Talk:Jesus/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

Legacy

I know some people are disturbed about the section on anti-Semitism I put in the "legacy" section. First, I want to make clear that I have no objection to people editing it if they think it makes it more accurate or NPOV. However, I do believe that anti-Semitism is part of Jesus' legacy. This does not mean that Jesus himself would have sanctioned anti-Semitism. But when people object to the paragraph I put in on the grounds that it may be the legacy of "the Church" (rossnixon, my talk page) or "a sad legacy of his followers" (KHM03, my talk page), I see a double standard (and I am not saying this to offend rossnixon or KHM03, both of whom I am sure are acting in good faith). The first sentence of the section is "According to most Christian interpretations ..." I think this opening signals a plain and simple fact: that Jesus' legacy extends far beyond what he accomplished in his life, to what his followers centuries or millenia later have said and done. The first sentence rightly establishes Christianity and the acts and beliefs of Christians to be Jesus's legacy. If anti-Semitism has at certain times been encouraged by the Church or elements of the Church, or by some of Jesus's followers, who believed that their acts were supported by their reading of the New Testament, that is as much a part of Jesus's legacy as any other Christian interpretation of scripture, or Christian's belief in relics like the shroud of Turin. Jesus's legacy is about the significant consequences of both his ministry and - especially "and" - the words and deeds of his followers who have claimed to act in his name. One's legacy is often at odds with one's own intentions. I don't think that anyone would deny that the current political system in the US is the legacy of the "founding fathers" - while at the same time agreeing that the current political system is not necessarily what they intended or imagined.

I tried, earnistly and in good faith, to write an NPOV paragraph. In addition to mentioning anti-Semitism, I note that not only have their been exceptions, but that many Christians and Christian Churches have also promoted mutual respect and reconciliation. In addition to mentioning Christianity's role in colonialism, I note that many Christians have fought on behalf of the poor and oppressed. I have striven to achieve balance. If people want sources, the article on Christianity and anti-Semitism is full of them [1] and [2]. This does not mean that all christians have always been anti-Semitic and I truly felt that what I wrote made this clear. Eduardo Galleano is a good source on Christianity and colonialism but really any textbook on or history of the European settlement of the Americas discusses the relationship between the conquerers and the missionaries. Paolo Freire and Gustavo Gutierrez would be the best sources on Christians who have fought on the side of the colonized.

I can understand why a Christian would feel uneasy about mentioning anti-Semitism as part of Jesus's legacy. But reconciliation is also part of Jesus's legacy, and we cannot honor that part of Jesus' legacy without also stating what it is that led to the need for reconicliation. Must we add a sentence that explicitly states that Jesus' legacy has been so great as to include Christians whose actions other Christians have deplored and denounced? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I respect your view and agree with much of it. But would it be fair to mention terrorism as a legacy of Mohammed on that article? Truly, anti-semitism is a tragic thing...sinful, in fact. And Christians need to own this sin, repent, and reconcile. But while Christians have used Jesus (esp. the Gospel of John) to support anti-semitic thought & behavior, it isn't unique to Christianity, and most modern theologians would claim that this is a misinterpretation of Jesus' words and intent. I think we just need to be careful here. KHM03 13:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree that we must be careful. I do think that an article on Mohammed - if it has a "legacy" section - should mention current Islamic extremism, although I agree too that that would have to be carefully worded. There are not nearly as many articles on Jewish topics as on Christian ones, but I think a more apt analogy is this: if an article discusses God's giving the Children of Israel the land of Canaan as part of the covenant, and if there were any sections on the eventual consequences of this (something comparable to "legacy"), I think that such an article should mention (1) that for a long time Jews abandoned their nationalist aspirations, (2) that starting in the 19th century some Jews - and after the Holocaust most Jews - came to believe that a democratic Jewish state needed to be created, and (3) that the history of this state has involved, among other things, conflicts over the territorial claims of the Jewish state versus the territorial claims of Palestinians, that the war of 1948 led to the expulsion of many Arabs from Israel, and that the occupation of the West Bank has been condemned not only by Palestinians and the UN but by segments of the Jewish Israeli citizenship as well. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Scholars Generally Hold... Paragraph

This paragraph was discussed above under Talk:Jesus#Streamlining the Historicity Paragraph A resolution was reached to keep it and to move the names of scholars representing the majority consensus to a footnote.I offered to document these, but no one requested that. While it's not exactly necessary, since the whole body of the works of these individual scholars of very different perspectives amply demonstrate it, as a visit to their wiki pages testify, I will happily do so in the morning, if all find it useful.

What is not tolerable, however, is the removal of a reference, no matter how incomplete.

