Talk:Jesus/Archive 20

Removal

Remove the part about Jesus being a prophet of Islam and Bahai, its stupid to mention that since Bahai and Islam faiths are contradictory to the teachings of JEsus who says that the only way to God is through him. That means you can't mix Christianity with anything else.. I see the mentioning of Bahai and Islam at the top as a form of advertisement for those faiths, its and effort to gain more acceptance from Christians and non-Christians who are easily misled.

Of course people these days mix religions without really understanding the religions at all, as if its like playdough.. Create your own religion from your own hands. Christians would say all other faiths are man-made.. At the very least put the references to Islam and Bahai at the bottom with all the other Christian inspired cults.

Attention!!

Why have Bahai so close to the top, Bahai worshippers would denounce Christ as the only path to God which is what most all Christians believe, and if they don't then can they say they are? Also I don't believe Islam should be mentioned too close to the top. This creates a kind of advertisement for these faiths, and should remain at the bottom just like all the others. If you are going to talk about Christ, talk about Christ, don't try to put advertisements for faiths and denominations at the top.. An Advertisement, adverts people elsewhere, that's what it is.. Secularists tend to want to make everything the same for fear that if there was any dispurportion or bias it would create riots.. Note in the bible Christ says he would bring brother against brother, the purpose for that is that there would be disagreements, you can't make everyone agree.. Christ says his way is the narrow path.. If you go through every prophet, its not narrow is it? Either represent Christ correctly or don't represent him at all!! If you remove this message at least give me your reasons for removing this text, if you have no other reasons and feel it would be upsetting, then why post Christ here if its upsetting, having Christ here on Wikipedia isn't going to release him from existence, he exists whether you want him to or not, he is not just a man, he is God. But you have complete control over what you do until death, after death who does? --Kiernan Holland 1:01, 27 July 2005 (MST)

Catholic view on salvation

Latest comment: 20 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion

Copied from User Talk:JimWae by Jim.

Catholicism does not preach a ‘works’ salvation. They hold that it is necessary to accept grace, merited by the Passion of Christ, to be justified. See catechism. The link you provided showed that this justification is available to all. I ask you to withdraw your revert. The Lutheran-Catholic joint declaration [1] [2] shows that there is little or no difference between these churches on this issue. --ClemMcGann 21:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

And so I have changed it to "just life" as in the link[3], instead of good works. Can you show where the RCs teach ONLY those who accept grace, merited by the Passion of Christ, will be saved? The RCs teach that non-Christians can also be saved. Non-Christians, especially those who heard little or none at all of Jesus, could not be expected to consciously accept Christian grace! The works part remains as the qualification that faith is not sufficient. --JimWae 21:31, 2005 July 18 (UTC)

Jim. Yes, as you say, “The RCs teach that non-Christians can also be saved.” ,by grace. However your edit “Roman Catholics believe that good works are also necessary for salvation” is factually incorrect. Please re-read the catechism link--ClemMcGann 22:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Since the catechism link is to a long page on which the same words appear many times, perrhpas you could provide the relevant point numbers. The link I provided does not mention grace, so secondly, I have to wonder if the catechism is the ONLY official interpretation. Thirdly, how does a non-Xian freely accept Xian grace? (Perhaps that is another mystery, but from further reading, it appears the word "accept" is not needed.) --JimWae 22:25, 2005 July 18 (UTC)--JimWae 22:49, 2005 July 18 (UTC)

Jim. Your edit “Roman Catholics believe that good works are also necessary for salvation” is not true. What is your source? My source is the catechism.

You say “The link I provided does not mention grace” – it does.

