind is correct to point out that Wikipedia policy strongly favours third party sources rather than primary sources. That should be the substantial basis of the article. Of course we can cite the original text to support individual statements, but once we start compiling a section based on what the Gospel(s) say, that rule no longer applies; it is, I believe, simply naive to suggest that there can ever be a plain and objective description of what the Gospels say. Simply to select some material and not others is to create an intepretation. Even more so, to combine material from the four Gospels together necessitates interpretation. Two of the Gospels have different accounts of the nativity; two have nothing at all. In referring to the two, do we mention the differences, or not? Do we refer only to what two of the Gospels say, or do we mention the fact that others DO NOT say anything? What do you think? It's an interpretation.

I am all for having a summary of what the Gospels say, but (1) that should be in the Gospel articles, and (2) they should be separate. The idea that the Gospels present a single narrative is a point of view.

I cannot see why an article about a historical personage should begin with a summary of primary sources, fenced off from the historical analysis. No other article takes this approach as far as I am aware, and to do so is strange and undermines the encylopedic quality of the article. To separate the texts from the analysis is essentially a point of view - to describe the contents without mentioning the complex nature of the materials, and the differing degree of confidence in the historical reliability of various sections is to privilege one point of view only. I appreciate that the intention is simply to summarise the contents of the Gospels, but be realistic - that is not the way the material is presented in this article. In practice, the Gospels summary is presented as a historical record. If it is possible to have very much more brief summaries of the separate Gospel accounts, I would not object to this, but in fact the Life and Teachings in the Gospel section is the bulk of the article as far as many readers will be aware (I think it's pretty well established that on the internet, readers pay much more attention to the early parts of an article. I suspect many never get down beyond the opening 36 paragraphs; they function, in effect, as the main content of the article.)

Yes, I have not doubt that approaching the article this way is a problematic. There are many points of view and they need to be fairly represented. But to suggest that we should avoid attempting to do because it would be difficult is not the answer. Firstly, we do not need to represent all points of view - Wikipedia policy here as everywhere else is to try and summarise the major points of view, and if it works in other articles there is absolutely no reason why it should not here. I am not saying this is likely to be easy, but it needs to be done if we want this article to conform to policy and operate in the same way as the rest.

Clearly, my preference would be to combine Chronology, Gospel accounts, and historical view together, rather than the current structure. But Leadwind's approach seems better than the previous one.

This is never going to be an easy article, and there will probably never be a consensus on what it contains. That does not mean we should not try. I agree that Leadwind has selected an idiosyncratic collection of sources, but that's what you get when only one editor is adding citations - over a period of time we ought to get a more balanced consensus. Let's not be afraid of pandemonium. The end result will be an improvement. --Rbreen (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Rbreen, I beg you to reconsider AndrewC's post in light of a couple of points I want to make. You write "Firstly, Leadwind is correct to point out that Wikipedia policy strongly favours third party sources rather than primary sources." With all due respect, this is a non-issue. This article IS largely based on reliable secondary sources. But it is a profound distortion of NOR and V to suggest simply that Wikipedia "favors" secondary over primary sources. It demands secondary sources for analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or explanatory claims. It allows primary sources for purely descriptive claims. Obviously since this is an encyclopedia Wikipedia "favors" secondary sources, because we want to provide good accounts of interpretations, analysis, etc. But this article and linked articles do that, and it is not the point. The point is that primary sources are allowed for descriptive claims. Leadwind has been adding secondary sources and thus interpretations to this section and it is adding the interpretations that is the violation of NOR, not the lack of secondary sources. You write "I cannot see why an article about a historical personage should begin with a summary of primary sources, fenced off from the historical analysis. No other article takes this approach as far as I am aware" and you may be true but I think particular circumstances apply here: the canonical gospels constitute the overwhelming bulk of the source material historians use, and they are not very long. So it is easy for us to summarize each Gospel, and it does a major service because it shows readers what raw material historians are asking questions about. Historians have written many books about Jesus, but they all take the Gospels as their starting point. Now, some people may think that including the Gospels somehow means we think they are "true." That is a mistake but the solution is not to cut the accounts of the Gospels, the solution is to make sure that readers know that the accounts are of primary source material that historians examine and interpret critically, that for historians the question of who and when these gospels were written are open questions; the question of the extent to which they draw on earlier texts that no longer exist (oral or written) is an open question; the question of how much they tell us about the life of a man named Jesus who may have lived, versus how much they tell us of the beliefs of the authors, is debated - these are the things we need to be clear about so that readers of this article will learn something about how real historians work. Of course, these are also the principal sources for Christian theologians and it is fair to do the same thing for theology. In any event, our policies definitely allow us to provide descriptive accounts that are not used to promote any one argument, and in the case of Jesus a descriptive account of each of the gospels gives readers a clear point of references for articles on both Christology AND the "historical" Jesus which is indeed a very valuable service. But to remain compliant with policy we cannot be adding secondary sources - to do so would be to change this from an simple description of what the Gospels say to an argument about their meaning and suddenly, we are violating NPOV and NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think combining the sections that Rbreen proposed would be problematic in terms of NPOV. It would give the appearance of favoring what the scholarly elites believe over what the majority of Christians believe. I would be very interested to see what a combined paragraph dealing with miracle stories, or the crucifixion and resurrection would look like. Also, when Rbreen says Two of the Gospels have different accounts of the nativity; two have nothing at all. In referring to the two, do we mention the differences, or not? it makes me wonder if he has even read the section on the nativity in this article. We say the accounts differ, we describe some of the differences, and we say that 2 gospels don't mention the nativity at all. We aren't weaving the tales together to make one single narrative, but instead are describing the similarities and differences. If we were to add the historical view to that section, we'd have to add conditional clauses like "liberal scholars like, X, Y and Z do not believe the nativity stories to be anything but a non-historical later interpolation. Other scholars like, A, B and C think events D and E have some historical basis. Scholars like M, N, and O think the nativity stories to be mostly accurate accounts of the historical Jesus. Conservative Christian historians like S and T believe them to be entirely accurate." If this is not what you are suggesting we do to the "plot summary" section, then I go back to my third sentence. I would be very interested to see what a combined paragraph dealing with a more controversial part of Jesus' life would look like. That said, I understand the reasoning behind Rbreen's claim that we are doing OR by cherry picking what verses in the gospels to mention. However, what Leadwind has done is problematic because it only focuses on the historical view and gives way too much weight to the Jesus seminar. What has been done to the article has given the appearance that we have cherry picked the most important aspects of Jesus' life from the view of the Jesus Seminar. What would the article look like if, instead of adding references from the JS, we added references from the Wycliffe Bible Commentary. It would give the appearance that we were only showing the parts that were significant to conservative/Reformed Christians. In fact, IMO, any attempt to create a harmonized/interpretative biography section that ignores the various mainstream Christians views (or even Islamic views) would be detrimental to NPOV. It also simplifies the fact that there is a big grey area between historical fact and religious belief. It isn't black and white. We have conservative historians who argue for the historicity of commonly held religious beliefs. This is why I predict pandemonium. But perhaps we could create a subpage for us to create a draft. And we could just focus on one section (say Nativity, or Resurrection) and see if what you guys are proposing is even possible. I apologize if I am having a hard time imagining this. The way the article was previously structured was we presented the basic sources, then we had individual sections for various POVs. What you guys seem to be proposing is that we don't deal with the POVs in individual sections, but instead combine them all in one place. Is that correct?-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This article isn't about what Christians believe; its about an historical figure named Jesus. While the religious beliefs surrounding Jesus are of historical significance, we would still need scholarly references to make any such claims. We can't simply poll WP users on the matter. —Memotype::T 17:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If this reply was aimed at me, you have grossly misunderstand what I have said. I never once suggested polling WP users. And your claims that this article is "about an historical figure named Jesus" is patently false. The article you are looking for is historical Jesus. This article is the parent article to cover ALL topics related to Jesus, including religious views. NPOV. We can't ignore that 2.1 billion of the world population is Christian, and 1.5 billion are Muslim. Their views are equally if not MORE important that what a (relative) handful of elitist university types think about this matter. -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoa there. Elitist university types? Wikipedia articles should be based on sound scholarship, even if it is produced by a handful of 'university types'; and most of the 'university types' in this particular instance are Christians. Specifically religious views of Jesus should be included, and they are, in the section called Religious Perspectives. But any article about Jesus, as about any other figure in history, needs to be presented from a factual perspective as far as possible if we are to have neutrality. There are plenty of views, and we need to reflect them proportionately and fairly, which is not going to be easy, but we need to try. Andrew, you are a good editor with an excellent history of contributing to articles, including many I have been involved in myself, so when I hear you dismissing serious scholarly work as by 'elitist university types' I am honestly suprised. We ought to stand up for scholarship, not ridicule it. --Rbreen (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me that he is not dismissing 'elitist university types', but making the point that their views are disproportional and small compared to the views of none elitist types. If you want to make an article about what 'elitists university types' think, then make one under that title, but I believe this page should cover the general spectrum of what most people understand about Jesus, If I do not know anything about Jesus and what others think about Him, this is the place I would expect to find some of those answers, we should then point to other pages for those that want more specific information. Hardyplants (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's my compromise offer: We keep the section, even though, as Rbreen says, its very constitution is suspect. And the only scholarship is about the content of the gospels' descriptions of Jesus, not interpretation. For example, nothing about historians favoring the idea that Jesus really was baptized, betrayed, and executed. I agree with Rbreen that this section is effectively the history section. It's also POV for this section to summarize the four canonical gospels. From whose perspective does that make sense? It makes sense to a theologian, not to a historian. In a spirit of compromise, I'm OK with leaving a "four Christian gospels" section in an NPOV article, but then it really needs to be scholarly to prevent the inherent bias from distorting the NPOV. I agree with Andrew that the beliefs of Christians are more important to this page than findings of historians. No historians would give a hoot about Jesus if it weren't for the Christians. If this section is to be "what Christians get from the Gospels" section, that's fine, slip it under Christian views. Even so, we'll want to use scholarship to write the section. I lean heavily on the Jesus Seminar because they are comprehensive, and they represent not one scholar's view but the general view of Funk, Harris, Crossan, Borg, and other notable scholars. If someone can suggest a different, more mainstream comprehensive guide to the gospels and historical Jesus, suggest it. At this point, I could switch to using the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. It leans friendly to Christian faith, so it ought not be controversial. Or maybe I'll just lay off for a while, so as not to try your patience. Leadwind (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Andrew c, I see your first point. What I meant was that this article should not simple present to beliefs of Christians as fact. Of course Christian beliefs should be discussed, but they should be discussed as such, not as fact. Fact requires verifiability. It seemed to me that you were suggesting that we should throw these standards out, and just quote theologians verbatim as though it were simply the case. Sorry if I misunderstood. —Memotype::T 21:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Andrew, I don't like disagreeing with you, or with Rubenstein. Let's see if we can reach some understanding. You say "trying to spin together what ALL SCHOLARS say about Jesus is pure pandemonium." I haven't heard anyone suggest that we attempt such a work. I surely haven't. All I want to summarize is what the scholars say the gospels say about Jesus (as opposed to what the WP editors say the gospels say about Jesus). For example, William Wrede established the messianic secret c 1901, the theme in Mark that Jesus hides his divine identity. Wrede further concluded that Mark treats Jesus' identity as a secret to accommodate the fact that Jesus never claimed to be divine in the first place. The gospel section on this page should include half this information, the raw fact of the messianic secret. The second half, that Wrede and scholars in his tradition have an unflattering explanation for why there is a messianic secret, is a second order of interpretation and doesn't belong here. What the last supper is, sure. How it's similar to pagan memorial meals and unappealing to Jewish sensibilities, no. That Luke and Matthew have very different birth stories? Sure. That fictitious miraculous birth stories were frequently appended to the lives of saints? No. We don't have to say everything. But when we summarize what the gospels say about Jesus, we should (as we do everywhere) let the scholars guide us and cite them. I could go further and say that this whole section is out of place. Are we talking about historical Jesus and Christian Jesus? If historical Jesus, then the gospel section would be very different. If the Christian Jesus, then move the section under Christian view. Rbreen is right that this section implicitly carries the weight of a "history" or "biography" section, but its actual identity is ambivalent. Which "Jesus" are we talking about? That said, as long as this section has scholarship behind it, I won't make a fuss about scripture standing in place of biography. Leadwind (talk) 06:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Jesus the Jew