To all: Will one book or article per scholar do, or should I cite three or four of them? I work in a theological library. --CTSWyneken 01:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Cite as many as you want, but who was removing references? Homestarmy 02:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

User Robsteadman. --CTSWyneken 02:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, don't let it stop you, i'll try to defend any citations you make anyway, unless you like sneak some insane references in there that make no sense at all heh :D. Homestarmy 05:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ditto; Rob is welcome to make his case here. KHM03 11:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll do one book per scholar. If you'll notice, he's once again taken out a note, which destroys one of my references and didn't bother to discuss it. I'm reverting it. --CTSWyneken 10:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The intro makes it clear that some (we could even say many) doubt the existence of Jesus. Beyond that, it MUST represent all major points of view. The views of Christians and Muslims are obviously important. But so are the views of critical scholars. The paragraph in question fully conforms with our policies. It is not the result of original research; it is verifiable; sources are provided, and it is written in a way that complies with NPOV and including it in the intro is demanded by our NPOV policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the note because it seems to be duplication Robsteadman 13:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

SL, I agree. One question, though. I've expanded the set of scholars you originally had in the paragraph to include scholars of perspectives other than critical scholars. We now have a range from the views of the most critical scholars to ones that have little use for the method. Since they all agree on the statements you've listed in the paragraph, I think it makes the argument stronger to acknowledge that. I'd like to find a way to indicate that in the paragraph that is not cumbersome.

On the opposite, small minority view of the Jesus Myth folk, if given enough time, I will document it also. --CTSWyneken 12:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That's fine with me. KHM03 11:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

To be fair Rob did put in the edit summary "who are these people references needed". I was the one who said I didn't need the references documented but he obviously didn't agree with that. I'm away this weekend but I'm happy to put theJesus-Myth references in if we really think they are necessary for balance. I personally feel the wiki link is enough as all the info is on that page. SOPHIA 12:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree; if this article is taking the majority view that Jesus was a real historic figure, then those are the citations we need. A link to the myth article will work for that view. KHM03 12:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do we need the same list twice in notes? Why is this not just one note? And yes, we should have other views - if we are having it stated that he DID exost (massively POV) we need to have it stated that many commentators do not believe this. The article should NOT be a "jesus" existed article - it should be the verfiable - which is that there is no contemporary evidence, and much that existed afterwards is eiethr biased, written by non-eye witnesses many decades after or was altered )Josephus). Robsteadman 13:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There's no reasoning with you Rob, it is clear you are blinded by your POV and I'm giving up trying. Anyone else who wants to join me?Gator (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There is reasoning - but we MUST stay NPOV and verifiable. Anything that says "jesus did this..." must have a dsiclaimer attached that "according to..." or "christians believe that..." . VERIFIABLE NPOV Robsteadman 13:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC) Robsteadman 13:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh there is reasoning, just not with you. SOPHIA, yes, but not with you. You've let your obvious POV blind you to reason and the fact that you can't see it just proves that you are in fact blind. I'm done.Gator (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadmen systematically and continually misconstrues the issue. No one is saying "Jesus existed." The article is saying that certain groups of people believe Jesus existed: Christians, Muslims, and critical scholars. This statement is verifiable and NPOV. Robsteadman, if you cannot tell the difference between the sentence "Jesus existed" and "X,Y, and Z believe that Jesus existed" then I don't see how you can contribute to this discussion. I wrote that critical historians believe that Jesus existed and I provided a list of scholars who have published many books and articles. That is an NPOV and verifiable statement. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

In that case the dates should be removed from the opening - there position there imply he DID exist. Look at teh first paragraph:

"Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene (about 8-4 BC/BCE – 29-36 AD/CE)[1], is the central figure of Christianity, in which context he is known as Jesus Christ (from Greek Ιησούς Χριστός) with "Christ" being a title meaning "Anointed One" or "Messiah". The main sources regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament which are generally agreed to have been written decades after his death."

Now, someone coming tohis article fresh... does that poara say that he existed ort that some groups believe he existed? I believe it states categorically that he existed - this cannot be verified or proven. The "evidence" is written decades later by POV writers and the neutral references are questionable or have been doctored (Josephus). We need to think what would the newcomer to athe article understand from the article - I think the current article misleads because it gives a massive POV. Robsteadman 14:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ohhhh I see what's happening now, he wants a certain POV (that Jesus never existed) to be the firt thing people read whern they come to the page...and....that POV just happens to be his personal POV. Just a coincidence though. Like I said...blinded.Gator (talk) 14:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No that's not what I have said. Plerase don;t pout words into my mouth. I would like the intro (and the first paragrpah) to make it clear that there is some debate about this, that evidence is not available and that whilst some "believe" he existed , despite the lack of fact, other take a rational view that he didn't. That would be NPOV. That would be verifiable. The current intro is still heavily POV and reads as if he existed and that there is no debate. Stop misinterpreting what I am saying. Start thinking NPOV. What would a newcomer to the article get from reading it. Would it be NPOV verifiable fact or a heavily slanted article? Robsteadman 14:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The evidence is available for many who do see evidence. The fact that some, like yourself, don't accept the Gospels and other writers, etc, as evidence is massively POV. Is it true there are no contemporary documents? Sure. Does that mean there is no evidence of Jesus' existance? Many believe no, some including yourself have the point-of-view that it means no evidence. It's POV. Simply saying no documents exist, and doing so in such a way that it's not pushing that as reason why "rob" thinks everyone is nuts, is ok. Using it to imply the rest of the article is junk believed only by wackos is unacceptable. --Oscillate 15:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