Your question “how does a non-Xian freely accept Xian grace?” belongs to a different forum. My interest is history, not theology. However I am remined of a debate between Celtic Christians and delegates from Rome concerning unbaptised deceased infants. When the rest of Chrisendom buried such infants outside consecrated ground in the belief that baptism was necessary for salvation, the Celts didn’t. When confronted with scripture, they replied that “God will find a way” :)--ClemMcGann 23:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, my link does mention grace. I should have extended my remark to say it does not say "accept grace". It says "receive grace" which changes things considerably - without resort to further mystery. Catholics do not believe faith alone (without good action) is sufficient for salvation. I will not look for a source, but let another do so - delete it if you wish.--JimWae 23:29, 2005 July 18 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim - I will ammend and mention sources. I'm wondering if this is too much detail? --ClemMcGann 23:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd change it to

"Roman Catholics and Lutherans believe that even non-Christians who lead a just life can receive the grace of salvation.[4]" (and other links)

receive and accept are quite different requirements, one can receive a gift without even knowing it --JimWae 00:30, 2005 July 19 (UTC)

Apostles Creed

I accept your argument regarding my edit,

The Apostles' Creed, an early statement of Christian belief that is widely used by the major demoninations today, likely dates to the first or second century.

I suppose it is more an early confirmation of the writings and beliefs rather than source material. But where is your assessment that it was 390? I believe it may have been as early as 1st Century. --Noitall 04:42, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

As you likely are aware, the creeds were likely written in response to heresies. It took a while for a hierarchy to emerge that could command other teachings (even Gnosticism) as heresy - and parts seem to be about heresies later than Gnosticism - if it had been in place earlier, there'd have been more clarity of doctrine to preclude such heresies & there'd have been less disagreement over the Holy Ghost, the Trinity, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the virgin birth. It is, I suppose, compatible with pre-Nicene teachings, but...

The 390 year regards a written form and comes from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles_Creed#Origin_of_the_Creed

Early fragments of creeds have been discovered which declare simply:

"I believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord. And in the Holy Spirit, the holy Church, the resurrection of the flesh."

http://www.creeds.net/ancient/apostles.htm

The earliest written version of the creed is perhaps the Interrogatory Creed of Hippolytus (ca. A.D. 215). The current form is first found in the writings of Caesarius of Arles (d 542).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01629a.htm

It's also unclear whether it was a precursor to other creeds, a later simplification for children, or something that grew up alongside the others. The Nicene Creed is too complex for kids or those "just learning". Anyway, dating it - even as "likely" - is probably an inconclusive task. --JimWae 06:00, 2005 July 20 (UTC)

Good analysis. You should put it on the Apostles' Creed page. --Noitall 01:39, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Do Wikipedia standards also apply to Christian/Catholic perspectives in articles concerning Christian subjects?

Latest comment: 20 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Dear Jayik,

Perhaps your editing on 21 July happens to have crossed with mine. Perhaps not. I am very happy for anyone who has something to say about Christian subjects to add this to the Christian perspective, providing always the Christian perspective is being stated first and sufficiently fully and clearly. Moreover that the accounts we derive from the Gospel and the rest of the Bibel are stated first, then the Church's teaching, thereafter modern scholars' hypotheses. Unless, someone wants to put the cart before the horse and discuss hypotheses before knowing what they query.

At present the contributors to this article strenously exclude, and keep on editing out, snippets that may help the non-Christian to get a notion as to why people have died a martyr's death, and joyfully so, for the Christian belief. Did they endure being tortured to death because Jesus is the central figure in Christianity? or because another religion regards him as a great prophet? And just in case the modern source hypotheses scholars got it wrong – and truth does not depend on a head count –, would it not be a more balanced presentation to state first the ancient tradition concerning the apostolic origin of the canonical Gospel accounts? Or is this not a neutral point of view, because it is being maintained by the Catholic Church rather than some other religion?

Wikipedia needs to be watchful that its lofty standards do not get violated even and especially in articles dealing with religious beliefs!

Portress 22:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I have just noticed that my earlier addition to the introductory paragraph has been deleted wherein I mentioned that the correct understanding of the details of the trial and death of Jesus is a hotly debated subject and that their misunderstanding has resulted during the past 2000 years in the shedding of the blood of many who had not been present at the events. Now why should this have been removed? Does anyone want to deny the truth of my assertion? Is it not of the foremost pertinence to the Jewish-Christian dialogue? Have Catholics no right to acknowledge this prominently (cf. Nostra Aetate Section 4 paras 6-7 in Flannery's edition, Vol. I, p. 741)? Who feels offended by this being mentioned? Who considers it irrelevant in the context of the present subject? There is no neutral point of view in religious beliefs, only a balanced presentation; and this terrible issue adds to the balance of this article.

