Talk:Jesus/Archive 77

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

Archive 70

←

Archive 75

Revision of Christian Views

Below is my attempt at a rewrite of the section on Christian views. A while ago a proposed rewrite was suggested which reorganized the section, listing Jesus' Messiahship and death as having priority. Also, I think the entire section is far too long and off topic, especially considering that there is both a main article on the matter and that the page it too long itself. This is a rewrite for the entire section, and it includes dumping material on no-longer-existent groups like the Gnostics and ebonites. This is intended as a working model for others to contribute too.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Lostcaesar/Project_Page_1 Lostcaesar 21:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice work, LC. Good balance of various views.The only criticism I can venture (and you know I tried to find something) is that the text moves from virgin birth to crucifixion. I find myself wanting a sentence about his ministry. I know you want to keep it short, but there's his teaching and its relation to the law, the great commission to spread the word, his reticence about his identity as the Son of God, the Golden Rule, his use of parables, the Sermon on the Mount, etc. Seems like it would be worth bringing in somehow. Jonathan Tweet 23:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

By "Working model", does that mean we can make alterations as well, because it seems to me the first instance of the word "Scriptures" should be changed to "Old Testament" to make it more specific.... Homestarmy 00:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Could we change this to "Mainstream Christian views" and then get rid of the last paragraph? It's clearly tacked on. Also, in this sentence -- "Christ comes again to judge the living and the dead, resulting in election to Heaven or damnation to Hell" -- can you say something about who gets saved and who damned? I mean, that's pretty key to the message of Christ redeeming Man. I'd suggest "Christ comes again to judge the living and the dead, installing the saved in Heaven and damning others to Hell." Even that is practically a tautology. You can't really say "faithful" and "unbelievers" because plenty of Christians see at least some of the faithful in Hell and at least some unbelievers in Heaven. Jonathan Tweet 04:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The section above is meant to be a working model in the sense that it can be edited if you like, or changes can simply be listed here for comment and inclusion by another. The section needs more linking and referencing, for example, even if the content remains. JT, I think you are right about the needed of something about Jesus' ministry; I will try and come up with something (so see above). I don't know if we can drop the last paragraph or not — the section does cover the mainstream; that is the most informative way of doing things and the only real possible way to present a summary, but if the final paragraph is removed then surely someone will simply come and add another paragraph like it (especially since the current article has a large section on this), and it will probably by bulkier and less becoming. Homestarmy, I will make the change you observed. Lostcaesar 07:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to see the ministry section and would be happier still if there were some reference to the moral and ethical imperatives of that ministry. Maybe it's too tricky to summarize a consensus on the nature of the moral outlook that Christ called people to adopt, but not to mention the Golden Rule in a paragraph that long (where many individual miracles are called out) seems like an omission. I'm also surprised that the division on Judgment Day is between the "wicked" and the "just," without reference to faith. Plenty of Christians think that (at least some) wicked believers make the cut and just pagans don't. Since you mention the new covenant, could the division be between those who have accepted the new covenenant and those who haven't? Jonathan Tweet 15:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jonathan here now that I think about it, especially because the Bible says that, you know, nobody is good....except God alone. I think something along the lines of "have been redemmed under the New Covenant/have not...." should work, or mention recieving this covenant through belief in Christ, and so on. Homestarmy 15:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I said wicked and just in an attempt to use biblical language. I did not include the ethical and moral statements because those are not particular to Christianity necessarily (in that no one really disputes that Jesus taught this and that it is a good idea). I will work on including a statement about ethics. About wicked and just, I would like to keep the phraseology biblical when possible since that is a good foundation of commonality. I will see what I can do. Thanks for the input. Lostcaesar 16:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and on this same vein, it says now that Jesus will judge based on people's faith and charity, wouldn't it just be more simpler if it just said based on whether a person has come under the New Covenant or not, because right now it doesn't define the degree of faith, I mean someone could have a tiny amount of faith in Christ and a bunch of faith in something else like money or something, and do a bunch of charity anyway, and well, I think it opens doors for people to take the sentence too many ways. Homestarmy 21:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't that just be circular? I could just add "in Jesus" after "faith", or something like that. Maybe you could explain a little more what you mean. Lostcaesar 21:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, you'll have to excuse me for being really fundamentalist about it, but it seems to me like the way it is now, one could take it to mean that Jesus will judge you based on your faith, (I presume in Christ, might want to add that) and then judge you based on your charity, so even if you have faith but didn't do "enough" charity (it doesn't seem well-defined here) then you wouldn't go to heaven. Whereas with just saying "Those under the New Covenant", with a link to an article about the new covenant, then it wouldn't be so up to interpretation for the reader just how much "faith" or "charity" is being meant. (Plus, I think a reader could take it to mean that you need to do a certain amount of charity to be saved....) Homestarmy 21:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hs, that is what it means— I guess that is problematic? Could you explain to me what "being under the New Covenant" means? This is language that I am not familiar with. Lostcaesar 07:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Because we are mostly there, I am going to import the text, minus the part of the sentence that you wish to refine more, and we can continue that minor element here. Lostcaesar 14:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Caesar, by new covenant, i'm talking about Hebrews 8. What's problematic about your text is that, as I think Andrew is sort of touching on, is that having to do a certain amount of charity to get to heaven is definently a conservative Catholic position, (works-righteousness and whatnot) whereas by simply referring to people being under the new covenant/saved by the new covenant or however it could be worded is that it really wouldn't be the stance of just one denomination. I mean what Christian group really thinks we aren't being saved through the New Covenant? Homestarmy 21:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to crash this party, but I feel this version is problematic. First of all, it has a very strong Catholic/Conservative stance. Maybe if it had the header "Traditional Catholic views on Jesus", it would be ok, but saying this is representative of all Christianity is silly. With links to a strictly Catholic/Orthodox concept of the Blessed Virgin, the claim that all Christians profess miracles to be historical events (what about liberal Christianity?), etc. On top of that, there is a lot of biblical interpretations that are not supported by theological sourced, but instead biblical verses. It is ok to cite the bible to say "the bible says X", but it is wrong to say "Christians believe the bible should be interpreted to meaning Y" and then citing the bible, instead of a theological source is very problematic. I also think there is a LOT of redundent content with the Gospel plot summary section. We do NOT need two section describing the exact same thing. We should say "Most Christians accept the biblical narrative as basically historical", instead of giving the whole synopsis again. And on top of that, the part of the article that I personally contributed to the most, the part on early Christianity and non-orthodox sects was completely cut. Seriously, what was wrong with the old version? It covered a much more diverse number of POVs. Didn't make blanket statements, wasn't redundent with existing content, and had citations. I will hold off, but I really really want to revert to the previous version and improve that, instead of keeping the new version.--Andrew c 21:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, those are welcomed comments. If you like, we can revert and continue the work here. I imported the text because all who were interested here had reached a basic consensus. I know this is a working model, and it is imperfect exactly because too few hands have been involved, so feel free to crash the party. As for the reason for revision, this was suggested by others and I refer you to that discussion.

Let me just run through some of your concerns in a very brief way. (1) I used "man" instead of "humanity" because of its theological parallels with the Hebrew word Adam, a distinction more important than gender neutrality. This is not my idea; I could toss some references here that explain it better than I can. (2) The traditional stance results from my attempt to forward the basic view of the bulk of Christianity — what Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants can mostly agree on. The reasoning: this is a "bulk view" which must at least be understood before a smaller dissenting position can be taken up. Also, it gave a fluid presentation of material. Other reasons are simply that I am not as familiar with other views and could not write of them especially well. (3) Concerning redundant material, originally I did not include any information on Jesus' ministry (for the same reason you mentioned), but as per discussion here I added the paragraph gloss. I will say there is some unique material there. For example, the main article has one sentence about the "Last Supper", and all it says is that Jesus foretold his death. This is a central event in Christianity with so much more importance. Actually, I have been meaning to add a couple extra sentences to the main narritive of the article about this event. (4) The section is poorly sourced, and I had hoped people would have suggestions here. Biblical quotes are useful but not adequate alone. So we agree. (5) I cut the material about the early heresies because those groups are particular to antiquity, having ceased to exist at a given historical point. I was also motivated by the fact that there is a main article on Christian views, and this level of detail (and this includes my point about smaller groups per 2) was best left to the main article. If it is important to you we can put it back.

One possible avenue is to make this text a subsection of Christian views, named appropriately, and to reintroduce some of the other material, or include something about smaller groups like "liberal Christians", as later subsections.

