Talk:Jesus/Archive 116

Archive 110

←

Archive 114

Archive 115

Archive 116

Archive 117

Archive 118

→

Archive 120

Very poor section

The section- Betrayal, arrest, trial, and death- does not describe the trial or the death at all and only implies the arrest.Dcrasno (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

If you look closer, that is actually a high-level heading. There are 5 subsections under that, which cover all of the subject. However, you make a good point: The structure there is confusing and could probably use a restructuring. LWG ^talk 17:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

If the question came up, then the structure is probably not clear enough. The sequence of the episodes is correct, but the fact that there are 5 sub-sections, and it starts with "In Jerusalem" does not make it clear that that was the "last week in Jerusalem". I will apply a band-aid for now by making a small change to the sub-section title for now, but a better remedy may be adding a brief summary to the 5 sub-sections to explain the flow of the episodes in the last week. History2007 (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

The content of this article is excellent, thanks to all the editors who worked on this article. The difficulty is that it now reads a bit like the Income Tax Act. Is there a gifted editor who can make this article more readable without changing content. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I have not read that Act, so I can not compare them.... But the text is "somewhat dry" and at times contractual sounding, as you said. Yet if it gets too sweet and friendly there will be complaints that it has a Christian bias. If it gets any more harsh there will be complaints that it is too hard the other way. So if no one is totally happy, we have a middle of the road, battleship gray colored dry text situation. But that may well be how Wikipedia has to be. History2007 (talk) 14:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I do see the problem. By the way I follow your edits and you do great work. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Re "users" How true. LOL - Ret.Prof (talk)

Strong bais in first paragraph

"His impact on the course of human history has been significant, affecting Christians, as well as others.[9][10][11][12]"

This line appears within the first few lines of the article. It is highly visible and carries four different citations.

Whether or not Jesus really existed is debatable, since there is strong evidence for and against his existence. I believe this article should find a balance between these two different views, without stating that either one of them is correct. However, the above line strongly implies that Jesus was a real person. Speaking of "his impact on the course of human history" implies that he was alive, and that he did something to make a significant impact. This only covers one point of view, the other being that Jesus did not exist, and that the idea of Jesus is what had a significant impact. Is there some way we can rewrite this line, to show both viewpoints? Thanks. Keshidragon (talk) 13:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

There is very little credible support for the idea that Jesus did not exist. See Jesus myth theory, which states "Nearly all Bible scholars involved with historical Jesus research maintain the existence of the New Testament Jesus can be established using documentary and other evidence, although they differ on the degree to which material about him in the New Testament should be taken at face value." The idea that Jesus did not have a significant impact on human history isn't a view with equal weight to the prevailing view. LWG ^talk 14:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the article edit history Keshidragon, two days ago, there was an editor who made that statement even stronger, wanting to say Jesus was "the" most important, and he was (rightly in my view) reverted. So if neither of you are happy, that is good and we are in the middle of the road. If you read the article, the general scholarly opinion is for existence as a person, and the myth theory is a very small minority view among scholars, as the article states a few sentences down. History2007 (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

LWG, there is no doubt that the idea of Jesus has indeed had a significant impact on human history. That is not the question I was pointing out. What I am asking for is a neutral balance between these two viewpoints: That Jesus was real and had a deliberate impact, and that Jesus was an idea that had an impact. Also, whether or not it's a "view with equal weight" is irrelevant. Articles on Wikipedia should have a neutral point of view without supporting any opinions, or favouring one opinion over the other. With regards to History2007, just because two editors disagree about something does not mean the article is in "the middle of the road". Care needs to be taken to ensure a neutral balance. Keshidragon (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean equal weight to differing views, but rather that differing views get the weight that experts give it. In other words, since almost no serious scholars doubt Jesus' existence, then we weigh the article heavily towards his existence.Farsight001 (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Keshidragon, think of it this way, does the Wiki-article on "earth" give the same amount of attention to the round earth theory as it does to the flat earth theory? Or does it pay more attention to the round earth? History2007 (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Earth is round, that is a fact. But it is debatable whether or not Jesus really existed. While many people (Christian or not) believe in his existence, there is evidence that he did not exist. Keshidragon (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

This must be written from a neutral point of view. Now there are two issues

1. Who was Jesus? The scholarship is all over the place ranging from Jesus as "alien being" to Jesus as a "mythical God". There are several article that deal with these issues. (I do point out that from the time of Jesus to Constantine nobody, Christian or non Christian, ever suggested that that Jesus was a myth.)
2. The second issue is the impact that Jesus (whether he be "alien being" or "mythical God") has had. Here there is agreement. It is substantial.

"His impact on the course of human history has been significant, affecting Christians, as well as others." Can you find a reference that calls this into question. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

In reference to your point about antiquity, the article does state (with a ref) that in antiquity the existence of Jesus was never questioned, even by those opposing his followers. History2007 (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

History2007, as always your calm, reasonable approach has won me over. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we should remember that this can turn to be an emotional topic, so we should go out of our way to keep calm. History2007 (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it's that the wording is too definitive... too "fact" sounding? It's written kinda in the tone of "Wikipedia is saying his impact..." There are sects of other religions that believe many good things about him, but may not agree with such a statement (this is discussed on various "Jesus in (insert non-Christian religion)" articles. I'm not claiming the statement should be removed - I'm claiming maybe a reword or different placement may help? Additionally, I'd probably not first cite with Blackwell/Burkett, and instead choose a more secular cite such as Evans to use as first cite. Just my thoughts. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I see no problem in having Evans first. I did not know the order makes a difference. Please change it if you see fit. As for the his impact "has been", you are most probably right. How about "scholars generally consider..." or some modifier like that? History2007 (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm happier with that, if we are sure that "most scholars consider" (which is what that means).

• On a related note, I'd like to point out that in a few recent 3RR/WAR cases, it's been pointed out that 3 reverts by a single editor are not required to engage in an edit war. If that is indeed how it's being interpreted, the article and various contributors are currently engaged in an edit war over this issue (4 removals, 3 insertions, in less than 24h). So, let's slow down and get back to the discussion table. You all were making some great headway. Let's give everyone above some time to provide their opinions on this before getting back to the edit war. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

History2007: I don't think the order particularly matters in this case (ie: because of policies and guidelines and such). I just think if the first cite someone runs into is secular, they will perhaps be less likely to claim bias due to the source. It may not matter either way. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Correct grammar

In the text

The New Testament books of Matthew, Mark, and Galatians mention Jesus’ brothers and sisters, but the Greek word adelphos in these verses, has also be translated as brother or kinsman.

The phrase "has also be translated" is not good grammar. Suggestions: "has also been translated" or "can also be translated" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.30.88 (talk • contribs)

It was a typo: "be" should have been "been". Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks IP184! Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sentence removed from article

I am creating a new section because the question of whether or not Jesus lived is a distracting tangent. I have removed a sentence from the article for discussion:

His impact on the course of human history has been significant, affecting Christians, as well as others.

This sentence as added to the introduction within the last month with no discussion. I think any change to the contents of the introduction should be based on discussion here first, given the sometimes contentious nature of the topic.

I have removed this for three reasons. First, I do not think this is really encyclopedic. It is a sweeping overgeneralization of a particular view and really does not tell us much about Jesus. Christianity is the worlds largest religion. Just on that nasis one could say that jesus has been very influencial. But one could just as well say that Christianity is the world's largest religion. And the latter is more informatie (although it belongs in another article). Second, even if this is well-sourced it is a view, it is a judgement. Even if it is a view held by many, it should be presented as a view not as a fact. And we have to be very careful about ading views to the introduction. As it stood a month ago the introduction did an admirable (in my opinion) job of providing a neutral, balanced, and encyclopedic introduction to the article. If we add another kind of view like this, we need to contextualize it an explain it, and this requires a lot more work than just adding the sentence to the intro. For xample, many Jews would agree that Jesus was very influencial but mostly because he through some cockamamy chain of events cause a lot of Jews to be tortured and either expelled from their countries, or killed. There are a lot of other not-soo-pleasant reasons why Jesus has been so influencial. Do we really want to light thi powderkep? In the introduction? Finally, I believe that views like this belong in the body of the article not in the intro. We used to have a section called impact or legacy - this has been replaced by multiple other sections.

I propose that we identify the backgrounds of the people who wrote the sources provided, and also find out why they hold this view - and then incorporate the view or views into the article in more appropriate places. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

With apologies I have to call WP:BRD on that deletion. Please discuss before deletion. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

This line was added to the article without discussion. Since it has been called into question whether or not it should be included, I propose that it is removed until a consensus has been reached on whether or not it remains present in its current form. Keshidragon (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that is not how the WP:BRD works. No special permission is needed to edit articles, but once the WP:BRD starts that protocol must be followed. Please discuss before reverting. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting BRD - "calling BRD" doesn't mean that you get immunity from having challenged material removed by a consensus of other editors. Here you are clearly in the minority - no amount of "calling BRD" justifies editwarring to include a challenged view. You also need to discuss - then consensus determines whether the material stays out or goes back in.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I again have to agree History. Also "His impact on the course of human history has been significant" is not necessarily a "good" thing. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

My unbiased opinion is that it should be inserted back in. The lead is the summery of the article and there are plenty of citations confirming it.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I waited for further input before typing more, but as Retired prof pointed out "impact" does not mean good impact and makes no claims to the positive/negative nature of said impact. And as he asked above, is there a scholarly reference that says Jesus' impact has been minimal? Personally I think global calamities such as Jersey Shore may be blamed on the followers of Jesus rather than Buddha, but the statement about the impact of Jesus does not specify it as positive or negative. History2007 (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I am following BRD. Someone was bold in adding this sentence to the article, fine. I reverted it. Now we discuss. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is History 2007 misrepresenting BRD? What is bold is adding controversial content to article, Discussion follows deletion, not your attempt to edit war by constantly reinserting non-consensus material. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You are following BRD now, yes. But once numerous intermediate edits have been made, as they were, BRD can no longer apply. In fact, I started the BRD process, so let us follow it. As is, the sentence must stay in while BRD progresses. That is clear, given that there were numerous edits in between by other editors with no objections to that sentence. So please respond to the comments above from the variosu editors involved without further reverts, etc. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I will take that back, you are not following WP:BRD now that you reverted again, despite its clear invocation. I will not revert you myself, but it is clear that you must be reverted. I issued a warning on your talk page. Sorry it has to come to this. History2007 (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

BRD applies. I reverted. Let's discuss. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

BRD applies, but to my revert of yours, not the other way around. That sentence was added over 10 days ago and once there have been multiple edits by multiple other editors over that period, in effect accepting the insertion of that sentence, it becomes part of WP:STATUSQUO and not subject to WP:BRD any more. You should self-revert or be reverted while we discuss. In any case, your position has little support. The outcome is somewhat clear from now. The statement is widely supported by scholars and none state the opposite. It is also fully relevant to the article. The outcome of this discussion is clear from now. History2007 (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You did not revert me. You jut reversed my revert, hardly BRD. The point is to move it here fore discussion. Why dont you want to discuss non-consensus edits to the lead?

I think you DO value discussionl this is what we ned now. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I am discussing it. Yet I still maintain that you must self revert or be reverted. In any case, I do not need permission to add valid and sourced content to Wikipedia.. Now, technicalities aside (and you are not correct) that statement is fully sourced, widely supported by scholars as I have stated. There are:

• No objections to its either being correctly or properly sourced. We can even add more sources.
• No objections to its being widely supported by scholars (I will avoid the word true).
• No scholarly references to refute the statement.

Your objection is that it is "not encyclopedic"? Let us hear from other users about that.

I think if we have an article about Björn Borg we do not just say "Borg was a Tennis player" without mentioning that he played a few major tournaments, popularized the double-handed backhand (virtually unknown at his time), etc. So an article about Jesus must mention that he was just not "another preacher" in the first century, but had a lasting impact that changed the course of a few empires etc. Most Wiki-articles about people, dead or alive, mention their relative importance to their field, or the world, upfront.

As I said when I made that edit, there was no indication of the impact being for the better or otherwise. The item is fully encyclopedic. Now let us hear from other users too. This is a straightforward issue really. History2007 (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

On the Bjorn Borg analogy, the article begins by stating that Jesus "...is the central figure of Christianity. Most Christian denominations venerate him as God the Son incarnated and believe that he rose from the dead after being crucified." This quite clearly states the principle manner in which he/He is significant, and assuming that people either know, or can follow the links to find out for themselves, that Christianity is one of the world's most widespread religions, can hardly be regarded as allowing readers to gain the impression that he/He was "just another preacher". It is also much more factual, informative and encyclopaedic in nature than a very broad claim that he/He had a significant impact on human history. I have to agree with SLRubinstein on the deletion of this unnecessary and ultimately uninformative addition. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly so. Interestingly enough you did not dispute the validity of the statement, or its sources. So I take it the sourcing of the statement and its acceptance by scholars is not being questioned, as I said. And you did not provide a single respected scholar who disputes the statement. So you take the statement to be valid, but "uninformative". Obviously, it should be made "informative". As an example, the impact through Christianity (by number of followers), or on general cultural/ethical norms in the world, those are separate issues, and clearly the article has not even explored them, if it is not clear in your post. So by WP:TPA a section on that would be in order, if the distinction is not clear. E.g. see the reference to Sermon on the Mount here. Clearly Wikipedia needs to explain these issues further to readers. History2007 (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

User:ComhairleContaeThirnanOg makes a good point above. The sentence is weak to begin with, does not specify any significance he has. The "as well as others" is also hanging. Without specificity, it is redundant and quite trite--JimWae (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries, no worries. Obviously, we need to make it more clear and specific if it does not seem so, as I stated just above. You did not, of course, dispute the sources or the validity of the statement either, I noted. The best way to clarify it, as I said, will be to explain the issues in more detail in a section, now that the topic has opened up, then summarize that in the lede. I was not really planning to work on this, but if you guys think it is not clear, let us make it crystal clear to the reader. No worries. History2007 (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, maybe we can even work on it together as an article, then leave a section here as a summary of that article, then summarize that in the lede. There is plenty of material about it anyway. The teachings of Jesus go beyond Christians, e.g. I even noticed that a Wiki-friend wrote the article Kristubhagavatam, the message there being: "Jesus is not the Christians' Messiah alone" as that article states. So anyway, if the impact is not clear to readers, it needs to be made clear. History2007 (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, WP:LEDE is clear that the lede should summarize the article, not introduce new material, and WP:BRD is clear that newly introduced material should be Discussed if its addition is reverted, not re-inserted. Finally, the other objections are also valid - the sentence is weak and non-specific/meaningless/trite. The fact that it was inserted as the second sentence of the lede was merely the icing on the cake. Please figure out what you want to add to the body of article, get consensus on that, and only then decide if/how it should be summarized in the lede. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Your WP:LEAD comment is correct. But I do not agree with your WP:BRD interpretation in the second part - however, that is a technicality beside the point now, and I will not discuss it further given that the WP:LEAD issue trumps the rest. I noted that you did not dispute the sourcing or the validity of the statement, but objected to the lack of a section to clarify and support it. The statement is sourced and valid - it is a question of clarification now.

As I had stated above, the path to be followed now (I was not planning to work on it as of yesterday, but now I will) is to do an article on the topic, summarize the article in a section here, then think about the lede. By the way, the lede here is just slightly younger than Andy Rooney and reflects a no longer existing article from a few years ago. So although the lede may be considered a World Heritage Site due to its age, it does have even more health problems than Andy. I guess it needs to join Andy on his retirement... That should be discussed in any case. History2007 (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not think we need to make the sentence more specific. I agree with ComhairleContaeThirnanOg's point, that the consensus version of the introduction as it was before this sentence was added already made it quite clear in very specific ways the extent and major forms of Jesus' influence.