It seems to me that there isn't enough of Jesus's Jewish life in here. Maybe an expansion is in order? Dr.House ( The Man) (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

We have very little data on how most Jews lived in the first century, and nothing beyond the Gospels for Jesus, but this article has one or two sections on the historical Jesus with linked articles. Given the length of this article we can't really add anything, further details go in the linked articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I sure wouldn't mind a summary of Jesus' Jewish roots, probably in the historical views section. Leadwind (talk) 06:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the basis for this?

I just removed this, to talk, for discussion:

Jesus' sayings are considered more likely to be authentic when they use arresting or confounding imagery and when they work as stories carried through an oral tradition.

This is new to me; Leadwind did some other edits for criteria that are all familiar to me but I do not know where this comes from. Considered more authentic by whom? Christians? Theologians? Historians? In fact, I would think any text from a long time ago and considered sacred would be filled with arresting images or strange events; this attests to the power of literature and not to its antiquity. I will never forget the spaceship scene in The Life of Brian and that scene may be one of the reasons people keep watching the film but it has no bearing on its age or authenticity. Can we source it to a major historian (Meier or Sanders would more than satisfy me)? Also, the meaning of "arresting" and "confounding" may be obvious to some but not to me, it seems subjective compared to the other criteria, what exactly do historians mean? Slrubenstein | Talk

Thanks for putting the deleted text in talk. This whole section is on historical views, so presumably this is about what historians think, not theologians or Christians. Jesus used confounding and startling imagery, such as "the kingdom of God is like leaven" or like a weedy mustard tree. His followers also ascribed to him various sayings that come from the common fund of Mediterranean wisdom, like that a widow's pittance is more valuable than a rich man's gold. Confounding, startling imagery seems to come from Jesus. Pedestrian aphorisms are just as likely to have been assigned to him by his followers, a practice common in biographies of important men at the time. Now that I have my book open to the section, I can be more specific. 'Sayings attributed to Jesus are deemed more likely to reflect his character when they are distinctive, vivid, paradoxical, surprising, and contrary to social and religious expectations, such as "Blessed are the poor." Short, memorable parables and aphorisms capable of being transmitted orally are also thought more likely to be authentic.' Both sentences are from the introduction of Five Gospels. Leadwind (talk) 02:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Who wrote the introduction to yhour Bible? Is he/she a sigificant historian? I think a better source is someone who has writtne a standard hisotry book or published in peer-reviewed journals (whoich, of course, could be true about whoever wrote your introduction). Bottom line: we need to know whose view it is and that the view is significnt. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Not a Bible, really. Authors are Robert Funk (a name by himself), Roy Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. Five Gospels is the book in which they examine every line attributed to Jesus and rate it anywhere from red (authentic) to black (not reflecting historical Jesus). It's not perfect, but they really do a good job of explaining their process step by step. They are on the non-apocalyptic-Jesus side of the fence, against Armstrong, Tabor, and Ehrman, and I'm more of a fence-sitter myself, but most of their information isn't about apocalypse and is consensus scholarship. 19:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, participants in the Bible Seminar are as far as I am concerned significant points of view and I would be happy for you to restore this text to the article along witht he proper citations. However, you have brought up another point, which is that among significant views there may be some disagreement about the criteria for authenticity. I think to comply with NPOV we have to be clear about this and revise it so that "All historians agree on criteria xi, x2, x3 etc; some historians alo use criteria y1, y2, etc, and other historians use criteria z1, z2, etc..." Does this make sense to you? If we agree, I do not object to returning this text to the article but I do think this has to be clarified. If they define what they mean by arresting or confounding imagery it would be good to add that at least in the reference, since some people may not understand these terms of art. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions here. The Jesus Seminar is on one end of the apocalyptic-nonapocalyptic debate, but in terms of the basics (such as which sayings sound most authentic) I don't know of any critical scholars that disagree with them. I wouldn't cite the JS to say "Sayings concerning apocalyptic imagery are inauthentic" because that's not the scholarly consensus, but in this case I don't know what any contrary critical views would be. Leadwind (talk) 06:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Rasta

The lede contains the following words, "...and he is considered an incarnation of God by the Rastafari movement." I suggest that this be removed from the article, as there are numerous problems with this passage. Following from a mention of Islam, it seems to imply that Islam and the Rastafari movement are equally important, which is certainly not true. It also seems to imply that the Rastafari movement is not Christian, something which many or most Rastas would disagree with (if Rastas are Christians, there is no more reason for a separate mention of them here than there would be a need for a separate mention of Catholics, or any other denomination). One must also ask, why mention the Rastas in the lede but not a hundred other cults or groups that also happen to accept Jesus? Finally, it is unsourced.

I'll replace it with "and he appears as a religious figure in several other religions" or something. Leadwind (talk) 02:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Resting place

This article says that the resting place of Jesus is "A garden tomb, traditionally located in what is now the Church of the Holy Sepulchre." However, Christians believe that Jesus is no longer on this earth in physical form, for He sits at the right hand of God the Father. There is absolutely no evidence that the body of Christ is still on this earth, and since Jesus is primarily a Christian figure, shouldn't the article reflect the beliefs of Christians? I will not change the article right now, but perhaps someone else would like to chime in? --Andrew Kelly (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"since Jesus is primarily a Christian figure, shouldn't the article reflect the beliefs of Christians?" It should include the views of Christians, but it should include other views as well, this is to comply with our NPOV policy. My understanding is that Christians (or at least many Christians) believe Christ sits at the right hand of God. Christians may also believe that Jesus and Christ are one and the same, but there are many people who do believe that a man called Jesus existed and that this man Jesus was and is not Christ, and their views need to be included too. If you feel a significant view is not in the article you can add it as long as you do so in a way that makes it clear that this is a view, and identify whose view it is. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I realize that other views should be added, but why is a minority view in the infobox? --Andrew Kelly (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Others will have to answer that question. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not necessarily a minority view, since the majority of people in the world are not Christians. IMO "resting place" is a rather pointless euphemism in any case, but it does not seem to be possible simply to change it to "tomb", which is not in dispute. Paul B (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

To say that the body of Christ is anywhere on this earth is disputable. Christians believe that He ascended into heaven, therefore He is not on this earth anymore. Perhaps that part of the infobox should be done away with. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You are not listening. He was in a tomb. The tomb is still there whether he is in it or not. Most pharaoh's arwe not in their tombs, but the tomb is still there. Paul B (talk) 08:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Muslims and Christians dispute the existence of Jesus' physical body on earth right now, and they make up a slight majority of 55% of the worlds population. Gabr-el 04:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And many of them are only nominal believers. But the point about tomb remains. Paul B (talk) 08:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Paul makes a good point. I do not like the euphemism, "resting place," but be that as it may, resting place is not a final resting place. There are many "resting places" that were once occupied but are no longer occupied. Since the Church of the Holy Sepulcher is a pilgramage site for many Christians, apparently they too believe that it was Jesus's resting place. Or do they mean something else by the word "sepulcher?" Slrubenstein | Talk 15:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

To me, at least, "resting" gives the idea of present resting; "burial" does not. So, in the case of the person dealt with in this article "resting place" does promote one particular POV. Would it be a good idea to ask an Administrator to add "burial place" to the template? For some people the place where they were buried is not their present "resting place". A country's Unknown Soldier is an obvious example. Defteri (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Defteri, burial place would be much better. The only people (to my knowledge) who don't think Jesus was buried are the one's who don't think He lived in the first place. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

But is burial an accurate descriptor for someone placed in a tomb? He wasn't technically buried, right? Farsight001 (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Quite Slrubenstein | Talk 22:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there anyone who actually believes the Holy Sepulchre was the last resting place of Jesus? It seems to me that the only people who believe Jesus was buried in the tomb are Christians - the same ones who believe he then rose from the dead and his body is no longer on earth. On the other hand, those who do not believe Jesus rose from the dead tend to discount the tomb story entirely as a Christian fiction and assume he was buried somewhere else, probably in a common grave (though I have a friend who assures me he saw the tomb of Jesus in India). A small minority argue that the body was stolen or moved elsewhere. What everybody agrees is that the body of Jesus is not there now. So therefore it is only Christians who believe the tomb was ever the resting place of Jesus, and everyone agrees it was not the final resting place. What we have in the article seems to be the one thing nobody believes. --Rbreen (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the term burial place: dictionary.com gives several definitions of bury. Here are three:

• to put (a corpse) in the ground or a vault, or into the sea, often with ceremony
• to cover in order to conceal from sight
• to dispose of (a corpse) ritualistically by means other than interment or cremation

Obviously it does not necessarily mean that something has to be placed in the ground in order for it to be buried, although that is one definition of the word. It seems all the groups Rbreen mentioned would agree that the body of Jesus was buried at some point, no? --Andrew Kelly (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I substituted this wording: "Traditionally a garden tomb located in what is now the Church of the Holy Sepulchre,[1] from which he rose." Addresses the traditional nature of this knowledge, and the fact that no on thinks he's resting there. I don't feel strongly about my solution if someone has a better one. Leadwind (talk) 06:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Jesus' message. Who was he trying to reach?