Lostcaesar 22:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking through the recent discussion on this page, Str1977 brought up a concern over a weeks ago, and it seems as if that issue was resolved. I see nothing about removing historical and minority POVs (maybe I couldn't find the discussion, so a link might help me). If there were undue weight issues involved, we could address those, but blanking of sourced content doesn't seem productive (at the very least, if it is too detailed, you could move the text to one of our many spinout articles, and summarize the removed content). I'm sorry, but this is sort of personal to me because of the time and reseach I put into some of this. (an aside, the historical, non-Orthodox sects section used to be in a different part of the article, but was moved under the Christian views section.) I think one big difference between the old version and the new version is unity. The older version seems to focus on differences, and the new version focuses on agreement. Both of these are problematic. As Str1977 mentioned recently, we should focus on what the vast majority can agree on, but we should also keep in mind the differences. We need to make sure we are not summarizing the Christian faith, but instead Christian beliefs about Jesus (there is a difference, and keep in mind the title of this article). I would suggest using the intro to the Christian views of Jesus article as the intro to this section. We should also try to work up the Christian views article, because it needs it (and eventually the Christian views section should be a summary of the Christian views article, which means changing this section to fit the article, or vice versa or a little of both). --Andrew c 22:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you found the correct section. To summarize the request, it was said that the section did not adequately summarize commonality, and that it was not organized coherently in that it should begin with Jesus' messiahship. I did not see any activity in this section in the time that passed, so I decided to start a project here. Let me say that I always presented this as a collegial project, and the text here to be a working model that anyone was free to edit. I think if you compare the texts, you will see that I did indeed try to advance a section that gives commonality and, as a result, coherence. I agree that one should talk about similarities and differences, but one must talk about similarities first and then differences, just a list of differences is simply rambling. As for the major cuts, I did this for four reasons: (1) the article has previously carried the warning that it is too long, encouraging cutting of text that is covered in main articles (I am sure you are familiar with the template, (2) there was a main article, (3) the material did not seem essential, and (4) no one voiced any concerns. I don't know if you noticed, but once you and Storm did raise concerning I restored the original text. If the omissions are problematic, or any other changes are, then I wish to incorporate those concerns. This was never to be unilateral. I will say that the model here is worth incorporation when properly improved, mainly because the concerns about similarity and coherence are still valid. Lostcaesar 22:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I added the omitted material to the model, now that it has been suggested that such be included. Areas for improvement include a proper introduction (I don't think the intro from the main article will work, having looked at that article it needs real attention). Also, I used clunky phrasing of "mainstream Christian views", this phrasing is used by the Christianity article, and though I think we need refinement here it is a start. We should move the one sentence on Arianism to "other early views". I am not sure if that is a proper title to the section. Lastly, the bit about Jesus' family seems irrelevant. Lostcaesar 08:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are two suggestions. You could take the current text and make a sandbox at someplace like User:Lostcaesar/Jesus and invite people to work on a new version. This way it keeps an edit history so changes are easier to track, and its easier to edit a sandbox than a subsection of a talkpage. Or you could just start making incremental changes in the main article space. I understand concerns about page size. I think its important that the existing information that is well reserached and cited should not be deleted. If anything, it could be moved to an appropriate spinout article, and the content here summarized. And maybe we are doing this backwards. Maybe we should rework the Christian views article, and then summarize that content here (that's what we did with the latest "life" section and corresponding NT views page). As for the specifics about your proposal, the end of the first paragraph is really theologically dense, and probably doesn't need to be in an overview section. I also feel the there isn't a strong introduction. The 3rd paragraph is highly problematic. It gives a plot summary which is redundent, and then talks about Christian beliefs (as opposed to Jesus), plus it mentions fasting which is really not one of the big universal points in Christianity. I wouldn't mind cutting that paragraph completely. (same goes for the 4th). The 5th paragraph is ok, but maybe could be mixed with the 1st paragraph. The 6th paragraph is pretty good. All that said, I still feel we should rework the current version. It has a number of references that the new version doesn't have. If we need to add or subtract information, so be it, but I really feel the current version is strong enough that a lot of it should be kept (and a rewrite/starting from scratch with no sources is unnecessary).--Andrew c 21:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. I will look into what a sandbox is. I will also use the existing model as a template, rather than the new writeup here, though it is important that we have a choerant narritive, and this was always my main aim (an aim that required too many sacrifices to achieve in the absolute sense). I generally dislike removing cited text, or even uncited text, prefering a fact tag, and so the cuts here were very inconsistent on my part. The confusion was that I saw a main article, but made the mistake of not investigating the article, and so I assumed its content was sufficent, but actually this section here was actually far more detailed (not the least becaues of your additions). I am surprized that no one brought this up in the collaboration here. I think there are two ways to go about this, either we can rework the main article, and then summarize it here, or we can provide a fitting model here and use it as a framework for the larger page. I will say that, concerning the larger page, I am only comfortable contributing to sections on Catholicism, confessional protestantism, and the ancient heresies, but would be happy to contribute there. I think there are good works from this historical community, rather than biblical scholars only, for example the works of Henry Chadwick, which are considered essential to the history of ancient Christianity and that I could add that would benefit the content. One last point, I think the main section on Jesus' life needs a sentence or two more on the Last supper. Even if we isolate the event from its subsequent centrality to the Christian faith (which I think is a mistake), in a purely Jewish context this meal is ritualistic, and Jesus' actions would have been extraordinarily significant to his followers (after all, it made it into all four gospels and Paul's letters). I would really like your thoughts on that. Lostcaesar 22:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize I did not contribute more to the initial collaboration. On first examination, I thought you were only reworking the first section (the theological views of Jesus), which isn't my strong point, so I didn't pay it much mind until it went live with a lot of content missing. It took 3 days, but I did voice my concerns (and there is something about the way I write on the internet that comes off as probably arrogant/authoritative/stern, when that is never my intent. I readily recognize that just because I personally am critical of something doesn't mean we have to just change things to please me). So sorry for all that. As for the Last Supper, I'd please ask you to make sure whatever you add is either already covered at Last Supper AND New Testament view on Jesus' life#Arrest, trial, and death, or add it there as well.--Andrew c 13:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have made some major revisions to the revised model along three lines: (1) I have sought to preserve the content already in the page (thus avoiding my earlier mistake), (2) I have stuck with the idea of providing a coherent narrative by leading with a basic sketch of the similarities that may aptly be described as a majority view, and (3) I have fully referenced this section. That last part took some time. I removed the gloss on Jesus' ministry. I have not fully integrated the section on the Last Supper, so consider that section raw atm. Lastly, I am pondering what to do with the meager, unreferenced, and incredibly small "messionic jews" section. The new model may be viewed here. I have some questions for you: (1) the section labeled "other early views" — what groups these together and makes them distinct as a group is simply the fact that they were all rejected by the early Church. This fact might be more relevant than simply that they were early. In the history books I am familiar with, they are titled "ancient heresies". The danger is that "heresy" might be seen as pejorative, although this is mitigated by the fact that (a) this is a technical term accepted by the historical community, and (b) these groups ended in antiquity so they are not around currently to be offended (with the exception of "neo" movements, which I think ought to be distinguished from the antique forms of the movements. (2) Reiterating that point, I think this section needs to firmly distinguish the "neo" movements of these groups as not continuously existing since antiquity and, in may ways, and being a new creation of questionable resemblance to the ancient groups. For an example concerning (2), the section on the Ebonites says that they accepted Jesus as the Messiah, but also that they do not accept Jesus as the Messiah (the former being the antique Ebonites, the latter being neo-Ebonites). (3) The section on Gnosticism says that the Gnostics interpreted the New Testament as allegory, but their existence pre-dates the definition of the canon, and at any rate they functioned quite independently of orthodoxy. The extent to which their religious texts can be called the "New Testament" is questionable to me. Lastly, I wonder if the Gnostics being classified as "Christian" is an oversimplification, since they were more of a loose mixture of Jewish, Christian, Neo-Platonic, and Mystery Cult religions. (4) I moved the one sentence on Arianism to this section — what are your thoughts on this, and (5) should we include other groups such as Manicheans in this section? To conclude (and I wrote more than I thought I would), I will say that I really think the section on Other Early Views is a great and beneficial addition here, and I hope my comments above (or my earlier mistake of cutting the section, under the faulty thinking that such was better detailed in the main article) do no mask this opinion. Lostcaesar 21:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

After a few changes I think the text is ready for import. Hopefully all will agree. Lostcaesar 08:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Lost, I am not happy with my edit, "Christians predominately believe", but my objective was to broaden the scope of who believes the doctrine you present. I first used "Christians generally", but that did not give the tone of majority I thought was more important. I suspect that many more groups could state the same beliefs until the creeds are introduced. The current language used is very "Catholic" in tone. I did not change the term Eucharist, but I know that many Protestants do not use the term. I have heard the terms Last Supper, Holy Sacrament; I leave it for others to change, but I would say Eucharist, or Holy Sacrament,... Excellent work! Thank you for the effort. Storm Rider ^(talk) 09:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand rephrasing the lead sentence; I had difficulty discerning what language to use also (for example "pinciple view", of course not to be confused with "principal view", took some time to come up with). I admit that the language is probably Catholic in tone, a product of too few hands involved, easily corrected in time as people rework the wording; however, I will say that I did want to encompass a traditonal view in the sense that this is stable enough, and historically established enough, to be able to talk about safely, and the language that sounds "catholic" would also be familiar to Anglicans and Lutherans, perhaps even some Reformed. Thank you for all your help here, especially contributing to the LDS section (as I know too little here, I was stuck with keeping the language of the original page, with only prose changes). Lostcaesar 10:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe some others will come up with something better; it still does not sound right. I think maintaining a traditional, orthodox view is acceptable; it has never been a major concern. However, I think some of our Protestant friends may find a degree of discomfort. I do think for shared practices it would be best to provide alternative terminology, but let's see how others view the current language.

I went back a read the article again, is it a standard perception that the covenant of the Old Testament did not bring Israel into relationship to God? From what I read it would seem like that is the inference. I would view that as an erroneous statement. The law of Moses was given to bring Israel into relationship with God and this law was fulfilled in Christ Jesus resulting in the New Covenant open to all.

Question, does the event on the Mt. of Transfiguration play a significant enough role in orthodoxy that it also should be included? Storm Rider ^(talk) 11:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No, the Old Covenant did not bring Israel into communion with God in the sense that the word, koinonia is not used until in the Septuagint, but only appears in the New Testament in relation to Jesus' actions. The Old Covenant did bring Israel into a relationship with God, but not a koinonia. The point here is that this is not an interpretation, rather it is a description of the words used in the Bible. As for terminology, the section is not intended to encompass all Protestant views (which is impossible) - that would better be covered in a subsection. Instead, it includes those protestant views that are consistent enough with Catholic-Orthodox beliefs to allow a coherent overview (and vise-versa). As for the Transfiguration, I think that should be in the main narrative of the article. Lostcaesar 12:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Can of worms...Jeesh! Just be careful to find the appropriate balance between Catholic, Orthodox, early Protestant and late Protestant (Radical reformation), and new movement views, or you're sure to have a holy war on your hands!

I agree with Andrew C, the significant lost Christianities such as the Ebionites and the (Christian) Gnostics should be included, or it won't be long before editors come along protesting a systemic religious bias, specificically presentism. Not sure about the Marcionites, but Andrew felt they were important enough to be included, and I have no strong feelings either way.

Lastly, it looks like LostCeasar removed the reference to the Assyrian Church of the East. They are significant in that they are the earliest extant church body to break away from mainstram Christianity, circa 431 (see Nestorian Schism). They are not part of the Oriental Orthodoxy; their Christology is quite unique. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Assyrian Church of the East is covered under "Oriental Orthodoxy", though you may add more if you wish. The early Christianities section is back in the article, and I now concur it belongs there. Thanks for the input. Lostcaesar 18:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Blatently false statement.

"Most Christians believe Jesus was the Son of God." Most should be changed to all, Christians by definition believe this. David McFaul

"However, most scholars accept many details of the Gospel narratives."

This statement is demonstratively false. This statement states that the historical accuracy of the Gospels is accepted within the historical community, ie: the events actually happened. No such acceptance exists, I'm sorry to say. The opposite is actually the case.

The citation given for this statment is Gary Habermas. He is not a historian. He is rather a theologian, a member of a institutional that requires one to affirm to the Biblical inerrancy. Furthermore, the citation given is Habermas arguing for the historical reality of the resurrection, a thesis that has absolutely no hold in any credible Bible research.
There are many respected historians with a vast number of publication that testify to the fact that the Gospel narrative is not accurate and that it does not represent a valid historical account of Jesus:
1. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by Bart D. Ehrman
2. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament by Bart D. Ehrman
3. When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity during the Last Days of Rome by Richard E. Rubenstein
4. Paganism and Christianity, 100-425 C.E.: A Sourcebook by Ramsay MacMullen and Eugene N. Lane

So by the fact that the current citation has no validity at all (it does not represent historical research, it comes from a very biased source, it does not reflect the consensus in the field) and that there are a large number of opposing citation that are far more valid and unbiased, this statement needs to go.

The current consensus is that the Gospels are full of copying errors and that it is very hard to differentiate historical true writings for later additions by scribes. However, that is a point that I need to back up much more, but suffice to say that the current statement must go.--Roland Deschain 22:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it says many details, not all of the details, or even most of the details. I seriously doubt that "many respected historians" compleatly reject everything in the Gospel accounts , otherwise, they'd have to basically reject Jesus's existance, and the existance of most of the disciples including Paul, and also, it would help if you gave us author names for those books. Homestarmy 22:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the existence of the characters is not in dispute. Their historical actions and the time line very much are. The above sentence is way to optimistic about the historical accuracy of the Gospels. My main objection is that the current citation has absolutely no validity, as it uses a person that believes the Bible to be 100% true purely on faith, with no historical or scholarly support (his writing is absolutely atrocious because of this fact); he does not have any standing in academic historical bible scholarship.

The sentence says most scholars and then cites only one. To cap it off, the one cited is not a historical scholar and has no standing in the respective academic community. To say that the Gospel is historically accurate and then cite somebody who believes the Bible is 100% accurate (a view that the majority of historians, theologians, and scientists easily discredit) is very bad format for such an important topic).

And sorry, forgot the authors, they are added now.--Roland Deschain 22:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

My objection is two fold. One: the current citation does not hold up at all. Two: my citations are far more numerous and by professors that have tenure at major historical and theological universities. Please do not revert pointlessly as User:Lostcaesar just did (insulting me to boot for providing very strong supporting sources.)--23:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Although there are many "details" which skeptical type scholars like to try and point out are somehow wrong/have been changed/were added in/ etc. etc. etc., these "details" as far as i've seen almost always concern the same general things, but never the vast majority of the New Testament. Since the sentence stood at "many details", it makes no judgment regarding which details, and besides, there are likely to be many scholars who oppose the point of view in the four books you've cited. It is something which would require a serious discussion, besides, how bad could the source given be, just because a non-historian wrote it doesn't mean they can't comment on a trend in scholarship. Homestarmy 23:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

We are not talking about details. The books I've cited (by respected professors in major universities) are talking about major inconsistencies in the Gospels. First, the current sentence does not have WP:V, as the citation does not comment on trends in scholarship; please address the objections I have brought up above about the validity of the author, rather than just say (falsely) that the citation actually represents scholarship. If it does, please revert the sentance but supply at least 2-3 more citation to justify the most part. Yes, this sentance requires some serious discussion, and I think I have shown enough evidence that it is wrong, with nobody yet providing any contradictory sources. We need to get to a compromise where it is states that there is controversy about major historical accuracies of the Gospels, with two sides rather than say that there is no controversy (which is quite a false statement).--Roland Deschain 23:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the reference, it appears to have well over 100 citations, and specifically states in numerous parts that the author has basically observed a certain trend in reaserch concerning the New Testament, with examples using said citations. If that many references in that article doesn't represent the views of actual scholarship somewhere in there, a mere four books certainly don't either. Homestarmy 23:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You are skipping the biggest step. Look what journal it was published in. That journal has no scholarly reputation at all. It is so small and so new that there isn't even a Wikipedia page on it. You cannot judge academic currents form such a small and restricted publication. My 4 books have over 1500 citations. I do not say that the sentence should not be there. But it needs to be better cited and the other predominant view (which you must agree has quite a few publications) needs to be states as well to preserve WP:NPOV.--Roland Deschain 23:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This sentence gives the false impression that the historical accuracy of the Gospels is not in question. I have just provided four references (I can give you more) from tenured historical and theological professors at major universities that say the opposite. You cannot simply wave them aside and say that one reference from a radical believer in the truth of the Bible in a small and insignificant journal actually shows major academic consensus --Roland Deschain 23:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As I understand your disagreement the language that Roland finds unacceptable states: "However, most scholars accept many details of the Gospel narratives." Do I understand correctly that the issue is with "details" upheld by "most scholars"? Homestar, would you agree that details might be a little strong? With over 26,000 Christian churches unable to come to a unity of the faith on those details, it is hardly surprising that a majority of academics could not do the same thing.