Portress 23:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I know you tried hard with your extensive edit, but, to be frank, much of it was confusing and not clear, is disputed, or just wrong. Perhaps you should try editing in smaller bites focusing on what you are trying to say and then people can argue the merits. Just a suggestion. --Noitall 23:52, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have tried to clarify it? Or perhaps took it to the talk page for clarification? Isn't this normal practice? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

There is also the Christian views of Jesus article - but some of those edits would be disputed there too --JimWae 05:07, 2005 July 22 (UTC)

Dear Noitall, for the benefit of others reading your criticism of my edits in this article as much as for my own benefit, would you kindly state the instances where my own edits were

... "confusing"

... "not clear"

... "disputed" (where I have not acknowledged this)

... "just wrong".

If not, would I be in order to assume that you have withdrawn your above made accusations?

Dear JimWae, which of my edits would also be disputed in the "Christian view of Jesus" article that I have not already acknowledged as being disputed? (That is to say, I assume that you do not mean to suggest that it is disputed whether the literal text of Scripture and Roman Catholic teaching may be mentioned in articles on Christian subjects!) By the way, having seen that the views on Jesus of Nazareth of some non-Christian religions are listed in this present article, it had not occurred to me that a separate "Christian view of Jesus" article exists; and its existence scandalises me. Apart from this grievance, since there is already a religious viewpoint section, in how many places is one supposed to read about the same topic, and in how many places are contributors supposed to make the same point, moreover, in how many places are they supposed to watch out for mistakes and other problems that may be introduced by subsequent edits of others?

Portress 08:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Wish I could help you, but I have no idea how many articles have Jesus in the title - as far as I know there are articles with titles only slightly variant from Jewish view of Jesus & Religious perspectives on Jesus & New Testament view of Jesus & New Testament views of Jesus & Jesus according to the New Testament & Christian perspectives of Jesus &Mormon view of Jesus. Everybody wants to have an article with their version of the truth in it. Try this: List of Jesus-related articles Branch articles are created when a section gets too long --JimWae 09:02, 2005 July 22 (UTC)

Disputed edits

Latest comment: 20 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I have added some stuff back to the lead section that I feel is neutral, and also helpful.

With regards to the paragraph:

"The historicity, teachings and nature of Jesus are subject to debate. The earliest New Testament texts which refer to him, Paul's letters, are usually dated from the mid-1st century. Paul himself had seen Jesus only in visions; but he claims that the good news that he delivered to his churches was authoritative all the same, because he had received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ (cf. Gal 1:12). As regards the four canonical Gospel accounts, their historicity depends on their apostolic origin. This the Catholic Church has always maintained, and continues to maintain, namely that "the apostles preached, as Christ had charged them to do, and then, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they and apostolic men handed on to us in writing the same message they had preached, the foundation of our faith: the fourfold Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (cf. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III.11.8; Vatican II, Dei Verbum 18). However, most modern Christian scholars hold that the works describing Jesus (primarily the Gospel accounts) were communicated by oral tradition and were not committed to writing until later that century, hence that the historical reliability of those works – and even more so, of works of Christian apologists and Church historians which post-date the 1st century – is disputable. As a result, while many historians and scholars have either assumed or concluded that Jesus probably lived, many have questioned this; and some have found the issue undecidable by historical means alone."

I feel that this would do better in the main article, and not the lead section.

I have restored quite a few edits removed. A lot of them were very reasonable. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Further:

I have replaced:

"No one was a witness to the resurrection, though the women who went to anoint the body found the tomb empty, and the Synoptic gospels further state that an angel was waiting at the tomb to explain that Jesus had been resurrected; Mark further claims that Mary Magdalene saw Jesus himself later that morning. The Gospel of John makes no mention of an angel, but states that after Mary returned to the gravesite, the risen Jesus appeared to her. After the resurrection, the First Epistle to the Corinthians, the Gospels, and the book of Acts give accounts of Jesus meeting various people in various places over a period of forty days before "ascending into heaven". I Corinthians, which was written before the Gospels or Acts, mentions visits to Iakobos ("James") - presumably the brother of Jesus - and to 500 brethren. Neither one is mentioned in the later accounts. This suggests that the number of post-resurrection visits decreased, rather than increased, as time went by, in the written accounts. This diminution was due probably to ideological and cultural problems. For example, I Corinthians fails to mention any of the appearances to women that are so prominent in the Gospels. This may be due to prejudice (on the part of Paul, or of his source) against accepting women as reliable witnesses. The disappearance of the account of the visit to James may probably be due to censorship because of conflict between the Ebionites (Jewish followers of Jesus, led by Jacob/James) and Gentile Christians."

with

"No one was a witness to the event of the resurrection. However, the women who had witnessed the emtombment and the closure of the tomb with a great stone, found it empty, when they arrived on the third day to anoint the body. The Synoptic Gospel accounts further state that an angel was waiting at the tomb to explain to them that Jesus had been resurrected, though the Gospel according to John makes no mention of this encounter. The sight of same angel had apparently left the guards unconscious (cf. Mt 28:2-4) that with Pilate's permission the high priests and Pharisees had posted in front of the tomb to prevent the body from being stolen by Jesus' disciples (Mt 27:62-66). Mk 16:9 says that Mary Magdalene was the first to whom Jesus appeared very early that morning. Jn 20:11-18 states that when Mary looked into the tomb, two angels asked her why she was crying; and as she turned round she initially failed to recognise Jesus until he called her by her name. The Gospel accounts and the Acts of Apostles tell of several appearances of Jesus to various people in various places over a period of forty days before he "ascended into heaven". Just hours after his Resurrection he appeared to two travellers on the Road to Emmaus. To his assembled disciples he showed himself on the evening after his resurrection, when Thomas was however absent, though he was present when Jesus repeated his visit to them a week later. Thereafter he went to Galilee and showed himself to several of his disciples by the Lake and on the mountain; and they were present when he returned to Bethany and was lifted up and a cloud concealed him from their sight."

You tell me which is more neutral! The first has unsourced speculation and statements. The second has sourced and more neutral writing. It doesn't speculate, it only mentions what was said in the Gospel accounts. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Much better. Fire Star 06:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Dear Ta bu shi da yu and Fire Star, as the article stands (including my own edits) it seems to me that it still requires some constructive unbiased input; but thank you for joining in the pursuit of a more balanced presentation! If all contributors to this article chip in in this same spirit, I do not see why together we cannot achieve an adequately informative article that accurately states the essential points of every denomination, religion and entity that claims to have a vested interest in this subject.

Portress 10:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

By all means, I would love it if you continued editing! Just don't forget to cite your sources and present the information neutrally — remembering that if information is disputed that we cover that dispute in some fashion. Please, let me encourage you to continue being bold! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Dear Ta bu shi da yu, my earlier optimism concerning this article may well turn out to have been naïve. The editorial principles dominant this morning make no allowance for the fact that the subject is intrinsically connected with CHRISTIAN belief and Christian BELIEF. Even in a summary this has to be a guiding principle. And what so obviously – right in the opening para – shows up the present editorial bias is that, whilst Christianity is only permitted a statement from the perspective of its critics ("its Messiah and God" – which in this form is wrong and misguiding concerning the belief of Christians themselves), in the very next sentence other religions are quoted with their belief from their own perspective ("a major prophet" - which is not what Christians believe of Christ Jesus, for whom he is the last of the Prophets). – Otherwise, this morning the article seems to me to settle dogmatically some issues that are subject to an ongoing scholarly debate (although, admittedly, there are those who may not number among scholars those standing up for the traditional position of the Fathers and the Church, and who therefore perhaps want to say that there is no debate). Pilate's handing over of Jesus to be crucified is a case in point. To infer "(to the Roman soldiers)" from Mt 27:26 – || Mk 15:15 – || Lk 23:25 "to their will" || Jn 19:16a "to them", as an editor has just done, would require some careful arguing that is however lacking (quite apart from the question what nationality of soldiers the Centurion Mt 27:54 || Mk 15:39 || Lk 23:47 was commanding, most probabily auxiliaries, recruited in the Levant). Jewish-Christian relations, which presumably were on the mind of said recent editor, can only progress in the right direction, if there is a desire to find the truth, not to make it up.