After reading Michael Grant's bio i am even more confused. But in a good way. Given Jesus' immediate message of entering the kingdom of heaven, as a Jew was he speaking directly for Jews only? Mainly? Or was his message meant for Jews and gentiles alike? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.140.22 (talk) 05:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Jesus was quite clear that he intended his message only for Jews. See Matthew 15:21-28.[2] Jayjg ^(talk) 05:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Jayig, you should know that Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Jews, and therefore to say that is ridiculous. St Paul and every other Apostolic Father of the Early Church thought otherwise to what you say, as does every single Christian living on Earth who happens not to be following the Old Law.

Mark 7 - Mark 8 - Here, Jesus is still in Gentile territory, and he feeds 4000 people, heals a Phoenocian woman and cures a dumb and deaf person. All of whom are gentiles (since hes in Gentile territory).

Matt 15:21-28 - Thats some bad interpretation of the Bible you have their Jayig. Jesus was testing the woman and he was mocking her on purpose to show how great her faith and resilience was in the face of classical Jewish discrimination against non-Jews.

Acts 10 - Peter receives a vision from God that nothing is unclean, and the next day Gentiles receive the Holy Spirit.

Romans 11:11 - "Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious" - I hope that settles the disastrously wrong comment above - Jesus most certainly came for both Jew and Gentile. Gabr-el 06:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

See also Mark 7:25-30[3] and Matthew 10:1-6: "And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he [...] commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."[4] Jayjg ^(talk) 06:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You guys are looking at texts which most historians believe achieved the form with which we are familiar some time after Jesus' death, and at a time when Jewish/Gentile/Roman relaitions were in flux. Most historians agree that at the time of Jesus' life non-Jews attencded synagogues and listened to Jewish preachers, at least often enough to leave a historical record. Jesus could well have intended his message for Jews while being aware that non-Jews were listening; he may have been glad to share his Jewish vision of the world and of God with non-Jews even though he was principally concerned with preaching to Jews. We can argue over different interpretations of the Gospels, but in the end, all we have are interpretations and historical reconstructions and we are better off saying "Christians believe ... " and "Some historians believe x" and "other historians believe y." Slrubenstein | Talk 17:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Guys, as fractured as Christianity is in today's world, every Christian will tell you that Jesus' teaching was for everyone. I already explained to you what Mat 10 and Mark 7 are about; Jesus testing her. Do you think that he would even be in Gentile territory in the first place? Would he even heal those deaf and dumb people or feed the 4000 people? You haven't answered, instead you've thrown back the same misinterpreted text. Jesus told the disciples not to go into Gentile territory for various reasons. Historians will tell you different things depending upon how they see Jesus' intentions. Jesus told the 12 disciples at the beginning of his ministry not to go to the Gentile territory because

1) It would have been considered wrong to go to the Gentiles first, then the Jews. The Jews had priority, no doubt.

2) The disciples were not experienced enough yet to head out first to Gentiles, who knew little of the Old law and thus would not have been able to understand the teachings of Jesus that is suppose to fulfill the old law.

3) Like I have already said, Matthew was a Jewish-orientated Gospel.

People, there are correct ways to interpret the Bible - but the Bible is not some newspaper to be read simply - you must understand the meaning behind each story, the context of the words said and above all in the case of Matthew to whom it was said. And every Christian will tell you that Jesus was intending for both Jews and Gentiles, for in the Gospel's own words, "even the dogs eat the scraps" -that's quoting from Matt 10. Otherwise, Christians don't deserve to be Christians, only Jews can!!! A big bummer for the 2 billion Christians in the world. Gabr-el 21:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Gabr-el, Wikipedia is not concerned with "correct" ways to interpret the Bible. It is interested in verifiable accounts of significant interpretations of the Bible, whether you or a hundred or a thousand or a million people think the interpretation is correct or incorrect. You've made some claims about what "all Christians believe" - it would satisfy me if you just provided sources for the RC Church, Greek Orthodox, and major Protestant communions (or however they are called). This of course sill leaves aside the verifiable significant interpretations of historians and other notable views. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, think about rationally and NOT from a faith-based view. If Jesus was for Jews only, then no Gentile would be allowed to become a Christian. How stupid does it get? That means every Christian is not really Christian, since they have to be Jews first, and the Council of Jerusalem in 50 AD denied this. I don't have to cite this anymore than I have to cite common sense. And I am not the only one looking at this. Gabr-el 17:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Everything on wikipedia needs to be backed up by reliable sources, especially when challenged, in good faith, by another editor. That said, it seems like we have gotten off topic. Is anyone proposing any changes to the article? If not, could we conclude this discussion before we get even further off track? -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, lets make it amply clear for you all. If Jesus' message were only for Jews, then why are there so many non-Jewish Christians? A contradiction, don't you think?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Gabr-el 18:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused, are you making a proposal for a change in this article? -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No, just correcting Jayig's note. Gabr-el 23:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You are not correecting Jayjg's note. there are many historians who believe Jesus preached for and only for Jews. As to why his teachings came to be embraced by so many Gentiles, well, that is a reasonable question and historians have answers for that, too ... but the historical claim that Jesus preached for Jews, and that later non-Jews came to build a religion around his teachings, are not mutually exclusive claims. Roman law was intended for Rome's citizens and subjects, and yet it has been used by contemporary legal systems that are not subjects of the Roman Empire. This kind of thing happens all the time. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Gabr-el, you're asking a perfectly valid question, but this page isn't for perfectly valid questions, it's for discussing article content. How about I swing by your talk page and give a stock scholarly answer to your question? You answered a question of mine once, so I'll return the favor. Leadwind (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Leadwind. My religious zeal consumes me. :) Gabr-el 22:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

logos subsection

I added a brief subsection to the "what to do the gospels say about Jesus" section. It seems relevant to the topic, and I'm not sure why it's not covered. This isn't the history section, it's the gospel section, and this is a noteworthy feature of John's gospel. If someone feels like reverting me, go ahead, but then explain why here. For the ease of your review, allow me to quote my text: "The Gospel of John opens with a hymn identifying Jesus as the divine Logos, or Word, that formed the universe (John 1:1-5;9-14).[26] Jesus' earthly life was the Logos incarnate (John 1:14).[26]" Footnotes are to Harris, a university textbook.

Lamb of God as well?Gabr-el 22:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, Jesus is the Lamb of God in John, right? The Lamb that gets slaughtered the night before Passover (14 Nisan, with the other lambs), and not on Passover itself (per synoptics). Sure, feel free to add Jon's declaration that Jesus is the Lamb of God. Leadwind (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to answer the question of "why," I think it is because when we agree to include a summary of the Gospels we knew we couldn't discuss everything and used as a criteria a summary of elements that all significant points of view refer to. Historians who write of Jesus' life never refer to logos or the lamb. I am just suggesting an answer to the question. I think it is important to distinguish between Jesus and Christ. For some people they are one and the same, and this is a significant view. For other people they are most definitely not the same, and this too is different. This is one of the issues we mus grapple with to ensure NPOV. I think much of what you guys are raising here belongs in Wikipedia, but in the Christology article. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well actually, these are titles given to Jesus Christ in the Gospels, not some deep mystical revelation into what they mean, so they are relevant, no? Gabr-el 16:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Gabr-el, you have added a John the Baptist reference to the Logos section. This isn't the "titles of Jesus" section, it's the "Logos" section. How about moving the John reference to the section on John? Or creating a new subsection at the end of the Gospel section called "Names and Titles," where you could put Logos, Lamb of God, True Vine, etc. Leadwind (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

SLR, Like you, I believe it is important to distinguish between Jesus and Christ. I'm surprised to read that this section is supposed to contain only "elements that all significant points of view refer to." You're right that the Hymn to the Word at the beginning of John isn't referred to by all significant POVs, but neither is the rest of John. Do we take out resurrection appearances for the sake of those who consider them fictions? The nativity stories, roundly considered myth? Let's just have this section be "What the gospels say about Jesus." Simple. Informative. Not really controversial. Leadwind (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It was with your approval. Besides, I didn't know where to add it in. Gabr-el 23:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know you intended to add this reference to this section. How about moving it to a subsection where it fits better, like the Baptism section or a new Titles section? Leadwind (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure why not. Gabr-el 22:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

reorg genealogy and nativity sections

First, the genealogy section is too picky, with reference to Levi, etc. This is a summary, and the genealogies aren't that big a deal compared to Jesus' resurrection, teachings, etc. Second, there are two different nativity stories, and they sort of get mushed together. It sort of sounds like the wise men showed up at the manger. But Luke and Matthew have different nativity stories, one homey and sweet, where a little drummer boy might show up. But in Matthew, it's Magi and the King who take note, not shepherds and farm animals. So let's reorg this so that each nativity sequence gets its due.