Homestar, the way I read the paragraph, the intent, IMO, that is being portrayed is that most scholars do not deny the existence of Jesus and the apostles. Is that intent that is your concern?

The books and the scholars Roland has listed are not insignificant. Erhman is the one I know best and his research is excellent. Coincidentally, the article that Homestar cited lists one of Erhman's books as a reference. I would not be concerened about where the article was published and their readership. However, attempting to argue religion from a strictly Faith perspective is meaningless. There can be no argument; people believe it, end of story. Roland's point is that one's personal faith, or a church's stated doctrine are not the stuff of academic research; nor should it be. Please answer my questions above so that we can find a solution to this disagreement readily. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

My major concern is that the sentence does not specify whether we are talking about theological or historical details and what kind of details. There is debate in either field, but the books I have cited deal with the historical inaccuracy of the Gospels, whereas the current citation mostly deals with the theological aspects. I have no problem with the theological statement that Jesus rose from the dead, but the historical statement is a whole other matter. The current sentence does not make the distinction and in either case downplays the amount of controversy about the Gospels greatly.--Roland Deschain 00:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. Your references are worthy of mention and do represent a significant portion of academia's position on the historical accuracy of the Bible. Let's wait for Homestar's comments. The objective is to arrive at language where both can handled appropriately and acceptably. Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"However, most scholars accept many details of the Gospel narratives"— this sentence is wholly accurate. The Gospels are excellent historical sources used all the time by historians. Just to move away from controversial points, historians learn simple things from the Gospels that others might not attend to. For example, Jesus' saying "it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung round his neck…" shows us that Palestine had giant millstones, an interesting fact about the Jewish economy and craftsmanship. We get a glimpse into Jewish religious tensions with descriptions of Pharisees, Sadducees, and priests. We learn about topography, diet, religious custom, &c. Luke's account of Paul's boat ride in acts is the only detailed description of sea travel in ancient Rome, and I have seen it used as a prized source in the field of Roman scholarship for this reason (Collin Wells, Roman Empire, for example). The Gospels help us see a Roman provincial governor, and what his relations with local authorities might be like, something that rarely appears in other sources. We learn about coinage, roads (travel routes), Jewish feasts and liturgy; indeed synagogues at this time would be almost unknown if not for the gospels. The fact that a synagogue in a moderately sized town had a scroll and people there could read it is a nice piece of historical knowledge. You said that the accuracy of the gospels could not be ascertained because of later additions, but these later additions can be identified (exampled by your books) and the texts can be examined after their reconstruction (although the books you mentioned are controversial in the scholarly community). That is what historians do — they never have a perfect text, transmitted without alterations, written without motivations, and so on. Those facts are not obstacles, and historians can still learn historical facts from such texts, and do. Ceasar had an agenda, but we still learn a lot from his Gallic Wars. Tacitus had an agenda, but his Agricola and Germania are wholly unique sources and completly prized. Historians analyse the reliability of certian parts, the additions, the aims of the author, and then go about their work. Most scholars do accept the Gospel narratives as important historical documents, and would be foolish to toss away four unique sources in a period of history were documentation is so sparse, especially for an otherwise unimportant province. Go have a look at what historians know about Cilicia, for example, or perhaps Cisalpine-Gaul — it is nothing compared to Palestine, exactly because of the material contained in the Gospels. I did revert your edits, and let me say that I will apologize for my snide comments, which were unwarranted. I was taken aback by the fact that, from your comments here, you don't know anything about what historians do, how they use texts, and have no real knowledge of the scholarship in the field. You just don't like the idea that the Gospels, if accurate on certain issues, might be right about the miracles. You object to one source, but you list four that are in many ways irrelevant to the discussion here, and present authors who not only have their own aganda (and biases), but are out to sell books at Barnes and Nobles (except perhaps for the sourcebook, which, if properly titled, is just a collection of primary sources and thus inappropriate here lest one do original research). If you had mentioned journals or books that only historians would know, because they are arcane and obscure, not written for the populace at large but by experts for experts, then it would have been different. Your ignorance to the topic is obvious. If you had genuinely wished to contribute to the topic, you would have followed up on the references in the cited work, and perhaps in those books you have listed above, and provided them here, to give us some meat to chew on. Nonetheless, you are quite right in your points about my comments, and I do wholly apologize for the manner in which I addressed you, and I hope that I have not damaged our ability to work together collegially. Let me say some closing comments. To be a scholar one need not renounce his religion. Sometimes scholars are biased in their analysis of facts because of their beliefs. Other times scholars are lead to belief by their analysis of facts. Other times scholars are biased in their analysis of facts because of their lack of belief. Other times belief and analysis of facts coexist nicely because the beliefs are true and thus supported by facts. The historical community is a diverse body, and there are many religious men and women who produce first class work in the field, including priests and people in regular orders. Habermas is someone that I am not familiar, but his religious views are not necessarily an inhibition to his work, any more than Ehrman's significantly large axe that he wishes to grind. Perhaps the reference is poor — look for others and see if the claim is correct. Back to the point at hand, the sentence is wholly accurate. Wikipedia policy is generally against deletion, and prefers that someone spend his time chasing down the sources and improving the detail of a passage rather than remove it. Sometimes removal is necessary, but I have not seen any argument supporting such a maneuver here. Lostcaesar 08:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I support the idea of looking for a better (more scholarly) reference, as long as the scholars are not too biased. (Many scholars do not use WP:AGF when dealing with the Bible.) ^ross ^nixon 09:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The current introduction includes this sentence: "Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee, who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on orders of the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate under the accusation of sedition against the Roman Empire.[2]" I participated in working on this sentence and am convinced of its accuracy. I think anyone can reasonable infer that these same historians do consider many of the details if the Gospels as reliable. I think above Roland raised the question of, which kinds of statements, which is reasonable. The historians relied on for the here quoted stentence, people like Sanders and Vermes and Fredricksen, are typically skeptical of any Gospel claims that support Christian theology, especially post-Council of Nicea Christianity. They generally reject claims that involve anything supernatural. Nevertheless, this leaves a lot of other stuff in the Gospels, Lost Ceaser provides some examples. SO: I suggest we use scholars already referenced (the three I just mentioned plus Jewish historian Shaye J.D. Cohen) and qualify the sentence with something like "Although skeptical of theological claims" or something like that. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

My sources, as confirmed by several members, are very significant and should not be excluded. To say that there are scholars that support the historical accuracy of the Gospel is wholly accurate (there are), but there are a strong scholarly position that the Gospels are not accurate. The sentance that I deleted is a great example of WP:NPOV by disregarding a major view point that is strong present in Biblical scholarship.

I must repeat this. My references are not just some books that you get at Indigo written by somebody who has a personal investment in the topic. No, the authors are tenured proffesors studying Biblical history and theology.

The comments by Lostcaesar are rather vague, with his major theme trying to start a religion vs. atheist battle. My sources are good and are not just somebody writing out of frustration at religion. I find it deeply insulting that Lostcaesar accuses me of trying to downlplay the Gospels out of hate for religion, but then he finds no problem with sourcing a statement about the history of the Gospels from somebody who believes the Bible to be 100% true. He keeps getting stuck on the theme of belief. History has nothing to do about believe and I simply tried to add a different (and major) view point to this article. I mean, how dare he insult me for choosing sources by proffesors over sources by a Christian fundamentalist. Does anybody else see the utter nonsense in this. There is a deep hypocracy in this article and I was just trying to show that the history of the Gospel is not as clear cut (and therefore, much more interesting) then the sentance currently states.--Roland Deschain 14:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If I wasn't clear above, I think Roland is largely correct. I think the way out of an impasse is to avoid the question of whether the Gospels are or are not accurate. They are historical documents which historians, including Bart Ehrman, draw on as historical sources, but not unquestioningonly, on the contrary, reading them critically and in relation to other sources and archeological evidence. It is not a black and white issue of is or is not accurate. Historians do use it as a historical source, but they use it critically. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

When I read you continually repeating that anyone who believes the Bible "100%" has no validity, making that fundamentally ad hominem argument in every (or almost every) comment you've posted here, it looks an awful lot like you're the one "stuck on the theme of belief" and trying to start a "religion vs. atheist battle". A.J.A. 16:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize. My point what that personal belief has no effect on the validity of the historical account of the Gospels. Plus, the citation given (to which I objected) was from a theologian, not from a historian (by training). Again, I apologize, it was a pointless remark more out of anger that such a broad statement was being cited to someone whose research in largely based on theological grounds at an insitution that demands one to affirm to the inerrancy of the Bible (yes, one must sign a statement). You must see a conflict of interest there as it related to the academic discussion of the history of the Gospels. At least the sources I gave come from secular organization where one does need to sign a statement on ones position before one does the research.--Roland Deschain 17:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the discussion has gone pretty well past what I was writing last night, but there's still one thing i'd like to say, Storm, when you say that 26,000 churchs are unable to come to terms on these "details", those are almost never historical details, but rather the meaning of certain theological bits which aren't even trying to recount history anyway, but rather, a theological truth. I seriously doubt there's a bunch of denominations out there which have angry splits over, say, whether Peter and John were the two apostles who went up to the temple in the beginning of acts three, or whether maybe it was some other Peter or some other John with the same name. Homestarmy 17:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Slrub, has provided an excellent recommendation. Often in disagreements people are forced to extremes. That is one reason why I think the participants are talking in terms of "black and white". Faith and reason are not exclusive qualities. There are many historians that are deeply religious, faithful Christians. Conversely, there are also agnostics and atheists who are excellent historians. If an historian was forced to sign a document that guaranteed writing from only one perspective, that is not a historian, but rather a polemic. Slrub has offered some other sources to review and use. Roland, are you familiar with them? If so, please use them. If not, maybe Slrub can assist? The point, I think, that Roland is making is that the Bible is not inerrant based upon the research of a group of historians. Surely a middle ground can be found where both sides are comfortable; find it.