If we do actually write an article on Jesus' influence, I suspect that it will bog down over POV disputes. That is what happened when this article had a section on Jesus' influence. Eventually the consensus was to remove the section entirely, for POV and encyclopedic reasons. Instead of repeating the same discussion, I would urge anyone who wants to write an article or even a section on Jesus' influence - if you honestly believe that the article does not already make it very clear what the nature of his invluence has been (and I personally do not see what specifics can or should be added beyond what we already have, but hey, I'll listen) - to first look at the section we used to have on Jesus' influence, and then read the discussion that led to its removal. I think anyone who wishes to make a stable edit would beneift enourmously from reading over those discussions first, so as to take them into account in writing anything new and to avoid more contention. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I looked through the archives here a little: what an amazing mess! There have been discussions after discussions for ever and ever on so many items, by so many people, it is an amazing mess. You seem to be the only player remaining in the endurance race there... your name is all over the talk. Everyone else seems to have been talked to death at some point and some I recognized as names that have already left Wikipedia. I saw that the "most influential" sentence even used to be in the lede, but did not see the text of a section for it. It is amazing how much of their life people spend typing on these talk pages.... History2007 (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually now that I have thought about this, there is no need to discuss this issue further. Now that I have looked through the archives a little (Heaven forbid I should read them all) the inclusion of this statement is not going to be a good idea, given current Wikipedia infrastructure and policy. The statement is sourced and valid, as evidenced by the fact that no source opposing it can be produced, but it is not a "Wiki-expressible" fact. I will not bother elaborating the details of the concept of Wiki-expressibility, but let me just say that not every sourced and valid statement can exist within Wikipedia.

But the case of this statement is really fascinating. Just fascinating. I had not realized how much pain it causes some readers - I should have guessed that earlier. The statement is not going to be tenable and should perhaps not appear within this page due to the following cycle:

• For various reasons (which vary among readers) the emotional implications of the statement subconsciously inflicts pain on a subset of the readers, prompting the midbrain to produce a response to the pain.

• The left brain interpreter (no Wikipage for it yet, surprisingly) then constructs a rationale for the elimination of the source of the pain, namely the statement. The way the interpreter works, the person is not even aware of the mechanism and actually believes in the rationale.

Given that a large number of people view this page, the laws of statistics will force many debates about this over time. So on one hand, a variant of the laymans version of primum non nocere advocates that a statement that inflicts pain on readers should be avoided. Secondly, the never ending debates that will undoubtedly persist on this talk page if the statement is introduced can only result in a waste of life - a typical consequence of a disregard for the primum non nocere approach.

The effort that goes into those waste of life debates should be used to build missing pages such as the one for LB interpretation (a glaring omission), which I guess I should do next, instead of yapping about this statement for ever. History2007 (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking through the archives. Please do note that I always sought compromises and I was not among those pushing to delete the section from the article. But I think that you are right, practically - it is too complex and contentious a topic. As soon as we apply NPOV we end up applying more and more views that ultimately are not about Jesus. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I often have to remind myself that while I might remember discussions we had a long time ago, people who arrived here after me won't even be aware of them. The important thing is, these points deserve discussion. But I have also noticed that a lot of casual editors to WP read only the introduction, edit only th introduction, and this can lead to introductions overly-stuffed with lots of different point that often do not fit together, are cryptic (I mean, have clear meaning to some and not to others) or are un-balanced (in NPOV terms) — this is why as a rule I think that we are usually better off working on the body of an article before working on the introduction, because the body is a place where a view can be explained fully and we can add other views if NPOV requires it. I know that you understand this, but I do not think that the user who first added the line to the article understands this, which is why I moved it to the talk page for discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Gospel of the Hebrews overweight in lede?

I was surprised to see this mentioned alongside Gospel of Thomas in the lede. When was it added? Does the footnote support that some scholars see this text as having anything special to contribute? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I had looked into that before, and as you hinted it brings "nothing special" to the party, and it is generally a 3rd rate item (at best) as a historical source. The sentence in the lede even mentions it apologetically, and if you ask me it is an overkill being there. History2007 (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Cheers Ret.Prof (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You and In ictu oculi agree? Let us get the Champagne, let us get the Champagne. But seriously, I do wish you guys would make friends. History2007 (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. That was part of the reason I stepped back. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Good. In fact In ictu oculi is a knowledgeable and nice guy. I think it will be good when you guys make good friends. But that is not a topic for this page, however, so I will stop on that. History2007 (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems I am in agreement too... (except about the champagne part. Not fond of the stuff... have some good coffee around, and I'll gladly join the party). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi RetProf, I'll keep the champagne on ice for the moment, but thanks for removing that. My only concern is that Wikipedia doesn't hold content more suitable for a blog - and this is particularly a problem for religion articles - although I'm really only comparing that to classical music articles a few other iterests. I think we'll be fine if old Matthei Authenticum material doesn't start sprouting up on Wikipedia for the nth time in the cracks and redirects between mainstream articles. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[1]

Matthei Authenticum material
In ictu oculi is knowledgeable and a nice guy. Indeed reviewing his edit history, I agree with 90% of what he writes. The main area of disagreement has to do with Matthaei authenticum. We may need a little help integrating these sources Google Books Google Scholar into the relevant articles from a NPOV. . . any volunteers? Cheers Ret.Prof (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC) (UTC)

But the text Ret Prof deleted was resurrected as:

"Some scholars believe apocryphal texts are also relevant."

Now per WP:LEAD, which part of the article does that summarize? None that I can see. Hence why is that in the lede? But what the lede does not say (and needs to in order to reflect the article) is that non-Christan historical documents (e.g. Josephus, etc.) can be correlated with the biblical texts to obtain information, as the article clearly demonstrates when it discusses the cross-linking of the dates of Josephus with the gospels, 46 years of the construction of the Temple, marriage of Herod and Herodias, reign of Tiberius, etc. So that statement in the lede needs to change to reflect the article. Any reason not to make it correspond per WP:LEAD? History2007 (talk)

There was a big buzz around G Thomas but I'm not aware of any specific scholars who think that the NTA are relevant, most don't think the NT is, so that's hardly surprising. I have to agree with you that 1stC docs are a lot more relevant to background than later Christian material. Go ahead. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I am OK with that. I have no problem with content. My biggest issue is with "readability". By the way the Martinis are on me. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

So we are going to make history here: the first case of Wikipedia-induced alcoholism. Given that you said the text was "dry" I wonder if there is a Martini pun therein. But seriously, that sentence in the lede needs to change to refer to the 1st century non-Christian documents, rather than the general apocryphal reference that the article does not include material for. Let us wait a little while to see if any other arguments appear, and if not I will change it. How about: "Scholars have correlated the New Testament accounts with non-Christian historical records to determine an approximate chronology for the major events in the life of Jesus". And the article already includes at least 10 references (and perhaps 20 refs) that support that statement. History2007 (talk) 13:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Drinks are on me next Friday evening at the Pig 'n' Whistle, on 3rd Ave, South of Central Park. I'm the guy that looks like Santa. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC) PS We do not talk shop. PPS No guns.

Existence?

I fail to see whether or not the article states that Jesus existed or that people believe Jesus existed. Please someone clarify this for me so I can possibly help improve the article.178.191.58.168 (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Try the entire second paragraph of the intro. It's pretty clear that mainstream historians accept that Jesus existed. Also, the first line of the Chronology section: "Although a few scholars have questioned the existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure, most scholars involved with historical Jesus research believe his existence, but not his miracles, can be established using documentary and other evidence." It says repeatedly that it's generally accepted Jesus existed, such as the entire section "Existence of Jesus." Ian.thomson (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

AuthorHouse citations

The citation to the book published by AuthorHouse are inappropriate. Check their website — they're a self-publishing company, so the book doesn't fit our standards for reliable sources. Nyttend (talk) 05:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and that brings up the "101 Zen Stories" (ref 524, self wiki) as another reference in the Buddhist section. The two sections Buddhist and Hindu views need touch up. There is not much to say there in terms of large amounts of scholarly works or solid research but some of the passing comments need to be alluded to with better refs and qualified as modern day comments rather than historical issues. History2007 (talk) 06:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Jesus his religion , 6 November 2011

I would like to edit the information concerning the religion of jesus in the box of the article of jesus to judaism, and latter christianitz Yengamaurice (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a big deal, but Christians are generally viewed as the "followers of Jesus" based on his death and resurrection etc. and the Gospels, as the Christianity article states in its opening paragraph. This will not be a major improvement, and may be a little confusing to some readers. History2007 (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Since we give a death date, I'd say that the infobox is refering to the Jesus o fthe flesh rather than the spirit that Paul called attention to. Whatever Jesus may or may not have done after he was (or was not0 resurrected, I do not know of any source (including the Gospels) that claim that prior to his death Jesus ever abaondond the Jewish religion. All the hitorians I have read refer to him as a Jew until his death. I have also read historis of Christianity that insist that the first Christians believed that their Christianity was a kind of Judaism and not a new religion - if this is so it makes it even harder to claim that Jesus changed his religion to Christianity. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Second that. Many, including most Muslims, Thomas Jefferson, and Nietzsche, would argue that Jesus never practiced anything like the historical religion(s) we call Christianity. Heck, a number of Christian denominations are even founded upon that idea. Jesus's religion as Judaism (maybe influenced by Buddhism or classical Cynicism, but maybe not) is pretty much totally accepted by reliable sources, while Jesus's religion as a Christian is not. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Do we have to gve Jesus' religion in the infobox at all? Do we even need an infobox at all? What purpose does it actually serve? ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes are used across Wikipedia. Their purpose is to give "info" e.g. as in France, Einstein and Diamond. Feel free to remove those three first, as a start, if they serve no purpose in your opinion. History2007 (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. There are times when I just want a quick tidbit (e.g. a person's birthday, a country's size) and don't need to bother with the whole article. That doesn't mean I never want to read the whole article (or that I haven't), I just need a quick reminder. Wikipedia tries to handle a variety of learning styles as best as it can. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Jesus being referred to as Jewish until His death has nothing to do with His religion, but His ethnicity, so of course He was Jewish until His death. It could also be argued that His religion was Judaism until His death as He didn't come to start a new religion, but to fulfil the prphesies in Judaism re the promise of a coming Messiah. Supt. of Printing (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to differ on that issue. His religion is well established as Jewish, and if you believe the gospels he was a descendent of David, but if you do not believe the gospels his ethnicity is unclear and subject to speculation as argued at length in Racializing Jesus: Race, Ideology and the Formation of Modern Biblical Scholarship by Shawn Kelley 2002 ISBN 0415283736, as referred to in the article. History2007 (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

And if you believe the gospels, this article would be considered a WP:BLP as well. Just an observation.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we should have the infobox, but I think we should should remove the religion. We already he his ethnicity there, but his religion is a bit more complicated. In some senses, of course, we could put down Christianity, and the Judaism he practised was quite different to Judaism today (e.g. he worshiped in the temple). Besides, we don't have a religion listed in the Moses or David infoboxes. StAnselm (talk) 11:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the Judaism that he practiced was not the Judaism of today. But I am pretty sure even Paul (not Saul, but Paul) believed his religion as Judaism. I think in Galatians when he says in Christ there is neither Gentile nor jew he is talking about ethnicity, not religion (or else he would have said, neither pagan nor Jew, or whatever) so if anything you could argue that Paul was not ethnically Jewish and perhaps even argue that Jesus was not ethnically Jewish, if you think he was really preaching that all humans are the same before God (I am not saying this is the majority view among scholars, just that it is a view one could argue and more easily than arguing that Jesus and Paul's religion was not Judaism). Paul may be agains tthe ethnic distinction between Jews and Gentiles (Gentile is just a generic word for Ethnic Groups or nations, the "Peoples" of the world - in Hebrew the word for Gentile, "Goy," means nation). But I do not see Paul denying that his religion was Judaism. I do think that the Christians and the Pharisees c 100 CE had very different forms of Judaism (as the Essenes and Pharisees also practiced different forms of Judaiasm and may not even have intermarried), but they still viewed their religion as Judaism.

But if the proposal is simply to remove the identification of J's religion, to avoid a sticky topic, well, I would not oppose that. However, I would still like to see a coupe of reliable sources that show that the view that Jesus' religion was not Judaism (of any form) is a major view. Does any major Christian Church or Congregation claim that Jesus's religion was Christianity and not Judaism? I am not being argumentative, i honestly thought there was no debate about thhis, but maybe I was wrong. What is the basis for the claim that "Jesus' religion was not Judaism" is a significant view? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a big deal I think. Of course the New Testament is not a historical record here, but assuming that some readers such as StAnselm follow those accounts, they state that Jesus went to Synagogues and preached there. So some readers may interpret that as his religion. But again, not a big deal either way. And in the absence of Christianity or Buddhism as his religion... then... But RS sources would help, of course. History2007 (talk) 14:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Page reference superscripts in lede.

It's unnecessary, contrary to site practice, and looks like scripture quoting. Page references don't need to be repeated in superscripts if they are in the body of the footnote. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I will fix it. Not a big issue anyway. History2007 (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of text by Cadiomals

In this edit I restored referenced text deleted by user:Cadiomals and later issued a warning on his talk page to respect WP:STATUSQUO.

I also stated that WP:STATUSQUO clearly states: "If you make a change which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit - leave the status quo up. If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change."

Per WP:STATUSQUO discussion must now take place to see if consensus can be reached for the deletion performed by Cardiomals. Said referenced text had been in the article for while and is certainly subject to WP:STATUSQUO. In the absence of consensus, what there is, remains.

Therefore, discussion should begin now instead of a revert that would breach WP:STATUSQUO. The material deleted was fully referenced text from WP:RS sources. I can even add several more references to that effect, but those should follow discussion. History2007 (talk) 09:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The other editor did not follow the discussion, but I will edit it a little so we can move on. History2007 (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Jesus#Title_attributions

This section has quite a lot of technical analysis, which might be better shifted to the subpage Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament. I was also concerned by is the lack of mention of "Son of Man". It occurs elsewhere in a quote, but isn't discussed. Any thoughts before I jump in and edit? --99of9 (talk) 11:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

A few separate issues:

• The section is probably a little long, and can be less wordy, but nothing that is here is missing in the Names and Titles article - so it can not be "shifted" there. In fact it was obtained by summarizing that article. Perhaps some of the more detailed items may be trimmed, but they will not necessarily add to this article's value.

• The treatment of Son of Man in Christianity in Wikipedia is a sad, sad story. The page Son of Man is pretty low quality - and no one is working on it. except fringe topics, e.g. take a look at the talk page of Son of man and see how a fellow talked a lot about Son of Man being an intelligent cyborg or a computer. But overall that article is a total disaster from the Christian perspective. I do not know enough about the Judaism perspective to judge that, but as I said here the Christian item needs a total rewrite. If you can rewrite that page and build Son of Man (Christianity) out of it, that will be really appreciated.

• The key elements of Son of man are already here, so to add them to this article, there is already a well referenced, carefully researched source. The main problem is the lack of a good, longer article on Son of man. That material is too condensed.

So trim what you think is overloaded in that section, then if it looks like it has trimmed too far, we can add it back. History2007 (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that any discussion of the titles of Jesus that makes no mention at all of "the son of man" title is pretty incomplete. I would definitely support editing this article to include that title. Since there has been a great deal of scholarly and theological discussion about the nature of the title, it probably does deserve an article all to itself. But it should atleast be mentioned in this article. Carinae986 (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. So can we form a 3-4 person team to do that Son of Man (Christianity) article as well after a summary gets added here. I had been putting that off, for just did not want to do it all alone right now. On that note, the other Christologically significant topic which needs its own article and is now lacking is Second Adam. It is also mentioned in that Names article, but is a significant theological issue that needs an article. What would be good would be if the 3-4 people who do the Son of Man article can then move on and do Second Adam by March or April 2012, or thereabouts so we can have a somewhat complete set of articles for those. I am hereby volunteering, so we need 3 more theologically oriented people now. History2007 (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't commit to anything right now... I just don't have the background or the books to make a real contribution. I just wanted to add my voice to the consensus... Hopefully some other folks will take up the challenge. Carinae986 (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Hopefully some other people will show up. Else it will be May 2012 or so before I can get to it. But hopefully they will both be done by July 2012, and sooner if help arrives. History2007 (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a typo

Under etymology of the name Jesus, the Hebrew for Joshua has a sin dot when it should have a shin dot. 71.167.229.4 (talk) 07:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Rendering problem for the technically adept

This wikitext:

was used to translate into Greek the Hebrew word "Messiah" ({{lang| he| מָשִׁיחַ}}).<ref>''Jesus of history, Christ of faith'' by Thomas Zanzig 2000 ISBN 0884895300 page 314</ref>

renders like this:

was used to translate into Greek the Hebrew word "Messiah" (מָשִׁיחַ).

causes a problem (at least on my firefox browser). When rendered, the parentheses are out of place, and the citation link is broken in two. Is anyone technically adept enough to sort this out? Thanks. --99of9 (talk) 09:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Most probably an error in the template parser - confuses the ref tag, }} and ). Just reordered it and looks ok for now. The template parser probably needs a fix as well, but that is another story. History2007 (talk) 09:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, I've left a similar note at the template talk page so they can work out what's wrong with their template. --99of9 (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Preparing for a tilt at re-obtaining GA

I'm not sure if anyone else is interested, but I think this is close to GA, and it's worth a tilt at a GAN soon. The delisting discussion from 2.5 years ago is here. I've extracted all the specific negative comments into the following list, so we can check if they're all satisfactorily addressed. Feel free to intersperse analysis or opinions. --99of9 (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Many of the sections have been split into sub-articles. What's left isn't in summary style but in choppy prose that doesn't seem to have any overall cohesion or purpose.
• Huge sections consist of dozens of two-sentence paragraphs.