But that's just it rob, your creating a majority where none exist, if all the certified and highly respectable (supposedly) historians who say that Jesus existed are massively POV and stupid or something for that reason, then that means that almost every single archaeological and historical work forever was written or worked on by people who couldn't actually be certified if, by what your saying, they would represent a too "biased" view to be a respectable historian. There's almost not a history book in the world that would be certified, as the extreme majority view is that Christ did exist, you can't just sit there and say that all those people aren't really historians just because they believe Jesus existed and obviously had an enormous impact on the world without invalidating almost every single historical or history related degree in the world. There would be almost no historical works that could be used today, most of Wikipedia would have to be deleted for "biased sources" history article wise, and we wouldn't be having this discussion because there wouldn't be a point trying to maintain an encyclopedia cited with a grand total of an extreme minorities works. There might be many of these people who don't believe Jesus exist, but proportionently, their numbers are extremely small. Plus, the facts of Jesus's existance, when acknowladged, are not biased just because Jesus was a very POV person, come on, He was God, I think He might of had something to say from a Godly POV. Homestarmy 13:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Homestarmy - I think you;re missing the point deliberately. 1. Historians or "christian" theologians? 2. "jesus", if he existed, may have been POV - but that must be allowed for in what is written. 3. What people believe about him must be stated as belief not fact. It is factual that they believe it - it is not verifiable and factual that he did x or y. We must be NPOV - it is that simple. And those trying to maintain the heavily POV slant on this article are going agaainst the basic principles of Wikipedia. Robsteadman 14:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you prove Jesus didn't exist? Are you going to stand here and proclaim that all historians who happen to be Christians also, or any historians who are not Christian but still assert Jesus existed, are not to be believed at all? That is clearly what you think, and that's your POV, which you are trying to pepper the article with. Making mention of other views is fine, and according to the NPOV guidelines should be done properly considering the prominence of the view and the context of the article. --Oscillate 15:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadman, thank you for coming here to discuss it. My problem with your actions was that rather than reading the talk page and discovering that we had decided that the names were needed to verify the paragraph's claims that a majority of scholars hold what we say they hold. You deleted it, thereby making the statements appear to be OR. When someone tried to put them back, you reverted them. When I saw all this happening and that you requested full citations, I began to add them. One of them also supported the point of the first reference, which is to support the scholarly opinion of the dates for the life of Jesus. In customary academic form, I put the full form of the citation in the first note and an abrreviated form in the second. You then deleted the first note, invalidating my citation, which you had requested. To be honest, I do not like my work destroyed.

That being said, on the first citation, I think we need something there to support the dates given, since there is quite a difference of opinion on those dates. I think the note was inserted there as a "quick and dirty" solution, but is very likely true. It is for Witherington, in any case.

If you will simply slow down, I will document them as time permits. Even though I am a seminary librarian, I do have a day job and it does take a little bit to do this right, even though most of the works are on shelves near me. Why either help us document the views or just leave it alone long enough for those of us who will do this work to get to it. --CTSWyneken 14:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

But Rob, these historians don't simply believe Christ existed as a matter of personal preference, the evidence, circumstantial or biased or whatever, has led them to the conclusion that it is an historical fact that Christ existed. If scientists can do this sort of thing with evolution, why can't historians do this with Jesus? Homestarmy 14:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Homestarmy makes a crucial point: the critical historians who believe Jesus existed are using the same methods that any historian or classicist would use studying the past. IF any of them happen to believe in God, they bracket that in their research. They are explicitly speaking from a secular point of view (just as a religious Christian can also be a physicist - that doesn't make their work "Christian physics"), and are not making theological claims. At least, not the ones I named. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem being that there is no evidence. If you have proof.... Robsteadman 14:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

But Evolutionists can hold that evolution is true without the kind of first person proof you want, (As in, a bacteria turning into an amoeba of sorts or something, I don't mean microevolution) why shouldn't historians be able to determine the same thing about Christ in an academic perspective? If first person proof that was free from all bias was needed to prove people existed somehow, then Julious Caesar probably couldn't exist since most of the works about him were either against him or for him back then, standards a couple thousand years ago wern't quite so NPOV when it came to documentation, can you name anyone who you consider compleatly free from bias in citations of existance thousands of years ago? Homestarmy 14:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