I have noticed that many deletions have been made today; much of the information on non-Trinitarians were removed. Based upon Lostcaesar's edit above, deletions are not the first choice for edits. I reject making this article solely an orthodox view of Jesus; granted most things are in common, there are notable differences that are worth mentioning. Thoughts? Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I feel I must say, that the sentence merely states that most scholars accept many of the details in the Gospels as accurate, accepting many of the details in something as accurate is nowhere near the same as believing a source to be inerrant. Homestarmy 21:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

For the last bit. I agree completely. See my comment on the next topic up. As for this concern, I think a compromise has been suggested. I think citing Habermas discussing the resurrection was a bad choice. We need to find better sources, and have a more descriptive wording that covers multiple POVs, or is more specific about who believes what. I'll check my sources later tonight (and if necessary, go to the library. I know they have the Cohen book. (but if I recall, it really doesn't talk that much about Jesus... it may mention the use of the Gospels as historical sources though).--Andrew c 21:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I always wanted a sentence that doesn't conform to either extreme. I have no doubt there are historians who argue for a historical Gospel with very good research, but I hope that I have also shown that there are historians that argue otherwise. The sentence that I deleted was a prime example of Weasel Words, such as many and most, creating a sentence that was very weak (this in addition to a rather shady citation). A perfect sentence would be one that can confer that, yes, the Gospel is a document used in historical studies of that era, but that there is debate within the academic community about the historical validity of various instances. One of the major historical debates is central to the Gospel: the resurrection of Jesus. There is no academic consensus on the historical validity of this fact (there is 99.9% theological consensus on this issue though). For a rather nice debate from the historical point of view on this issue (recent too) see [1].--Roland Deschain 21:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the caveat mentioned can be stated in a religious article, but it seems redundant. The topic of Jesus is generally thought of as religious. To state that the secular arena doubts the resurrection is to state the obvious. For example, does a non-Christian read the article and then assume Jesus' resurrection was factual? No, they assume that it is just part of the faith of Christians. I would advise not using that particular statement, but I still agree that making a general statement regarding a debate exists within the academic coummunity is appropriate. Roland, does that make sense? Storm Rider ^(talk) 09:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I don't advice expanding on the debate in this article as it will soon devolve into an edit war about academic authority. As long as it is mentioned that there is debate within the academic community about the historical account of the Gospels and cite sources for a couple of different positions, the sentence should turn out fine.--Roland Deschain 14:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that the original sentence ("Most scholars accept many details...") is technically correct, but for very misleading reasons. The reason is that comparatively few secular historians have chosen to specialize in Christian origins. From a Christian perspective, Christianity is the most important thing on earth; there is every incentive to fill entire faculties and seminaries with theologians, who scour every word of the Bible for inpiration. From a secular point of view, however, there is not much to be studied. Non-Christian scholars are people who do not believe there is adequate evidence to accept the Resurrection as an historical fact. Some of them have written interesting books and articles discussing the origins of the Gospels, but these can never move far beyond wild speculation, with so few proven first-century sources. It is not much of an academic field for non-Christians. So yes, most scholars do accept the validity of the gospels (if you're prepared to regard academic theologians as scholars), but that's only because nobody else is particularly interested in them! One could say the same about Mormonism - there are entire institutions devoted to the study of the Book of Mormon within the LDS Church, but you couldn't fill an entire institution with secular academics studying the fraud of Joseph Smith (even though we know a lot more about Joseph Smith than we do about Matthew, Mark, Luke or John!) Mtford 16:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

External Link: The Great Mystery

-01.html The Great Mystery] The Great Mystery Phalanxes

The first rule of The Great Mystery: You don't talk about the Great Mystery. (At least, that's what the top banner thing seems to basically say.) Homestarmy 23:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Can an administrator or

Inline Citations

The inline citations need a vast cleanup - it's all messy and hard on the eyes. LuciferMorgan 20:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Feel free. A.J.A. 21:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

trilemma

This line about the Christian trilemma is in the Trinitarian section. "They combine this with the classic proof based on the two rational alternatives in the face of Jesus' repeated claims that he is the one God of Israel (e.g. Jn 8:58): either he is truly God or a bad man (a liar or a lunatic), the latter being dismissed on the basis of Jesus's perceived coherence. [42]" This line takes as a given Jesus' repeated claims to be God, but there's no hard evidence that he ever made these claims. It assumes that there are only two rational alternatives and ignores a third (that Jesus never made these claims in the first place). In any event, I'm not sure that this article could bear the weight of explaining how different people argue for their respective positions on Jesus. Instead of bringing up an argument where there isn't room to address it fairly or even point out that its premises are questionable, let's just say what trinitarians believe and leave out the argument about the trilemma. Jonathan Tweet 13:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it is unneeded. That section is soon to be rewritten, or at least was so proposed, so I would think such changes are perhaps better taken up at that time. I will say the following in defense of the statement. (1)It is a referencable argument since it comes from C.S. Lewis. (2)In the context (Christian views), all parties accept that Jesus claimed to be God, and the "evidence" is really taking the Gospels seriously. The "third approach" you mention is beside the point in the context. All that said, I understand your point about its being unneeded.Lostcaesar 13:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Lostcaesar, if you and I agree on something, it's probably legit. I'll cut out the sentence. Jonathan Tweet 15:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Trilemma is apologetics. Sure it comes up if you study CS Lewis but I've never seen any research that the Trilemma is a important part of how anyone came to their particular belief Jesus.

How about this though. The Jelimma. Christians have stated lots of things about Jesus since the beginning. Now either these christians were correct, or were bad men and lied and conspired to support that, or were deluded. Lunatics. Neutralaccounting 07:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear sirs: May I propose a compromise? I do agree with the two points raised by Lost Caesar: (1) it is a referencable argument, i.e. it follows NOR and NPOV, (2) it is proper to its context under Trinitarian views. I do believe in Wikipedia policy that editors not evaluate the evidence as such, but merely report what prominent writers assert. I believe this is part of NOR-- of not producing a new synthesis, but instead present existing synthesis.

Thus, the compromise statement would be: "Some apologists also state that there are but two to three alternatives (a dilemma or trilemma) in the face of what they they see as Jesus' repeated claims that he is the one God of Israel (e.g. Jn 8:58): either he is truly God or a bad man (a liar or a lunatic), the latter being dismissed on the basis of Jesus's perceived coherence. [42]"

With this compromise, we: (1) enlighten people about the existence of a trilemma (BTW, thanks to Jonathan Tweet for this information on the trilemma; I never heard of it until I read it here. :), (2) the statement is attributed to apologists, making the reader wary of its innate value, (3) the Jesus' claim of divinity is not attributed to Wikipedia but to the apologists, (4) the encyclopedia explains further to the reader why some people find it reasonable to believe Jesus is God, despite the rise of the secular society. To my mind, many people are interested in this article due to the thinking that he is divine, (5) and (6) we take into account LostCaesar's two valid points. Thank you for considering this compromise. Marax 02:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

PROOF is too strong a word for the trilemma ARGUMENT. Also the article cannot take a position on whether on not Jesus repeatedly claimed to be God - it is NOT so clear-cut that he EVER did. Including the trilemma is a worthy addition, however --JimWae 03:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Jim Wae. After taking note of your comments, specially that it is a "worthy addition", I've placed the proposed addition in the text with some minor improvements. I used the word "argue" and removed "repeated".

In fact I do not understand why this trinitarian view, which is held by proportionately more people, is given less space than the Jewish view and the Mormon view. The article does not seem to follow the NPOV policy of proportionality. I hope we can do something about this.Marax 08:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The word "proof" it completly fitting, as it is a simple logical proof and thus aptly described. The soundness or validity is not relevant to whether it is a proof. Jim, it is a philosophical term you are unfamiliar with. Lostcaesar 08:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

As a onetime logician, I must take issue with your claim that the trilemma is a "proof". A proof requires true premises and valid inference steps. It is perfectly in order to object to the validity of the trilemma by saying that Jesus perhaps never claimed to be God, or indeed that he was incoherent (one could certainly cite seemingly inconsistent words attributed to Jesus in the Gospels). It is also necessary to spell out exactly how one gets from "Jesus claimed to be God", "Jesus was coherent" and "Jesus was not a bad man" to "Jesus was God" -- indeed I have never seen a rigorous discussion of that inference. If any of these steps fails (truth of premises or validity of inference), then the status of the trilemma moves from "proof" to "alleged proof". Grover cleveland 13:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Grover, those are all issues as to whether the proof is compelling, not whether it is a proof, which is merely a structural claim. Becuase this is so easily misunderstood, the word might be put in abayance here.Lostcaesar 14:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Not really. The use of the word "proof" is an example of equivocation, because the word can mean "certain knowledge" ("the DNA evidence, standing alone, is certain proof of guilt" James Hanratty#DNA evidence and appeal in 2002) or "logical reasoning towards a particular conclusion". The former usage is much more common today, so the use of this word is - possibly quite deliberately - misleading. It should be replaced with "argument" when used in this way. In any case, the trilemma should not be presented here because it just generates attempts at refutation. This has been discussed in detail before, but finding the debate in the labyrinthine archives is beyond my powers of research. Paul B 15:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, that is what I just said, no? Lostcaesar 15:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, yes it is. Sorry. I'm not the sharpest tool today. Paul B 15:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

When I read over the article, I don't see much apologetics in the other sections. The article is too long to include the proofs that Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. use for their views. It's too long to include other proofs of Jesus' divinity (his fulfillment of prophecy, etc.). It's too long to include counter arguments. There are other pages devoted to Christian views on Jesus, the Trilemma, etc. I know that the trilemma is popular, but I don't see why this one argument deserves mention. Let's stick to describing Jesus and what people believe about him. At most we could say "See also Trilemma" at the end of the Trinitarian section, but by that precedent there would be a lot of links of similar relevance to add to the article.. Jonathan Tweet 14:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This again? Consider...is this article about Jesus, or about C.S. Lewis? Consider also how long this article is already.

Besides, it's really a quintlemma: Jesus was either Lord, Liar, Lunatic, Misinterpreted, or nonexistent. I support thw first option, but I realize we're not all Christians here. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me, but part of my answer to these issues is found below, which I mistakenly put as another section but should be a subsection to this one; I have currently corrected this.

The important quote from Wikipedia policy is here: Wikipedia:NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.

The article is about Jesus and a prominent source on this topic is C.S. Lewis, whom Wikipedia describes as "known for his work on medieval literature, Christian apologetics and fiction" ... "Lewis' works have been translated into over 30 languages and continue to sell over a million copies a year; the books that comprise The Chronicles of Narnia have sold over 100 million copies."

Lostcaesar's reworking of the article, to my mind, is very good. Some work still has to be done in pursuit of NPOV proportionality. Marax 09:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Lewis might be an important fellow, but read this section again. It doesn't mention Paul, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther. Is Lewis really such a bright light that he deserves to be the only theologian mentioned in this section? Is the trilemma so important to the Christian view of Jesus that it deserves mention when (for example) Satan himself doesn't get word-one? No and no. Yes, wikipedia should mention the trilemma. No, it shouldn't tack a sentence or two onto a section that's summarizing such a big topic: Christians' view of Jesus. Jonathan Tweet 13:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with Mr. Tweet. BTW the section did mention Paul at one point, his comments on slavation through Christ's ressurection and on Jesus being the second Adam. I wasn't aware that this had been removed...but I'd say that Paul of Tarsus is a much more notable figure for the topic than C. S. Lewis. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Just two side points, first, the article still references Paul: Romans, 1 Corinthians, and Galatians; second, for the trilemma it references two authors, both CS Lewis and Peter Kreeft, for what that's worth. Lostcaesar 16:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

LC, OK, so let's grant that the article references Paul. Do we put Lewis (and Kreeft) ahead of Augustine, etc? I wouldn't. And Lewis's formulation of the trilemma doesn't even attempt to prove that Jesus was God, merely that he can't be regarded as a great moral teacher without also being God. I've seen enough folks chime in on this thread agreeing that this section is the wrong place to reference the trilemma that I feel justified in just deleting it. In my personal experience, however, the trilemma is the most common argument that Christians use for Jesus' divinity. There's no other natural place for a reference to go. My ideal solution is to cut the "other early views" down to a size that reflects its importance (i.e. each paragraph becomes a one-line link to the page in question), and then we'd have room in the Christian Views section for a subsection on apologia. Until we have a section about apology, I could see adding "See also: trilemma" in the Primary Views section. Jonathan Tweet 18:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if it is relevant and I am not sure if it is irrelevant. Its but a few words, though. I don't really think it fits there, but I don't think it is entirely out of place either. I think its ultimate substance, that Christians don't think Jesus' teachings can be rationally understood without his being divine, is worth stating, at least somewhere. Lostcaesar 20:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Lewis's trilemma is a refutation of the idea that Jesus was merely a mortal teacher. There's a section on this page that talks about the idea that Jesus was a mortal teacher, tucked away in "other views." Let's move reference to the trilemma there. While we're at it, we could cut the secular material out of the "religious perspectives" section and put it in its own section. Jonathan Tweet 00:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Main problem with the trilemma is that there really is at LEAST one more option, making it a Quadlemma. The trilemma relies entirely on the reliability of the NT for the exact words of Jesus - and even those words are open to interpretation. Also some modern people who are otherwise mostly coherent use language that appears to make claims that they are a part of God. Then there are all those the pantheists... --JimWae 01:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. The crucial point of my reasoning is again found in the section below. I believe there would be enough space for adding some more ideas from Augustine and Thomas if we reckon that there is still a huge disproportion between the space provided for Jewish perspectives (held by 14 million) and this Principal view (held by around 1.5 billion). My point is that the one sentence on the trilemma is too short compared to the long paragraph quoting the Mishneh Torah. It is important to Wikipedia that NPOV proportionality is implemented. I hope this has been helpful for this discussion. Marax 03:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whether or not you think the trilemma is a sound proof (i.e. whether it really is a quadlemma). The article merely says that this argument is advanced by some apologists in support of Jesus' divinity, which is true. Lostcaesar 07:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