 Not done No longer huge sections, but there are plenty of very short paragraphs that we should consider merging. --99of9 (talk) 05:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• There's a whole lot of unsourced statements and original research.

 Done? This no longer seems much of a problem. --99of9 (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• The article uses the abhorrent "BC/BCE" and "AD/CE" notation.

 Not done Is this still seen as a problem? --99of9 (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• There's a lot of unlinked religious jargon.

 Done? There's a lot of linking now, I've only found one or two that needed linking. --99of9 (talk) 05:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• The images are all listed as public domain but no sources are provided for any of them, and many have nothing to do with the sections they appear in ("Other early views" describes the Ebionites and Gnostics but is illustrated by El Greco, a sixteenth century Catholic).
• I lost count of the number of stubby sections.

 Done? Seems ok now. --99of9 (talk) 05:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Reading this article is like riding shotgun with a novice driver who hasn't yet figured out how to correctly apply the brakes; every few seconds it's full stop, change topic, and accelerate again.
• Too much sectioning giving poor stubby sections.
• Summary style is used extensively, but needs improvement: Some sections are one paragraph but summarise 3 or 4 sub articles (eg Ministry section), while single sub-articles are summarised in 4 big paragraphs (eg early life). As an overview of such a large topic, i feel this gets into undue weight territory.
• Also some (reasonable) citation needed tags and wholly uncited sections.

I added two the other day, but the rest are gone. --99of9 (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Those comments refer to a much older version of the article. The article has changed so much since then that those comments no longer apply at all, as your observation about sources indicates - the article is well sourced now, but was not then. As of 3 months ago, the current version has been quite stable with over ten thousand views a day and very few major edits per week. I think you should just start fresh, submit it and get new comments. The old comments do not refer to the current article if you compare dates and versions.

True it was old. But obviously stability doesn't imply everything is fixed. I do intend to submit it, but it's always worth fixing up as much as possible before getting external eyes onto it. --99of9 (talk) 05:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

But I would not open the "BC/BCE" box to look inside. That is not going to get resolved this century and should be left as is -it has been discussed enough. And for the life of me, I do not know why it should even be debated any more. If that blocks GA, I say let it be and forget GA. There are many other issues of substance to fix in Wikipedia beyond date formats that in the end do not convey encyclopedic information and are just conventions. But in any case, the old comments are too stale to apply beyond this one. History2007 (talk) 12:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Now adding my own list of issues to address:

• Widespread overlinking, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking. At most, each term should be linked: 1) in the lead, 2) at its first occurrence in the text, 3) in captions, and 4) in the infobox. There are loads of terms that are massively overlinked. I have removed some, but plenty remain. --99of9 (talk) 05:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

  The overlinks get added here and there, but just having a link in the lede is hard to use if one is reading 4 sections down. History2007 (talk) 10:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, it's hard to stop them accumulating in a long article. We just all need to be conscious that nearly everything relevant is already linked, so whenever adding text, search for anything that you are considering linking. Like I said, it's allowed to have a link at the first occurrence outside the lead, but only the first. --99of9 (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Galleries are generally discouraged unless they add significantly MOS:IMAGES, WP:IG. We should consider redistributing or chopping some. --99of9 (talk) 05:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The galleries are not there for interior design purposes, but to help the reader understand the flow of the events in the sections based on the MOS statement that they can be used when "the images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject". If galleries are purely decorative they run into the discouragement issue, but in the sections that describe the flow of the episodes they are a useful element for clarifying the flow of the narrative.

The "overall goal" of an article is to convey information to the reader. Here there are three single row image lists that clarify the three most dense sections towards the end. Then there is a 12 element "key episodes" presentation that highlights the key elements of the entire presentation. Most readers only have a vague idea of what the episodes are and these organized images help reduce their struggle with the information. Someone else (user:Ret. Prof) commented above that the information content in the article is "rich" but there is too much info to read. The organized images reduce that burden. History2007 (talk) 10:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Birthplace in infobox

Bethlehem, Judaea, Roman Empire (traditional);

Nazareth, Galilee (modern critical scholarship)[2]

Is it true that all modern critical scholarship disagrees with the traditional birthplace? That is the implication of the way it is presented in the infobox. (Also can we remove "Roman Empire", since Judaea is already linked, and space is at a premium in any infobox.) --99of9 (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I would hazard a guess that if we were to even think about working towards neutrality in the article, it should say something like Who knows? (modern scholarship).--FormerIP (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I have been trying not to work on that reference. But I do distinctly remember a "survey of the literature" by R.E. Brown in which he showed there was no total agreement among scholars and even places really far away had been conjectured by a couple of people. I will look for it tomorrow. And of course, apart from the two gospel accounts, it is all conjecture by the scholars, given that the birth certificate of Jesus has not been seen and no scholar has a single historical record as to where the birth place was. They just extrapolate from the biblical accounts. So it should be mentioned in the article, once that reference has been found. History2007 (talk) 01:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Anyway I found it easily enough: Raymond E. Brown The birth of the Messiah 1999 ISBN 0385494475 page 513. It states that the main two locations supported by scholars are Bethlehem and Nazareth, with the majority of those who do not accept Bethlehem opting for Nazareth. And that a few scholars support Capernaum, and that there are even "maverick suggestions" such as Chorazin. I will add this to the body of the article later, but I am not sure how to reflect it in the box, given that there are several suggestions. But Bethlehem and Nazareth are the main two, Capernaum and Chorazin which is near there have very few supporters. History2007 (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the key thing here is not that some say Bthlehem and other Nazareth, but that these two views are samples of more general views, namely, traditional Christian and critical scholarship. Every Christian source i have read says that he was born in Bethlehem and every critical source I have read says he was probably born in Narareth. i think it is important to be clear about these two different views. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think Raymond Brown himself (a priest) was one of the first top level Christian scholars to break ranks and join the Nazareth camp. So it is not exactly a denominational issue. And several other of the Nazareth supporters are Christian biblical scholars, as are some of the Capernaum crowd, according to him. And in any case they all have exactly the same number of historical records to support their arguments: zero. But there is a rumor that Donald Trump is now asking for the birth certificate and the state of Hawaii is going to issue one... kidding... History2007 (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Avoiding adoptive

I saw that there were a couple of edits and reversals about "adoptive father", "step father", "father" etc. I do not care what is there as that game continues, but I would suggest not using "adoptive father" because that may confuse some people with adoptionism, which is a minority theological debate within Christianity, does not even relate to this page; and should hence be avoided. History2007 (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I only used that because it was the existing term when I rejigged the infobox. I'm happy not to use that term. There may be some added interest/formatting because I requested a field for father/mother instead of parents at Template talk:Infobox person, and used Jesus as an example of a tricky one. --99of9 (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, as long as we avoid theological confusion I do not care. By the way, "Islamic view=none" contradicts the article, given in Islam it is "the Spirit of God" I think. And the Quran includes the Annunciation etc. That should also be fixed, but the details are another story. History2007 (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

A citation would help. The article we link to doesn't mention "Spirit of God", nor does this article on Jesus (so I don't see the contradiction). For now I agree with Editor's reversion of your change. --99of9 (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, both articles were incomplete. I added the sura 66:12 and I added refs too. I also fixed the other article on Islam. I don't edit unless I have checked the refs. I was half way through my edits. And I think the lack of a pre-existence belief in Islam needed to be mentioned. History2007 (talk) 03:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, it looks like I have to put those back again. Go figure... The box is no longer inconsistent, however, just incorrect. I don't have time now, but will fix it again later. The material dded now is lacking some references too, but can be fixed - that part is not incorrect, just incomplete. History2007 (talk) 03:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Something important missing?

The lead includes the following sentence:

Christians traditionally believe that Jesus was born of a virgin,[11] performed miracles,[11] founded the Church, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven,[11] from which he will return.[11]

I think we should include at least a couple of words about the Christian view of his death. I hope my stirring hasn't annoyed you all yet! --99of9 (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not mind either way, because the article discusses that anyway. The "founded the Church" may be subject to debate in that some people say he did, others say he never advocated social or organizational change but personal change which would then automatically bring the rest. In any case, not a major issue I think either way. History2007 (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Other views

I saw that you are fixing things there 99. So, let us ask why are Jefferson and Willis notable or relevant there? Neither is a scholar and they are irrelevant - just left over random items. I suggest deleting them, and adding other views of note if necessary.

The Buddhist and Hindu sections are one paragraph each. One parag sections do not make sense. I suggest folding them into other views. The Bahá'í view is notable because they do have teachings and I think is fine as is within a section. The Ahmadiyya claim 200 million followers, so I guess they get real estate here, although I am not sure who did their accounting, given that the Bahá'í are about 6 million people or so. Anyway, I think Jefferson and Willis are not that noteworthy. History2007 (talk) 06:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I had had similar thoughts (but was focussed on citations). The Hindu section is particularly funny because that guy was not a Hindu! My only potential disagreement is that I think highly notable individuals like Jefferson who make their own version of the Gospel just to make their point about Jesus may still be worth mentioning. --99of9 (talk) 07:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, it is no big deal if Jefferson stays. Jefferson did not just make a gospel, but made an early gospel harmony, although a partial harmony and technically not a total one (ref Tradition and incarnation: foundations of Christian theology by William L. Portier 1993 ISBN 0809134675 page 218). But the Willis fellow is no Jefferson. But if you do not mention Hindus, the question may come up in 3 months. So should keep that sentence anyway, just folded into other views. History2007 (talk) 07:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Which day of the week was Jesus crucified?

Jesus was not buried on a Friday as is commonly said. He said that he would be buried for three days, then rise again. He definitely rose very early on a Sunday morning, before dawn. From Friday afternoon to Sunday morning is NOT three days no matter how you slice it. The reason that people say that it was a Friday is that the Pharisees wanted Jesus to die faster so that he would not die on the Sabbath. It is assumed that, because Saturday is always the Sabbath that only Saturday is a Sabbath but that is not true. All high holy days are a Sabbath. Passover is a high holy day and occured on Thursday that year. Jesus was crucified on Wednesday which IS a three day burial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.171.152 (talk • contribs)

New stuff goes at the bottom, please sign your posts with our tildes (~~~~). Please provide a source for your statement that Jesus rose on a Sunday, and for your assertion that all high holy days are Sabbaths, as the Bible clearly states that the Jews were worried about getting Jesus buried before the Sabbath started (the Jewish Sabbath starts Friday evening), and I can find absolutely no information for the claim that high holy days were regarded as Sabbaths when they did not fall on Saturday. Friday, Saturday, and Sunday are three days, and the resurrection claim was not "three whole days" but just "three days." Ian.thomson (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Citation consistency

In case anyone's wondering what I'm doing (why there are so many edits). I'm gradually putting more of the books into the References section, which was very incomplete, and linking them from each time they are cited with short citation links in the notes section. It should simplify things and make the citation styles more consistent, but there may be some inconsistencies in the meantime. --99of9 (talk) 11:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

If that is what GA needs... But most of the refs are books, and there are over 500 references, so it will be a long list. If you find a way to just do the most repeated books that may make more sense. Personally I find that format harder to use, because after one clicks on a link, one gets a book name, then has to click again to get the book. But if that is what GA needs.... History2007 (talk) 11:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll concentrate on the oft-cited ones first. --99of9 (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking of trying to edit the section Jesus#Bahá'í views, which will include adding references for some things. Let me know if there's any problem, or anything I can do to avoid hassles in advance. Also I don't know what's with the strange format for Biblical references - is this mandatory (with the chapter/verse citation as a superscript)? IBE (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Karaites

I removed the fringe view that the Saducees were the heirs of the karaites. Geiger suggested this, but Geiger was also a pioneer who tried to cover Jewish history in its entirety, and a lot of his work is speculative. Since he first wrote there has been a great deal of good historial research by historians traind to work with primary sources and writing on more narrow periods of Jewish history per their specialization. I removed what is now an archaic and fringe view. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Announcing some intentions prior to editing to avoid edit warring

I'm planning to edit Jesus#Bahá'í views for clarity of expression, as well as adding references. I've checked the archives to see what sort of consensus has been formed, and can't find any reason why this would be controversial. Let me know if you have any strong opinions. IBE (talk) 20:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not familiar with Bahá'í views, and have not studied the topic, but the editor who knows that subject well and has edited those pages is User:Jeff3000. I will leave a message for him, just in case he wants to comment on the issues. History2007 (talk) 20:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou, IBE (talk) 23:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

What's in the current section is true, but it could be made more concise and I don't like the current reliance on primary source material. Maybe you can add the proposed new section to the talk page, and we can work on it together before putting it on the article page. Warm regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

No trouble, so long as it's not assumed I would always do this. Generally, I prefer to do it this way anyway, especially for a high visibility, potentially controversial article, and in any case, I want to learn more, so I appreciate the discussion, and any advice you can offer. Text follows, for existing and proposed versions. Best, IBE (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• • • Current version, 31/12/11

The Bahá'í Faith, founded in 19th-century Persia, considers Jesus, along with Muhammad, the Buddha, Krishna, and Zoroaster, and other messengers of the great religions of the world to be Manifestations of God (or prophets), with both human and divine stations. Bahá'ís refer to this concept as Progressive Revelation, which means that God's will is revealed to mankind progressively as mankind matures and is better able to comprehend the purpose of God in creating humanity. In this view, God's word is revealed through a series of messengers: Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Bahá'u'lláh (the founder of the Bahá'í Faith) among them. In the Book of Certitude, Bahá'u'lláh claims that these messengers have two natures: divine and human. Examining their divine nature, they are more or less the same being. However, when examining their human nature, they are individual, with distinct personalities. For example, when Jesus says "I and my Father are one",John 10:30 Bahá'ís take this quite literally, but specifically with respect to his nature as a Manifestation. When Jesus conversely stated "...And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me",John 5:36–37 Bahá'ís see this as a simple reference to the individuality of Jesus. This divine nature, according to Bahá'u'lláh, means that any Manifestation of God can be said to be the return of a previous Manifestation, though Bahá'ís also believe that some Manifestations with specific missions return with a "new name",Rev 3:12 and a different, or expanded purpose. Bahá'ís believe that Bahá'u'lláh is, in both respects, the return of Jesus.

• • • end current version

Books cited, with abbreviations in brackets (I'll fix referencing, not to mention accent markers, after we've discussed what changes to make - for now I want to get your feedback, since we might not include all of the refs mentioned):

• Peter Smith: The Baha'i Faith: A Short History (Smith)
• Hatcher and Martin (HM)
• Kitab-i-Iqan (KI: numbers refer to paragraphs)
• Lights of Guidance (LG)
• Taherzadeh: Revelation of Baha'u'llah, volume 1.
• Stockman: as per the current article, [2]

• • • alterations

• Referencing: I've done the best I can by trying to use secondary sources that are well regarded (eg. Taherzadeh) and using them where they accurately quote the Writings. I couldn't find such sources for much of it, though, so I have also used KI and LG. These are fairly basic works, however, so I doubt anyone would challenge their use.
• I can't find "human station" in KI: I can only find "twofold station" KI161, and "a servitude the like of which no man can possibly attain," KI196 Your point is true and is in the Writings, but needs a different source. I'm being really precise, because any claim that the Manifestations have a "human" station might be contentious if someone looks up the KI and can't find the point being made explicitly. Perhaps it is there explicitly, but let me know if you find it. If you wish to make the specific point about the "human" station, it is in Gleanings XVII, and Stockman quotes it.
• I like the more relaxed style of your writing (assuming it was mostly your wording) so perhaps you can loosen the style a bit so it sounds more natural?
• I feel some bits still need tuning. Not sure what needs fixing, but maybe my 3rd par. looks out of place - I added it but it may come out forced.
• I would prefer to have your full agreement before making any changes to the article, so please correct, clarify etc.
• Do you have any book recommendations? Leave a note on my talk page if you think there's something I should read on the topic.