But to claim someone existed when there is no proof of it is just nonsense. It's fair to say that some believe, it's fair to say he is referred to in the book written decades later by someone disconnected from the events, it's fair top say he was added to this book at a later date by some trying to shore up their religion. But the issue is verifiable proof. Where is it? There is not one single contemporary document that makes reference to him by his enemies or supporters. There is nothing within the next couple of decades. That is very important - probably more important than the documents that do mention him. Then the documents seem a hotch potch of stories borrowed from other religions, with unverified "facts" - the star in the east.... the murder of the innocents ... these were not historiocal events. THey very probably did not exist. An article about "jesus" should be making this clear. It shouldn't be hiked off to an "historical" article - this article is meant to be a biography about a man for whom there should be huge doubt. I have read several books arguing for the existence of "jesus" in fairly scholarly terms.... but they don't hold up to simple scrutiny and factual analysis. This article needs to make sure that "belief" is clearly labelled as such and that the veriufiable facts are given prominence. Robsteadman 14:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Your standards for proof are unreasonably high in this area Rob and it has nothing to do with you being a good scientist/scholar or us being stupid or POV and has everything to do with you being blinded by your own POV and issues with Jesus and (probably) Christianity in general.Gator (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You are making a habit of just being abusive gator. I am trying to get an NPOV article full of verifiable fact. It's that simple/. Is it really that unreaqsonable to want some evidence? no. Show the proof. Robsteadman 14:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"Abusive?" is that your new angle? Give me a break. I'm not going to be intimidated for revertying clear POV edits in violation fo consensus just because someone (with POV issues)accuses me of "abusing" them. Please.Gator (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not an angle - you are being abusive. Now NPOV, verifiable and factual. That's what we should be doing. The fact you believe something that, it seems, can't be proven is fine. DO that but that should be made clear to be a "faith" stance in such an article not a veriufiable fact of "jesus" existnce. I don;t have POV issues - quite the opposite - I am trying to get NPOV into this artuicle. It is only some who are trying to defend the unverifiable and the POV taht this article has. Robsteadman 14:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's be NPOV, then. Whether you or I believe something to be true is beside the point in Wikipedia. What scholars who have studied the issue have said. See WP:CITE. In addition, when the majority of scholarship in a field is behind a statement, a small minority position is not to be given equal treatment See WP:NPOVUW,WP:NPOV#A simple formulation and WP:NPOV#A vital component: good research, WP:NPOV#Giving "equal validity" The existence of Jesus and the description of him as set forth in our first two paragraphs are asserted by virtually every historian of the ancient world and virtually every historian of the New Testament. I can continue to add names of those even outside the discipline of New Testament history, if you'd like.

To be practical and to move us along, I'll ask of you a similar question. Can you produce a citation to a scholar, writing since 1950, who states that Jesus did not exist or even that his existence is in doubt? --CTSWyneken 14:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

But when the scholars all come from a particulkar POV that POV must be made clear. That is what I have been trying to do but the tag team multiple reverts are preventing veriufiable fact from being added. Will get back to you with a name. Robsteadman 14:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That is purely opinion Rob, (I had to post this late because people kept editing so fast) you can't say with factual accuracy that Christ didn't exist just because you think Christanity is too similar to other religions and that the world didn't document His existance soon enough for you, (And im sorry, but man, your just coming off sounding like anything that seems unlikely to skeptics can't exist.) and like I said, can you name one person that existed thousands of years ago that you feel not only had contemporary and compleatly NPOV documentation, but those documents had first person representation? Remember, if documentation is like 800 or 900 years too late, there's no way to confirm that it was a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy or something of the first person who wrote it, yet with the Gospels, we have scraps of documentation almost to the very first manuscripts, and compleate documentation still exists only, what, about 150-200 years after Jesus's death? That's pretty good recording in my book for documents written on highly degradeable material that has to last thousands of years. Homestarmy 14:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

But, as with Josephus, we klnow that tmany of such documents were altered to "christian" perspective by later generations. Robsteadman 15:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if future copies got altered, we have the nearly original documents, and can compare them to the modern day to see if anything has been changed. By using such a standard, the modern day NT is at least 99 percent textually accurate to the oldest manuscripts or manuscript pieces we have, the Church couldn't possibly get their hands on all the documents and alter such old things without damaging them, there were no erasers back then. Homestarmy 15:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

And that is why we know the :christian" authoritiesadded stuff. Thank you. Robsteadman 15:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob, you have continued to dodge the question: name a person from two thousand years ago that meets your standard of having tryle existed. I think it is iimportant. You have set a standard even our greatest historical figures can not meet. The truth is that the vast majority of historians agree that Jesus of Nazareth was an acutal individual. You often use the term "many" to describe those historians that believe he was a hoax or a figment of the imagination. Unfortunately, many is a relative term. In reality, relative to those that agree that Jesus was a historical figure there are few that think he did not exist.