I do not have the time to keep on watching out whether my edits concerning some traditional aspects of the Christian Faith fall victim to someone's bias.

Silence on my part concerning any aspect of articles that I have visited therefore may not be interpreted as concurrence with the presentation at any stage.

Thanks again for your earlier help, not forgotten.

Portress 05:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Question to JimWae about edit summary

Latest comment: 20 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hello, Mr. Wae,

I see your edit summary about an edit of mine, and I have a question. (You actually reverted, and maybe should include "rv" or "revert" in the comments, as I noticed you reversed my spelling correction.)

I make reference to your comments here: Revision as of 07:12, 23 July 2005 JimWae (Talk | contribs) Off topic here - already dealt with in Christianity section of this article - and what's there is a bit different from the view removed

1 - First, regarding your comment, "Off topic here", I understand your first concern to be that you think I placed my clarification in the wrong section. At the time of my edit, this seemed an appropriate section, because these quotations of Jesus were His teachings, however, I think you may have a good point. These views would also be Christian beliefs also. Before you would edit and reverse my edits, please review my three points.

2 - Next, you state that my clarification was "already dealt with in Christianity section of this article." You seem to be correct, but I felt that this clarification seemed necessary to highlight a distinction in the "faith vs works" in their Christian beliefs. I still feel that way, and I hope you consider this in your review of my more recent edit.

3 - My main question revolves around your comments above that "and what's there is a bit different from the view removed." This would seem to imply either one of two things.

I think you mean that my comments that you removed differ or contradict the views held or claimed. If that is so, please help me understand this point. I think I was correct in my interpretation of the Christian beliefs, and I cited some sources in their scriptures.
The less likely meaning of your comment would be that another editor placed comments on a prior occasion, and they were removed. You don't refer to a previous editor's edit do you?

Thank you in advance. I do not have time for protracted "edit discussion" or "edit wars." I am hoping to add clarification on points that are not easily intuitive or understood and would hope that you would concur to provide this useful information to the readers on the subtle shades and points of the beliefs systems. If I have erred, please make clarifications or corrections, but please include as much useful information as is possible. ~ For example, if you think that the view I stated is not held by all Christians, please make distinctions and clarifications on which Christians do not hold these beliefs, and change the article to reflect the current information.

I hope I was helpful to your page.--GordonWattsDotCom 08:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I have made some more edits - what you included was basically the "Protestant" position, so I put it with the sentences that discussed that. There are differing Christian views on this that need to be noted. I also commented that miracles are out of place in that paragraph, that who "expects" is left hanging, and I questioned who needs good works as "evidence". Btw, nobody owns any page - but wikipedia. Btw2, be aware that British spelling is not incorrect, though article is not consistent yet --JimWae 18:31, 2005 July 23 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and assistance, Jim. I think that the final result is improved, even though I couldn't find a spot for all the elements. While I am not an expert on the Catholic views, I will trust your distinction here. As far as "good works are expected," that is probably easily understood that God, who is the alleged author of the scriptures, expect us to have good works, but that is a good point. Probably, it could also mean that other Christians expect good works, and that would not be untrue. This is passive voice, but as opposed to active ("God expects..."), but still probably OK. ~ Oh, when I said in reference to hoping to help "your page," yes, I should have known. You're right, but I was just being informal and colloquial, or even careless: This is Wikipedia's page for all of us. Oh, one more thing that I notice: Yes, I "recogniSed" (vs "recogniZed") many British spellings (joke, ha ha), and did not purposely change them to American English. (Both are correct.) The few spelling corrections that I did (particularly "centred") may actually be British, but I am not sure so I changed them. I'm American, but I don't have any problems with using British spellings if the article can use both or is not specifically related to one English-speaking country. It seems that the article is acceptable and in capable hands, and I thank you all for your attention.--GordonWattsDotCom 00:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Gospel of Thomas

Re:

The somewhat controversial non-canonical Gospel of Thomas also provides source material for much speculation about the possible early teachings of Jesus. This is the only relatively well preserved non-cononical Gospel believed to quite possibly predate the canonical Gospels themselves.

you need to provide some background here why this gospel should be mentioned prominently (even MML&J are not) in the lead and not just expanded in the history section. The lead should not be where the fullest development of a topic exists.
"believed" by whom?
"believed to quite possibly" says virtually nothing.
"material for much speculation about the possible" says virtually nothing - that DaVinci code or my fingernail could also be as much
--JimWae 20:06, 2005 July 23 (UTC)

Matthew Mark Luke and John are mentioned as 'the four canonical Gospels' in the lead. Approximately 30% of the lead is discussing the contents of the four canonical Gospels. I cannot see why two sentences discussing what our own G of T article describes as a near even split on whether or not it is believed to predate the canonical Gospels, are not called for. The topic of the Gospel of Thomas is not fully developed in two sentences, but an entire well developed article does exist that develops it quite well. The phrase 'quite possibly' was used to summarize this near even split. Please tell me why the only document that is reasonably believed by an even split of scholars to most likely predate the canonical Gospels, and which contains some very significant teachings that if genuine are highly illuminative of the actual teachings of Jesus, should not be mentioned in the lead.

Scott P. 20:24, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I will explain again more

your additions are very weak sentences, filled with so much qualification that they say very little at all in the end -- except that GoT exists
MML&J are not named nor singled out
just about anything can be a "source for much speculation about the possible" ...(anything)
within this article, your fullest development of GoT is in the lead - then part of the lead is repeated later - that is not the function of a lead.
The lead is discussing Jesus & whatever we know or is believed about him. We "know" very little about Jesus from the GoT - (only partly because it is read by few) - but likely we would "know" little more anyway - though we might have a few more things to speculate about. It adds to speculation, but does not improve what we "know" about him.
The GoT will not lkely ever become a primary source
your addition would work better in the historicity section - IF it were fixed up. The lead is not the place to contain the largest part of an argument supporting a new source. The lead is about Jesus.
--JimWae 20:48, 2005 July 23 (UTC)

Trying to describe G of T in two intro sentences....

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I tried to get the two sentences to say exactly what they mean, perhaps it could be done in a better way. Here is what I tried to say in these two sentences:

(sentence 1) The somewhat controversial non-canonical Gospel of Thomas also provides source material for much speculation about the possible early teachings of Jesus.

If the G of T is dated as many believe, then much work needs to be done to revise popular teachings about what Jesus taught, so that it might be harmonious with these teachings. Thus, I use the phrase ‘much speculation’ as an attempt to summarize this 'much work' that may need to be done.

(sentence 2) This is the only relatively well preserved non-cononical Gospel believed to quite possibly predate the canonical Gospels themselves.

This tries to say exactly what it says. Any suggestions to say this in a more succinct way would be appreciated. The phrase here, ‘quite possibly’ is the best way I could think of to summarize the 'near even split' on the G of T's dating into two words. Again any suggestions for how to be more succinct would be appreciated.

(you wrote) The lead is discussing Jesus & whatever we know about him. We "know" very little about Jesus from the GoT - (only partly because it is read by few) - but likely we would "know" little more anyway - though we might have a few more things to speculate about. It adds to speculation, but does not improve what we "know" about him.

We can only speculate in any event. Given two documents, if one predates the other, the earlier one, in so far as I can see, whether or not it was canonized by an emperor directing some bishops 300 years later, is probably the one with the most pertinent historical information in it.

(you wrote) The G of T will not likely ever become a primary source.

Popularity usually has little or nothing to do with historical accuracy. Even in religious questions. I know that it may be a bit uncomfortable to some Biblical scholars to think that they might have to go back to some basics all over again in order to find out what our best guess is about what really happened, but if that is what must be done, that is what must be done.

