Talk:Jesus/Archive 73

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

→

Archive 80

Doctors

Wasn't there an episode in his life when Jesus was preaching to doctors but the Virgin intervened and he promised not to preach until he was older? And doesn't it merit inclusion? Or is it in the article already, or in another, more detailed article? 11:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of this before unless you're talking about Jesus discussing the Law and stuff with the "Teachers of the Law" down in Jerusalem because Mary and Joseph were there for something, but I don't remember Jesus promising not to preach more until later? Homestarmy 12:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

See Finding in the Temple. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, they certainly weren´t doctors.Slrubenstein | Talk 17:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In medieval and slightly later terminology a 'doctor' was a learned man, frequently a theologian. If you look at Morality plays for example there is frequently a character called 'doctor' who comes on to give the moral. They are certainly not meant to be a physician. DJ Clayworth 21:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think in the period you are talking about a doctor is someone who has received a doctorate from a university. There are many parts of the world (including NY where I got my doctorate) where "doctor" does not mean physician. Be that as it may, rabbis are not doctors and it is at best anachronistic to say Jesus argued or conversed with dcotors. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with you. Just explaining to our anonymous contributer which incident he is probably thinking of and why. DJ Clayworth 16:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In a popular MMORPG (Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game) there is a profession called a shaman, which shares many similarities to Jesus Christ, such as:

Being able to walk on water Cure Poison from villagers Reincarnate

I would think they are more likely to be based on a Shaman. DJ Clayworth 21:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Either way, it is absurd to refer to an MMORPG when working on this article. Let´s try to stick to encyclopedic work, please. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistency?

I'm going to have to pull out my Bible, but it seems that when Jesus was arrested, he was in great favor among the people, yet the crowds chose to crucify him rather than Barrabus. Is this an inconsistency within this article, within the Bible itself, or just me. It's only of any concern if it's the first of the three. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vacancy (talk • contribs)

Wait, which people? Because many people certainly loved the man, but many others sort of wanted him dead. Homestarmy 21:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There are implications that the crowd that gathered to shout 'crucify' was not exactly spontaneous, and hence not exactly unbiased. DJ Clayworth 20:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Per DJ: But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release for them Barabbas instead (Mark 15:11 ESV). Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus (Matt 27:20 ESV). —Wayward ^Talk 08:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what I meant. Couldn't find the exact reference. DJ Clayworth 16:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a silly discussion that at best belongs on the NT talk page, or whatever aricle goes into various interpretations of the Gospels. All great works of literature have inconsistencies. Thank God Vacancy is not commenting on Dicken´s A Tale of Two Cities!!!!! Slrubenstein | Talk 16:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Some Issues

These are basically minor, but knowing the sensitivity of this article I thought I would bring them all up here.

Chronology

The article says that Jesus' birth was traditionally dated to December 25. That is the traditional day that his birth was liturgically celebrated, but a liturgical feast is not necessarily a claim to a historical date. Is there a source where his birth is specifically historically claimed as per December 25 in antiquity, or are we just reflecting the traditional liturgical calendar?

Second, the article gives parenthetical information on the Gospel of Matthew: "(probably written between 65 and 90)" – I think the section could do without the parenthetical information. It is a matter of some dispute, and as the article currently reads this isn't really reflected, perhaps we should just avoid the complex issue here, since it is mentioned below. Lostcaesar 10:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Life based on Gospels

-quote- Evidence of the historical Jesus as given by followers : 1. The existance of the written words 2. The human body of followers 3. The gift of the Holy Spirit which is freely given to believers. -quote-

Am I the only one who doesn't understand this (misformatted) vague sentence? Lostcaesar 09:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think somebody just recently added that in, but i'm not sure why. Homestarmy 13:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Genealogy

This article says:

Of the four gospels, only Matthew and Luke give accounts of Jesus' genealogy in the male line through his legal father Joseph

The main article leads:

The genealogies of Jesus are two accounts presented in the Christian gospels of Matthew (v. 1:1-16) and Luke (v. 3:23-38)-- one through his legal father, Joseph, and the other through his mother, Mary

That is a real contradiction. We should nuance this article based on the mainpage. Lostcaesar 09:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The main article is imprecise, relying on a specific rereading of the text to make the mention of Joseph parenthetical and thus to disconnect him from the geneology. However the text doesnt actually mention Mary at all. The main article must be rewritten to communicate that assigning Mary is a "daring" interpretation of the text. The Jesus article is properly correct (but can mention the alternative interpretation for Mary if people wish.) --Haldrik 14:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Historicity of texts

The earliest extant texts which refer to Jesus are Paul's letters, which are usually dated from the mid-1st century.

With all the various theories about the synoptic problem, can we really make this unequivocal of a claim? I think we need more subtlety here. Lostcaesar 10:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

chief amongst [the apocrypha], heavily suppressed by the Church as heresy and only rediscovered in the 20th Century, is the Gospel of Thomas

What evidence is there to support the claim that specifically the Gospel of Thomas (rather than the gnostics, or gnostic writings in general) was "heavily suppressed by the Church". Maybe we could rephrase. Lostcaesar 10:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

How about "Among the apocrypha" instead of the more dated "amongst".--Haldrik 14:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. "Supressed" makes it sound like there was a groundswelling of support for the Gospel of Thomas which the Church maliciously disregarded, and that it was a recurring issue for them. Needs an edit. 2nd Piston Honda 19:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Questions of reliability

As a result of the several-decade time gap between the writing of the Gospels and the events they describe

Could we add some qualifier here to subtly express the lack of consensus? Lostcaesar 10:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

We can use the magic word "perceived". :) The "percieved several-decade gap". (Mentioning a "decade" "time" gap, is a bit redundant.) --Haldrik 14:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

“Perceived”, yes; we could use anything from “possible” to “likely”, I think, so long as some hint at the uncertain nature of this assertion is conveyed. Lostcaesar 14:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)