You also seem to mix issues of historical fact with how Christians "changed" historical documents such as Josephus and others. I believe that some Christians did contaminate some documents, but that does not invalidate all docments. Storm Rider 15:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

So wait, your telling me that because the people who wrote the Bible actually got it right by the documents then therefore, they must be wrong? Where is the NPOV in this? Homestarmy 16:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Scholars and commentators who state that there is doubt that Jesus existed historically

Historically, it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about Him." Bertrand Russell, "Why I am not a Christian."

Also - Bruno Bauer, a mid-19th century German theologian (yes I know you said in the last 50 years but trying to give this some hiostorical context - taht it's not just a flash in the pan)

John M. Robertson - early 20th century

G.A. Wells - quite recent

Michael Martin "The case against Christianity," (1991) - conclusion - insufficient evidence for Jesus' existence

Earl Doherty

Will that do for starters?

Robsteadman 14:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This is fun: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/ Robsteadman 15:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the list. Can you give me more to go on, so I can verify: if they are scholars and if they say what you claim? If they do, I'll cite them and the end of the second paragraph. If they, and others, are actually scholars in history and contemporary, I might be willing to see an adjustment of the language concerning the dates of the life of Jesus.

The last fifty year request has to do with whether or not this is a live issue among scholars. If it is not, the current paragraphs are balanced enough according to wiki rules. --CTSWyneken 15:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm

http://www.i4m.com/think/bible/historical_jesus.htm + Dan Barker, + Templeton

Robsteadman 15:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No one is saying there aren't people who don't believe Jesus existed, and people here aren't saying they're crazy wackos. You are saying, however, that anyone who doesn't deny his existance is a POV nut who should be disregarded. That's the big difference here. I would also put forth that there is no way you can use a website named "jesusneverexisted.com" as NPOV material. --Oscillate 15:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You must do the same and recognize that there are scholars, Christian and non-Christian who do believe Jesus existed. --Oscillate 15:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No I am not. I'm saying that stating he existed, without verifiable proof, is POV. If you state that some believe this that's fine. If you say that many or most believe this, if that';s true, then fine. But to state he existed without proof is a nonsense. The website was listed as fun - I did say "This is fun" by the side.Robsteadman 15:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

A theologian does not an historian make, the credentials of these people bear reaserch, im mostly sure some of them are historians since there is a minority of historians that i've heard of, but simply writing names of famous people who disagree with Christ does not give them verifiability. Oscillate also has a very important note, anything coming from a website called jesusneverexisted.com cannot possibly be taken seriously as NPOV, that's overt anti-christianity, come on now, let's be seriouis here. Homestarmy 15:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Just out of interest - why is the "jesus never existed" site considered POV where christian (who obviously state he did) sites stand unchallenged? SOPHIA 15:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Because, Sophia, they are going against the overwhelming consensus of historians who base this consensus on the overwhelming force of the evidence. Of course, anyone is free to disbelieve the evidence presented in all fields but mathematics. Creationists and "jesus never existed" proponents are similar in that regard. The statement that Jesus existed is not a specifically Christian position (that'd be "Jesus is the Messiah" or "Jesus lives") but the one suggested by the overwhelming force of evidence. Str1977 15:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think SOPHIA is missing the point. That Jesus was the Son of God, and one with God, messiah and savior is one point of view. That he did not exist is another point of view. That he did exist is a third point of view. SOPHIA and Robsteadman are making three mistakes. First, the seem to think that POV number three and number one are identical. They are not. Second, they falsely attribute POV number three to religious Christians, when in fact it can be attributed to critical historians. Third, they mistake verifiability for truth. SOPHIA, what kind of challenge do you want to make to the Christian POV? That it is wrong? You cannot do that, because it is not for editors to decide which view is right and which view is wrong. Our job is only to represent different views and ascribe them to verifiable sources. No article has ever construed the Christian point of view as "true." Every Wikipedia article that represents the Christian POV makes it clear that it is the Christian POV. And the article states that there are people who believe that Jesus never existed. The vast bulk of the recent debates here, and Robsteadmans persistent reverts and other people's incorrect edits, is not over whether some people believe Jesus was God and others think he never existed. The debate has been over, "Who is it that claims that Jesus existed?" The article makes it clear that one group of people who believe that he existed are Christians, who believe many other things about him. But I put in a paragraph representing another group of people who believe he existed: critical historians. This is of course a POV, just like the other two. But whereas I continue to claim that this is a view held by critical historians, others insist on claiming that it is a Christian point of view. It is not. It is the view of historians, and I have provided verifiable sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