If it is presented as counterpoint within the other views section, then some version of LLLL (Liar, Loon, Lord, or Lost-in-translation) would also be justified for inclusion in reply to the counterpoint--JimWae 07:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The point of the page is not to set up an argumentative philosophical setting where proofs are forwarded and rebutted, but it may be possible to include this pov if it is relevant to the section wherein it is raised, and if it comes from a reliable source that specifically addresses Lewis's point. Lewis has is own arguments as to why the gospels are not fabrications (which is really what you mean by "lost in translation"), but that is perhaps an aside. Lostcaesar 08:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

And my point is that moving the trilemma to a place that would make it counter point to the Other views section WOULD be doing just that - setting up an argumentative philosophical setting. If a position (in other views) is directly argued against, surely the obvious (& easily sourced) responses merit inclusion too. Btw, I do not think your interpretation captures the totality of "what I really mean" --JimWae 08:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

And where exactly was it "lost in translation", without accusing overt fabrication, that Jesus was not claiming to act with divine authority?Lostcaesar 08:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I amnoexperthere so maybe what I am about to say is ill-informed and unconstructive. But, if I follow this discussion correctly, the crucial issue concerning this dilemma (I don't say trilemma because I do not want to specify the number of possible solutions for reasons that will be apparent presently) is, as Lostceaser implies, the question, whose dilemma? As Lostceaser suggests, this is a dilemma for Lewis and he is important enough that some article (perhaps not this one) explains how he conceives of the dilemma (this is why I won't ennumerate the possible solutions: what the number of solutions are is a matter of point of view, and we should not representour point of view but that of significant and verifiable sources). But maybe this was also a dilemma for early Christians ... maybe gnosticism was in part a response and one possible (or set of possible) solution(s) to this dilemma. The question is not whether I am right or wrong but whether reputable historians of Christianity have suggested this in verifiable sources, in which case their views should go into the (whichever appropriate) article. My only point is, that whether it is a dilemma, how the dilemma is understood, and what the possible solutions are is a matter of POV and rather than ourselves answering these questions we should see what verifiable sources areout there that discuss the various points of view in this regard. We might find that this dilemma was understood as a dilemma in different ways at different times. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV proportionality

Concerning NPOV proportionality, here is the relevant policy statement: Wikipedia:NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views.

I believe that the key words are prominence and popular. Prominence concerns (1) noticeability or (2) popularity. This latter seems to be easier to be objectivized.

Based on Adherents.com, the trinitarian view is held by around 1.5 billion people (Catholics, Orthodox, etc); Islam by 1.3 billion, Judaism by 14 million, Latter Day Saints by 12.5 million. [2]

It follows that the trinitarian view should be given more space, and within that space Wikipedia is supposed to put there the best synthesis to explain why these people who hold this view do hold them.

In my reading, Wikipedia policy on proportionality is a service to readers: The greater the number of people who hold a belief, the greater the amount of space is dedicated to enable the reader to understand them and the basis of their thinking and belief.

As for the specific case of the trinitarian view, its assigned space should contain more ideas from prominent authors, whether the ideas are apologetic, dogmatic, descriptive, historical, etc. And in a proportionate way, this should be done with the other views. Thank you for considering this. Marax 09:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I invite you to my Project page where revision of this section is ongoing. Lostcaesar 10:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, this issue is confusing because we have the spinout article Christian views of Jesus. The question is, how can we represent minority POVs that do not have spinout articles against the majority POV whose section should be a summary of the main article? For example, there is no article on what early, non-orthodox Christians historically thought of Jesus. This section, I feel, is not unnecessary wordy, but even if we could condense, we don't really have a place to move the more detailed content (nor would I suggest creating a spinout for this minor topic). We should be conscious of how much space we dedicate to minority and majority views, but another thing we can do is qualify, with words, the prevelence of each view in the cases where the majority view's section may just be a summary of a much more detailed article. (we could use adherents.com statistics to say Mormons/JWs only make up x% of all people who self-identify as Christian, etc.)--Andrew c 13:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Gah, on top of that, we have Religious perspectives on Jesus. There are too many spinout articles to keep track of. I just think that we shouldn't ignore these spinout articles when we are working up these sections here. I think its important that we have unity, and that we avoid too much redundency.--Andrew c 14:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

As a LDS I would agree that majority held Christian views should be given the major focus. However, minority opinions should also be concisely stated. This article should also focus on broad brush strokes, rather than attempt to get into specifics. Specifics should be handled in respective church pages. There are far more groups than just Mormons and JWs that disagree with Nicene beliefs; I am not even sure they are the largest groups. Oneness Pentecostals and the African Christian groups come immediately to mind. Is there a reason to single out specific groups? Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Christian view tweaks

I have made some small changes to the Christian view section:

I have changed the dates of the Ecumenical councils: those professed with Christology do not include Nicea II in 787. To include it here might imply that the dates encompass all Ecumenical Councils, which is incorrect, as even the Eastern Orthodox accept 8 Ecumenical Councils, though there is disagreement about the identity of the 8th Council.
I have reworded the Jesus-Trinity passage, mainly including the word Hypostases since the word person can be problematic nowadays (this also provides a prelude to the later word "hypostatic union"), and shifting the link to "Trinity". The article formerly talked about "a doctrine known as the Holy Trinity", when the Trinity is not a doctrine.
I have also reworded the "two natures" passage, starting with the one person and then stating the two natures. I have also reworded it so that it clearly says that there is one fully human and one fully divine nature - the former wording seemed to say that Jesus had two natures that both were human AND divine.
Finally, I have added a link to Monophysitism, as this article might be profitable to the reader in this context. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Those all look great, thank you. Lostcaesar 10:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Principal View

I do not think it is appropriate to immediately revert all my changes with the main comment being "I do not understand". Here is further help towards "understanding" - much of which seems obvious to me &/or most of which was included in edit summarie

I changed Christ to Jesus -- NPOV
reported regarding claims that Jesus said he was God -- NPOV
descended into hell would be problematic without further explanation - particularly when it does not even appear in the Nicene Creed

--JimWae 17:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The entire section is much too long - so needless words (especially prosyltizing words like good news) need trimming. Omit from this article any "generalizing" about Xn views unless there is hardly any disagreement on them - unless the disagreements are also addressed --JimWae 18:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The section is not a place to present the Xn message in an attempt to be persuasive - An encyclopedia needs to be primarily descriptive --JimWae 18:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Jim, (1) the section describes the Christian pov, it is perfectly ok to say "Christ" in reference to Jesus in a section expressing the Christian view. This precedent is even well established in scholarly sources, and I could manifest examples. (2) I didn't observe this change, I will give it a look. (3) Descended into Hell is fully referenced, if it is confusing then it may be linked ("Harrowing of Hell" is the wiki-site). What I did not understand was that you said this is "not in the modern version". That is a confusing edit, since I don't know what "version" you are referring to. It is in all the texts which are referenced.

Good news is simply the translation of the Old English "Gospel", and the article uses "gospel" a lot.

Jim, its ok to give Christian views in the Christian views section.

Lostcaesar 18:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No, an encyclopedia does not express a POV - it describes it. --JimWae 18:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

This section has problems with WP:OR. It is attempting a synthesis of many different sources - and the sources synthesized appear only in footnotes. The source should appear in the main text & no synthesis is needed - just refer to the Nicene Creed - almost every bit comes from there anyway --JimWae 18:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC) Even did such a synthesis not violate WP:NOR, how has it been decided which sources to synthesize from - which to include & which to exclude?

Jim, my first words: "the section describes the Christian pov..." — what is the disagreement? The footnotes are so extensive that the section simply cannot give them in the body text. If that were done then it would be 66% notes. Giving just the Nicene creed in support would indeed be OR — as it stands it merely summarizes the view of a the bulk commonality of Christianity based on the authoritative sources for large and historically significant Christian groups. It consists of quotations or paraphrases from various sources, and thus does not violate OR. To sum, I disagree with your characterization and, frankly, find it more patronizing than constructive. What specifically are you contributing to benefit the section? Lostcaesar 19:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Both the text and your comments here use the terminology "express" Xn POV. You have not addressed that. Wikipedia cannot flatly refer to Jesus as Christ, nor the gospels as "good news", nor that Jesus claimed to be God
There is no need for (and there ARE problems with) wikipedia attempting to express (nor present) a comprehensive synthesis of all of Xty - just present the major beliefs per the Nicene Creed - which is pretty much - with only minor exceptions - what the section ends up doing anyway. I do not think it is necessary to go to such lengths to preserve minor details like descent into hell --JimWae 19:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
When Xns themselves cannot agree on who is a Xn, a wikipedian selecting sources & then deciding what is the "principal" view is a recipe for POV--JimWae 19:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I see John Shelby Spong's views no longer appear in the article - nor the views of Unitarians. I will search also for any wiki article that still discusses the issue of whether or not Jesus ever claimed to be God --JimWae 19:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Jim, let my try and extend a bit of an olive branch. I think we got off on the wrong foot here. I am sorry if I have been more argumentative than I should have been. Below I will try and address your various concerns.

I have changed the two instances of "express" in the article, as per your concerns here. I used them as synonyms, but if you see a subtle distinction then I will concur.
Jesus and Christ, I will say this. In many history books I read Jesus and Christ are synonyms, and I could give you examples (in one, on the Reformation, the author bends over backwards in the intro to explain his secularism). Whatever the case, this section says that Christians believe Jesus is the Christ, so I think it follows naturally that we may say "Christ" in a paragraph that starts "These groups believe" or "They profess". Furthermore, Christ is used in the context of the Second Coming, and because this event is Messianic in nature, this is much more fitting and descriptive than "Jesus" alone. To sum, it is clear that this is how Christians view Jesus, not a wikipedia statement of fact, even so books that are fact-stating-books use Christ as a synonym for Jesus without pains, and the latter term is better fitting in the context theologically.
Gospel literally means Good News, it is Old English (godspell). Saying: "Jesus proclaimed the gospel" and "Jesus proclaimed the good news" are identical. We are not talking about "the gospels", we are talking about the Gospel. In a paragraph which describes what Christians view Jesus' actions as, and their significance, it says (as does the Bible) that Jesus brought "the good news" (literally, he evangelized, to use the Greek rather than Old English). The word euangelion may be translated as evangel, gospel, or good news. The Gospel of Matthew is short for its longer title "The Holy Gospel According to Matthew", in other words "the sacred good news as reported by Matthew". We are not talking about the books, we are describing the Christian view of the purpose of Jesus' life.
I re-added the word "reported" regarding Jesus' claims to be God. I did not see that earlier, as I said before.
I feel very strongly that the section needs to present a bulk Christian view first in order to be coherent. Merely listing differences does not make sense unless there is a body of thought to bounce them off of. Furthermore, this bulk section is historically the body of thought that dissenting views have emerged from as a reaction to, so I think it is perfectly fitting. And it is not nor does it claim to be a comprehensive synthesis of all Christianity. It excludes some minority views, which are discussed immediately below. If there are other views, they may be added below as well. *edit: I reworked the lead paragraph to take your concerning into consideration
The descent into hell is not a minor detail, and its only three words
I did not know what to name this section. I did not name it "principal view". I named it "principle view". I did so under the sense of "core", or "fundamental", or "regular (rule)". The name was subsequently changed. I think the name might need more work. Also, the lead sentence should be clear that this is not an attempt to provide an all encompassing view. The sources for this section are the catechetical and confessional texts of the largest Christian groups: Catholicism (catechism of the catholic church), Orthodoxy (creeds), Anglicanism (thirty nine articles), Lutherans (extracts from the Book of Concord, which includes Luther's small catechism and the Augsburg Confession), and to an extent Reformed (the Second Helvetic Confession). That is all it is, and all it claims to be. This is representative both of the bulk of Christianity and of the historical "mass", so to speak, from which other views have sprung in contemporary times. Those smaller groups are given whatever space they need below.
The previous article's content was 99% preserved, however one sentence, which listed some apologists on one side, and some very liberal theologians on the other, was removed since it no longer seemed necessary or fitting. The Unitarians and the Arians were removed because there was only one sentence on them. I think they can be re-added without difficulty in the non-trinitarian section if you think they should be mentioned. *edit: I added the sentence back

Thank you for the comments. Lostcaesar 07:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Principle, meaning 'rule, policy', cannot be used as an adjective or as an attributive noun—you cannot follow it with a noun. Principal can be used as an adjective, meaning 'main, chief, most important' or as a noun, meaning 'main person, chief person', usually the head of a school, though there are other uses.