For some people, the genealogies are more important than the resurrection. In fact, why the geneaologies matter so much to some people, and the resurrection to others, is an important historical questions. You cannot push the questions of historians outt of the article. Second, you need verifiable sources to show that the views you espouse are significant. None of us put our own interpretations of the Gospels into the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

For whom are the genealogies more important than the resurrection? To people trying to prove that the Bible contradicts itself? That's not about Jesus. Historians? They discount them. Theologians? They've definitely come down in the resurrection camp. Our genealogy section is so lengthy it even gets an interpretation from a lone scholar on the priestly and royal theme. And as for sources, of course, I'll include them. I paid good money for these books, and I'm happy to show them off. In a good article, what isn't there is almost as important as what is. The more the main relevant points are obscured by secondary points, the harder it is for the reader to get the main points. The genealogy section could be effectively replaced by something very short. "Matthew and Luke each provide a genealogy of Jesus and a story of his birth. In both gospels, Jesus is descended from King David and born of a virgin in Bethlehem, in fulfillment of prophecy. His mother is Mary and her husband is Joseph. In Matthew, wise men from the East come with gifts for the one born King of the Jews, and Herod tries to kill Jesus by slaughtering the infant boys of Bethlehem. To escape, the family flees to Egypt. In Luke, John the Baptist has his own miraculous conception. He is Jesus' cousin, and he recognizes Jesus while both are in the womb. During a census, Mary is forced to give birth in a stable, and angels lead shepherds to the newborn child. Matthew's and Luke's respective genealogies cannot be readily reconciled." That summarizes what the two nativity stories say about Jesus. We avoid historical context, such as that the nativity stories are believed to represent some of the latest parts of the gospels, along with the resurrection stories. Leadwind (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The genealogy and nativity sections are too long, longer than the more important baptism and temptation section. Read the sections for yourself and see. I propose a shorter treatment that also distinguishes Luke's and Matthew's different accounts, thus:

Matthew and Luke each provide a genealogy of Jesus and a story of his birth. In both gospels, Jesus is descended from King David and born of a virgin in Bethlehem, in fulfillment of prophecy. His mother is Mary and her husband is Joseph. In Matthew, wise men from the East come with gifts for the one born King of the Jews, and Herod tries to kill Jesus by slaughtering the infant boys of Bethlehem. To escape, the family flees to Egypt. In Luke, John the Baptist has his own miraculous conception. He is Jesus' cousin, and he recognizes Jesus while both are in the womb. During a census, Mary is forced to give birth in a stable, and angels lead shepherds to the newborn child. Matthew's and Luke's respective genealogies cannot be readily reconciled.

Maybe this is too short, but it's a good start. Comments? Leadwind (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

life span

Could the opening line give the years of Jesus' life span as (c 0 to c 30)? Then deal with the details and the ranges in the body of the article? Leadwind (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I personally prefer the ranges. Scholars have a number of events with which to date Jesus' birth and death, so their precision has basis (Herod's death, Pilate's death, etc). Therefore, I like that we can have a relatively precise range to give. Furthermore, 0 not only falls outside of the 7-2 BCE range we give, 0 isn't an actual year (it went from 1 BCE straight to 1 CE). That said, I wouldn't be opposed to giving a c. either, although I would oppose 0 as the birth date. Any other opinions?-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll second Andrew's call for other opinions. Meanwhile, I had second thoughts about year 0 myself. How about "(c 4 BC/BCE to c 30 AD/CE)"? That puts us in the middle of our 7-2 range and connects us to Herod, as Matthew and Luke both do. I agree with you that the article should cover the precise historical milestones that we use to measure Jesus' life span, but I'd like to keep the lede simple. We're already burdened with the split AD/CE, so adding ranges on top of that makes this first sentence too complicated. We could even put the ranges in a footnote for anyone who reads those numbers and wants to know where they come from. Let's use figures that are easy for people to parse and remember, so that a readers is more likely to remember Jesus' birth and death years the next day. Leadwind (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I am for changing to something like c 4 BC-AD 29 (or whatever) and dealing with the specifics later. It looks real sloppy right now. Just my opinion :) Cheers, T Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 17:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I am with Andrew. i do not think it looks sloppy ... actually, I am not sure what sloppy "looks" like. it either is sloppy, or is not sloppy. Sloppy would be an imprecise and inaccurate account of a particular POV, in this case of historians. If historians differ or provide a range of possible dates, then to provide that range is not sloppiness, it is professional. When someone does a statistical analysis and reports a margin of error of plus or minus 3%, they are not being sloppy - they are being honest about the nature of statistical analysis. In this case I see nothing sloppy about the way historical research is being presented. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Jesus lived to be 33 not 30--71.227.87.59 (talk) 08:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Another reason why a range is better than a specific date, even if it is qualified circa.-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

33 is just traditional - there is no real source. Luke 3:23 says Jesus was "about 30" when he began his ministry. Some say his ministry was 3 years, others just 1, making him "about 31" or "about 33" when he died. With circa we do not know if ± 7 years or ±1 year is meant --JimWae (talk) 05:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

33 is not "just traditional". Jesus started his ministry at 30, according to the Gospel of Luke. According to the Gospel of John, Jesus went to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover 3 times - so that means 3 years of ministry. Other Gospels do not mention the three passover celebrations for various reasons, in all likelihood to save space and time as they rushed to complete such a long narrative (see the end of the Gospel of John for this too). Thus, 33 years is not just traditional, but logical if we are to look at all the Gospels with an inclusive perspective - i.e. including all information, we can conclude that Jesus was 30 from Luke and 3 years of teaching in John. I do not know of any source actually stating how long Jesus' ministry was, but at the least it was 3 years if Jesus went to Jerusalem 3 times. Gabr-el 05:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

About 30 means maybe 27-33 to me. It may mean something more exact to you, but it does not mean exactly 30. Luke tries to be quite clear on the year JB started, but did not try to do so for Jesus> I think John is regarded as the least chronological of the gospels, no? --JimWae (talk) 05:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I gave too much reliance on the 30 of Luke. It is true that John's Gospel is the least chronological - but it is not from John's timing of events that I drawthese conclusions; only his mentioning of Jesus celebrating passover three times - so that means at least 3 years of ministry. Therefore, if I were to take your reasonable 27-33 suggestion, that would put Jesus' life at 30-36. Gabr-el 05:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

While you guys are presenting intriguing arguments, we have to realize that the bible is a really difficult thing to interpret. Good thing there are loads and loads of scholars with published material exactly on this topic. And we cite them extensively in the lead already! I think we should focus on actual sources instead of trying to logically figure it out ourselves (because due to NOR, we couldn't publish it here anyway). Also, 3 passovers means a bare minimum of just over 2 years, not 3. Imagine a scenario where Jesus' ministry started a week before passover in 29, and was crucified on Passover in 31. That's 2 years and 1 week, not 3 years. (and now I'm guilty of OR myself)... -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, here is the work page we created that listed the research we found on this topic /Dates of Birth and Death.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I want to underscore Andrew's point: this is an OR issue. Gabr-el, your interpretation of Scripture, like mine, just does not belong in this article. We look for notable secondary sources with significant views and provide an accurate account of them. That is what the article currently does. I see nothing in this discussion that could lead to any improvement. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I can understand if an atheist was to reprimand me for using the Bible to prove that Jesus is the Son of God, but my conclusion and the evidence drawn from the Bible is not exactly OR or POV pushing; the lifespan of Jesus based upon how many Passovers he took is barely a viewpoint at all!! Gabr-el 03:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Gabr-el, by using John to estimate Jesus' lifespan, you're assuming the POV that it's anything like a historically reliable document. You're using primary sources, the Gospels, to prove a point. The trick with WP is that you need to find a scholar who uses the primary sources to make the point, you can't just make it. You're synthesizing John and Luke to create a combo calculation. That you sure can't do with primary sources. Besides, Luke has one history and John has another. How can they both be reliable? Leadwind (talk) 04:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well - its just a suggestion :)Gabr-el 07:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Gospels > Ministry section

I split it into subsections with headers. Previously, it was a number of paragraphs with not much for transitions and not much for sequence. Each subsection needs a look to make it cohere to the header. I'd do the work on the subsections myself, but I thought I should let the community comment before I invested more time into it. I hope it is clear that in this case at least I'm merely trying to improve comprehension, not push a POV in one direction or another. Headers help readers and editors orient themselves. Leadwind (talk) 03:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the headers. I think each subsection is still going to need a look over. Leadwind (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

historical Jesus

Can anyone provide on example, rom a reliable and notable source, of a significant Bible scholar who rejects the existence of Jesus? Slrubenstein | Talk 02:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't Bible scholar restrict the selection unduly? What about "Historian"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite. Who are these historians you have in mind? -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, historians who are not Bible scholars, but work on the wider field of Eastern Mediterranean history around 1CE. I would interprete "Bible Scholar" more narrowly than Slrubenstein, as someone who is primarily concerned with the Bible, not with the broader historical context of the events it describes. I'm fine with his clarification below. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

By "Bible scholar" I meant anyone with expertise in Biblical languages and the analysis of Biblical texts. Such scholars generally divide into people studying the Bible as literature, or Biblical history (which I mean broadly, to include people who study the historical period described in the Bible, as well as the historical period in which the Bible was written and edited). So I consider this an inclusive term. Obviously the opinions of a US Civil War historian or an economic historian focusing on 20th century France are irrelevant. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't think of one. I've read individual scholars who say he didn't exist, but no one notable. Even those mean old Jesus Seminar guys acknowledge that he was a historical figure. Leadwind (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

There must be some, perhaps Marginal Jew has a compilation of the arguments. 68.123.64.168 (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be a good place to look. I don't have a copy on hand. I am sure that some "people" believe it, just no Biblical scholars (as I define it above) think it is likely he did not exist. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You all might be interested in looking at Jesus myth hypothesis, which covers the idea that there was no historical Jesus. If you find this idea interesting, you may wish to participate in the discussion at Talk:Jesus myth hypothesis, which badly needs additional input.