No I have not missed the point. I don't want to get into this area as it has been rightly said that this is not a debating ground. I am fully aware of all the options and whether they are they are mutually exclusive or not. As I have said before we have three layers to any historical claim. Data, analysis and interpretation. The primary (contemporary) data is thin on the ground to be very generous so we pretty quickly move into the analysis area which is of course subject to POV. I think this is the point Rob was trying to make is his unique way. SOPHIA 16:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The vast majority of scholars say Jesus existed. See my POV flag below. Here is the current state of New Testament scholarship thoughout the world: Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What are Critical Scholars Saying? by Gary Habermas ken 18:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

The vast maority of Biblical scholars coming from a "faith" position maybe. But then their evidnce is so POV to need a warning beside it. How many Biblical scholars are non-believers or, at least, agnostics? What about historians? No historian can seriously state that, categorically, "jesus" existed as there is insufficient proof - unless the, too, are coming from a deciodely biased position. Robsteadman 20:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The link given above is for a summary of papers written on the "death, burial and resurrection" - so of course the existence of Jesus is assumed by this link (you can't die if you never lived!) - this link has nothing to do with this debate. SOPHIA 23:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The scholars listed as notes on the intro

Gator wants this discussed:

Are they "biblical schoalrs" or "christian scholars". I would say thaht they are "christian" scholars - every single one of them They come from a particular POV and as such this is important to document. Robsteadman 15:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Trying to get a word in edgewise here:

Fine, cite these ( Robsteadman's list) in a footnote under "…minority of critical Biblical scholars, and others..." However, I still maintain that you don't have to be Christian to believe that there was a Jesus of Nazareth. Consider that many Jews believe that Jesus existed (although they also believe that he was either a false Messiah, a false prophet, and/or that his teachings were distorted). archola 15:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No I agree you don;t. But te impotant thing is that there is no evidence to suggest that he did exist. People can believe whatever they want - it just doesn;t make it NPOV or encyclopeidc to state that the content of that belief is fact. Maybe I think there are fairies at the bottom of my garden. Are there? Are they factual? Nope. But the fact I believge it could be. Robsteadman 15:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe that a few in the list provided by slrubenstein are Jewish and/or secular scholars. If I am mistaken, we certainly can add a few, since almost every scholar in this field asserts it. --CTSWyneken 15:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Of those I can find one was Catholic but became a Jew - so "Religious scholars"?Robsteadman 15:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Then we should also note each scholar who is athiest or agnostic and qualify them as such. --Oscillate 15:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

What you're doing is obvious. You are trying to down play the credibility of those who oppose your POV by implying that they only believed that Jesus existed, because they were "religous" or "Christian" (same thing) Why not put atheist scholars to describne those who support your view? Just stop.Gator (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No, once again you are putting words into my mouth. PLEASE STOP. I am trying to get their views put into context. It is important., And being "christian" and being "religious" is NOT the same rthing - are you not aware of other religions?The veriufiable fact is there is no evidence for "jesus" having existed or much of what is written about in the NT. Please stop telliung me what I can and cannot do. It is not me thaht is being overtly aggressive. I do feel you are going against the basic principles of Wikipedia. Robsteadman 15:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Please help me with a distinction here: There are:

• Secular scholars of history who happen to be Christian, Jewish, or whatever. If we are talking about such scholars, their religion truly is irrelevant. They are likely to consider a preponderance of evidence to consider whether Jesus was a historical figure or not; clearly they can't definitively prove that he didn't exist, but they will make such findings as "in all likelihood..."
• Theological scholars, whose premise is one thing or another. If we are talking about such scholars, not only should we write their religious affiliation, but also the fact that they are scholars of theology and not history. They have as their premise that Jesus existed and are largely seeking more information about him.
• Religious studies scholars, the grey area. These are people who study theology, but from a secular or philosophical point of view. These will accept that Jesus is a religious figure, whose historical authenticity is less important than his meaning of his role in theology, church history, etc.