Thanks,

Scott P. 21:15, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Less is more

You do not have to say it all in the lead. I had introduced the topic in the lead (which you deleted). I have tried again - but doubt other editors will let specific mention of Thomas stand in lead, but if "the dozen" stays, you have an opening to discuss it in the main body -- Actually you do not even need that in the lead to discuss it in main article--JimWae 21:23, 2005 July 23 (UTC)

Thanks,

Scott P. 21:39, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

While looking at talk and the article about my own concerns, I could not help but notice the debate about the G of T. (I paged through the successive edits on talk and in the article and saw all the diffs.) I am glad you all got resolution on this. Since I am not an expert on the G of T, I would suggest that if any one has concerns over its emphasis (how important is it as a "non-Canonical book?), then you could find some sources the verify any claims. Of course, if there is a debate, I hope y'all are able to provide the various points of view with sources. Well, that was bland and dull advice, but I hope it is helpful. In the end, recalling how I was satisfied that some elements of my edit are in the article, even if not in the intro, my own acceptance of the edits should be a good example or role model for how to deal with questions about edits. What a coincidence, since that was the subject of my edit itself. Well, I'm out of words, but I hope y'all the best. Take care,--GordonWattsDotCom 00:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Historical Reliability

Latest comment: 20 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the opening section, it is stated that most scholars believe two things

That the early NT writings date from the mid-1st century
That these writings are therefore of disputable reliability.

In contrast, I maintain the following:

There is no real dispute that the early NT writings date from the mid-1st century
That only a few (or some) scholars say that these writings are therefore of disputable reliability. For ref; see www.probe.org/content/view/678/77 especially the comment that "Historians agree it takes about two generations, or eighty years, for legendary accounts to establish themselves." RossNixon 11:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

This opens a whole other set of concerns. First of all, di the authors of the Gospels have the same understanding of "historical reliability" that we do? If so, no problem -- but if not, if they applied other criteria to determine the "truthfulness" of a text, then the fact that the atuhors of the Gospels claimed that they were truthful does not mean that by our own criteria they are historically accurate. In your quote above, you suggest historians distinguish between "legendary accounts" and soemthing else (historical accounts?) But what if people back then did not make this distinction? Or if instead of distinguishing between legendary accounts and historical accounts, they further distinguished between five other kinds of accounts we don't even recognize? All I am saying is that understaning what the Gospel authors thought about their own writings may not be at all obvious. For example, some people may have sincerely believed that they had an encounter with Jesus after he was crucified, and that this is proof of his resurrection. The claim "the author of the text believed this" may be accurate. But that doesn't mean that the what the author believed happened is an accurate account of what happened. Second, what are you referring to as "these writings?" Most scholars mnay agree that the Gospels were originally written down by the second century. But do we actually have these original texts? If we rely on later manuscripts, how do we know that they accurately represent the original texts? Bart Ehrman, in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, has observed a number of places in the Gospels where, for ideological reasons or by accident, it is likely that the process of transcription led to various changes between the original text and what we had in the 5th century, or today. Let's say that the original writings were accurate. Okay, but we do not have those writings on our possession. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Portress' extensive additions to lead

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The lead is not the place to make the most extensive explication of a point. The lead is to introduce points that will be discussed more fully later. Your extensive additions need to find a place in the historicity section.
You also use the term "handed down to us" - that is not writing for a universal audience, First person rarely, if ever, is appropriate within an article --JimWae 04:24, 2005 July 26 (UTC)

Strongly agree - I think few, if any, of the recent additions have been neutral and encyclopedic. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Paredōken - to whom was Jesus handed over?

from Matthew

27:26 Then he released Barabbas for them. But after he had Jesus flogged,35 he handed him over36 to be crucified.37 27:27 Then the governor’s soldiers took Jesus into the governor’s residence38 and gathered the whole cohort39 around him. 27:28 They40 stripped him and put a scarlet robe41 around him, 27:29 and after braiding42 a crown of thorns,43 they put it on his head. They44 put a staff45 in his right hand, and kneeling down before him, they mocked him:46 “Hail, king of the Jews!”47 27:30 They48 spat on him and took the staff49 and struck him repeatedly50 on the head. 27:31 When51 they had mocked him, they stripped him of the robe and put his own clothes back on him. Then52 they led him away to crucify him.