• • • suggested revision

The Bahá'í Faith considers Jesus to be a Manifestations of God, or Prophet. Bahá'ís believe that God in his inmost essence is unknowable (Smith 37, KI104); therefore, in accordance with man's capacity, he sends intermediaries to reveal his purpose. Knowledge of God comes only through these messengers, who can be thought of as perfect mirrors reflecting God's qualities and attributes (Stockman). In addition to Christ, they include Krishna, the Buddha, Zoroaster, Muhammad and Bahá'u'lláh, the founder of the Bahá'í Faith.

The prophets of God are endowed with a twofold station, encompassing their divine and earthly natures (ref KI161,191,196; HM120). Inasmuchas they reveal the character and attributes of God, and carry out his will, they are divine and no distinction is made between them (Tah65,118, Stockman), whereas in their specific missions and individual selves, they are separate beings (KI191). This dual nature can be used to reconcile apparently conflicting statements in the Gospels, for example, when Christ says "I and the Father are One" (John 10:30), this refers to his divinity, whereas "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28) refers to his independent existence (Stockman).

Baha'is believe in many, but not all, aspects of the historical Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels. They believe in the Virgin Birth (LG1637) and the crucifixion (LG1646), but not the resurrection (LG1648) or, generally speaking, the miracles (LG1649).

By virtue of their divinity and oneness, Baha'is believe any prophet can claim to be the return of all the prophets (KI162). Yet although they are equal in Godhead, each prophet inaugurates a religion that supersedes the former ones, a sequence known as Progressive Revelation. Through this process of one religion supplanting another, God's plan unfolds gradually as mankind matures. According to this plan, in addition to the general unity of the prophets, some of the Manifestations arrive in specific fulfilment of the missions of previous ones. Baha'is believe that in this sense, not just the general one, Baha'u'llah is the promised return of Christ (LG1647; needs a better reference if possible).

signed IBE (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Also: minor alterations: just changed RS to Stockman in one of the references, and added a link to his article. IBE (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a good start, and still depends on some primary religious material such as the Iqan. I would try something like the below. You can get secondary source references for much of the below by looking at the references in the Manifestations of God article:

The Bahá'í Faith considers Jesus to be a Manifestations of God, a concept in the Bahá'í Faith that refers to what are commonly called prophets. In Bahá'í thought, Manifestations of God are the intermediary between God and humanity, serving as messengers and reflecting God's qualities and attributes. The Bahá'í concept also emphasizes the simultaneously existing qualities of humanity and divinity. In the station of divinity, they show forth the will, knowledge and attributes of God; in the station of humanity, they show the physical qualities of common man.

Bahá'u'lláh, the founder of the Bahá'í Faith, wrote that since each Manifestation of God has the same divine attributes they can be seen as the spiritual "return" of all the previous Manifestations of God, and the appearance of each new Manifestation of God inaugurates a religion that supersedes the former ones, a sequence known as progressive revelation. Through this process Bahá'í's believe God's plan unfolds gradually as mankind matures and some of the Manifestations arrive in specific fulfilment of the missions of previous ones. Bahá'í's believe that in this sense, Bahá'u'lláh is the promised return of Christ (LG1647; needs a better reference if possible).

Baha'is believe in many, but not all, aspects of the historical Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels. They believe in the Virgin Birth (LG1637) and the crucifixion (LG1646), but see the resurrection as symbolic (LG1648).

Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

why

Why Jesus in -WikiProject Mythology- Jesus was-is a myth or real? what do you think? EEIM (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Practically speaking because it would take too long to discuss that type of issue and the discussions would probably continue into the 22nd century. And being in one project or another does not affect the encyclopedic article content. If enough people agree without too much discussion we can remove that flag from this page, but I see it as a minor issue in either case. History2007 (talk) 09:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Myths can and often are about real people. Also, IP should read our WP:NPOV policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

My New Year wish: let this discussion end here. History2007 (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

IP should also read WP:NOTFORUM. Perhaps a large sign to the effect of "you forfeit any claim to not being blocked if you ask whether or not Jesus was real" at the top of the talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Or we should extend the FAQ - I have been planning to do that but did not get to it. I will make a New Year Resolution.... That way, it will get put off for sure... History2007 (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

That would probably be more polite, though I think the FAQ could stand to be separated from the rest of the mess at the top and made a bit more flashy. I have to pay attention to find it, and my mind works more with text than it does speech. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Founder of Christianity

I noticed the edit ping-pong game on calling Jesus the "founder of Christianity". I do not expect an easy (or satisfactory) solution to attaching (or not attaching) that label to Jesus in this article. The history of that debate goes back to the 19th century and continued into the 20th century. It is both a theological and political topic, and various scholars have argued the issues, often along party lines. At the theological level, the heart of the debate is the degree of dependence of the teachings of Paul on those of Jesus, and long lists of Pauline passages have been compared to NT passages during those debates. At the sociological level there have been questions as to whether Jesus ever advocated a vertical structure within his followers, or if he simply taught a message of personal improvement and a horizontal social structure based on love and faith. I do not expect this page to be able to resolve those issues, and it may not even be the suitable page to discuss them. I think regardless of where the ball lands when the edit game concludes, we should accept the inherent complexity of the debate, and not expect to resolve that issue on this page. History2007 (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

How about "central figure in Christianity?" It takes no position on whether or not Jesus founded Christianity, but is a better identification then His hometown (which, if people don't really know much about Jesus, isn't going to help). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind either way. The first line says "central figure" anyway. There are so many other articles to clean up, I will have to pass on this discussion. I made the comment just as a clarification. History2007 (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe that any hatnote should be descriptive and not prescriptive. Calling Jesus the "Founder" of Christianity prescribes his role as "Founder" even for those who do not see him as such, making such a statement POV. The designation "of Nazareth" is both factual and neutral and more importantly one with which everyone agrees. I don't think the descriptive "of Nazareth" will confuse the reader given that when one lands on this article it is pretty clear which figure the article is about. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

And what about "central figure?" That's descriptive as well and doesn't make a statement either way regarding the foundation of the religion. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

My first choice is the "Nazareth" descriptive. However if there is consensus for "central figure" I will accept it and will not argue against it. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that "of Nazareth" is the best descriptive. There is no doubt that he is the central figure in Christianity, and as a couple of people have pointed out, the article says so. One consideration is that there are people (mostly historians I think) who are interested in Jesus for many reasons not to do with Christianity. Not the largest group, but still, they are out there. Certainly, mainstream historians agree that while he was alive he was more likely known to contemporaries as Jesus of nazareth and not Jesus the central figure of Christianity (which technically can happen only after he was crucified). We should strive for a hat as neutral as possible. I think everyone regardless of their POV or interest will agree that he was of Nazareth, and this is sufficient to distinguish him from all those other Jesuses. In the - in my estimation, infinitesimally - small chance that someone stumbles across this page and do not find "Jesus of Nazareth" sufficiently informative to be sure they have found the article they seek, I am certain that the first sentence of the article will resolve the matter. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I prefer "central figure" as more descriptive than of Nazareth while still being neutral, but I am fine with either. "Founder" certainly should not be used, though. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 00:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead Section wording

The article needs to be improved in its wording. Specially the lead section, contains an exaggerate number of "scholars" and "historians" words. If the article is the scholars and historians view it shouldn't mention those words in every single phrase. since the article is a more general view then there is a problem in which the lead seems to be biased towards the view of scholars and historians by using nearly 2 paragraphs out of 4. 41.215.31.238 (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not mind that usage, given that it clarifies that devotional or popular sources are not being used. History2007 (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

However, from the prose point of view, it is not good. All phrases in the second paragraph (and half the first paragraph) (6 continuous statements) begin with or contain "Most biblical scholars"/"Scholars"/"Most Historians". Given the repetitive pattern, it is not an elegant writing style and it makes it appear poorly written even though what is says can be grammatically ok. 41.215.31.238 (talk) 06:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Good style does not demand that we not repeat the attribution of views when appropriate. Plus, style never trumps the requirements that articles be encyclopedic, and comply with NPOV and V. If you want to suggest another wording that is clear and accurate, fine. Frankly, I do not think it is worth the effort. We have more important tasks facing us at WP. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

....what about: The car is red. The car is fast. He was driving the car. She was driving the car. the car is now old. the car was sold. -> This is grammatically ok, but poorly written, thus not good style. It should be better re-worded to: The car was red and fast and driven by two persons, but it was finally sold when became too old.... The same applies to those 6 continuous statements.

Also the secular view currently gets to be the second paragraph, which I think, should be better placed as the last paragraph, as socially and culturally speaking the Christian view is more important at 2 billion believers.

I'll do in some weeks time (it shouldn't be the big deal)Ctmv (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we do not open the Pandora's box regarding who sits in the front row in the lede. Putting the Christian view first will only invite many IPs to comment here during 2012 to say that it is getting a favorite treatment in a "secular encyclopedia". In a religious encyclopedia the religious view comes first, in a secular encyclopedia the secular view comes first, unless it is a "specifically religious article". This is not a purely Christian article, but a general article. In an article on Christian theology, the Christian view comes first. This article is not on Christian theology. Yes there are 1 Billion Christians, and how many non-Christians? This type of suggested edit will lead to only one thing: lots of discussion. Then after all that talk, it will go back to "secular first" after a few weeks. This is a secular article - not a Christian perspective page. History2007 (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know this is not an article on the Historic view on Jesus only nor is it on the religious or academic scholars' view on Him only. This article is a general article on Jesus of Nazareth, that is a summarization of all views. Abrahamic religions make up to 4 Billion people (more than half current population), and all have a view on Jesus so again the religious views are of more transcendence, culturally and socially, than the historic views. I agree that any changes here would lead to too much discussion (we have seen it with only the change of a reference), but to sum up, This is not a secular view article on Jesus it is a general view, and religious views are of far more importance than than those from the purely academic backgrounds, the article layout doesn't reflect that. 41.215.31.238 Ctmv (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

"Transcendence?" We put th non-sectarian view before the sectarian views, and the scholarly view before the non-scholarly view; this is an encyclopedia. Anyway, I thought your point was about style. Which is it? Are you making a point about style, or just pushing a sectarian POV? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Sages From India Near Jesusalem at Time Jesus Alive

I inserted the following para and it has been transferred to the Other Views section, which seems reasonable. Would argue that the claim Indian sages visited near Jesusalem at the time Jesus lived is not OR. Strabo and Cassius Dio (drawing on Nicholas of Damascus) make this claim and the sources discussing it are well established scholars (Elledge and Eliot).

Evidence exists that sages from India traveled to near where Jesus lived; Strabo (Geog. Bk XV, Ch1, 73) for example states that Nicolaus of Damascus claims in one of his works that in 13 AD/CE at the time of Augustus he met in Antioch (near present day Antakya in Turkey just over 300 miles from Jerusalem) an embassy from the Indian subcontinent accompanied by a sage who later burnt himself to death at Athens. The details of his tomb inscription specified his name was Zarmanochegas, he was an Indian native of Bargosa and "immortalized himself according to the custom of his country." Cassius Dio (Hist 54.9) and Plutarch cite the same story. Ref Elledge CD. Life After Death in Early Judaism. Mohr Siebeck Tilbringen 2006 ISBN 316148875X pp122-125 Charles Eliot (diplomat) in his Hinduism and Buddhism: An Historical Sketch (1921) considers that the name Zarmanochegas "perhaps contains the two words Sramana and Acarya." Ref Charles Eliot. Hinduism and Buddhism: An Historical Sketch vol 1. Curzon Press, Richmond 1990. ISBN 07007067980 p 431 fn 4.NimbusWeb (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I checked on that and the statement that the sage Zarmanochegas visited Augustus as as part of an Indian delegation has even more (and more recent) references than those in the article now. That statement seems certain. The question then becomes (and I could not verify that) if there is any evidence or even a claim that his teachings influenced those of Jesus. These references do not seem to state that.

The WP:OR issue I was referring to was that of "innuendo based relevance". As is, the inclusion of this statement hints at the assertion that the teachings of Jesus were at least partly based on Indian philosophy, because he could have met people who had met the sage etc. So I think you need to clarify that one way or another. Either references need to be found that state that "Professor X states that Zarmanochegas teachings influenced Jesus" or that "there is no evidence that Zarmanochegas taught in Galilee or Jerusalem and that his teachings influenced Jesus". So that needs clarification and should not just be left as innuendo. History2007 (talk) 08:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your comments and would point out that the facts that seem not in dispute are that an eminent (Acarya) Indian sage, probably a Srmana visited to within 300 miles of Jesusalem (Antioch where Nicolas of Damascus met him) in 13 AD when Jesus was alive. I agree the rest is conjecture and falls into the intriguing but uncertain realm of comparison of established teachings of the New Testament and Srmanas and also the fact that the immolation in Athens appears to have been widely known and discussed--reported in multiple ancient authors and resulting in a tomb in Athens. Until scholarship reveals to the contrary I agree with your request for clarification and have added: "There is no direct evidence, however, of Zarmanochegas teachings, that he taught in Galilee or Jerusalem or that his teachings influenced Jesus."NimbusWeb (talk) 08:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually I think we can discern something of Z's teachings from his reported reasons for immolation and this tomb inscription as reported by Strabo via Nicolas of Damascus- Z valued his virtue and believed in its connection with immortality.NimbusWeb (talk) 08:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC) Elledge makes this point at p125 in the midst of quite a lengthy discussion about these practices so I don't think its OR.NimbusWeb (talk) 09:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I also think the possible influence of Indian thought on Western thought is very interesting. As a side note, I had for long considered it very strange that Newton and Leibniz could have come up with the key ideas in Calculus independently almost at the same time. That would have been too much of a coincidence. Then I read about the possible impact of the Kerala School and how the missionaries could have written about it as they submitted reports back to Europe. But there is no evidence to support that, although I consider it as the likely scenario.

Now, to go back to the issue at hand about this page, I think the statements you made about the Indian sages and their journey are supportable by the sources. What is not supported is the last part: "nor that he taught in Galilee or Jerusalem or that his teachings influenced Jesus". The way Wikipedia works, one can not read the book and say "I do not see it in the book, so there is no basis for it". Either the book has to say it, or another book has to say it, etc. So the question is: "Do the references you added even discuss the possible impact of Zarmanochegas' teachings on those of Jesus?" If they do, what do they say? And if they do not mention Jesus' teachings, then why and how are they relevant to an article on a topic which they do not discuss?

But the issue of the India/Kashmir connection does keep coming up on this page, e.g. please see this page and search for Kashmir. But as stated in that discussion unless there are reliable sources that address it it should not be included. And in that discussion even the Lost years of Jesus was considered as a likely WP:Fringe item. Yet I think some sources need to be found to settle this issue and avoid talk page discussion 9 months from now.

Usually the Indian connection is asserted the other way, i.e. that Jesus went there during the Lost years of Jesus, as also suggested in Jesus in India (book). Thus the idea that Indians came over to Galilee and taught Jesus seems "novel", to say the least. Although Indians did travel around (and that is certain) do we have any WP:RS sources that say there is any evidence that they interacted with Jesus? If so, what are they? If not, what difference does it make if the sage went to Antioch or Amsterdam? Without a reference that relates the sage to Jesus it would still be innuendo and original research. I took a quick look and could not see WP:RS sources - although there are self-published type items, but they will say anything anyway and are usually subject to WP:Fringe. So do we have any WP:RS, non WP:Fringe sources for this theory? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

OK. I have deleted the section. NimbusWeb (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but someone else will type something similar in 6 months. In a few weeks I will try to see how we can add something to address those issues, because I think many people read Indian thoughts, read Christian theology and see the similarities and then wonder... Just as I still wonder about the Kerala school. So I will try to see if something can be found. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The content removed vaguely looks like duplicate from somewhere. In any case if it belongs it belongs in Buddhism and Christianity. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 January 2012

The following text misses and important element in terms of the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Resurrection stories, while not numerous, do occur in other sections of the New and Old Testaments. What is significant about the Resurrection of Jesus is that He rose of His own accord rather than being raised by someone else. Accordingly, the sentence beginning with "Most Christian denominations" should specify that "he rose from the dead, of his own accord, after being crucified."