I don't think it unreasonable, or at variance with NPOV, to refer to Jesus as Christ, any more than it is unreasonable to refer to Gautama as Buddha, even though non-Buddhists might have doubts about his enlightenment. Christ is the name by which Christians have commonly referred to Jesus throughout the Church's history. If in conversation with a Jew I refer to Jesus as Christ, I am not attempting to push my understanding of Jesus as Messiah on him, even though this is what the name means. If I were to refer to Jesus as Messiah, on the other hand, then there would be reason for debate. Check existing encyclopaedias – they generally have NPOV down to a T, and they often refer to Jesus as Christ. If we are not allowed to call him Christ, are we also to give up the name Christian in favour of Jesusian? Copey 2 14:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I just reviewed the principal section. I think having sentences like "The redemptive sacrifice on the cross is the source of mankind's salvation." and "He was born of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit in a miraculous event known as the virgin birth." These are clearly not encyclopedic nor NPOV. On the other hand, it would be strange to preface every sentence with "Christians believe". The solution doesn't jump out at me, but I am sure that having unqualified claims like these, even in the Christian views section, seems problematic. The one use of "Christ", referencing the second comming isn't problematic to me. However, the use of "good news" instead of Gospel is. Maybe we could put "good news" in quotes or italics, so it is understood it is a religious term? Overall, it is a tad theologically dense, and fairly jargony. It is more like "Christianity in their own terms," instead of adopting a more neutral language. These are just fine points, I think it is generally pretty good, and definately workable.--Andrew c 01:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, I don't see any good option other than to include sentences like the ones that you cite. I'm an atheist, but that's the way I'd write the paragraph. The reader must be expected to understand them in context. When I write about the academic outlook on Purgatory, I don't want LostCaesar to stick "allegedly" into every sentence. And I don't want to see "The so-called redemptive sacrifice (if that's what it was) on the cross (or torture stake) is the source of 'mankind's' would-be salvation." (OK, that was just for fun.) Jonathan Tweet 02:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the section is "theologically dense and a tad jargony". It is the product of the both the sources and the need to fit a lot in a small space. One possible and partial solution is to link the theological words to their proper pages. Each paragraph is prefaced with a qualifier in an attempt to address your concerns. It does use Christian terms to describe how this group of Christians view Jesus, but I think that is important in a sense if we are going to get it right. For example, if we don't call it a "redemptive sacrifice", but a "painful death", then we miss the essence of the view alltogether. Sacrifice in religion is a central idea, and redemption is obviously centrian to Christian views of Jesus. I think that changes can be made to improve it, but as you I am not quite sure just how, without enlarging the section a good bit (and not adding any content to justify such a move). As for "good news", I will add the quotation marks. Lostcaesar 07:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

edit: see my recent changes per these comments. Lostcaesar 08:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to keep track of who is changing what with all the anon vandals, but the changes to the two sentences I brought up are great. I think the way it is worded address both my and Tweet's concerns. Good work on that!--Andrew c 21:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

face of Jesus

What do people thing about including this image http://www.religioustolerance.org/jesusface.jpg based on a reconstruction of a 1st century Jewish skull. TRWBW 04:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC) (it looks like a Neanderthal man picture and nothing like Christ, see next paragraph)

The stereotypes of Jewish looks , esp a swarthy complexion and long hooked nose have nothing to do with their actual looks; those looks are shown by their direct descendants across Europe (the genealogy is there for any persons interested) and include the fair skin and blonds and red heads in Ireland and Scandanavia. And esp note that David was a red head as was his descendant Jesus. A close on depiction would be that of Charlemagne (a Jesus descendant) with gold red hair and larger frame and handsome face.

I want to know why there are so many images of Christ in this passage. The first one is fine, but it seems unnecessary to clutter this page with so much imagery ... It adds a sloppy feeling to the passage, I think. Why don't we just take the images we like and move them to the "Jesus in Art" page? It seems more appropriate. Also, bear in mind that all these paintings and renderings are interpretations (many of which are inaccurate-- for instance, He is portrayed as fair-skinned when Mary was Middle Eastern, He is shown carrying an entire cross, which was not really a part of the customs back then; they only carried the horizontal slab), so it's not as though there is very much to be taught by these pictures that can't be expressed in text.

Jesus Family

Best sellers Holy Blood Holy Grail (1984) and Da Vinci Code (2004) advance the ancient claim that Jesus was married and had children (before his death on the cross leaving entact all religious views) and those descendants come down to today and are not the single heroine depicted in the Da Vinci Code but a larger group and include US Presidents (see The Jesus Presidents (2005)).

Of course, their fictional books, so they hardly matter..... Homestarmy 13:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

centre/center

I see a small spat over British vs American spelling has broken out. American spelling is correct in the US; British spelling is correct among most other English speakers. Given that Wikipedia is an international co-operative effort, spelling should be determined by the original writer of the sentence in which it appears, and left alone by other contributors, unless it is incorrect in both systems. Copey 2 14:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

As I understand policy the spelling is to be consistant throughout the article, wasn't it English originally? Homestarmy 14:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest going with the more common spelling, on the internet as a whole. Based on googles's estimated number of returns, 'center' is about 3 times more common then 'centre'. TRWBW 15:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

These arguments are not persuasive. Wikipedia has a policy covering this. We don't take sides on which English is better, more proper, more common, etc. We simply use the style chosen by the earliest editor. And we must consistently use that style in the article.--Andrew c 00:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought the question was what to do when it's policy versus policy, consistency versus orginal editor, and was suggesting using the more common spelling as a way to break the tie. TRWBW 01:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Jesus article messed up

who screwed up the jesus article it only says "lol"

Sorry about that, there seems to be some dedicated vandal here, look in the history for non-vandalized versions. Homestarmy 18:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Its still not locked...

I was going to submit a request for protection when the next anon vandalized, but oddly, it stopped suddenly for the last few minutes. Homestarmy 18:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

lol—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.148.67.20 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 23 October 2006.

Jesus was Albanian

A very important information has recently emerged, at the time of Jesuses birth the romanb province of Jerusalem was being patroled by Illyrian/Albanian soldiers (see Praetorian Guard),the soldiers intermixed with the local inhabitatiants quite regularly and impregnated woman around the empire, so it comes as no surprise that Jesus christ was most born of an Albanian father and Jewish mother. In those days woman were killed for having children without being married so Mary made up some lies that she was impregnated by god or something like this. Anyhow this is vary important informations that need to be in the article As soon as possible. ~~

That is not new info, it was a story told to slander Christianity in antiquity. Sorry to break the news. Lostcaesar 20:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

And they say his name was Pandera... Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 18:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This article really has the best Talk page comments. A.J.A. 20:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

-_o Homestarmy 22:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Just wait, the new "Black Jesus" movie will be coming out pretty soon. Expect healthy amounts of discussion. --Home Computer 16:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an earthshatteringly novel idea! Talk about holy grail. I think this should be a headline across the top of the page. That must be why he has dark, blond hair with blue eyes. That Mary, she always was a jokester; sure had me fooled. However, I am certain that aliens were also tied up with it. Can you say ready for the funny farm? Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Not until we break out the tinfoil Storm, its not a party until then! Homestarmy 23:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies

"Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher ..."

Not good at all, this statement is part tautology, most scholars in the fields of biblical studies are Christians ie you could equally write most homeopathy students think homeopathy is an effective treatment and part POV, who defined the electorate and then took the head count to assertain that most historians believe this. The whole paragraph needs looking at.

This statement is not tautology (you may want to look the word up in the dictionary). Frederiksen is not Christian, neither is Vermes. More importantly, you are implying that a Christian cannot be an objective historian, you are implying that all Christians are fundamentalists or literalists. There is a wide range of Christian beliefs, some of which leave ample room for modern critical scholarship. The sentence is well-researched, supported by verifiable sources, and accurate. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It is tautology, it is in essence stating 'most Christian scholars believe in Christian dogma'. Bible scholars are a self selecting group, some will be objective and some not. Some who are objective reach the conclusion that the statement is true. However some who are objective reach the conclusion that the statement is false and thus find themselves unable to continue as Bible Scholars. Thus there will always be a majority who believe the statement to be true. And I'm not impuning Christian Historians I'm simply asking who did the head count of historians whether Christian or not.

The subject of the sentence is not "Christian scholars." Most members of the US Supreme Court are Christians. That does not mean that when they vote a certain way on church-state issues, it is reasonable to say "Christian judges decided ..." Moreover, the predicate of the sentence is not Christian dogma. In fact, the predicate of the sentence is something Jewish Bible scholars mostly believe too, and in fact goes against Christian dogma. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Once more into the breach :-) Most bible scholars are predisposed to believe the statement because most of them would not be bible scholars if they didn't, it is utterly inconcievable that most bible scholars would not believe the Christian dogma/myth. Therefore what is the point of stating it ? It seems highly redundant. And again who did the head count of historians to say most of them believe it as well ? if it's true shouldn't there be a reference in there to this plebiscite ?

Please look at the sources we have supporting the statement. We have Jews, very liberal Christians, moderate scholars, very famous scholars in these fields, and some conservative scholars. It's a very large number of scholars, and very impressive in covering the consensus POV. I also think you do not understand the term biblial scholar. Biblical criticism is a sub-field of biblical scholarship. Keep in mind, there is a difference between theologians and biblical scholars. For all these reasons, I feel strongly that there is nothing wrong, or biased with this paragraph, and if you had looked into the sources, I believe your concerns would have been answered.--Andrew c 01:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"it is utterly inconcievable that most bible scholars would not believe the Christian dogma/myth." It is not inconceivable at all. I can easily conceive of this because I have an open mind and have read a good deal of Biblical scholarship. If you cannot conceive of it it is not because it is "inconceivable," it is because you personally are not capable of conceiving it, I suspect either because you have a closed mind or know very little about Biblical scholarship. If you want to contribute to improving this article, you need real evidence and arguments, not dogmatic statements like "inconceivable!" Slrubenstein | Talk 11:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I am stating my opinion about the article which I am entitled to do and I'm doing it in the proper place which is the talk section. However you seem to believe that the proper place for your opinion is in the article itself. If the statements is true most historians believe then the referendum should be referenced otherwise it is just a POV and should be removed. I am not putting forward evidence for my case as the article doesn't state some historians believe, I am requesting you show evidence for your case by referencing the statement. As to Biblical Scholars I'm going to restate the homeopathy analogy. Most students of homeopathy believe it is an effective treatment. And I would argue they do because they are a self selecting group who chose to study it because they believed in it in the first place. Most bible scholars believe in the Christian myth/dogma And I would argue they do because they are a self selecting group who chose to study it because they believed in it in the first place. Therefore the statement is redundant JohnShep 15:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not inserting my "opinion" in the article. You say it should be referenced. Well, didn't you read what I wrote above: "Please look at the sources we have supporting the statement." The statement in question is sourced. The references are right there. No one is preventing you from looking at them. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you are misusing the term "biblical scholar". Secondly, I must ask you, have you not read the references provided for the statement in question? Your arguments are strawmen that ignore what is actually in the article, and ignore what we've said on talk. Sorry to be blunt.--Andrew c 18:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no reference to the plebiscite that established that most hisotrians believe, if there is a reference to it that I've missed I would be gratefull if you would point it out to me JohnShep 18:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see your concern. I think there was a previous version of this sentence that may have worked better (I'll have to check the page history). It isn't that all historians (such as 19th century American historians, and Jeulmun historians, and historians who study the pre-history of southern France), but applicable historians, such as those who study the Roman Iudaea Province, or those who study second temple Judaism, or those who study the Qumran community and the DSS, or even those who study early Christianity (orthodox, Gnostic, Ebionites, etc). I agree that historian could be qualified, but then again, does it really read as if we are refering to all historians? In the History of Japan article, when it says "historians believe the first emperor who actually existed was Emperor Ōjin" is it implied that its scholars who study Japanese history, or is it implying all historians, even those who study other subjects?--Andrew c 22:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. When we refer to scholar, it should go without saying that we are referring to scholars of the relevant field. If a 20th century German historian, for example, holds a particular opinion about Jesus, the fact that she is a historian is just irrelevant - she might as well be a physicist or plumber. In such a case we would write "some people" (or make some claim about "popular opinion") not "some plumbers" or "some physicists" - nor "some historians," in such a case. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Differentiation of Scholarship

It may be useful for whenever the phrase "some scholars" is used with citation to differentiate with various qualifiers such as Conservative or Liberal scholars. The obvious difference being Conservative scholarship's approach tends to use the text of the Bible as inherrent truth in arriving at thier conclusions whereas the Liberal scholarship approaches text as insight into the cirumstances of it's creation with an open mind as to how interpretations of history and alternative sources might give equal or more accurate clues.