To answer the question asked at the beginning of this section, Robert M. Price, a biblical scholar (under Slrubenstein's definition), is sympathetic to the notion that Jesus didn't exist, but in what I've read he says that this is likely the case, rather than saying that Jesus definitely didn't exist. In the 19th and early 20th centuries there were a number of authors, some fairly influential, who argued that Jesus didn't exist--to name two, Bruno Bauer and Arthur Drews. Bauer might qualify as a biblical scholar, but is probably best thought of as a philosopher; Arthur Drews was a philsopher. More recently, George Albert Wells wrote a number of books arguing that Jesus didn't exist; he is a professor of German rather than a biblical scholar, but seems fairly well-informed about 18th/19th century German theology and biblical scholarship. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

From what I have read, most proponents of the Jesus Myth argument do not claim that Jesus (son of Mary and Joseph) did not exist, only that Jesus Christ did not exist. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

What sources have you read? The sources I've read define the "Christ-Myth theory" as the thesis that there was no historical Jesus (i.e., no Jesus, son of Mary and Joseph). --Akhilleus (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

historical Jesus, weird sentence

This is one of those really general sentences that doesn't really tell you much, and it's really long. It looks like a sentence that had stuff tacked on, making it too long. A trick I learned is to test text is to read it aloud. Try this sentence. "Many scholars have sought to reconstruct Jesus' life in terms of contemporaneous political, cultural, and religious currents in Israel, including differences between Galilee and Judea, and between different sects such as the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and Zealots,[74][75] and in terms of conflicts among Jews in the context of Roman occupation." Anyone want to work on it? Leadwind (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Scholars have reconstructed Jesus' life based on modern cues such as the political, cultural and religious difference within Israel. Of similar importance is the analysis of the conflicts between the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots and Romans in the 1st Century AD/CE. Gabr-el 03:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Not modern cues! Where do you get that? This contradicts the quoted passage and has no support. Slrubenstein | Talk 06:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find a fancy term. They're using modern "stuff" anyways. Gabr-el 07:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

What modern stuff are they using? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Didn't the previous thing say "currents". Or do they mean current as in a poetic way? I saw current and thought of the current Israel. Gabr-el 22:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

"Many scholars have sought to reconstruct Jesus' life in terms of the political, cultural, and religious conditions in Israel at that time, taking into account the separate political districts of Galilee and Judea, the different religious sects (Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and Zealots,[74][75]), and the power struggles among Jews within the context of the Roman occupation." --JimWae (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Game. Gabr-el 23:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No that is not correct - the research is very much concerned with differences between Judea and the Galil, Vermes, Sanders, many others pay attention to these differences. By the way, the word "currents" does not mean current with your life, it means current with Jesus's life. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"Many scholars have sought to reconstruct Jesus' life in terms of the political, cultural, and religious conditions in Israel at that time, taking into account the separate political districts of Galilee and Judea, the different religious sects (Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and Zealots,[74][75]), and the power struggles among Jews within the context of the Roman occupation." - this was JimWae's original before deleting the Galilee section. Gabr-el 00:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

So? Anyway, the source of your (Gabr-el) confusion I think is the anachronistic and inappropriate use of the word Israel in the sentence. I tried fixing it, directly in the article. Let me know if you (all of you) do not think it is an improvement. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not confused anymore. I figured out you were talking about Ancient Israel. Gabr-el 07:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if we split the sentence up (which we must), it doesn't convey much information. It's like a sentence in a high school essay in which the author mentions topics without telling the reader much of anything. What are these "contemporaneous political, cultural, and religious currents"? What do the "Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and Zealots" have to do with anything? Here's an alternative: "Scholars reconstruct Jesus' life based on the historical context of Roman occupation, political unrest, and apocalyptic expectations. Some investigate the differences between Galilee (Jesus' home) and Judea (location of the Temple and the center of Jewish life). They also examine how Jesus' ministry may have been influenced by the apocalyptic Essenes, opposed by the rabbinic Pharisees and by the Sadduccees of the Temple, or connected to the armed Zealots." Leadwind (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

SLR's recent edit is a step in the right direction. Leadwind (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no idea who wrote the sentence whenever it was written, and don't have much invested in it. But I suspect it is meant to be a general introduction to the section. I agree that it doesn't go into detail but my view is that the details should come in subsequent paragraphs (which still does not mean that this sentence cannot be improved upon). I think this section links to two other articles, one of which definitely goes into a lot of detail. I think they both used to be part of this article until the article got too long and they were spun off into independent articles. My sense is that this section should summarize or introduce those other articles, and readers who want all the details have to go to the linked articles. This section should tell readers (1) the minimum that they have to know relating to Jesus, if they do NOT go to the linked articles (2) enough about this line of scholarship on Jesus so they can decide whether they want to read those linked articles. These are my general thoughts about the section ... how it should be rewritten, I am not sure. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"charge of sedition"

The lede lays out some undisputed findings, e.g., crucifixion under Pilate. Excellent. But it also specifies that the charge was sedition. Scholars agree that he was crucified as a threat to political authority, but the sedition charge, and lots of the trial in general, could well be apostolic elaboration. Here's the sentence. "They also generally accept that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire." I'd like to change that from "on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire" to "as a threat to the social order." That's pretty much universal. The sentence cites Crossan. Anyone know what he thinks about the charges against Jesus? It looks like the Sadducees got him after the money-changer incident, and he doesn't seem to have been killed for his teachings, but was he executed as a trouble maker or for sedition? I think it's an open question. Anybody? Leadwind (talk) 04:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I like your idea, but I don't like the wording "as a threat to the social order" - besides sounding incredibly humorous (as if Jesus was some kind of armed rebel who defied the Nazi Party), the words "social order" is far too ambiguous. Gabr-el 04:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

How about "as a threat to the imperial and religious order"? Leadwind (talk) 04:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

That sounds much better. Gabr-el 04:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I was not mocking you, but I did find it funny. Gabr-el 04:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

A threat to social order is vague and not a capital offence. Most historians believe there was practically no religious order, and threats to that were not capital crimes. Be that as it may, the sentence is only about what most historians agree on, and the majority agree that he was executed on charges of sedition. That is one POV. feel free to include other POVs but do not distort this accurate statement of one notable POV. Slrubenstein | Talk 06:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe people don't understand the word sedition? Perhaps a link to Wiktionary:sedition? 68.123.64.168 (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if you want Crossan's views on the topic, read his Who Killed Jesus?. 68.123.64.168 (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue I have with the sentence is that it covers the two top rock-solid touchstones of historical investigation (baptism and crucifixion) and then throws in a third issue that's not rock-solid (sedition charge). "They also generally accept that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire." If we're going to include two rock-solid facts, maybe the third fact should be the third most solid fact: that Jesus was betrayed. Also, Jesus was arrested by the temple police, apparently on the Sadducees' initiative. Why does "sedition" get such prominent placement when betrayal and the Sadducees don't? Leadwind (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Leadwind, that he was executed by Romans on charges of sedition is considered to be top rock-solid by all the major historians. Most historians do not consider it at all rock solid that he was betrayed, or arrested on the Saducees initiative. Sedition gets prominent place because this sentence is a summary of what most critical scholars think, and critical scholars all emphasize sedition. I realize that there are other points of view that may not consider sedition to be rock solid or even an issue, and I do not object to those other points of view being included. But NPOV demands that we include all significant points of view, including ones we do not agree with. I think the views of scholars like Vermes, Sanders, and Fredericksen are significant to merit inclusion in the article. This sentence is not about what really happened. It is only about what most modern scholars believe. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

My understanding was that Armstrong credits the baptism and crucifixion as the top two. Meanwhile, Oxford Dictionary of Christian Church lists baptism, betrayal, and crucifixion. I've never seen a minimal list of historical events that has the charge of sedition on it. If there is one, I would genuinely appreciate a reference. Meanwhile, Funk, et al, credit baptism, crucifixion, and a lot more but not sedition. The ODCC calls the Sadduccee connection strongly attested, suggesting that they had him executed as a preventative measure to keep him from destabilizing Jerusalem at Passover. It never hints that sedition might have been the charge. But if there's a reference that "sedition" is more solidly regarded than betrayal, and that it's considered rock solid by all major historians, I'd genuinely appreciate being educated. I've got Jesus Seminar and Oxford DCC on my sife, but I haven't read Armstrong, Sanders, or Vermes. I don't want to exclude them. I just want this sentence to be about the very most rock solid points. Betrayal is #3, not sedition. Leadwind (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say all, I said most, Fredricksen, Sanders and Vermes are the leading critical scholars on the historical Jesus, and say sedition. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems like you said "all" not "most" when you said, "that he was executed by Romans on charges of sedition is considered to be top rock-solid by all the major historians." If "sedition" is just most and not all, then how about we stick to a tighter list: baptism and crucifixion (Armstrong's top two) or baptism, crucifixion, and betrayal (ODCC's top three). If there's a list that has sedition as #3, cite it. That is, what scholar would list these three things in the list of things scholars agree on: baptism, crucifixion, sedition? I think the answer is None, and the sentence should change to represent a top-tier list of historical events. Leadwind (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was, all major historians are not "all" historians. Funk was a seminarian - I am not knocking him but his research is more conservative than others. And rest in peace, his scholarship is now dated. I don't accept the Oxford Dictionary as having the same weight as books by major Biblical scholars. I would put in the views of the Jesus Seminar as specifically the views of the Jesus Seminar. I stand by my claim that the major critical scholars agree that Jesus was executed for sedition. Christian and Christian Bible Scholars of course have a different view. I repeat: I am not opposed to including their view; I am opposed to excluding the view that disagrees with them. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You're not opposed to including the view of ODCC and JS, so how about we say that he was crucified for inciting insurrection? That amounts to sedition, so it's a less technical way to say what the sentence already says. The thing that puzzles me about the "charge" of sedition is that it presumes there was a trial. I'm not sure there was a trial, let alone a charge. Do these scholars mean that he was executed for causing a ruckus where causing a ruckus could lead to a revolt? Or do they literally mean that a charge was brought against him in court, and that charge was sedition? ODCC and Jesus Seminar don't agree on much, but they agree it was likely the Sadducees who got him, not for sedition, but to prevent him from causing trouble at Passover. It's possible that the Sadducees just handed him over to a centurion without bothering Pilate. Regardless of what they say, I'd love to hear what your sources say. Leadwind (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The sources say sedition, which is a common and popularly understood word (what is insurrection?). Again, stop impoising only the Jesus seminar view on this article. Critical historians agree that the Jesus was executed by the Romans for sedition. You want to hear what the sources say? I have told you three times. That's enough repetition. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking for a verbatim quote, if you (or anyone) could be so kind. Now, bear in mind that I think it's important that the reader know that it was Roman sensibilities, not Jewish sensibilities, that Jesus was killed for offending. No one thinks it was "the Jews" that killed Jesus, except for apparently Mel Gibson. The Sadducees may have handed him over, but it was because Jesus' behavior threatened peaceful coexistence with Roman occupation. If he'd been killed by the Jews for claiming to be God, he'd have been stoned to death. The story of the trial before the Sanhedrin is fiction. I'm not challenging that, nor trying to impose one single source on everything. But I would like to know what even one single scholar actually verbatim said when saying that he was charged with sedition. Leadwind (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you be satisfied with "The council probably did not have the authority to carry out a crucifixion of one charged with what amounted to sedition" (p. 364), "cleansing the Temple must have, as the Gospels report, caused fear among the priestly aristocracy, for the act was close to, if not outright, sedition" (p. 365) from Introduction to the Bible by John Haralson Hayes? Or with "Jesus, then, was executed for sedition" from Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels by Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, I. Howard Marshall, p. 153? Or with "The most historically assured fact for (S.G.F. Brandon) is the Roman execution of Jesus for sedition" (Word Become Flesh by Brian O. McDermott, p. 87?Soidi (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Soidi. Actually, it would bother me less if it said he was executed for sedition, rather than "on the charge of" sedition, which suggests a rather literal trial. I'd also be happy to refer to the cleansing of the temple in regard to his execution, as you cite here. There's an anti-semitic idea that the Jews killed Jesus for blasphemy, but he was killed for threatening the Roman peace. Leadwind (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone seriously denies that Jesus was executed by the ruling Roman authorities (and that he was not lynched, but was indeed executed after "a rather literal trial"). The Roman authorities would not have executed someone merely on a charge of blasphemy against the Jewish religion. That does not mean that whoever laid the charge of sedition against Jesus could not have considered Jesus guilty of blasphemy against the Jewish religion and that their view of his guilt of blasphemy could not have been for them a motive for bringing him before the Roman authorities on a charge of sedition.