The current passage is as follows:

"Jesus of Nazareth ( /ˈdʒiːzəs/; 7–2 BC/BCE to 30–36 AD/CE), commonly referred to as Jesus Christ or simply as Jesus or Christ, is the central figure of Christianity. Most Christian denominations venerate him as God the Son incarnated and believe that he rose from the dead after being crucified.[13][14]"

99.147.211.236 (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done, you have not specified a request--Jac16888 ^Talk 23:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I think Accordingly, the sentence beginning with "Most Christian denominations" should specify that "he rose from the dead, of his own accord, after being crucified." is a suggested change. Not one that's totally necessary (the God the Son bit already covers divinity, the resurrection is something that further seperates Christianity from most other religions). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead problem: Jews had no "baptism"

From the lead: "that he was baptized by John the Baptist". Now, what is this supposed to mean? Christianity has beliefs, they must be respected. But this should read as the religious belief and not be stated as a fact. Exactly what "historians" agree Jesus was "baptized"? The Jews have no such thing as baptism. I move that this be rephrased. It is a statement of belief, not fact and citing Christian sources does not rise to the challenge of this language on Wikipedia.--Djathinkimacowboy 21:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

There are no "facts," in history, there are sources and interpretations of sources. Whatever baptism meant to John the Baptist there is no reason to think that it means the same thing as it means to you today. Nevertheless, every major biographer of Jesus (academic, not religious) thinks that the most plausible interpretation of the sources includes Jesus' having been baptized. This is not a matter of Christian belief, as they do not give credence to many things Christians do believe. Your personal opinion, or mine, doesn't matter. As an encyclopedia we need to represent what academics believe. Sorry you do not like that. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

To make a long story short, the Baptism of Jesus and his Crucifixion are very different from issues such as Transfiguration, Resurrection, Ascension, etc. The three events that are historically accepted by non-Christian scholars in general are that Jesus existed (i.e. was born and was not a ghost etc.), was baptized and then crucified by Pilate. The article is correct as is. History2007 (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Links in 'parents' section of sidebar

Why does the link 'God' in the sidebox direct one to the article 'the virgin birth of Jesus'? Shouldn't it direct one to the 'God' or 'God in Christianity' articles. Scialex (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Logically speaking you are right. Operationally, the person who clicks on that link is probably not seeking info on God but on the theories of the birth of Jesus, etc. Not a major issue either way. History2007 (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Religion

In the article it is stated that Jesus' religion was Judiasm. But does that not contrast with other religions like Islam, Bahá'í Faith and Ahmadiyya? The same with his cause of death. According to Islam and Ahmadiyya he was not killed by crucifiction. This is a neutral article, wich explains Jesus in general. Those elements should be replaced to the Jesus in Christianity article. Thank you. Runehelmet (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The flat out denial of any crucifixion didn't appear until after Islam appeared (Docetism claimed that Jesus switched places with someone else and that another crucifixion occured, but these accounts are still of too late a date and too fantastic a nature to be taken seriously). The idea that Jesus was a Muslim didn't appear until after Islam appeared, and the Bible generally records Jesus as trying to be an observant Jew for the period. For about 500 years, it was accepted that Jesus was crucified. WP:GEVAL applies here. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Virtually all historians who specialize in the period still believe he was crucified. That does not mean we should exclude other views. The article has room for the views of Jews, Christians, Muslims and others as well as historians. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and regarding the first point, Jesus' religion being Judaism was discussed on this talk page some time ago and the conclusion was Judaism. And as stated a couple of sections above on this talk page, his cause of death being crucifixion is one of the 3 "historical elements " the other two being existence and baptism, in contrast to items such as "Ascension" etc. It is not even a Muslim issue, but a scholarly consensus issue about historicity. History2007 (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

According to Islamic believes; Islam existed since beginning of time. So you can't say that it was appeared after Muhammed. His crucification is not a historical element, but more a religious one. Some historians even deny the existince of Jesus. And it's better to add by his religion the views of other faiths. Runehelmet (talk) 13:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but we can not have a three way choice here between what came first: Islam, John 1:1 or Big Bang. So it really does not matter to "this article" if Islam came first, John 1:1 is right, or the Big bang combined the two, etc. - although a self-published book on that 3 way merger of those 3 ideas would probably sell well to the lunatic fringe - would even sell well at the gift shop in Shingō, Aomori... Anyway "who existed first" is really an "interfaith debate on theology" and does not pertain here. As for the crucifixion not being historical, most scholars regard it a historical event, as supported by many WP:RS references. Some of the scholars who consider the crucifixion historical separately make it clear that they consider the Christian gospels as mostly fiction - so that is a general scholarly opinion. History2007 (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

We don't give the Islamic view, the Christian view, the Buddhist view, etc unless it is called for by the situation. Hinduism claims to have come first, so do a variety of religions. Islam claiming to come first is not a unique claim, and a claim is not evidence for that claim at any rate. Again, read WP:GEVAL, which explains that we give due weight for reliable sources, not equal weight for all sources. The Islamic view of Jesus is covered in the last paragraph of the introduction, in the religious views section, and in its own article, Jesus in Islam. That is where the view that Jesus was not crucified belongs, as it is not in line with secular academia. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I had forgotten about Hinduism. But I now see a best seller in the making here: "How ancient religions sprang from the Big Bang"... Look for it on Amazon in 6 months. But seriously, you are right, and I think we should leave the article as is. History2007 (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You are twisting my words. I did not say that it came first so it must be added. I responded to Ian.Thomson, he stated;"The idea that Jesus was a Muslim didn't appear until after Islam appeared, and the Bible generally records Jesus as trying to be an observant Jew for the period. For about 500 years, it was accepted that Jesus was crucified". Thus i responded with that. But can it be possible to add by his religion and death the views of other faiths. Just like his parrents, according to Christianity it was God but in Islam he had no father. In this case we can add the other faiths views in the religion and death bar. Runehelmet (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no intention to twist, but I see no need to change. But let us wait and get further opinions to see if a change is necessary. History2007 (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

:While some Muslims claim Islam is older than 1500 years old, that doesn't objectively mean that before then there was a religious movement called Islam which believed that yet-unborn Muhammad was the seal of the prophets, or that zakat was offered in the name of this religion, or that there was any sharia before then. A number of Hindus claim that Jesus studied Hinduism as a teenager, but we exclude those claims from the majority of the article for the same reason: all records indicate he was Jewish. Religions' claims (even Christian claims) that Jesus belonged to their religion are not considered because they are historical revisionism, not history.

The parentage issue is already covered: there are three entries for "father" in the parents section of the infobox, one for the Biblical view, one for Islamic view, and one for other views. The birth issue is a different case from the death issue, because noone agreed on who Jesus's father was from the beginning, but everyone between the 1st and 7th centuries (except for a minority of Gnostics (who also thought that the universe was created by Satan)) accepted that Jesus was crucified. The only secular scholars who doubt the crucifixion go on to doubt Jesus's entire existence, and they're far from mainstream. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You are going way to far from the main discussion. I just suggested that it could be possible to add the views of other faiths. And the parentage issue was an example. So let me get this straight. You don't want that in the 'cause of death' bar, other faiths views added? Actually only the Islamic faith denies that there was a crucification. So a other view added next to the Christian one, can do no harm. As we know this is a general article about Jesus and not the Christian view alone. Runehelmet (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference. There is absolutely no agreement among historians about the birth of Jesus, where it was, how it was, etc. However, there is agreement among historians about the cause of death. Hence the item on that sidebar is not a religious item, but a historical item. It is not selected based on religion but historicity. History2007 (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

There is always room for a religious item, as we know Jesus was a religious man. Islam states that Jesus was not crucified, but the man who betrayed him. So we can add that in Islamic view;that Jesus was not crucified but the man who betrayed him. Just a suggestion. Runehelmet (talk) 10:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Runehelmet - the following text (Islam rejects the Christian view that Jesus was God incarnate or the son of God, that he was ever crucified or resurrected, or that he ever atoned for the sins of mankind.) is already in the text under the heading Islamic Views. So what exactly are you asking to be added? Maybe if you simply wrote up your requested edit change, it would be easier to review rather than putting in a general suggestion about what you want someone else to do. Ckruschke (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

I asked it to be added in the template. To be specific to you; the 'cause of death' line. Runehelmet (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I agree with the majority - I don't think it's appropriate in the template. Ckruschke (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

As this is a non-denominational encyclopedia, I think that the template should provide information that is the mainstream view of historians. The article itself is the appropriate place to survey all other significant views. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

But the article of the ecylopedia is about a religious subject. And the mainstream view of historians use religion as their advocacy. It is quite hard to investigate religious matters for the historians. But I won't discuss about that subject. 86.80.208.136 (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Not quite. Non-Christian sources before th 7th century affirmed that Jesus was crucified, seeing it as a problem with the religion. Historians don't just look at the Bible and call it a day. The crucifixion is one of the few things in the Bible historians readily accept, because:

• non-Christians accepted it as well
• those sympathetic to Jesus (Christian and otherwise) only had reason to deny that Jesus was executed like a common criminal, but none did until much later.

Ian.thomson (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are right that those are some of the "reasons" historians think that way. Yet the summary of majority historical view itself is already well established by WP:RS regardless of the specific lines of reasoning, which include the ones you mentioned, as well as others. I have a feeling we need to call it a day on this issue. History2007 (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes historians also accepted that Muhammed existed but for some he is still a hoax. It is possible to add that the Islamic faith accepted that there was a crucification but the person was not Jesus. But then it can be writen in a single line. Runehelmet (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure you need to setup a strawman argument to further the argument. I've heard of no reputable historian who argues that Muhammed never existed.

It remains that Islam's view of Jesus' death doesn't really belong in the template. At some point you should simply accept the preponderance of opinion. Ckruschke (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Calm down, First of all there are some scholars who deny the existince of Muhammed, but I won't disccus of that. So you think that the Islamic view does not have the 'value' to be in the template? Jesus is important in the Islamic faith. But I don't know why you are switching to Islam only, I mentioned the Bahá'í Faith and the Ahmadiyya too. Every religion deserves to be mentioned, if Jesus has an important place in the corresponding faith. Runehelmet (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Please... I'm "calmly" trying to point out the obvious that everyone disagrees with your stance. However, it appears that this has gotten way beyond the WP:DEADHORSE stage. Ckruschke (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Could you maybe try actually reading what people are saying some time so it looks like you are paying attention? Jesus's crucifixion is not a religious belief, it is something that everyone (including atheists, pagans, Buddhists, Hindus, and Jews) accepts as a historical fact, except Muslims, Ahmadiyya Muslims, and Baha'is (which is derived from Islam). No reputable scholar denies the existence of Muhammad, because all the sources for the following six centuries accept his existence as a fact, just as all the sources for the following six centuries after the crucifixion of Jesus accept that event as a historical fact. 74.236.132.45 (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Invoking WP:CLOSE to end discussion. History2007 (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

First of all Jesus's crucifixion is a religious belief. In the Christian faith his death was to atone for the sins of humanity. And yes it happend. And You say it well, Muslims, Ahmadiyya followers and the followers of the Bah'ai faith don't accept it. Therefore it can be added. That is the main reason, to show the reader other perspective's. Runehelmet (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:IDHT seems to be applying here. Accepting that Jesus was crucified and believing that it saved humanity are two different things. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, Runehemet's statement that Baha'is don't believe Jesus was crucified is incorrect; they believe he was crucified, but see the resurrection as symbolic. Regardless, the Baha'i view shouldn't cause any change in the current consensus because of undue weight. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This is silly. As usual this article is a magnet for people with strong views who have not read the article past the first couple of paragraphs and have not looked at the citations. None of these POV-pushers have suggested an actual edit supported by policy including WEIGHT and V and RS. I believe that there is no point in responding to any such comment. Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for discussing beliefs about Jesus. If anyone who posts here expects me to respond to them, they had better suggest an edit, provide a reliable source, and explain how the edit would be an improvement over what we currently have. If it is not presumptuous, I recommend other people who watch this page to apply the same standard. Otherwise we will just go on chasing our tails and wasting time. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You are right, of course: this is silly. But I have a feeling that we may have to dance the same dance 3 months after this thread gets archived and an IP happens to ask the same question. Given that people with strong views can buy modems at will (sigh) we should probably clarify this issue within the page with refs, etc. I will do that. History2007 (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Jesus' or Jesus's

I would usually write Jesus's, [for 'belonging to Jesus'] like with any other word. But, there seems to be some disagreement on using apostrophes. Is Jesus' correct? Steve (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Traditionally, posessive apostrophes where the word ends in an "s", particularly with a "z" sound would omit the second "s" after the apostrophe. See [[3]] Supt. of Printing (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead: "commonly referred to as Jesus Christ"

Jesus is only referred to as "Christ" (χριστος, the anointed one) by those who have identified him as the Messiah (the anointed one), and by those who erroneously think "Christ" is a name. Can this flawed statement be remove from the lead? ♆ CUSH ♆ 23:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

First point is partially right, in that in Islam Jesus is a prophet, but not Christ, although dictionaries make the common use case in English, e.g. see this. The second item is not erroneous, since as reference 51 by Pannenberg in this article points out in post-biblical usage it became a name. History2007 (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

"Christ" is a title specifically used to denote that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. Of course it is erroneous to use it as if it were a part of the name. This is an encyclopedia committed to accuracy and not some Christian platform.

My objection is against the word "commonly". Is there a reliable source that says what percentage of the world population actually calls Jesus "the Christ" ? ♆ CUSH ♆ 10:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I had heard the "committed to accuracy" rumor before. Anyway, this is a trivial discussion, and I made a suggestion below. But for the record Pannenberg disagrees with you on the name/title issue, butt then what does he know? Enough said. History2007 (talk) 11:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Pannenberg can disagree all he likes (he is not a scientist but a religious homophobic nutjob who thinks that truth can be determined in prayer, definitely not a reliable source). If in 2000 years somebody thinks that in "President Ronald Reagan" the "President" is part of the name then it is still erroneous, no matter how wide-spread such usage may be. A name is a name and a title is a title. No need to deliberately dumbing it down for certain believers. ♆ CUSH ♆ 19:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I do think the "or simply as Jesus or Christ" is superfluous - we get it by then that people's names (&/or titles) can be shortened. We don't say anything like "St Paul of Tarsus, or simply, St Paul, or Paul of Tarsus, or Paul". --JimWae (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Makes no major difference to the article, so let us do whatever those who happen to be present now think it should be. In 6 months, someone new will suggest something else anyway... History2007 (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

just put "also" instead of "commonly" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Obviously only Christians are going to use the name Jesus Christ, and then only the fraction of those who are actively practicing Christians, rather than just "adherents" or cultural Christians, getting themselves counted for religious claims here. That would not be large proportion of the world's population. I'm not sure if it's enough to justify "commonly". HiLo48 (talk) 03:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

How about going the simple route, given that this is a minor issue. Let us try:

Jesus of Nazareth (/ˈdʒiːzəs/; 7–2 BC/BCE to 30–36 AD/CE) is the central figure of Christianity, where he is referred to as Jesus Christ, and is also regarded as an important prophet of God in Islam.

This makes no difference to the encyclopedic issues, and if no one objects, can someone else just use it, so we can move on? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 12:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I like that wording because not only does it hopefully address CUSH's concerns, it also adds an additional piece of useful information about why he is commonly referred to as "Christ": it is a title signifying his role in Christianity. I went ahead and made the change. -- LWG ^talk 14:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Changes boldly reverted

Reverted the changes, Jesus is referred to as "Jesus Christ" and even simply "Christ" secularly, far beyond the realm of Christianity, even in modern academia. I have also changed the link from [[Messiah|Christ]] to simply Christ, where the term's connection to Jesus of Nazareth is explained. This is no different than Siddhārtha Gautama being referred to in a secular manner as "the Buddha" or "Buddha", which means "the awakened one" or "the enlightened one", a definition that is very comparable to Christ's "the anointed one". — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 14:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, this is a minor issue, so discuss it with everyone else now. I think your link change was right, by the way. Yet I see no need for a big deal here, but I think you should respect the discussion above. History2007 (talk) 14:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree, but I just think the original phrasing that has gone unchanged for years should remain in place until a consensus can be reached in favor of Cush's proposed new phrasing. Although I'm a little late to the game, I think my protest counts against a consensus for this new phrasing and is enough to warrant retaining the original phrasing until my points are responded to. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 15:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I will not bother on this one, nor will bother to revert you again. I made a simple suggestion to end a simple dispute. Feel free to discuss it with others. Makes no difference to me in the end. History2007 (talk) 15:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I see that Cush's main objection was using the term "commonly" without adequate sourcing, so I've swapped that out with "also" for the time being. My main objection is asserting that "Jesus Christ" or "Christ" is only used within Christendom to refer explicitly to Jesus. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 15:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

How many non-Christians call him "Christ?" Slrubenstein | Talk 16:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you're actually asking for a ballpark figure or just asking rhetorically, but the fact is many do. Google Ngram book search shows that the phrase "birth of Christ" outranks "birth of Jesus", and the first book result in said category is "The Birth of Christ: Exploding the Myth" by PAH Seymour. Use of "Jesus" has only recently (c. 1985) surpassed use of "Christ" in all books search. Speaking of Seymour's book, its subject's article on Wikipedia is titled Christ myth theory, changed from "Jesus myth theory" a few years ago. Since the article questions the historicity of Jesus, not the validity of his messianic claims, it's clear that "Christ" is widely understood to refer explicitly to Jesus of Nazareth secularly. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 16:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

You made an empirical claim, that it is untrue that "Christ" is only used by Christians. I do not question this claim, but I think it is too broad or misses the point - if I am not a Christian, I may not refer to Jesus as "Christ" unless I am specifically talking about Christian belief. I think this is the point. The word "Christ" can represent a POV and still be used by people who do not hold that POV, because people who hold one POV often talk about the POV of others. And this is the real question - are most people who refer to Jesus as "Christ" in expressing their own point of view Christians, or do enough people who are not Christian refer to him as "Christ" in the right context to support the claim that the title "Christ" is not primarily used to signify the Christian point of view? You are making a claim and there should be some evidence to suppor it.