Which are we talking about? --Leifern 15:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that most atheist/agnostic scholars also believe he existed, though it's difficult to prove this since secular scholars don't typically list their own religious belief in their publications. Most of the writers who adopt the non-existence line are not recent or are fringe non-professionals with idiosyncratic theories (such as the Jesus was Julius Caesar theory mentioned above). Many actually represent anti-Christian New Age ideas. Paul B 15:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. If you are a historian, you can not rely on faith or theology as a historical source. Whether or not a historian is Christian is irrelevant if he/she applies rigorous academic standards to his/her research, and in doing so renders his/her own religious beliefs irrelevant. The question really is what type of historian we are talking about, not what religion they may or may not subscribe to. --Leifern 15:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point I'm missing here - if indeed you (Leifern) are replying to me. It's all very confusing. My comments were intended as a reply to Robsteadman, but got caught in an edit conflict and ended up under yours. I am a historian, by the way. I agree that the beliefs of professional historians should not get in the way of their scholarship, though, of course, we are all human. However, Rob seems to think otherwise. That is why he is demanding evidence that "atheist" historians believe Jesus did exist. Professional standing does not seem to matter to him. Paul B 15:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but that's simply not true. Do take a look at the list I provied plus the web sites I have cited which go through specfiic publications. They might be in the miority but they do not believe he existed. Remember verifiable. We should NOT be implying he existed when there is no evidence. Robsteadman 15:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"rob", The list you gave is by no means comprehensive for every non-Christian scholar, and you cannot take your short list, including a website named "jesusneverexisted.com" to be comprehensive and therefore it's "simply not true" that all or most non-religious scholars deny Jesus' existance. You cannot take a few people's opinion and go to say "there is no evidence", it's their POV and it's your POV. We've gone over this so many times it's past frustrating. --Oscillate 15:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I have requested this page be blocked for 24 hours, since we simply can't be bothered to slow down long enough to do some research.

And, Rob, few on the list you gave are verifiable. Give full citations please. Anyone can say anything on a website. --CTSWyneken 15:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I provided those websites because they refer to specific books and give specific quotes - do you really want me to copy them out for you? Robsteadman 15:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you realize you're at about 5 reverts so far for the past 24 hours? Please slow down. --Oscillate 16:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Just because the people you listed believe there is no evidence doesn't make them right, the evidence exists whether anyone in the world likes it or not, biased, non-instantly recorded, and supposedly re-written does not stop the Gospels or anything else mentioned in Historicity of Jesus or anywhere else from being evidence. People thinking the evidence might be "bad" also, once again, doesn't stop it from being evidence. Also, I think many of us are out of reverts Oscillate heh. Homestarmy 16:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No, but to keep things verifiable, factual and NPOV we need to make things clearer and more balanced. Delayed writing makes the documents non-contemporary, non-Primary sources. It adds doubt. The fact that the contents do not appear elsewhere adds doubt. The things you quote are evidence that these things are believed and teh source of that belief - they are not evidence of the things contained being true. There is a difference. Robsteadman 16:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Just because there is some doubt among some does not equal factual non-existance, it just means there is some debate. You cannot push forward the doubt as factual evidence of non-existance. --Oscillate 16:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and just counting the history, your on your seventh revert Rob if im counting correctly, this is not helping to build credability for your argument. Homestarmy 16:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Different reverts of different things. Battling against a tag reverting army! I was asked to discuss things - and yet the tag reverters carried on..... Robsteadman 16:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It's getting harder for those of us on dial-up to get a word in edgewise!

Just to clarify, my last revert was more to clean up vandalism by 208.49.141.11 (which removed large parts of the article) than to tag-team Rob. "Christian scholars" is clearly misleading. "Religious scholars" is ambigious, but I'm content to discuss the issue here. Leifern rightly pointed out that "Religious scholars" can mean either scholars who are religious, or scholars who study religion. Another important question is whether either interpretation applies to the scholars cited. That's beyond my expertise, but I will be following the discussion. archola 16:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

But just "scholars" is also misleading and ambigous - it suggests ALL.Robsteadman 16:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, scholars only means a plural amount of scholars, not all scholars, we note that not all scholaars agree at the end anyway. WP:REVERT, "Wikipedia policy states that you may not revert any article more than three times in the same day. This is a strict limit, not a given right; you should not revert any one article more than three times daily. See Wikipedia:Three revert rule for details on this.

High-frequency reversion wars make the page history less useful, waste space in the database, make it hard for other people to contribute, and flood recent changes and watchlists. Sock puppets may not be used to violate this rule. Please request protection rather than reverting. Violation of this rule may lead to protection of the page on the version preferred by the non-violating party; blocking; or investigation by the Arbitration Committee."

I see no exception here for reverting this single word because you feel that POV pushers are repressing the supposedly Atheist overmind controlled reality. (See www.evilatheistconspiracy.org, we're on to your plans! :D) Homestarmy 16:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I apologise but the origianl change I made was reverted without good cause or discussion and then tag team reverted. THAT is far worse. There is a big issue about the word "scholars" and what exactly it implies. It is important that it is changed in some way to ensure NPOV and verifiability. Robsteadman 16:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It might be better to do exactly what we do in the next paragraph—qualify by "most" or "many" rather than by "religious" or "secular." Just a thought. archola 16:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Qualifiers are useful, but the article should ideally be written and understood in such a way that not every phrase and clause and sentence needs one. --Oscillate 16:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Revert war