Do I see signs of the "hypercriticism" of which Raymond E. Brown wrote on page 525 of his The Death of the Messiah: "It is hypercriticism to contend that the Christian protrayal (in the Gospels) of Jewish attitudes is pure fiction"? Caution must be urged, as Brown said, but there is no justification for presenting as "false", and not merely as lacking independent confirmation, almost all the information given in those sources.

I also see no justification for presenting as the final word of scholarship views propounded by a few recent writers who even in the blurbs of their books are described as controversial (and who, for all I know, may be motivated, even if only subconsciously, by the feeling that controversial ideas will ensure publicity and greater sale of their books). An encyclopedia article on anything but "Recent controversial notions on ..." should inform principally about the more generally accepted view, with only a minor mention of controversial theories of recent coinage. When the dust has settled, some of these theories may merit no more mention than Graham Hancock's The Sign and the Seal, for all its seeming scholarship, has been given in the part of the Wikipedia article on the Ark of the Covenant that deals with the final fate of that piece of religious furniture. Soidi (talk) 09:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Leadwind wrote: "The thing that puzzles me about the "charge" of sedition is that it presumes there was a trial. I'm not sure there was a trial, let alone a charge."

Trials were only for Roman citizens. The charge was INRI, placed on the cross, decreed by Pilate. Not denying the claim of being King of the Jews, at a time when Rome alone held the right to proclaim a King of the Jews if any at all (at the time there was no official King of the Jews though there were some Herodians in charge of other territories), was an act of sedition, punishable by crucifixion for non-Roman citizens. 68.123.65.174 (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Media/cultural references

We can have media/cultural references on Mike Tyson Howard Hughes Nostradamus and so on. But none on JESUS??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.223.37 (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Just because things exist elsewhere on wikipedia does not mean they belong here. Just because things exist elsewhere on wikipedia doesn't mean they even belong there. Wikipedia discourages list of data in the articles. If the material is pertinent to the article it should be incorporated into the existing sections of the article. Media/Cultural references sections turn out to be just a catch all of irrelevant data. A new name 2008 (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The casual, unchurched reader is unlikely to know some basic cultural references to Jesus: Christmas, Sunday, "go the extra mile," crown of thorns, the Common Era year-counting system, etc. This sort of thing is taken for granted by lots of editors, but maybe the article shouldn't take it for granted. Leadwind (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to argue for that as well. It is a verifiable and notable fact that Jesus, regardless of what anyone's opinion is, has many cultural references. I mean, how many South Park episodes go by without showing Jesus in it!? Gabr-el 00:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

To quote the article "Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States and a deist, created the Jefferson Bible entitled "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" that included only Jesus' ethical teachings because he did not believe in Jesus' divinity or any of the other supernatural aspects of the Bible."

What is the source for Jefferson being a deist? I find different facts & opinions of Jefferson's "religion" with each site I visit.

Would it make the article more complete to mention the disagreement over Jefferson or delete "and a deist" from the sentence?

Sparkal2526 (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Well, he never explicitly said "I am a deist". However, in a letter to John Adams, Aug 22, 1813, he cited Joseph Priestly (founder of Unitarianism) and Conyers Middleton (English deist) as "the basis of my own faith". That's probably as close to an explicit declaration as you'll find. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Birth date

Australian astronomer Dave Reneke puts the date of Jesus of Nazareth's birth at June 17, 2 BCE.[5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.228.24 (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

weird sentence in intro

The last sentence in this paragraph is hard to believe. It portrays everything about Jesus except the few facts lists as inconclusive. Really? "Most critical scholars in the fields of history and biblical studies believe that ancient texts on Jesus' life are at least partially accurate,[5][6] agreeing that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer. They also generally accept that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.[7][8] Aside from these few conclusions, academic studies remain inconclusive about the chronology, the central message of Jesus' preaching, his social class, cultural environment, and religious orientation.[9]" Is it true that scholars are more sure that Pilate personally ordered Jesus' crucifixion than that Jesus told parables about the Kingdom of God? Anyway, here's my take on this couple of sentences: "Critical scholars discern historical elements in the gospels, based on which they portray Jesus as a Galilean Jew, regarded as a teacher and healer. Historical Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, told parables about the Kingdom of God, violated social norms. In Jerusalem at a time of high tensions, he caused a disturbance at the Temple and was crucified for sedition. Scholars propose various conclusions about Jesus' message, chronology, authentic sayings, political background, and social class." Leadwind (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The sentence can be improved, but that is no reason for replacing it with a sentence that makes claims not universally accepted such as that the "disturbance at the Temple" occurred only a few days before the death of Jesus (as presented by the Synoptics) and definitely not (as John presents it, and as some scholars consider historically more likely) a few years earlier. The source I quoted above as saying that the cleansing of the temple was close to, if not outright, sedition would by far more naturally be interpreted as referring to sedition against the Jewish authorities rather than as insurrection against Rome. Soidi (talk) 09:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Leadwind, it seems like you are intent on pushing a Christian view of Jesus. This article is already long and I think the introduction does a great job of summarizing many diverse views. If you want to add more Christianity to the introduction, to maintain NPOV we would have to add more statements about people who believe Christianity and the Christian Jesus is a total fabrication, more on the view that he was a very ordinary preacher and healer quite like other characters portrayed in the Talmud, and so on. Many Jews in the years before and after Jesus either preached that God would restore his kingdom, or attempted to use force of arms to restore the kingdom, and all of them - thousands, including Jesus - were crucified for sedition. If you want to, you can just cut and paste the previous sentence into the introduction. (there was no charge of sedition against Jewish authorities; Rome was sovereign; I know of no Jewish law in effect in 30 CE that Jesus violated e.g. at the Temple (although causing a disturbance at the Temple specifically during a pilgrimage festival when Jerusalem was swollen like Mecca during the Haj did constitute a serious threat to civil order which Romans demanded be maintained). This is a view held by several major leading historians, we can put this in the introduction too. Beyond this most leading scholars try not to reach any conclusions given the paucity of reliable sources, we could put that in more explicitly too. Personally, I think that would bog the introduction down with too many details. Personally I think the introduction currently represents these views, as well as views of more conservative (Christian) historians, as well as Christian and other views, pretty well given how concise the introduction should be. The views you suggest in your proposed sentence are too wordy for the introduction, in my view. I add that I have no objection to making sure they are represented in an expanded form in the body of the article. But for the introduction, I vote for keeping it as is.Slrubenstein | Talk 16:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Soidi, please cite a historian (not a theologian) who thinks that John's temple chronology is historically superior to Mark's, and also cite one who thinks that the sedition that Jesus committed was against the Jewish religious establishment. I've never seen such suggestions in my own reading. Leadwind (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

SLR, "Leadwind, it seems like you are intent on pushing a Christian view of Jesus." First you said I'm pushing the Jesus Seminar. Now you say I'm pushing Christianity. If a single editor accuses me of two opposite sorts of bias, does that mean I'm doing a good job of hiding my personal POV? In any event, let's forget my proposed re-write and return to the central topic. The last sentence in the historical Jesus paragraph contradicts my sources, is vague, and can't possibly literally refer to the very facts that we have assembled in our WP sentence. Leadwind (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right and I am/was wrong. My subsidiary remark may very well prove unfounded, and I won't look for support for it. What I really had in mind and should have said was that it is not certain that the temple disturbance was a historical event on account of which the Roman authorities crucified Jesus for sedition. But now that you have withdrawn your proposed rewrite, there is no point in airing objections to it.