I honestly do not understand your methodology. It does not surprise me that "Christ" registers more highly than "Jesus" given that Christianity is the largest or one of the largest religions in the world and that Christians produce an awful lot of on-line English language resources. You draw a conclusion about people using "Christ" secularly. But how do you determine what percentage of the "Christ" hits are being used in a secular context to express a secular point of view ... and also, how do you know what percentage of secular or non-Christian people are represented in your sample? I am concerned about sampling error. Even if 90% of the uses of "Christ" were by secular or non-Christian people, this does not tell us how representative this sample is of secular or non-Christian people. Moreover, context is crucial. Assuming (I am sure correctly) that PAH Seymour is expressing a secular POV, the very myth which seymour is exploding may be the myth that Jesus was the messiah or christ. If so, wouldn't we expect Seymour to use the word Christ? But how does this justify the inference that the use of the word "Christ" signifies a non-Christian POV? Let me give you an analogous example. Some people refer to their explanation for the existence of many species of plants and animals as "evolution" or "natural selection." Others refer to this using the word "creationism." A philosopher named Philip Kitcher published a book called Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism. If you googled "creationism" Kitcher's book would come up as an example. But does this mean that non-fundamentalists often refer to the explanation for diverse species of life with the word "Creationism?" No. In the article on "creationism," should we say that "Creationism" is a term commonly used to refer to the process through which diverse species of life came to be? Following your method, you would conclude "it's clear that "Creationism" is widely understood to refer explicitly to the process through which diverse species of life came to be scientifically." That is a false conclusion. Scientists do often use the term "creationism" but they do not use it to refer to the process through which diverse species of life came to be, they use it to refer to a fundamentalist point of view that they do not share.

In short, I think your data suggests that there are a lot of books written by Christians or about the beliefs of Christians. It does not show us that the term "Christ" is commonly used by secular or non-Christian people to refer to Jesus of Nazareth. I think non-Christians are able to distinguish between their views and the views of Christians. I do not doubt that they use the word "Christ" when referring to Christian beliefs. But this does not mean that they use the word "Christ" when they are talking about the historical Jesus. You made an edit and gave us your reasoning, which is great, but I still do not see the evidence to support your reasoning. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The creationism/evolution comparison would only be analogous if the source said "The Case Against Jesus as the Christ" or similar phrasing, questioning whether a historical man (whose secular name was Jesus) was "the Christ". But in fact the term "Christ" is being used by the source in a context whereas it is a direct name, interchangeable with and independent of "Jesus", to refer explicitly to the supposed historical figure Jesus of Nazareth. Additionally, you failed to address the point of the Christ myth theory article here on Wikipedia, which questions the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, not his messianic claims, yet refers to him explicitly as "Christ", interchangeably with "Jesus". Siddhārtha Gautama is commonly referred to by merely "Buddha" or "the Buddha" by virtually all Westerners—the majority of whom are not Buddhist—when the term is in fact a title almost analogous to Jesus' title. "Christ" has become acceptable as a secular title or name for Jesus, having evolved in a similar way to to terms like "Halloween", "Thursday" or "goodbye", which all have one original single religious implication but have developed to a point whereas they are acceptable as implying or meaning something else. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 18:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Our Christ Myth Theory article uses the word "Christ" almost exclusively when making explicit reference to the Christ myth and versions or sources of the "Crist myth." As far as I can tell some of the early proponents of the CMT refered to Jesus as Christ which does indicate that, a hundred years ago, non-Christians or at least some notable non-Christians refered to Jesus as Christ. But this does not seem to be the case today. The other context in which the article uses the word "Christ" is when it discusses the possibility of "multiple christs" in which case, evidently, the word does not refer specifically to Jesus. The authors of our CMT article seem pretty consistently to refer to the historical Jesus as "Jesus" and not as Christ, using the word "Christ" only when referring to discussions of the Christ myth i.e. people who believe Jesus was "the" Christ, and others who are criticizing this view. It certainly does not demonstrate that non-Christians normally refer to the historical Jesus as "Christ."

You are quite right that a non-Christian can refer to the historical Jesus as "Christ." If this were the question we were discussing, how could anyone not agree with you? People can believe or say anything! People can say Hitler was the Pope! The only question we have to consider is what people do say, not what people can say. For example, in the Christ Myth Theory you repeatedly refer to, one of the arguments CMT proponents make is that Josephus refers to Jesus as "Jesus" and not as "Christ." So our CMT article considers this question, whether people do refer to the historical Jesus as "Jesus" or as "Christ" as an important question, and make use of evidence of people not referring to Jesus as Christ as significant.

You correctly point out that words like "Halloween" and "Thursday" can take on new meanings. This is a salient point and many would argue that this is precisely what happened with "Christ," viz. that the use of the word as a signifier for Jesus is a shift from its literal or historical meaning. You also imply that many people who do not believe in saints days or Thor can nevertheless regularly use the word "Halloween" and "Thursday." This brings us back to the "can" versus "do" distinction, but I won't argue with you that lots of non-Christians and non-Norse after the 12th century regularly use the word Halloween and Thursday. But if you are making an analogy, all the analogy proves is that people can do this, it does not prove that people do do this in other cases e.g. this case. You correctly point out that non-Buddhists can refer to Siddhārtha Gautama as Buddha. Again, this only proves that non-Christians could refer to the historical Jesus as Christ. Again, how can anyone argue that this cannot happen? The question is, does it happen. And I still just do not see the evidence that significant numbers of non-Christians regularly use the word "Christ" to refer to the historical Jesus and not just to a Christiant belief. You have convinced me that they could do this! But you haven't convinced me that they do do this. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me give you guys an example, without getting involved. Does the term "Xerox machine" mean "copy machine"? Probably. Do the people working at Ricoh use that term? No. That may help you settle the issue. History2007 (talk) 18:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I know this is a well-intentioned point, but I think you are just providing another Halloween/Thursday example. Look, I call any tissues I use, "kleenex" regardless of the brand. So no one has to prove to me that a word that has a particular meaning can come to take on a different meaning, or a word that is used very narrowly can come to be used very broadly. But so what? You guys are just making an argument about sociolinguistics, and I agree 100% with you about this sociolinguistic point. But – and I know you do not want to be dragged in, but I just have to ask you – History2007, is my point about the difference between "can" and "do" (or "possible" versus "actual") really too complicated for you to understand? It was possible that people could end up calling all photocopy machines "xerox machines" — and yes! a great many people actually do call any photocopy machine a "xerox machine." But this remains contingent, and not necessary. For example, the first commercially successful PC was the Commodore PET - I had a friend who owned a Commodore. But do people call any or all PC's today "Commodores" or "PETs?" No! It could have happened, but it didn't happen. You guys seem to think that it is relevant that I call Siddartha "the Buddha" - that since I do this, it necessarily follows that I will call Jesus "Christ." You can keep coming up with more and more analogous examples. But what I want to know, History2007, is why you think that another example matters? At all? I actually do not understand, History 2007. Just because I use word x, which refers to "object a," as a name for "objects a, b, c, d ...." does not mean that I do this for all such words, it does not mean I will refer to Jesus as "Christ." Just because [the word buddha means enlightened one, and there are people who believe that Siddartha Guattama was enlightened, and these people therefore call Siddartha Guattama "the Buddha" but many people who do not believe Siddartha Guattama was enlightened nevertheless call him "the Buddha"] (example x) does not mean that [the word christ means annointed one i.e. king, and there are people who believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the rightful king, and therefore call Jesus of Nazareth "the Christ" but many people who do not believe Jesus of Nazareth was the rightful king (or any other meaning of messiah) nevertheless call him "the Christ"] (example y). The relationship between the premises and the conclusion of your argument is contingent, and not necessary. Therefore, it proves nothing, I mean, you cannot generalize from it. The Bible identifies Cyrus the Great, king of Persia, as "Messiah" but if I did a survey and asked people "Who was the messiah?" do you really think most people will reply "Cyrus the Great?" I am following the same logic as your argument, and it proves nothing! Or rather, all it does is prove what I have said repeatedly: it is possible.

The reason why we know that many people call Ricoh and other brand photocopy machines "Xerox machines" is not because the word "xerox" was destined to be used generically, that once we know that a photocopy machine is called "xerox" we therefore know that all future photocopy machines will also be called "xerox." The reason why we know that many people call Ricoh and other rand photocophy machines "xerox" machines is because we have heard many people do this, and while this is not a "reliable source" we can use in the articles on xerox or on photocopiers, it is possible to come up with a simple questionnaire and do a random sample of a population and find out what percentage of people use the nominal phrase "xerox maching" generically. Hey, maybe someone has actually done this. My point is that you would need some kind of empirical evidence to know that people use a word or phrase a certain way. Any way. It is an empiical question, not a logical one.

History2007, do you really not understand the difference between an empirical question and a logical question? You have made many constructive edits, so I really would find this hard to believe ... but your 18:55 question indicates that you do not! I am truly puzzled. Do you understand the difference between a logical argument and an empirical one? If so, why on earth would the usage of the term "Xerox machine" tell us anything about the usage of the term "Christ?" I am genuinely puzzled as to why you think your comment is relevant. I am genuinely puzzled as to whether you understand the difference between claims that can be demonstrated logically in order to be sustained and claims that require empirical evidence to be sustained. Why isn't this clear?

I realize I have written a lot, but that is because I thought I was making a simple point and it seems like you do not understand it. Do you think I am wrong, that the question of how non-Christians use the word "Christ" is an empirical question? Why am I wrong about this? Or do you think I am wrong that how particular words come to take on particular meanings, or come to be used in particular ways, is contengent and not necessary? Why am I wrong about this? If it is contingent, and requires empirical evidence, why is an empirically testable claim about the usage of a different word at all relevant to the usage of this word? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not taking sides here. Just ignore what I said. There was no charge for the comment. History2007 (talk) 19:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a very interesting point, indeed... someone whose religious views contradict directly with referring to Jesus as "Christ"—even in a colloquial sense (e.g. Jews)—would be much less likely to refer to Jesus using the seemingly innocuous "Christ" than unaffiliated outsiders (e.g. atheists) who would probably mostly see no inherent problem with referring to Jesus in such a way. It's the same reason that the general population (many are Christians I admit, but many also nonreligious) by and large uses the BC/AD era notation, while the Jewish population uses BCE/CE almost exclusively. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 19:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, FoxCE, I think this is a valid observation. Still, ultimately, I think this really is an empirical question. It may be that a large number of non-Christians use the word "Christ" without implying any theological (or even historical) claims. There may be no need to change your edit, but I think your point is that we cannot just distinguish between Christians and non-Christians, that "non-Christians" should be divided into more sub-groups that may use the term differently for different reasons. If this is what you are saying I think it is a good point although I am not sure how to handle it in the lead or even if we need to address it in the lead. Be that as it may, while I really do not doubt that this is possible, I just do not think we can generalize without some kind of evidence. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Ultimately, I think it is sufficient to just state that he is "also" referred to as "Jesus Christ" or "Christ" ("commonly" would require sourcing, and was the original source of contention in this thread), without qualifying it with who or which institutions might refer to him as such. Mormons, for example, refer to him using "Christ" but are arguably not a denomination of Christianity, thus would be excluded from the wording implemented as a result of the above discussion. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 03:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

Jesus
Jesus as Good Shepherd (stained glass at St John's Ashfield)
Born	7–2 BC/BCE Judaea
Died	30–36 AD/CE Judaea
Cause of death	Crucifixion

Unfortunately, the infobox seems rather bizarre and Monty-Pythonesque, more than it is truly informative. I think this article would be much better off without any infobox, since the infobox intrudes pointlessly oversimplified statements of deep theological issues into the very top of the article, without being able to do any real justice to such concepts, by discussing or explaining or contextualizing them at appropriate length. The infobox is being used for a purpose for which it wasn't really intended, and it shows... AnonMoos (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I partially agree. I would not say bizzare, but certainly oversimplified. Yet given all the edits to it could have been a mini-dissertation by now. Most articles do have info-boxes, but I think this one should just have those items that are subject to scholarly agreement, e.g. date range for death, etc. So how about:

Born 7–2 BC/BCE

Died 30–36 AD/CE

Judaea

Cause of death: crucifixion

That much is agreed to by most scholars. Also nationality, ethnicity and home town are neither oversimplified nor controversial, and should remain. The rest is oversimplified. I guess people in time will want to add that he is considered a prophet in Islam, etc. given that it is well accepted too. But let us see what should go in. History2007 (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with History that the box isn't completely up to snuff, I completely disagree that the information as a whole or the infobox itself is unneeded. I'm not really sure what purpose the infobox is supposed to have, but "explaining or contextualizing" the subject is definitely not it. It supplies general biographical information on the subject and no more. The article provides the depth and discussion - not infobox... Ckruschke (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Ok, then how about:

Born 7–2 BC/BCE

Died 30–36 AD/CE

Judaea

Cause of death: crucifixion

Nationality Israelite Galilean

Ethnicity Jewish

Home town Nazareth, Galilee

That is bibiographical, without being a discussion or debate. History2007 (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that "Israelite" would be a tad anachronistic. "Galilean" probably. And "Jewish" at the time would probably mean "Judaean", which again, he probably wasn't. Guettarda (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I changed to Galilean. But the article says Jewish and so I am not sure we can change that part. So let us get comments on that. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, if the over-simplistic assertions about deep theology are removed from the infobox, then it might possibly usefully stay in the article. The ancient Hebrew, Greek, and Latin languages all had only one word (יהודי / Ιουδαιος / Iudaeus) to express the following three concepts: 1] "Judahite" (i.e. member of the tribe of Judah by patrilineal genealogical descent); 2] "Judean" (i.e. inhabitant of the region or province of Judea); and 3] "Jew" (practitioner of the monotheistic religion originally based in Judea). Jesus was a religious Jew who had connections with both of the regions of Judea and Galilee within the Roman empire. I'm not sure "nationality" is too meaningful or non-anachronistic here (Jesus was not a Roman citizen). AnonMoos (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The nationality is part of the Infobox. But it is well established that he was a Jew. I think it would be good to look for a ref that says he was not a Roman citizen, although most people would guess that. History2007 (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Then the infobox may be too simplistic to deal with the situations of many individuals of ancient times, which cannot be accurately defined using only modern passport classifications. If Jesus had been a Roman citizen, the Jewish high-priestly court would have had little or no jurisdiction over him, and he would have been able to appeal Pilate's sentence to the emperor... AnonMoos (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The Infobox allows blank fields, so we do not need to add nationality. And the Roman issue is easy to guess as I said, but "reasoning" is not the way to present it per WP:V and a quick search will probably reveal a reference. I will look in a day or two. History2007 (talk) 08:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Easy enough: Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey by Craig L. Blomberg 2009 ISBN 0805444823 page 24 says Jesus was not a Roman citizen. History2007 (talk) 14:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, I added here a basic infobox that only includes the historical items that the scholars agree on, avoiding issues such as rose 3 days after crucifixion, etc. Given that the home town is stated as Nazareth the nationality issues is probably beside the point. This may avoid further debate 6 months down the road. History2007 (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

AnonMoos, I saw that you added my suggested Infobox, but I think that was somewhat fast and I would suggest that in the future you should wait a day or two for comments from other users before accepting a suggestion in a hurry. But if no one objects now, we should just move on. History2007 (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The Arabs are now claiming Jesus was a "Palestinian."