Using the qualifiers of MOST or MANY or SOME may be require citation at best and be unrepresented POV at the worst. While some may argue that scholars agree or what the majority is, no one is going to argue what Liberal scholarship or Conservative scholarship teaches when the citations are in place, leaving the POV to the notable experts and us simply citing them. Peace --Home Computer 16:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard the phrase "liberal scholars" but I am not arguing against you - if the scholars in question identify themselves as liberal, your suggestion is very appropriate and constructive. Can others weigh in? CTSWynekan? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I entirely agree with this, some scholars interpret the biblical story literally, some believe Jesus to be an amalgam of a real character and other historical/mythological characters and some that he didn't exist at all. The most and small minority statements are highly POV and should be referenced or better still removed JohnShep 17:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think this terminology is helpful (though I've supported its use on various NT books' articles in regards to differing views on dating and authorship). It is clear that there is a divide in the 'scholarship'. The "conservative" position is almost exclusively held by theologians and religious practitioners (not scholars per se), and might also be considered "traditional" or "apologetic". And they tend to not question the historical reliability of the gospels or the testimony of the early Church Fathers. They date all the books early, consider the books to be written by eyewitnesses (namely Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Paul etc), and support Matthean priority. On the other hand, we have mainstream scholarship that supports the Q-document and Markan priority, finds some issues with the historical reliability of the textual evidence, considers a number of books pseudononymous, and none of the gospels written by eyewitnesses, etc. These views, however, I do not consider "liberal" because they are the consensus, mainstream position supported by even relatively conservative theologians like NT Wright (who believes the resurrection a historical event), and Catholic priests/scholars like Brown and Meier. I'd say the liberal view would be either those held by the fringe group, the Mythists, or maybe the liberal Christians of the Jesus Seminar like Crossan, Borg, Funk who believe in a spiritual, not physical, resurrection. I have a feeling, creating a divide like this would open the way to give more undue weight to the conservative view, which is a valid POV for sure, but not the dominant. Therefore, I would ask Home Computer to specificy what specific changes need to take place in this article before commenting on a broad proposal like this. --Andrew c 17:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Any time we use an adjective with a person or group of people, we are open to a challenge from someone that does not like the description. I'm very comfortable with the "conservative" and "liberal" labels, but there are scholars who are not. For example, I know of Biblical scholars who believe in the resurrection of Jesus, who by and large credit the Bible as theologically and historically accurate, but also believe in the documentary hypothesis. Some would call them conservative and others liberal. Better not to do this, I think, since the terms are emotionally laden and sometimes not especially descriptive. We do better with terms accepted by the scholars being described.

On the other hand, labels like "most" or "small minority" can help, providing we can find support in reliable published writings. It helps the reader if, for example, we can let them know that only a very few scholars still doubt Jesus existed. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 18:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree, the use of most refering to bible scholars can probably be easily justified and referenced and is not POV. The use of most historians is very problematic, for example it could be claimed that most historians in China have never heard of Jesus, most historians in India do not believe he was a historical person etc. etc. The statement should be further qualified, referenced or removed. Perhaps separating the bible scholars from the historians would be a good start. JohnShep 19:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not a supporter of this kind of terminology for several reasons. It is a borrowed language used to describe a political polarization and thus not entirely fitting or precise. Also, it presupposes that someone's view compels a conclusion, when one could just as well see the opposite. For example, a person who has "liberal" views could, through scholarship and study, come to a more "conservative" position — perhaps someone educated on the Q hypothesis, after his study, decides in favour of Mathean priority. In this sense labels are merely tautological descriptors whose implications create non-sequintur situations. In my view, the article should aim for scholars with fitting credentials and let them stand as legitimate views, which the reader may investigate further. Lostcaesar 20:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason I use the labels Conservative and Liberal in my descriptions of sources is because it tends to be the way seminarians describe the position of their university, (ie Dallas Theological Sem are described as Conservatives concerning the scripture, likewise Princeton Theo Sem, Liberal) and therefore techniques used on studying the scriptures. If it's borrowed, it's borrowed by the scholars themselves.

"We do better with terms accepted by the scholars being described", yeah that's all I'm suggesting, the specific terms I mentioned weren't the exact point, it's just helpful to know at a quick glance from which type of study a conclusion comes.. Also When the majority is in obvious agreement with citation this shouldn't be an issue all, but when a phrase, SOME or A Minorty, or anything that suggests a contention, it's both helpful to the reader in seeing the perspective behind it and helpful to us so as not to have to argue the POV. But really it's not a policy I'm presenting for concensus, it's just a suggestion of a practice I've noticed around biblical topics and will sometimes use myself.. peace. --Homecomputer 22:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal, qualified the biblical scholars, removed the subjective 'most and small minority' and changed the weak 'question' to the more active 'doubt' (all historians are questioning).

Christian biblical studies scholars agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee,
who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on
orders of the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate under the accusation of sedition against the Roman
Empire.[2] Some historians, based on their analysis and dating of the relevant biblical and 
extra-biblical sources, doubt the historical existence of Jesus.[3]

JohnShep 03:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

John, this is a BS suggestion. The scholars are not all Christian, so to identify them as "Christian biblical studies scholars" is to lie. And please tell me how many Biblical historians or Biblical studies scholars (meaning not "Christians" but experts in an academic discipline) claim that Jesus never existed? Can you provide one source, from a peer-reviewed journal article or book published by ana cademic press, or even from a non-Academic press but by some one who has a PhD. in this or an adjunct field, and who teaches in an academic department? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, Slrub is right. --Haldrik 09:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, now I see what this is all about. The language in the second paragraph of the lead was very carefully crafted after a very long discussion. Please notice the references in the footnotes on this paragraph. In short, WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV do not require that an article take no position at all on issues that are debated by some. They require that we represent the majority position, provide citations to reliable sources and represent significant minority views. On this issue, SL is right. We have cited scholars who are Jewish, atheists, agnostic Christians, liberal Christians, conservative Christians, Biblical scholars and secular historians. The remarkable thing is that this wide a group agrees on anything at all. Yet they all agree on all the details in the paragraph. I know. I checked them all. Among these disciplines, there is no debate whatsoever about the existence of Jesus. (a great deal of debate about the details beyond that, however). To date, no one has produced a single historian or Biblical scholar who advocates such. In fact, the minority is so small, that we are not even required to represent it at all. But for the sake of comprimise, we have done so. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 10:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What ??? seriously, you've never read any academic Jesus as Myth writings, I think this is one of the most well known - Michael Martin Ph.D. in philosophy from Harvard Case Against Christianity JohnShep 10:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, John, for proving my point! First, Martin is a philosopher, not a qualified historian of 1st century Roman Palestine nor a qualified scholar of Biblical and Classical/ancient Near Eastern literature. He can write a book about the milky way if he wants, that doesn't make him an astronomer. Moreover, his book is about Christianity, not Jesus. I see no evidence that he has worked with primary sources; his argument seems to be based entirely on secondary sources. This does not hold to my standards for expert academic scholarship on history or literature, where scholars are expected to be able to work with primary sources in their original language, among other things. By the way, I checked, he is not on the faculty of the philosophy department of Harvard, I think he was at BU. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you overread my statement. As SL points out, no one has presented a citation from a historian or Biblical scholar. There are, as our footnote indicates, several academics/scholars who have made this case. If you'll look, Michael Martin is among them. The minority still is quite small and not expert in the historical disciplines. If you take a look at WP:RS, that is the measure of reliability in Wikipedia. So, again, we have perfect justification to remove the small minority view entirely, but I and at least several others believe it is useful to have here, properly described. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, my bad, I personally believe religeon and philosophy are closely related, will you accept Tom_Harpur JohnShep 12:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Religion and philosophy are related, and Martin's book could very appropriately be discussed in the article on Christianity. But the question of whether Jesus existed and how to interpret the recorded accounts of his life is not just a question of interest to religious people or scholars of religion. It is also a question of interest to historians (by which I mean historians who focus on this particular time and place and thus have specialized training). The sentence in question is not about Christianity or religion. It is a summary of what most academic historians specializing in this time and place think about a historical and not theological question. Perhaps there are some people, I imagine most religious fundamentalists, who believe that any discussion of Jesus must necessarily be a religious discussion or a discussion about religion. But for non-fundamentalists, it is not so simple as this. For many of the historians cited, the career of Jesus does illustrate something about a religion - but the religion in question (for many of these historians) is Judaism, not Christianity. Martin's book is about Christianity. It side-steps or discounts or is just unconcerned with all of the serious work done by serious historians to analyze the Gospel accounts outside of post-canonization (or indeed, post-Pauline) Christian contexts. Whish is why, I repeat, discussion of Martin's book on Christianity belongs in the article on Christianity. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

John, I want to thank you for the reference to Martin's book. I pulled our library's copy off the shelf and found the following quote: "Indeed, the historicity of Jesus is not only taken for granted by Christians but is assumed by the vast majority of non-Christians and anti-Christians... famous critics of Christianity such as Russell and Nietzsche evaluated [Jesus'] moral example and teachings. The very idea that Jesus is a myth is seldom entertained, let alone seriously considered." (p. 36)--CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

unfair, unfair, you can't discount my reference and then use him yourself to batter me about the head ;-) JohnShep 12:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: religion and philosophy... yes they are sister disciplines. The subject in this paragraph is neither, though. It is history. The point here is that the two disciplines schooled in the study of history almost universally accept the historicity of Jesus. No more, no less. Do you have a book by Tom Harpur for me to check? --(talk) 12:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

not sure if this link will work [3] JohnShep 12:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, Harpur does not reject the existence of Jesus but rather the Christian view of Jesus. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree (surprised ?), I believe he is re-asserting the early Christ mythology and rejecting later moves to personify the Christ figure as a real/historical person. JohnShep 13:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, that sounds reasonable. But it does not preclude the existence of a man named Jesus who was born to human parents and was crucified for sedition - it just means that "Christ" has nothing to do with that man - a claim I imagine most Christians would reject, but that most non-Christians would find unexceptional. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
As an atheist who's studied religion in college and as a layman, I'll say that the current version of the text is fine. It's not just Christian scholars that support the view put forth in the first sentence. In secular academic circles, these statements are not controversial. Overall, secular scholars debate (for example) whether Jesus intended to get himself crucified, not whether he existed. Are there some scholars who think Jesus didn't exist? Sure. Is the existence of Jesus an open issue in the secular field of history, No. In fact, instead of adding the adjective "Christian" to "Bible scholars," I'd add the adjective "secular" in order to drive home the fact that the rest of the sentence is the consensus of the secular historian community, not a sectarian interprestation. Jonathan Tweet 13:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you.. the terms I was talking about above were just an example not an exhaustive list. It's helpful information as long as it's citable. And again, to everyone else this was just a suggetion, I don't think qualifying every quote with a reference to thier theological views is a good thing. All I am suggestion is that there are some times when it's appropriate and useful. Peace --Homecomputer 16:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations
I just wanted to congratuate Wikipedia for including the views of Jesus from several religious viewpoints (and non-religious ones). I remember this problem several months ago and just want to acknowledge a job well done in strengthening this article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.22.85.43 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 19 October 2006.
Thank you very much! We may still reach FA status yet.--Andrew c 17:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I think we're closer than any previous time. Good job, everyone. —Aiden 05:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
pervert!?
what is this appendage as pervert? "jesus the pervert". is this not a cause to offend? if you have some other meaning, please cite the source and the etymology, otherwise, please take this offensive appendage off the page. thankyou.
Wait, what appendage? Homestarmy 18:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, it was some vandal, he was reverted. Homestarmy 18:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
VANDALISM! Sorry, I don't have a wikipedia account, I just wanted to make sure it was known what massive vandalism is on the top of this page. I didn't know how to fix it.
scholars who doubt the existence of Jesus
I just removed from this sentence the clause relating to their study of biblical and extra-bliblical sources, because it made no sense, because scholars who accept the existence of Jesus also base it on their study of biblical and extra-biblical sources. I think it goes without saying that whatever any scholar believes concerning the object of their scholarly study, it is based on the study of relevant sources. But including this clause in this sentence and not the preceeding one made it look like the latter scholars are somehow better scholars, which is not true. I think that the function of the clause was really to provide a link to historicity of jesus, but that link is again relevant to the whole topic - and I see no problem with providing the link later on. As far as the people who doubt the historicity of Jesus, what is important is the link to the article on the Jesus myth (which I left untouched). Slrubenstein | Talk 10:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The clause is there because, if my memory serves, the passage used to say something like: "because only Christian texts mention Jesus, and these all date to the mid second century...", and it was rephrased so as not to manifest such a biased / contraversial judgements on the texts. I have no problem with your removal of the material. I just thought I would answer your question as to how it got that way in the first place.Lostcaesar 10:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - I believe you are right. Still, I think the explanation was unnecessary and the link to the other article adequate for people who want to know more. I removed it because I trusted no one would consider the removal controversial, so i am reassured that you have no problem with the removal. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
And if we can recall, one of the 'long standing' consensus versions of that sentence had the horrid "citing a lack of extant contemporaneous documents". --Andrew c 14:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Jewish Kabbalah vs logia of Jesus
This discussion moved to Talk:Yeshua and Jewish Kabbalah in a new section of Wiki Yeshua and Jewish Kabbalah