It would be helpful if you would indicate what points in the imperfectly written passage contradict your sources. These would be the first items to adjust. Literary improvement could wait. I also do not understand what are the two sentences (or is it the one same sentence?) of which you speak: "The last sentence ... can't possible literally refer to the very facts ... in our WP sentence." Soidi (talk) 09:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope that I'll be as gracious as you next time I make a mistake. I'll address the specifics. Leadwind (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Starting over. Here are the three sentences in the intro about historical Jesus. The first two are pretty good but could be better. The real problem is the last sentence, which says that only those facts already cited in these two WP sentences are solid, everything else is inconclusive. It's simply not believable that a scholar cites these particular facts and none others that are historically reliable. This sentence takes open questions (did Pilate order the crucifixion?) and calls them conclusive while implying that basic facts, such as that Jesus preached the Kingdom of God, don't even get a mention. Read the sentences yourself. "Most critical scholars in the fields of history and biblical studies believe that ancient texts on Jesus' life are at least partially accurate,[6][7] agreeing that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer. They also generally accept that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.[8][9] Aside from these few conclusions, academic studies remain inconclusive about the chronology, the central message of Jesus' preaching, his social class, cultural environment, and religious orientation." Finally, this last sentence is one of those "non-sentences" that plague college freshman theme writing. This sentence leaves us wondering what the heck it means. Jesus' religious orientation? I don't even know what the question is. He's already been identified as Jewish. Do some people think he's Buddhist? So, leaving aside my issues with the first two sentences, let me suggest an alternative third sentence. The point here is to inform the reader and make the topic interesting: "Scholars offer competing descriptions Jesus as a self-described Messiah, the leader of an apocalyptic movement, an itinerant sage, a charismatic healer, and the founder of an independent religious movement." The point here is to inform the reader about Jesus, not about scholarship. The reader wants to know who Jesus was, not the answer to the question: Which aspects of Jesus' life are inconclusive among academics? Leadwind (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Historians are sure that the Romans executed him for sedition; I would have to check about the detail about Pilate but I think he was the only one in Judea with the authority. About the central message of Jesus' teaching, historians do indeed think it is very likely that the coming of the kingdom was a big part of it - but they are not as sure about this as they are about his crucifixion. I do not have a strong objection to the sentence you propose, in fact, I think it is pretty good ... but I would strongly like to keep the third sentence and propose what you suggest (pending further suggestions of others) as a fourth sentence. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Leadwind, your proposed sentence will not do. The adjective in "a self-described Messiah" propounds a non-neutral point of view. Not everyone agrees that description. Soidi (talk) 05:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

SLR, that last sentence we're talking about offends me because it doesn't tell you anything about Jesus, the article's topic. But I understand that other editors don't share my disgust for uninformative, wordy sentences. It's also preposterous that we here are WP would have hit the very facts that this scholar cites as the only ones that aren't inconclusive. So thanks for the compliment on the sentence. I'll add it in. Leadwind (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Soidi, I know that not everyone agrees with "self-described Messiah." That's why the sentence says that scholars offer competing views, and that's one of them. Lots of scholars say that Jesus made no such claims about himself, but others (e.g., James Tabor) describe Jesus as intentionally taking the Messiah role. While the current sentence says that scholarship is inconclusive, this sentence tries to show what scholarship is inconclusive about (whether Jesus called himself the Messiah, whether his movement was apocalyptic or (per Crossan) "sapiential," etc. Leadwind (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Leadwind, I appreciate your not deleting the sentence that offends you. It may not say a lot about Jesus, but it does say something about the hisotirans who study Jesus ... it says what they do not know or are unsure of and I think what - at least according to some - cannot be known about a subject, or cannot be known with much certainty, is sometimes as important (and certainly as relevant) as what we can or do know. And while I am curious to know how Soidi would improve the sentence you added, I repeat that I think it is a good addition. Maybe it can be improved on, but I am certainly for keeping it. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

SLR, I think I see where you're coming from. I want to describe historical Jesus. You want to demonstrate how little we can define conclusively. Maybe we can say what the weird sentence is saying in a more direct, engaging way, such as "The scarcity and ambiguity of historical evidence prevents contemporary scholars from agreeing about Jesus' declarations about himself, his apocalyptic role, his connection to other religious groups, or what he meant by the Kingdom of God." It's better to name the issues than simply to state that there are issues. These are significant fault lines in scholarship, and they all help the reader better understand how scholars describe Jesus. Leadwind (talk) 06:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Leadwind, I am glad if I managed to communicate my reasoning more clearly. I still don't really have any problem with the phrasing. My problem with your proposal is of course historical evidence doesn't actually "prevent" anything ... some people speculate wildly with no evidence at all. People have agency, not texts. I mean, to be strictly accurate, it is because of certain values or methods that professional historians have commited themselves to, that they prevent themselves from making definitive claims or conclusions about Jesus based on the nature and amount of availabel evidence. But saying this is very over-wrought for an introduction, I think introductions have to be relatively simple, summaries, and readers just have to know that full and detailed explanations will be in the body of the article. If you insist on changing the sentence, I would propose "Historians have raised and continue to raise questions about the available sources that prevent them from reaching, or accepting, any definitive conclusions about the chronology of Jesus' life, the central message of his preaching, his social class, his religious beliefs, and how other Jews viewed him." But Leadwind, even if this is acceptable to you, I ask that you wait to see what others think before changing the first paragraph. I definitely would like to know what AndrewC thinks, and would welcome Paul B's views, CTSWYnken, JimWae and others who have been active in working on this article before making such a change to the introduction. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect: "The genealogies cannot be harmonized..."

{{editsemiprotected}} The section on Jesus' genealogy states the following: "The genealogies cannot be harmonized..." referring to the differing accounts in Matthew and Luke. However, the link at the start of this section called "Genealogy of Jesus" clearly provides historical material outside of the Bible that does harmonize the two differing accounts. More specifically, the ancient historian Eusebius has documented that while Joeseph had two fathers - one called Eli and the other called Jacob - one was his biological father (Jacob) but the other (Eli) was his legal father who died childless. According to levitical laws, Jacob was required to produce offspring for Eli. You need to modify the section that states that "the genealogies cannot be harmonized" and indicate that "while the gospel accounts cannot be harmonized from the biblical context, historical sources outside of the Bible do provide accounts that may be used to harmonize this genealogy" (or something to that affect).

Is Eusibius a reliable source? Eusebius "documents," or Eusebius "claims?" Slrubenstein | Talk 21:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You ask "Is Eusibius a reliable source"? Euesbius is one of the earliest writers of church history. He had access to a vast libary and made numerous quotations to works that no longer exist. Eusibius has proven to be one of the most reliable sources of information concerning the early church as supported by scholars such as Dr. Paul Maier, who has written extensively (and critically may I add) about Eusebius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polaris431 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

To make the statement that "the genealogies cannot be harmonized..." is a very biased statement without a shred of evidence presented in that paragraph to support it. You either need to include a quotation on evidence to back it up, add the reference I mentioned about Eusebius, or remove that statement altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polaris431 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I know his importance as one of the Church Fathers. How many historians today agree with his claim that Joseph had to fathers? Does Maier agree on this specific point? Is his view mainstream, majority, minority, or fringe? I have no objection to noting that Eusibius proposed a reconciliation, the question is how much weight do we give it? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It is, in fact, the job of scholars to look at the evidence and make judgments, and it's our job as editors to cite them. Every conclusion is not biased, even if some people disagree with it. We have contemporary, reliable sources that say the genealogies can't be reconciled. Just cite an RS that says they can be. Leadwind (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to make a point that Matthew is a disciple of Jesus, and Luke was pretty close to Jesus, making both of them have first-hand info. Eusebius was not as close to Jesus as Matthew and Luke. Thogh I might be wrong, keep that in mind. Leujohn ^(talk) 13:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Leujohn, historically Matthew didn't write Matthew. That attribution came after the fact. Luke might have written Luke, but whoever it was based his account on previous accounts, not personal knowledge. Leadwind (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

 Not done No WP:CONSENSUS. Try going to WP:RFC. Leujohn ^(talk) 05:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Forgiven for Sins?

Article states: "Mark starts his narration with Jesus' baptism, specifying that it is a token of repentance and for forgiveness of sins.[24] Why Jesus would need forgiveness of sins has long been a puzzle to the Church, and Matthew omits this reference, emphasizing Jesus' superiority to John." Could someone please tell me the exact bible verse that states this, I have searched for a while now and I can not find the verse that states this. Thank you. Ace Cronof (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Mark, 1:4 vs. Matthew 3:14. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Some have used this, and Mark 1:14, to suggest that Jesus was John's successor; In Matthew he is not presented as John's successor but as greater than John. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the words "a token of repentance and forgiveness" can have a variety of interpretations, one of which is that Jesus' baptism is a sign of the repentance and forgiveness of people's sins, not necessarily his own. By being Baptized, Jesus ensures that no one can say that they don't need it Gabr-el 23:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

No doubt there are many interpretations - which is why I think that the section on the Gospel account should simply summarize the different Gospel accounts, and leave interpretations for separate articles on each book, which can then go into detail on all the interpretations and questions forwarded by clerics, theologians, historians, and other critical scholars. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Then why on earth do we have this : Why Jesus would need forgiveness of sins has long been a puzzle to the Church, and Matthew omits this reference, emphasizing Jesus' superiority to John <-- viewpoint? Hah! Does anyone really think the Church would say that they are puzzled as to regards with this matter (not addressing you in particular Slrubenstein) ?Gabr-el

Why? Why? Because I am not the dictator of Wikipedia! I just expressed my view. But several others disagree with me, that is why it is there. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Haha, chill out Slrub, I'm just wondering why there is this Viewpoint. I know very well your desire to stay neutral. I find that sentence in want of being removed. Gabr-el 01:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm chillin'! Slrubenstein | Talk 16:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Historians have reviewed the writing of early church authors and concluded that Jesus' baptism was a puzzle to the early Church. That's the sort of thing historians do, and we, as good WP editors, cite them. That said, this sentence seems one step removed from our topic. It sounds like a sentence I added. How about I cut it? Leadwind (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Ehh, I don't mind anymore, now that u tell me its cited.Gabr-el 05:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Use of BC/AD and BCE/CE