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Look at the Palestinian people article, the Arabs are now trying to claim Jesus as one of them rather than a Jew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.64.30.8 (talk) 08:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Arabs and Palestinians are actually not the same. Do you have evidence that the editors responsible for the picture there are Arab, and how would their race be relevant in any case? The Palestinian people article states that "Genetic analysis suggests the Muslims of Palestine are largely descendants of Christians and Jews of the southern Levant and descendents of a core population that lived there in prehistoric times." Looking over the articles and checking over Google Books, I'm seeing mostly material that says that any secular ethnic distinction (and not purely religio-cultural) between Jews and Palestinians is a recent concept resulting from tensions both for and against the state of Israel, and that "Jesus was a first-century Palestinian Jew." I am seeing some but fewer sources arguing that the concept of Palestinians is a foreign imposition, but not all Palestinians follow Judaism. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bart D Ehrman, Lost Christianities, the Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew

Page 96 of Ehrman's book appears to be acting as the source for the following statement in the Lead: "Most critical historians agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jewish rabbi who was regarded as a teacher and healer in Judaea ... ."

The relevant passage from the book reads:

"Moreover, most scholars today acknowledge not only that Jesus was a Jew but that he was raised in a Jewish household in the Jewish hamlet of Nazareth in Jewish Palestine. He was brought up in a Jewish culture, accepted Jewish ways, learned the Jewish tradition, and kept the Jewish Law. He was circumcised, he kept Sabbath and the periodic feasts, and he probably ate kosher. As an adult he began an itinerant preaching ministry in rural Galilee, gathering around himself a number of disciples, all of whom were Jewish. He taught them his understanding of the Jewish Law and of the God who called the Jews to be his people. Most scholars would agree that some of these disciples, probably while Jesus was still living, considered him to be the Jewish Messiah, come to deliver God’s people from the oppressive power of Rome to which they were subject. For one reason or another, the leaders of his people, the power players in Jerusalem, considered him a troublemaker, and when he appeared in the capital city for a Passover feast around 30 CE, they arranged to have him arrested and handed over to the Roman governor, who put him on trial for sedition against the state and executed him on charges of claiming to be king of the Jews.
"And so Jesus was Jewish from start to last. His disciples were as well: born and bred Jews. Not long after his death, some or all of them came to understand Jesus as something more than a Jewish teacher (or holy man or revolutionary or social reformer or feminist or magician or prophet or whatever else he may have been). For them, Jesus was the one who had brought about a right standing before God for others. Some of his followers thought this salvation came through Jesus’ death and resurrection; others said it came through his divine teachings. In any event, his followers soon came to proclaim that the salvation brought by Jesus was not for Jews alone, but was for all people, both Jew and Gentile."

As can be seen, the passage mentions that Jesus was brought up in Galilee and that he began a preaching ministry, which may justify stating that he was a Galilean Jew who was regarded as a teacher, but it doesn't say anything about healing or Jesus being a rabbi. The rabbinical system, which, I believe, was created by the Pharisees, was in its infancy when Jesus was born and, since there is no evidence that he had been a member of the Pharisaic sect, it's probably a bit off-beam to state that Jesus was a rabbi.     ←   ZScarpia   17:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. There is a discussion on the labels healer, Rabbi etc. further above on this talk page that remedies that (pun partially intended). History2007 (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I had assumed that there would have been a previous (probably heated) discussion about the subject, but hadn't realised that it was a current live topic. Sorry, I should have joined in with the current discussion rather than starting a new section. As far as I can see, though, nothing in the given source really justifies calling Jesus a rabbi and nothing in the body of the article, which the Lead is supposed to be a summary of, really does either.     ←   ZScarpia   17:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. And the version above here addresses those issues, does not use Rabbi, is supported by the body and has more references. History2007 (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Would you like me to delete this section and begin again where the current discussion is taking place?     ←   ZScarpia   17:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Or even easier, we could put a link to that here, so talk page is not deleted. History2007 (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

... discussion continued in the Scholars, historians and healer section.     ←   ZScarpia   18:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Scholars, historians and healer

There has been a mini-discussion on edit summary between LordShard and Slrubenstein about two issues:

• 1. Are the views about Jesus being a as a Galilean Jewish Rabbi who was regarded as a teacher etc. expressed only by "Biblical scholars" or also by other scholars such as historians.

• 2. Do most of said scholars consider him a "healer", or is that label just applied by some scholars.

I think Slrubenstein is correct that the views regarding Jesus are also expressed by scholars who are mainly historians and not just Biblical-types, although the lede reference does not clearly support that, as LordShard cmmented. But the body of the article does list scholars such as Vermes who are primarily historians, etc. Such references may get added to the lede, but per WP:LEDE are not necessary, although may be useful.

I think LordShard is correct that the healer label is only applied by "some scholars". Pages 124 and 125 or of Koestenberger's book have a good (and humorous) summary of the approaches scholars take in their "Portrayal of Jesus" - he points out that in many cases scholars end up "seeing themselves in Jesus" and are doing autobiography when doing biography.... By the way the same has been said of personality theory where each major theory often reflects the life of the psychologist proposing it.... And "healer" is certainly one label applied to Jesus, but so are philosopher, social reformer, etc. etc. So "healer" is true, but not universally applied by scholars. Teacher may be more widely acceptable among scholars, and although not totally universal, I think it can be used since we say "most scholars" etc.

I think LordShard and Slrubenstein should agree on a middle ground and say:

• Most critical historians and biblical scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jewish Rabbi in Judaea who was regarded as a teacher, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and that he was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.

That may settle the issue if the word healer is not insisted upon, given Koestenberger's characterization, as well as the fact that historians are listed in the body of the article as well as biblical scholars. History2007 (talk) 05:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Slrubenstein I saw that you reverted LordShard without responding here Please discuss instead of doing a revert ping-pong. I will not revert you now, but I do think you have not addressed LordShard's issue. Do you have a W:RS source that says the "healer view" of Jesus is the predominant view among most scholars? I doubt that given the Koestenberger overall analysis. As Koestenberger states the charismatic healer view is supported by Borg and Vermes, the philosopher view is supported by Crossan and Downing, the prophet view is supported by Sanders and Casey, the social reformer view by Theissen and Hrsely, etc. etc. So the healer is one of many views. Now why do you state the healer as the "key view" when there are multiple scholarly perspectives. Of course, reliance on the grandfather rule that a talk page discussion during the Eisenhower administration said so, may be a weak argument, but in view of LordShard's very valid statement, you have shown no WP:RS source that "most scholars view Jesus as a faith healer". Indeed Koestenberger's table invalidates your claim. History2007 (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, there was an edit conflict, my computer keeps timing out. The main issue for me is not a compromise with me, it is that we should not change stable consensus versions without discussion first. The paragraph in question was carefully crafted by several editors who had taken the time to do considerable research - and this after a very contentious year when compromise seemed impossible. There used to be a note to this effect which was accidentally deleted when more recently Jesus myth stuff was added; I have restored the note. My main point is that a long-standing stable consensus should not be changed without discussion first.

As to the specifics: first, concerning "historians," the point is not that this is a view of historians as well as Bible scholars; the point is that many Bible scholars are historians. When the modern university system emerged at the end of the 19th century, historians who worked with sources in modern languages or European states with origins in the Middle Ages were trained and employed by history departments, and historians who worked with sources in dead languages (e.g. ancient Greek, Latin, Akadian, Sumerian, Biblical Hebrew), on states that no longer exist, were trained and employed by Classics Department, Bibliecal Studies Departments, or Ancient Near Eastern Studies Departments - these specific departments reflect the fact that the historical sources are more limited and require specific skills - but the scholars are nevertheless "historians;" they make the same assumptions and use the same methods as other historians (eht exception is archeologists, but none of the sources cited are archeologists). As for "healer," there are many sources at the end of the sentence that identify Jesus as a healer including the most notable historians of Jesus today like Fredricksen, Sanders and Vermes. The table you refer to is misleading, because the views of Jesus do not so neatly divide into these mutually exclusive categories - for many scholars, Jesus was a healer and a prophet and a reformer. Different books often emphasize different aspects of his career, but this is because authors of scholarly books and articles usually seek to advance an original argument by calling atttention to a view or dimension of their object of study that they feel have been downplayed or insufficiently explored - but this does not mean that views so neatly divide into Jesus is x or Jesus is y rather than x and y. I am not basing my claim on primary sources by the way but rather secondary sources that are still in print and published within the past twenty years or so. We discussed this, and the sources are all at the end of the sentence.

If there is any term here that is controversial and I think should be changed (but only after discussion!) it is the word "rabbi." Many English translations of the NT use the word "rabbi" but many scholars consider this anachronistic. Rabbi comes from the Aramaic word meaning "my master" but English NTs are using Rabbi where the Greek word is "diskalos" which means teacher. I note that the first sentence of the paragraph includes the word "teacher" so saying "teacher" and "rabi" for the same word, diskalos, is redundant. I acknowledge that a small number of scholars do identify Jesus as "rabbi" and I would not objct to a separate sentence providing the specific sources, but many consider the term anachronistic because the word "rabbi" as it is understood today did not develop until the Tannaitic period. We shoud make clear that there is no consensus about this term. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been trying very hard not to work on that lede... But now that LordShard started it, let me say:

• I think your change back to historians is not subject to major contention, given the contents of the article. So let us leave that aside.

• The three remaining qualifiers are healer, Rabbi and teacher. So we need to address those.

I think neither healer or Rabbi is accepted by "most scholars" and there is no support for those in the article, hence per WP:LEDE can not be claimed in the lede, if not supported in the body by references. Yes, there is no mutually exclusive determination, but you have not established that healer is more predominant than philosopher, etc. I see no source for that claim. Hence we may have to just say nothing, until sources are found a,d just say he was Jewish, was from Galillee and was regarded as a teacher - the qualification everyone accepts. History2007 (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Really? According to Theissen and Mertz 1998, "Just as the kingdom of God stands at the centre of Jesus' preaching, so healings and exorcisms orm the centre of his activity." They cite Ebeling, Held, Hogan, E and ML Keller, Meier, Twelftree, and Weeden in addition to themselves to support this claim. Sanders says Jesus was a healer (1993: 159-168). Fredriksen says he was a healer (1998: 98) and Crossan says he was a healer as well (1991: 334; his total analysis is 304-332). All of these sources agree that as far as the best reading of the sources in their historical context goes, Jesus healed. The differences between them is their interpretation of his healing. Some people specify "faith healing" or :charismatic healing" or "miracle worker" and Crossan goes much further with his interpretation of the political significance of healing. Perhaps this article needs a more detailed section on "healing" although I suspect this belongs in the "historical Jesus" article instead. One reason for the multiple interpretations has to do with our own beliefs about healing: we believe that most illness is caused by germs and that healing occurs through drugs like antibiotics. We believe in this so much, that we just call it "healing" without qualification - and this means that many of us, when we look at beliefs about healing in other culures, must add modifiers to distinguish what they do from what we do. This is understandable but not really very good history, because historians start of by not assuming that people in the past shared our beliefs ("the past is another country.") Jews in the first century believed that most illnesses had specific causes that called for specific forms of healing. from our perspective this was "miracle working" or "exorcisms" or the like, but my point is it is our need to add modifiers - for Jews at the time (just as for us in our time) people were sick and were healed, the underlying theory did not need to be stated because everyone shared it. So Crossan and Fredricksen have diferent interpretations of the significanc of Jesus' healing and characterize it in different ways. This is a debate or diference that can be explaind in the body of the appropriate article. In the lead of this article we should just mention what most historians agree on and they all agree that he healed the sick. We have had this discussion before. There are plenty of sources. To say that Crossan takes "the philosopher view" and Theissen takes the "social reformer view" as if this meant that they do not think Jesus was a healer is really disingenuous, it flatly contradicts what they themselves wrote, and I have provided the sources for you. I thought we mentioned Theissen and Sanders and Fredricksen and Crossan (as well as Vermes) in the notes to this sentence. Are we missing one of them? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I would try not to bring antibiotics into it, but although you list some scholars that call him a healer, I see no source that does a summary review that says: "most scholars view Jesus as primarily a healer above his other characterizations". That was the heart of LordShard's argument. No source that summarizes that. The only summary source I have seen (and I could look more) is teh Koestenberger table. And I do not think we can just call a table in a WP:RS source confused at will. But let us wait for other comments. History2007 (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you really think I called the table confused "at will?" I tried to provide specific page references for in-print and recently published books by scholars who call Jesus a healer, and who are not identified as such by the table. This is not willful, this is informed and carefully considered.

And I am not saying that the table is "wrong," I am saying that it is being used inmproperly, that it is being misinterpreted. The most important work of scholarship is not to provide information (although many undergraduates and non-scholars think so), it is to interpret that information. All scholars might agree that Jesus was a healer, but they might interpret the reasons why he was, or is remembered as, a healer - interpretations that are parts of larger arguments about why Jesus is important. Crossan definitely does not think Jesus was important because he was a healer. Crossan has a different reason, and all of these scholars have different reasons, and I think that this is what the table is trying to capture. The fact that Crossan does not think that Jesus was important because he was a healer (i.e. there is another reason) however does not mean that Crossan did not say Jesus was a healer. To interpret the table as saying this is ignorant. I am sorry if I am hurting your feelings, but just because WP is the article anyone can edit does not mean that any edit is appropriate. The most basic rule that anyone working on an encyclopedia ought to understand - so basic that it is implicit in the project of writing an encyclopedia and shouldn't need its own policy (although this rule is provided in various policies) is: do not quote out of context." To use a quote or a reliable source in context requires editors who are not just mechanical copiests, it requires editors who can read and understand the scholarship on an issue. I do not see this standard as opening the door to original research, on the contrary, we need it to prevent original research. One has to understand the views one is representing, which reuires one to read more than just a table on a page. Sometimes one has to read a whole book to properly understand a page. Sometimes one has to read several books to understand a page. I am certain that anyone who has read the books mentioned in that table would acknowledge that the view being represented in the table has to do with arguments about why Jesus was important, or analytical frameworks for interpreting the specifics of Jesus's life and work. To say Jesus was a philosopher surely doesn't mean he was not crucified To say he was a social reformer doesn't mean he wasn't crucified! These approaches however suggest different ways of interpreting why he was crucified. If you can understand this, surely you can understand how these approaches suggest different ways for interpreting why Jesus was a healer, too. haven't you read Crossan? Aren't you aware of his explanation for the importance of Jesus' work as a healer? If we cannot answer this question, then we are misrepresenting a view. The table is not about how many scholars think Jesus was a healer, it is about something else. To interpret it as claiming that only a minority of scholars thought Jesus was a healer is to misrepresent it. This is not the proper way to use reliable sources. We should not take things out of context in order to push our own POV at the expense of the views of published scholars. I named scholars and provided citations from reliable sources where they say Jesus was a healer. This does not mean that this is the principal argument of each of these books. Scholarly books say many things in the course of building an argument and these books make different arguments. But as to the simple question of, was Jesus a healer, they all agree. Just read the pages I cite.