Please stop revert warring over one particular qualifying word. Robsteadman, in particular, you've personally reverted 9 times in just over an hour[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. This is not in the best interest of encylopedia building. You mention you are aware of WP:3RR, so why are continuing to escalate things? In the interest of encylopedia-building, please take a break and relax and try to discuss without letting your passions get so worked up. The topic really can be discussed dispassionately and academically and editors can work together on agreed wording. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 16:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Above, in response to my last comment, Robsteadman wrote, "The problem being that there is no evidence. If you have proof...." Robsteadman 14:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC). This demonstrates Robsteadman's utter misconstrual of our NPOV and NOR policy. It is not up to any of us contributors to prove or disprove ANYTHING. We provide verifiable information. It is verifiable that a number of major critical historians and Bible scholars believe Jesus existed. If Robsteadman wants to call any of them and say "but there is no proof" he is free to argue with them, personally. But he cannot use these pages to argue with them. Wikipedia articles are simply not the place for people to present his own views. Robsteadman, it does not matter to me whether these critical historians are right or wrong. It does not matter to me because as an editor at Wikipedia that is not my job. All that matters to me is that they have said that they believe he existed in published (and thus verifiable) material. Whether you, robsteadman, agree with them or not is utterly immeaterial as well. And by the way, their "POV" is not religious. Their POV is as critical historians and classicists. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You have clearly misunderstood my edits and comments. Robsteadman 16:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well stated, slrubenstein. I believe Robsteadman is a fairly new editor and is not yet fully aware that WP is not a forum for debating personal beliefs (or nonbeliefs). Many of us have *no* personal vested interest in whether Jesus actually existed. Our purpose here is to accurately reflect the extant academic and cultural research on the topic. Btw, I go with "Most critical historians and Bible scholars". I think that accurately represents the kind of scholars who agree to the generic events about Jesus' life. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 16:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey Slrubenstein, do most critical Bible scholars really reject Christ's claim of divinity? Many of them could be Christian like Rob states, but of course, they can still hold their own opinion even if it is of course not exactly a very secular one, right? Im not trying to attack you or anything, im just wondering where that idea is coming from :/. Homestarmy 16:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I reported Rob for violations and he's being blocked for 48 hours (again), so you can thank me later. Now we can have some peace and discuss these issues rationally.Gator (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well after I get my reverts back i'll have 24 hours to help out for real then :). We could go back to discussing other parts of the article like I suggested a few days ago, (And I thought the changes we got were pretty good) we can ignore the first and second section since we're getting entrenched over those, and try to focus on some of the later ones to see if there's something obvious in any of those that everyone agrees needs fixing. Homestarmy 17:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, I'm just eager and happy to move on and have some peace for at least the next 48 hours. I just wish Rob would take more after SOPHIA.Gator (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

In response to Homestarmy, you ask a good question. I think the answer is mixed. One of the scholars I cite is Jewish and I am certain that he rejects any claims about Jesus' divinity. I think I read somewhere that Geza vermes used to be religious but over time (and presumably as a consequence of his research, but who knows) lost his faith. I have no idea about Sanders, but his books make no claims about Jesus's divinity. Ditto Bartman, and Fredriksen. I think Crossan and Meier may be religious and if so, you are right to point out that they do not reject Jesus' divinity. But again, as far as I know they do not make claims, in their academic books, about Jesus' divinity. So perhaps (if someone wants to reintroduce the clause in question, which someone took out) we should say "in their published scholarly work, make not claims ..." which would leave open the question of their personal beliefs. Let's be frank: what is at issue here is not what they personally believe, which by our own policy may be unverifiable. What is definitely verifiable is their published works. And I have read at least one book by each of the authors cited in which no claims about Jesus's divinity or any supernatural powers were made; indeed, Sanders and Fredricksen and Vermes, at least, read as if they reject Jesus's divinity, but that is my impression from reading them - I do not remember if they actually ever say "I do not believe he was divine." But Sanders and fredricksen, for example, say things like, Jesus probably believed that God would restore the kingdom in the immediate future, and that he (Jesus) would occupy a privileged place in the restored kingdom - but this kind of claim is at odds with the idea that Jesus himself would cause the kingdom to be established, and implies a very clear distinction between God and Jesus that I think really allows the reader to conclude that these authors think Jesus was a man, and in no way divine. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about the divinity or not should be carefully separated from the discussion over historicity. The discussion over whether Jesus is God or not is a separate issue altogether. --Oscillate 17:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If I took something out that people want back in feel free, I'm fine with that. i removed language tht I felt was not approved by consensus yet and needed to be further discussed. That's all. Block me. lol.Gator (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I get it, it just seemed like a pretty general statement is all, is that sentence just referring to the people we've cited here or is it a more general population sort of thing? that kind of idea might be hard to get clearly from the historical community :/. Homestarmy 18:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)