Archive
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Accordign to wikipedia standards, you are only supposed to use one system for dating, not both. Considering that this article pertains to a major figure in Christinaity, it would seem more appropriate if the BCE/CE suffixes were removed in this article. 98.217.155.45 (talk) 11:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC) You're right. It's only supposed to use one system. And It's kind of ironic, considering the topic. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC) This should really get an entry in WP:PEREN. More to the point: This battle has been fought approximately every 4-6 months since time immemorial. Blood has flowed, innocent bystanders have been burned and/or crucified, widows and orphans are wailing about their losses. It always came down to a consensus that there is no consensus to change the current system (please read this carefully). There are 106 archive pages. I would suspect about 30-40 of them to have long and well-reasoned discussions about this topic. Unless there are new arguments, no new consensus is likely. The currently presented arguments (WP:MOS, "its about Jesus") are not new. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia has guidelines that provide general advice to editors, but in the end it is the editors working on an article that have to forge a working consensus. As Stephan Schulz accurately notes, this is an issue that editors have discussed ad nauseum. There is a small group of highly dedicated editors who have worked very hard to make this a great article - editors with a wide range of passionate views, Jew and Gentile, Christian and non-Christian, atheist and religious, editors with a wide range of backgrounds, including academics who study history and non-academics who are followers of Jesus. I am talking about people with very different, sometimes antagonistic views, yet who are committed to working together and who have worked together for years. These highly active, committed editors agree that, however imperfect, the dating system we have adapted is the best solution to the various conflicts we have over dates. It signals different yet equally "verifiable" and significant views, and it in no way diminishes the accuracy or richness of the article. You have expressed your views. But this article was written and is maintained by many editors with these and very different views. And concerning our dating system, we have had a stable consensus for several years. Here at Wikipedia, that counts for a lot - I would say it counts for even more than a style guideline that can't possibly address every possible situation at Wikipedia. But really, this is just a matter of style. 98, Kraftlos, why don't you consider making a substantive contribution to this article. Believe it or not, despite the many citations there is a great deal of research by historians, Biblical critics, theologians, that is not yet represented in the article. Why not take some time to read classic books on Jesus, or the most recent articles in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, representing cutting-edge research, and see if you can make a real contribution to the article? That would really be great! Slrubenstein | Talk 16:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC) How about we flip a coin to see which format we use, or switch back and forth in even and odd years? Leadwind (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC) It doesn't matter about the "war" between the systems, the fact is that one system can be used for an artcile. Generally Christian related ones with BC/AD, non-Christian ones gnereally CE/BCE. To say the use of both is hypocrisy and against WP policy. Plus, as a side note, it's not like people don't know what BC/AD refers to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.155.45 (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC) 98 writes, "the fact is that one system can be used for an artcile." Bullshit. That is not a fact. This is Wikipedia. We can do whatever we want to do. There is a long standing tradition among editors working on this page that this is what we do here. What business is it of yours? Shouldn't you be editing some article, doing research, you know, building an encyclopedia? Do you know how hard we have worked on this article? Go off and do some real work, okay? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Easy, there. The statement that this article has "had a stable consensus for several years" seems to be contradicted by the statement that the "battle has been fought approximately every 4-6 months since time immemorial". So which is it? Has the current solution created stability? Or does the same argument come up, again and again? Would the arguments would really come up more often if the article just used one form? -BaronGrackle (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC) In my mind, the issue is "Do you hate using two era notations more than using the era notation you least prefer?" In other words, for 98. and Kraftlos, do they dislike using AD/CE so much that they'd accept using CE alone (even though they stated their preference for AD)? Think about that yourself. Is this really about hating using the dual notation, or is it about pushing your personal preference? The issue has there hasn't been ever consensus to support the use of one system, so we have a compromise which doesn't let either side "win" or "lose". And it is frustrating that users who have nothing to do with the content or history of this article think that arguing over some silly letters after years is the best way to improve this article. I've frequently said, once this article reaches FA status, then we can worry about something as silly as that, but until then, there is obviously more important, pressing issues (and I implore the other users to read some of the past debates in the talk archives). -Andrew c [talk] 23:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Baron, I think Stephan overstates the situation somewhat. I would say we have had a stable consensus for many years precisely for the reason Andrew suggests. It is not that there has been a battle periodically - it is more like one or two users (including, I am fairly sure, anon user 98 in the past, or someone else with a similar IPA) show up every four or five months making the same arguments and taking up time for a couple of days. Eventually Andrew shows up asking the question he always asks, and within a day or two the one or two people (who otherwise make no edits to the article, offer no new research) go away. It is never a recurring battle among active editors who have a history of working on this article, not for many years. Hardly a "battle." Slrubenstein | Talk 00:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC) Hah! I stand by each and every soul lost in this battle! But seriously, the article has been stable for years. The discussion on talk breaks out over and over again, and then eventually dies down again. I agree that Andrew's question is an excellent and revealing one. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC) And now I feel like a chump for feeding the troll. I'll politely tap out of this 'debate', and proceed to WP:SHUN. -Andrew c [talk] 00:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC) Doh! >.> Sorry guys. I thought this was a serious user. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 00:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC) I honestly wasn't trying to troll. (And that's why no one accused me of being one! Sorry, I misunderstood) When I looked at the discussion in the most recent archive #106, it looked like the people who had brought it up (Gavin and Tourskin) clearly preferred BC/AD but would also prefer BCE/CE over the mix-and-match. I could be off in that estimation, but that's what I was inferring from comments like "We are not saying 'BC/AD or death', we are saying we must choose one over the other." They would be seeming to answer Andrew's question differently than one might assume. And, I would agree with them. But, you folk know the history of this page better than me, and if you don't think you could get consensus from the BC/AD proponents, or that it's not worth the trouble... then there you go. -BaronGrackle (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC) Hey that 'flipping a coin' idea could well be a way to decide the issue. As long as a two-sided, normal coin is used, the result would be pure chance that is not agenda driven! OK, heads for BC/AD, tails for BCE/CE. I have just tried it now, and the result was heads. So, can everyone agree now that we should exclusively use BC and AD? rossnixon 01:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC) I disagree. Use of BC amounts to a religious claim: that a "Christ," or savior, is a plausible concept -- and that the historicity of this character has been established. BCE is a neutral term. (And thus we should use CE versus AD.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.228.24 (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC) Maybe one of these major editors who would rather have the current version than a BCE/CE version could chime in? I just haven't seen that stance in this discussion or the most recent one on the archives, though I believe it is there. It would just feel more reassuring that the current compromise is the best consensus, and that no further uniformity is possible/desireable. -BaronGrackle (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC) I strongly favor BCE/CE. I believe that this article violates NPOV by using BC and AD. But many editors who have done good work here do not agree with me. We had quite a fight over it. And then AndrewC asked his question, and I have to say I prefer BCE/BC and CE/AD over just BC and AD and if this is the compromise I must accept to get along with editors I otherwise respect, well, okay, I can live with it. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC) JUST A FEW POINTS: 1. Yes, that edit was done under my IP address. No, it was not me who did it. I'm on an IP address shared with many people, its coincidence 2. According to Wikipedia policy: "Either CE and BCE or AD and BC can be used—spaced, undotted (without periods) and upper-case. Choose either the BC/AD or the BCE/CE system, but not both in the same article. Style guides generally recommend writing AD before a year (AD 1066) and after a century (2nd century AD); however, writing AD after the year (1066 AD) is also common in practice. The other abbreviations always appear after (1066 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC). The absence of such an abbreviation indicates the default, CE/AD. It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantive reason; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other." Some of you say CE/BCE? That vioaltes NPOV just as much as AD/BC does, considering that it is an example of censorship. Considering the nature of the artcile, and the wider use of BC/AD among people in general, that supports use of BC/AD only in this article. And if you support using BCE/CE, then we must remove all references to God, Mary, the Apostles, the crucifixition/resurrection or Jesus himself, after all, they are just as religious terms as BC/AD.98.217.155.45 (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC) It has come to my attention that this article violates NPOV. Wikipedia policy states that only one system of dates (BC/AD or BCE/CE) should be used in an article. Now, whether or not one system is more neutral in the other is disputed, and Wikipedia states that either is appropriate, so long as one or the other is used in an article. I noticed that this article, as evidence from its creation and earliest edits, utilized solely BC/AD dates, so based on policy and precedence, I believe that all BCE/CE dates be removed for this article, with BC/AD being the dating system used. WhenYou'reAJet (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

where was he ?

can any one out there tell where jesus was between the ages of16-31, nothing in the bible. regards tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.220.149 (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Tom, see the timeline at Chronology of Jesus. Crystal whacker (talk) 00:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Typo

Hello, never edited a Wiki page or posted on one of these "talk" pages so excuse me if I'm in the wrong place. I might be wrong but I was just reading the article and I think I noticed a typo. In the "Resurrection and Ascension" section of the article there is a line that reads "Jewish elders bribe the soldiers who hard guarded the tomb to spread the rumor that Jesus' disciples took his body", I believe that instead of reading "hard" it should be "had". I know it's a tiny typo but just thought I say something, thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.45.25 (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done, fixed it, thanks for the info. A new name 2008 (talk) 03:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

A-class and Good Article

"An A-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. A former featured article candidate. Also a good article." How can this article be both?--andreasegde (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Where is the conflict? Are you saying that an A-class article shouldn't be 'good'? ^rossnixon 02:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

scrolling boxes

I was browsing around and noticed that the Muhammad page had a scrolling box for Notes, of which there were many. I thought the scrolling box made the page a lot nicer, and I thought I would seed the idea on different pages, hoping it would catch on. It can easily get reverted if popular opinion disagrees, so I thought I would find out what others think of using this format on extra-long pages such as Jesus'.JW (talk) 09:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi see this? Chensiyuan (talk) 14:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

A Carpenter?

The article presently reads, "Matthew says he was a carpenter." This is factually incorrect. In the gospel of Matthew, Matthew recounts the accusation of those who rejected Jesus as a prophet and writes that they questioned, "Is not this the carpenter?" There is scant evidence to show that Jesus was a carpenter. This passage and the one in Mark suggest more that Joseph was a carpenter, but the accusations of those who rejected Jesus are a dangerous place from which to take facts. Regardless, it is false to write that Matthew said he was a carpenter. Even the skeptics which Matthew quotes did not say he was a carpenter, but asked a probably rhetorical question to cast doubt on his prophethood. The sidebar that lists his occupation as a carpenter is also without substantiation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.42.83 (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It should be worded differently. Mark implies Jesus was a carpenter (6:3), Matthew implies Jesus was a carpenter's son (13:55). There are other sources for Jesus' profession in antiquity, modern historians are divided on the issue. 75.15.192.250 (talk) 05:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The suggested rewording is still incorrect. The books of Mark and Matthew must be distinguished from the authors themselves. It is not correct to write that "Mark implies..." Rather it should be written that the, "[content] of the book of Mark implies..." or more specifically "the words of those who rejected Christ as a prophet as recorded in the book of Mark imply..." If there are other sources for his profession, they should be cited. Otherwise it might be non-sense. 65.112.42.83 (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The Gospel writers have a massive amount of information to use, and had to choose what to omitt. It is highly likely Jesus was a carpenter if it even mentions that in there. Eugene-elgato (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)