Finally, when it comes to scholars, I think we should also be guided by WEIGHT. I do not actually have a survey of all University teachers of NT or Jesus related courses to use as a basis for saying "most" - but to be fare, I think many WP articles say "most" when they mean "most of the sources we know of." I do not think this is a bad idea. I just think it is important for us to look for the most significant or notable sources. Along with Ehrmann and Maier (whose relevant books I - sadly - do not own), Sanders, Fredricksen and Vermes are to my knowledge (I asked some college professors) the most frequently assigned books in college courses. I would never argue against the notability of Theissen or Crossan either, by the way. Maybe you think we should changed the word "most scholars" to "the most notable scholars" or something to that efect, fine. But I do not think we should make this a flat out matter of votes or a survey. It is not always easy to agree about who is the best scholar, but the very idea of WEIGHT is that we can agree about who are the most notable or significant scholars. We can use citation indexes for example, if there is serious doubt about this. But I sincerely believe that anyone who has done university-level research on Jesus will know that the people I name in this paragraph are all among the most notable scholars in their field. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

But the simplest way to resolve this is: Can anhyone provide a reliable source expressing a significant view that says that the historical Jesus was not a healer? So far all we have is the table, which does not actually say that Crossan or Theissen do not say that he was a healer. When I keep providing sources that say he was a healer, I think that before demaning a source that says "most scholars say he was a scholar" it is reasonable to ask you to provide one major source that says he was not a healer. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

That is not how it works. To establish that Jesus was a healer you need RS that provide evidence for Jesus' existence in the first place and then RS that provide evidence what the historical person actually was and did, especially whether he in fact healed anybody. And the Bible is not a RS here for obvious reasons. ♆ CUSH ♆ 19:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

@Cush I do not understand what you mean, "That is not how it works." When you wite, "The Bible is not a RS source here for obvious reasons," why do you say this? To whom are you speaking? Are you replying to anyone? Should we refactor your comment and put it in another section? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I am replying to you. You ask for a RS that says he was NOT a healer. That is not how it works. Being a healer is not the default position and not something that would be automatically assigned to some historical Jesus. What you have to come up with are RS for Jesus' existence and then with RS for his actions. That's how it works. This is an encyclopedia, and not some Christian platform. ♆ CUSH ♆ 07:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Then please stop misrepresenting me. Where did I ever say that being a healer is a "default position?" Wher did I ever say that it would be "automatically added" - or anything to that effect? Please provide the date stamp. What have I written that has ever even suggested that this is a Christian platform? Where have I ever written that we should favor Christian views over the views of critical historians? Again, please provide the timestamp. You can't just show up and spout nonsense misrepresenting other editors because you prefer to soapbox rather than improve articles. Do not misrepresent me. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

18:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC) You wrote "But the simplest way to resolve this is: Can anhyone provide a reliable source expressing a significant view that says that the historical Jesus was not a healer?", to which I replied that it is not necessary to demonstrate that he was not a healer. However it is necessary to demonstrate that he was a healer, which is the statement you requested counter-sources for. Such a request is a stereotypically religionist statement. ♆ CUSH ♆ 19:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I have no objection to removing "rabbi" but I think it is very likely someone sooner or later will add it (if only because the read an English translation of the NT that uses this term) so if we remove it maybe after "teacher" we need a note on the different translations of "dyskalos" and the different meanings of "rabbi" (i.e. as an honorific - "You're great!" - versus as the title of a particular authority, specifically on Jewish law, that emerged as a title during the Tannaitic period) Slrubenstein | Talk 18:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

That was pretty long. Let me just say that per WP:RS/AC: "the statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view" and "most scholars we know of" can not be used as you suggested it, per policy. History2007 (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It was pretty long. But all of it aimed at improving the page. Policies are descriptive and should never trump the good sense of editors working on a page. I still would like to see anyone provide a significant source that says Jesus was not a healer. I also think we should take it for granted that "most" means most of the significant sources we rely on in writing the article. But we could just cut the word "most" if you want. Until we have an example of a notable significant scholar who says Jesus was not a healer I see no cause to disregard all the sources we have. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry I must differ on that. WP:RS/AC is specific, there is no ambiguity on that and it say it does trump the selection made by the editors. If you remove "most" that would immediately imply all scholars, and can not be used. And your requirement that X can be stated unless there is a source that says not(X) clearly runsagainst WP:RS. Sorry, but policy is policy. History2007 (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry I must differ on that. WP:Ignore all rules makes it very clear that no rule is binding. I actually do not think we shoud ignore all rules absolutely, if this makes you feel any better. I think we should consider the spirit of the policies, and take them into consideration in our good faith discussion about how best to improve the article. We give a great deal of weight to consensus, and here we are discussing a paragraph that has expressed a very stable consensus for several years, and I do not think we should change it lightly or, as Lordshard did, without explanation and time for discussion. Wikipedia never claims to present all views. We do not have to provide fringe views or the views of non-experts. We atrive to provide all significant views. When distniguish between majority and minority views among significant views. The use of the word "most" signifies that among significant views this is a majority view. If you or Lordshard cannot provide an example of a significant view that says Jesus was not a healer, I just do not see any reasonable well-considered basis for suggesting that this is a minority view. That is disingenuous and misleading. Policies are not machines that autonatically dictate the right decision. We editors are responsible for reading the research, and discussing among ourselves which views are fringe, which are minority, which are majority, which are mainstream. Let's discuss who are the significant scholars and what their views are before making any changes, shall we? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. Now you know that the statement your prefer "runs against WP:RS/AC" but are suggesting that WP:RS/AC is not binding and "should be ignored" based on WP:Ignore all rules? Wow... Is that what I am hearing now? And I am not at all prepared to ignore WP:RS/AC. It was the heart of LordShard's argument that started this. What is the use of policy if one is to ignore it as desired? I think policy must be followed, not ignored. History2007 (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, to "get this straight" I would ask you to read and comment on my entire comment and not just the first sentence. The reliable source you ant to follow is Koestenberger and I explained why you were misrepresenting Koestenberger as well as the other scholars you mentioned. I am sorry that you took this personally, I did not mean to offend you. But if your idea of WP/RS is to misrepresent sources, I just do not know how to move past this. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not that way at all. And I do not take talk pages seriously. It will be forgotten tomorrow. Bu I do not even want to add Koestenberger, nor do I need to. What I say is what LordShard said and what Cush said above: "you have no source" for the statement that "most scholars say Jesus was a healer". Per WP:RS/AC the absence of a source seals the fate of your desired statement. Simple. History2007 (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

There used to be a source with a far more explicit quote regarding "healer". I do not see that source any more. Sometimes the sources get moved to the wrong part of the sentence or paragraph.--JimWae (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but I guess that was before my days. However, again without having to use this, I would remark that Chilton and Evans say that assigning major importance to paranormal acts performed by Jesus is not common within the historical Jesus discipline. And in fact in general the "only two" events considered historical by scholars in the life of Jesus are his baptism and crucifixion under Pilate, as the rest of the sentence says, as well as review articles in the body of the page. That is for sure. History2007 (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The missing source did not say he was a healer, but that he was regarded as one. Wonder why he never said something about the germ theory of disease instead of perpetuating the view that disease was punishment/trial--JimWae (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure if I follow this germ story and its significance. Is that somehow some fundamental issue I am unaware of? But in any case, I do not see that as a key bullet point that should show up in the lede, in view of WP:Undue in any case and in view of the issue of historicity being a key element of the start of the lede. History2007 (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought I posted before, but I must have messed up somehow. Regardless it appears the consensus is to go with the proposed changes. LordShard (talk) 06:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Let us wait another day or so to provide time for other user comments, then we can suggest something. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I have provided a great many reliable sources saying that Jesus was a healer. You have a source saying that his "paranormal" activity was not of major significance (I am not sure that the paranormal activity refers specifically to his being a healer). If they actually say "healer," I have no objection to saying somewhere that some scholars do not consider his work as a healer to be of major importance. My point is only that a lare number of the most notable historians writing about Jesus say that he was a healer. Do not delete content from reliable sources, and do not misrepresent reliable sources. These sources are provided in the sentence in question. The paragraph in question reflects a longstanding stable consensus and two editors who wish to make a change do not equal a consensus. Moreover, a consensus must be based on reasoned discussion. I still have yet to see any reason for disregarding the views of Crossan, Ebeling, Fredricksen, Held, Hogan, E and ML Keller, Meier, Sanders, Theissen and Mertz, Twelftree, Vermes, and Weeden. Are you saying that they are not notable scholars? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

e/c What I said was quote: 'What I say is what LordShard said and what Cush said above: "you have no source" for the statement that "most scholars say Jesus was a healer". Per WP:RS/AC the absence of a source seals the fate of your desired statement. Simple.' And I still say that. Now, FYI, page 105 of Powell's book Jesus as a figure in history says, quote: "Parting company with the majority of his colleagues in the Jesus Seminar (but in agreement with Crossan) Borg regarded the assertion that Jesus was a healer and an excorcist as virtually indisputable". So your desired statement is not only unsourced but runs against Powell. But again, I do not even need to use Powell, but I would remind you that you have no source for your desired statement, and it needs to be marked as "uncited" as the next step. History2007 (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This is an assessment only of the Jesus Seminar, not most scholars of Jesus. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Just skimming over this discussion, would the phrasing "many scholars seeing a third role as healer" instead of "most scholars" work? We have sources that show it's a pretty common idea. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It is the case that a number of scholars see a "role as a healer", but not clear if it is the 3rd role or the 5th role or the 7th. There are roles as sage, philosopher, movement builder, etc. and I could also drop 1,000 scholar names,but will not. History2007 (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You need to distinguish between things Jesus did, and the meaning of those things. You seem to think that these roles are competing rather than closely related. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Also skimmining through this LONG discussion - maybe "many scholars see another of his roles as healer".

I know words matter, but this really appears to be a "splitting hairs" discussion... Ckruschke (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

I think it is getting clear that "most scholars say Jesus was a healer" statement is on its way out, given that it has no source. The question will then be what will replace it, if any. History2007 (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

"Many" would work fine. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That is called progress. Now, given that the one of the two points that the two of us agreed on was that the Rabbi characterization is a NT item, and probably not subject to the quantification it receives in the lede, now that this issue is being discussed, I think we should deal with that too. My preference would be to either not mention it, or relegate it to a "many" qualifier, or even a "some" qualifier. Let us get opinions on that as well, and see. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I am glad we are making progress. I understand your policy concerns but (and I say this because i actually do believe that talk on talk pages is important) I think that one of your concerns is to distinguish the view that Jesus was baptized by John and crucified for sedition under orders of Pontius Pilate as two elements of the narrative that by far have the most support from critical historians, and I have no objection to this.

Concerning "rabbi," my preference would be to remove it entirely from the lead. We could add a note following the word "teacher" that explains that dyskalos is generally understood to mean teacher but is often translated as "rabbi" in contemporary editions of the New Testament. Or, we could add a paragraph to the section on Jesus according to the Gospels, where we explain this. Or both. I do not know of any critical historians who claim that Jesus was a "rabbi" but if you have read a thousand works on Jesus I will defer to your knowledge on this issue - I just want to distinguish between a word that is chosen by NT translators, versus a claim that has actually been made by historians or scholars in books or journal articles. This is why I am uncomfortable with the "many" qualifier - I do not know of many or even any historians who claim he was a rabbi, to my knowledge this is only a translation decision and we should distinguish between the choices of translators and the arguments of historians. But if you know of historians who do say he was (among other things) a rabbi, then we can say some or many and provide the citations.

If there are any historians who say that one of his roles or titles was rabbi, then I think it is important to add (in the main text or in a note) what they actually understand the word to mean, because whatever it meant in the year 30, I think it came to mean something else between 200 - 600, and this needs to be acknowledged somewhere. From what I know, there may have been a time when "rabbi" was a colloquial expression of respect - but it also meant a legal authority within Pharisaic/Rabbinic Judaism, a legal authority recognized by other legal authorities (rather than one's disciples or students) and today it is the second meaning that is the primary meaning among Jews. So it is not just a matter of how many people hold this view, and who (e.g. translator or etymologist or historian or some other kind of scholar) holds this view, it is also a question of what they mean by "rabbi." Slrubenstein | Talk 15:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but we are going to have a "heated agreement" on that one now. I also think Rabbi does not fit, and moreover we have no source that says it does as it is in the lede now. But before moving on it, let us get another opinion at least. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It's been 10 days and this fairly simple and trivial change is still suck in a bureaucratic quagmire? I think it will not happen at all at this rate. LordShard (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait until Sunday please. In the next 2 days I will get the material together so we can talk about it. Look here on Saturday. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

---

The untranslated Hebrew/Aramaic words ραββι ραββουνι occur in the Greek New Testament, not always used in a positive way (Matthew 23:7)... AnonMoos (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but we were trying to have those items that are subject to wide scholarly agreement. NT content is not necessarily historically accepted by scholars at large, except the two key events of baptism and crucifixion. I have been intending to make a list of those items that are considered "scholarly accepted labels" of which healer is one, and list them here... I will do it soon. History2007 (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what the point of that is -- if we want to know the attitudes of the earliest Christians towards the title "rabbi" (and slight variants), then the New Testament is the only real evidence available... AnonMoos (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually many scholars combine elements they see as possibly historical in the NT with other external and background factors to arrive at conclusions. The NT alone is never enough for historical conclusions. As I said above, I will gather some material by tomorrow so it can be discussed. History2007 (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I have now clarified the 3 stages of the Quest for historical Jesus and how NT accounts are at times supplemented, and at times rejected by various scholars as they construct their "portraits of Jesus". Next step will be to address the various "building blocks" they use in their portraits, e.g. healer, preacher, reformer, etc. As a summary, that should not take much space either. A longer discussion for those can be added to the historical Jesus pages, but probably not this weekend. History2007 (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Based on the discussion above, we need to separate "most scholars" from the other items. I have clarified the portraits of Jesus in the historical analysis section to show that after the Quests there are various overlapping attributes - with no total agreement on the mix of attributes. And the point that both LordShard and Cush made was that we need to explicitly say if scholars agree that he existed or not, then state the attributes. So we may try:

Most critical historians agree that Jesus existed, was a Galilean Jew who was was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire. Critical Biblical scholars and historians have offered competing descriptions and portraits of Jesus, which at times share a number of overlapping attributes, such as charismatic healer, the leader of an apocalyptic movement, a self-described Messiah, a sage and philosopher, or a social reformer who preached of the "Kingdom of God" as a means for personal and egalitarian social transformation.

That is pretty well referenced and is well supported y the body of the article, per WP:LEDE. I think it may also be worth adding:

Scholars also contend that given the scarcity of historical sources, it is generally difficult to construct a portrait of Jesus that can be considered historically valid beyond the basic elements of his life.

But that may make it too long, so we may just leave it out. History2007 (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

At the moment we have a sentence beginning, "Most critical historian agree ... ," in the Lead which is sourced to Bart D Ehrman's Lost Christianities, the Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. Below, I've quoted the relevant passage from the book and argued that the statement sourced from it misrepresents what the book says. One of the ways that it may misrepresent is the statement that Jesus was a rabbi, a historical anomaly perhaps, as it rather implies that Jesus was part of the system created by the Pharisees, of which sect there's no real evidence that Jesus was a member, which was in its infancy at the time.     ←   ZScarpia   18:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as in the section below. Now, does the paragraph above address the issues you raised? History2007 (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"Most critical historians agree ... ," in the Lead must not include the "faith healer" reference. Only Christians and people who think faith healing actually works could possibly assign such a profession to Jesus. Other than the Bible, which is conjectural, there are no sources to indicate Jesus' factual behavior. "Most critical historians" is a weasel phrase anyways: non-critical historians are not historians to begin with and it has not been demonstrated that "most historians" (i.e. > 2/3 of all historians in the world) come to such a conclusion. "healer" must be derived from demonstrable medical expertise, while "faith healer" rather indicates a charlatan. ♆ CUSH ♆ 07:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The new text does not have that problem, as above. And I agree that healer should not link to faith healer, given that the sources do not say faith-healer. History2007 (talk) 09:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry on the accidental rollback, something on my watchlist popped up asking if I want to encourage university professors blah blah and moved everything down after I already tried to click a different link. :\ Ian.thomson (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I repeat that the long-standing text does not say historians agree Jesus WAS a healer but that he was regarded as one. See http://www.preventingtruthdecay.org/jesusmiracles.shtml for details on who agrees. I do agree that "rabbi" could be misleading & that preacher/teacher does the job. I am not sure if we have enough to say "most", but certainly "many". Removing (regarded as a) healer (from the description of Jesus) would give an adequate picture of neither the historical nor biblical context. --JimWae (talk) 08:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually the suggestion is not to remove healer, but to remove Rabbi, and add a couple of other items as well as healer, given that healer is not the "only characterization" provided by scholars and should not get to be there alone all by itself. Thus:

Most critical historians agree that Jesus existed, was a Galilean Jew who was was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire. Critical Biblical scholars and historians have offered competing descriptions and portraits of Jesus, which at times share a number of overlapping attributes, such as charismatic healer, the leader of an apocalyptic movement, a self-described Messiah, a sage and philosopher, or a social reformer who preached of the "Kingdom of God" as a means for personal and egalitarian social transformation.

This solves all of those issues, and is supported by the body of the article. And as Cush pointed out healer should not link to "faith healer" given that it implies charlatan, and the sources say healer, not faith healer. As is the existing lede is not supported by references or the body of the article, and will need to be tagged. I would prefer to fix it rather than tag it. History2007 (talk) 09:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)