Other early views -- condense
The other early views section (Marcionites, Ebionites, and Gnostics) is longer than its content deserves. I'd like to condense it to a single paragraph with a line or two for each group. Interested readers can read the respective pages. That will give us room elsewhere in the article to include items that are more relevant, such as the much-debated trilemma. Jonathan Tweet 06:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I am a bit torn on this. It is true that current events are possibly of more interest, but gaining an understanding of Christian history remains important. Concise writing is our goal, but not the deletion of information so that other information may be included. Space is not a limitation that should guide decisions, but rather the value and quality of the information included. I would encourage caution. Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that what we need is a concerted effort to work on the actual articles of each of these groups (though I hesitate to call Gnostics a group), as well as other early Christian sects/heterodoxies. Once each of those articles are up to our standards, they can be summarized and linked here, more effectively. I am not an expert in early (pre Council of Jerusalem, pre Council of Nicea?) Christianity but I wish a few people who really know the literature, especially the important secondary sources (Ehrman, Pagels) would get together and do a sustained article improvement drive. That would have a BIG pay-off for all Jesus and Christianity related articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with everything Rubenstein said (except perhaps his choice of sources). Lostcaesar 14:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well,I know ehrman andPagels are well-enough established and respected that their views shouldbe included in the relevant articles. Certainly, I did notmean to suggest theat they are the most important sources, let alon only sources. I hope you, CTSWynekan and others will suggest other notable sources and ensure that these articles represent allmajorPOVs among reputable scholars. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes they (or at least Ehrman) are well enough established and respected that their views should be included. I did not mean to suggest otherwise, I merely meant to reflect that I do not jump at those sources. =) Lostcaesar 17:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Stormrider, history is important, but these groups are not the most important groups in history. This page doesn't cover the developing view of Jesus over nearly 2000 years. It doesn't have a section on medieval controversies. It doesn't need such in-depth coverage of early-Christian groups. Jonathan Tweet 01:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Jon, what one considers "the most important in history" is itself a POV. I certainly can understand why Christians would find these groups less important. But if you deminish their importance, the rise of Christianity in the form it came to take by the fifth century (let alone today) appears natural and inevitable. This is precisely why most professional historians in fact think these groups are very important - by giving us a clearer view of what people were thinking and debating in the second century that is not distorted or misinterpreted through the lense of forms of Judaism and Christianity that became established later, and by giving us a clearer view of how Christianity came to take the form it takes today by looking more clearly at moments when it could have gone in other directions. You do not have to agree with me, what matters is that this is a valid point of view that has to be included. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not claiming to know what's most important in history. I'm just saying what's not most important. That's different. The idea that the early Christian community contained various conflicting views of Jesus is important. That the ebionites think Jesus was a vegetarian is not important. And this section doesn't even mentions Arians. I volunteer to give this section a good trim, add in the Arians, and stick in a lead paragraph. Jonathan Tweet 23:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure I would add Arians, and I agree that the claim that Jesus was or was not a vegitrairan may not be important, but that is very different from what you original said which was that these groups themseves are unimportant. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I would say that the information should not be removed unless it is already contained in the main articles. In other words, I would think moving preferable to removing. I will say that I think the groups are historically relevant to the history of the Church; however, I am not sure if the history of the Church is entirely relevant to this section. These ancient heresies are "views of Jesus", but ancient views that vanished at a historical point. Lostcaesar 11:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
LC, I'm embarrassed to reread my posts and see that I'd never made it clear I'd make sure that this material would be present somewhere, perhaps on the Early Christianity page as well as in the sects' resepctive pages. Jonathan Tweet 14:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I think this section is important because there isn't a spinout article "Early Christian views on Jesus". I don't believe there is enough content to warrant creating one either. And while each sect's article page could be a place to discuss their views on Jesus, I think its important for this article to show the varying views of Jesus that arose withing the first couple decades of Christianity. Maybe it could be more concise, but because this section is sourced and fairly well written, I personally would like to focus more on the section, which I feel, needs the most work, the historical view section. (also, I feel that sections that have spinout articles such as the NT, Christian, Muslim, and Jewish views would be better canidates for being condensed.) I just think we should make sure that the views being expressed are about Jesus, not about their belief system in general. (so by my criteria, the vegetarian bit would be important to include, but the stuff about the demiurge and Sophia is less relevent).--Andrew c 23:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

In substance I agree with Andrew. My point is procedural. I think that it makes more sense to work on individual articles first, and then summarize their main points here, rather than try to work on subsections here and linked articles at the same time, or subsections here and then linked articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
And I completely agree with Rubenstein. When LC was reworking the Christian views section, I suggested working up the main article first (and when it was suggested that more about the last supper be added, I suggested making sure that information was first also included in the NT views article and the Last Supper article). Sorry if my view on procedural matters wasn't clear, we are in agreement.--Andrew c 16:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Please correct the following statement that was made in the article.
In the last paragraph at the begining where it says,... "Most Christians also believe that Jesus performed miracles and fulfilled biblical prophecy.". Please change it to "Christians (also) believe that Jesus performed miracles and that he fulfilled biblical prophecy.". It's not that 'MOST' Christians believe this...you HAVE to believe this and have faith in this to BE a Christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.115.204.194 (talk • contribs)
The doctrinal distinction requiring belief in miracles is held by a majority of Christians, but it is a sectarian distinction that we, as editors of Wikipedia, cannot enter into. We are prevented from doing so by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. As such, Wikipedia cannot take one side or another of this sectarian dispute--we must simply report both sides for readers. Justin Eiler 03:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think there might be something to his point, so long as it is phrased differently. How many people who don't believe that Jesus performed a single miracle of any kind or fulfilled a single Biblical prophecy call themselves Christian? It might be overly cautious, like saying "Most Marxists think that Marx was right about some political theoretical statements." Need we say "most"? Lostcaesar 07:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
It is an empirical question but I tend to agree with Justin. Do all unitarians believe that the miracles happened? In the 19th century weren't there many who defined their Christianity in terms of emmulating Jesus's life rather than their belief in miracles or the resurrection? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
My question is "who", "when", and "how many". Do Unitarians (1) specifically deny that Jesus worked so much as one miracle or that he fulfilled one biblical prophecy, and (2) yet call themselves Christian, and (3) are they a substantial group? If "yes" to all three then the sentence should stay as is, and though I don't know unitarian doctrine, I think it worth asking those question, because it seems strange to me that all three whould be so answered, but maybe. Lostcaesar 10:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
My understanding of Unitarians is they started out as Deists (no miracles, Jesus-centered ethics only), but today encourage personal spiritual journeys, and welcome any tradition from Buddhist monks to Neopagan shamans to serve as ministers. I joke that Unitarians are allowed to believe absolutely anything except Jesus is God. :D --Haldrik 11:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont know if Unitarians are "substantial" but they are definitely historically significant. Kinda like Judaism, small in numbers but big in impact. --Haldrik 11:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No objection, but I am not in a position to answer the questions. May I suggest that you pose the query on the talk pages for Christianity as well as all the major denominations, and see what others can offer you? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
...or we could just take it out and wait for the naysayers, if they exist, to manifest =D Lostcaesar 11:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
[reset indent] We could take a look at someone like Thomas Jefferson. While, there are arguments on whether or not he was a Christian or a Christian deist, it is clear he rejected the miracles of Jesus. If we accept him as at least self-identifying as some form of "Christian", then we have one example of a Christian who denies miracles. On top of that, we have liberal Christianity. Also, there are prominent members of the Jesus Seminar who clearly identify as Christian, but deny actual physical miracles (Marcus Borg for one). For all of this, I would hate for wikipedia to say that you can only be a True Christian if you believe Jesus really walked on water and turned water into wine and multiplied the bread and fish. The current wording works for me. I'm an inclusivist, not an exclusivist. Because of NPOV, I do not feel it is our place to say that someone who is notable and who self-identifies as Christian is simply not a True Christian.--Andrew c 16:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention the Anglican Church, with its Archbishop of Canterbury who openly disputes Jesus's resurrection and so on. --Haldrik 16:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
What I find interesting about this is as follows. I think the original poster objected to the notion that the article says: "most Christians believe X", because it implies that those who don't believe that but still call themselves Christians are indeed "true Christians", and I think it is fair for him to mention this subtle problem. My interest was different, in that I ponder the factuality of the claim, wondering if there were really any groups that self identified as Christian but believed in neither miracles nor biblical fulfillment. The example of Jefferson perhaps doesn't work, but the other examples are better. Though I was under the impression that liberal Christians still believed in this or that miracle or prophetic fulfillment. It raises another question though. When M Borg self identifies as "Christian", I think it is fair to say that the word itself means something totally different, perhaps radically opposite, from what most people mean when they self-identify as such. This kind of difference will always exists, and so long as there is some similarity it is not a problem. But if the word is to mean something (just in a linguistic sense) it cannot mean two contradictory things applied in the same manner. Perhaps at this moment we can sidestep the matter, but I am sure it will arise again, and it wouldn't hurt to at least brainstorm about it. Let me see if I can explain with an example. If a group calls itself "pro-recycling", but recycling means for them "throwing away all trash in land-fills", then how would an article on "pro-recycling" handle this? Would is say "most pro-recyclers don't belief in throwing all trash into land-fills"? Its worth pondering. Lostcaesar 17:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
It would be an interesting conversation; the kind of thing that could go on for a long time. I think this can easily turn into a question of semantics. I assume that someone could say that Jesus did not perform miracles (turning water to wine, etc.), but adamantly followed the teachings of Christ from a secular, socialogical position. I think one would have to call this person a follower, but not a believer. I know this sounds like straining and I believe it is. My fundamental problem is defining at what point does one become a Christian? Someone acknowledges and follows the teachings Jesus Christ, but does not believe in the resurrection; is that a Christian? Someone believes that Jesus the only way to heaven, but does not believe any other doctrine (baptism, value/import of the eucharist, etc.); is that a Christian? How about a person who reads the Bible but does not belong to any church and never prays; is that a Christian.

I am conflicted by verses such as speak of the strait gate and few there be that find it[4] and those that say all shall be saved who believe[5]. I tend to accept people at face value; if I judge, I judge on how well they follow His teachings leaving the judgement of beliefs to God. Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Saying that "most" Christians believe the miracles and prophecies is understating the case. One could say "Most Christians speak Indo-European languages," but the miracles are much more definitive. One could say, "Except for a few controversial exceptions. . ." or "Typically. . ." Here's my proposed edit:
Christian views of Jesus (see Christology) center on the belief in Jesus as the Messiah or Christ promised in the Old Testament and in his resurrection after his crucifixion. Christians typically believe in Jesus as the Son of God sent to provide salvation and reconciliation with God by atoning for the sins of humanity. Trinitarian Christians (the majority) believe that Jesus is God incarnate, while Nontrinitarian Christians profess various other interpretations regarding his divinity. Other common Christian beliefs include his Virgin Birth, miracles, fulfillment of biblical prophecy, ascension into Heaven, and future Second Coming. Jonathan Tweet 02:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
A reader lodged a legitimate complaint. I proposed a correction. No one's objected. Someone stop me if you don't want me to post the above paragraph. Jonathan Tweet 03:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)