My translation has a note for he handed him over36, noting it can also be translated "delivered him up"

It was suggested there was no textual support for saying Jesus was handed over to the Roman "execution squad". Looking not only at the reality of politics of the day but also at the text, there is plenty of support for that claim - and it contines on & on in Matthew

--JimWae 04:38, 2005 July 26 (UTC)

You should read this book: Crossan, John Dominic. Who Killed Jesus?: Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus. The "reality of politics of the day" was that the Romans appointed the King of the Jews, if they wanted a Jewish King at all (they didn't after Herod) and anyone claiming or not denying the title was guilty of sedition, anyone teaching about the "Jewish Messianic Age" was guilty of sedition, anyone disturbing Herod's Temple (which was used by the Romans as part of their apparatus of occupation) was guilty of sedition. The penalty for sedition was death, generally by crucifixion, to serve as an example to others who might wish to oppose the Roman Empire.

Matthew & Mark make it very clear the Romans did the crucifying. Luke & John use more passive voice & non-referential pronouns. I think it likely when/if the crowd called for Barabbas, they were calling for the "son of the father" --but I do not think there was snowball's chance Pilate would free a any seditionist at all. --JimWae 08:04, 2005 July 26 (UTC)

Later Christianity cleared the Romans and blamed the Jews for killing God - see Antisemitism#Anti-Judaism_in_the_New_Testament and Antisemitism#Early_Christianity.

Footnote

Latest comment: 20 years ago23 comments5 people in discussion

The recently added footnote is way too detailed - imagine how it would be if we added a paragraph on every scholar who has an opinion about Jesus. Shall we move this to the article about the quoted scholar? DJ Clayworth 19:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

To the person who put he footnote back - please read what I say and explain why you think I am wrong. A few points: 1) There is a lot to say about Jesus. We are barely skimming the surface. To have a whole paragraph from one scholar, not even a particularly major one, is unbalenced. 2) The view that Jesus was a Pharisee is a minority one. Given again the number of people with an interest in this subject, any view not subscribed to by at least a few hundred million people is probably better left until later in the article. I'm not saying it shouldn't go in the article, but the intro is reserved for the briefest overview. DJ Clayworth 22:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

E. P. Sanders is not just another scholar and his opinion is not a minority opinion. The view that Jesus was a Pharisee is not a minority one and is very important to understanding Jesus as recorded. If you feel it is so important to block the mention of Jesus being a Pharisee, why don't you add another paragraph later explaining your view, WITH REFERENCES!

It is a minor opinion that I have never heard of it. Considering the number of debates I have had daily with Christians, Jews and Aiethiests on the nature of Jesus, you think I would've heard it by now. You can't refrnce a negative statement like this. You simply note that the lack of evidence is circumstance suggesting the lack of public knowledge.--Tznkai 22:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

If you don't know who E. P. Sanders is, you should not be contributing to this article. Follow the link to E. P. Sanders, read his books, learn. If there is a lack of evidence for the claim that Jesus was not a Pharisee, as you seem to claim above, then it is original research and should not be in the article, see Wikipedia:No original research

Ye gods, theres a misapplication of a policy if I've seen one. I don't have exact quotes, but I can say with a fair amount of certainty that the catholic church would have considerable objection to the notion that Jesus was a Pharisee, and thats just for starters. This is a minority position, of questionable notability outside of scholarly circles. I have yet to see proof that this is a widely held notion even there.

As for your notion that certain people should not be contributing, I suggest you take a good look at the five pillars of wikipedia. You might learn something about the community spirit we try to foster.--Tznkai 22:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Please provide a reference to the modern (post Antisemitism apology) Catholic Church objection to Jesus being labeled a Pharisee. Also, any references from modern Catholic scholars, such as Raymond E. Brown.

It certainly is a "minority opinion" - which is not the same thing as saying that it is a "minor opinion" (or not worth consideration). Compare to "The New Perspective on Jesus", by James DG Dunn; and "The New Perspective on Paul", by N.T. Wright. A minority consensus has been forming among such scholars, that the antithesis between Jesus and the Pharisees has been exaggerated - and that, if a school of Judaism were to be chosen which most nearly approximated the teachings of Jesus, the Pharisees are very near to Jesus' teaching on many issues - so much so that, Jesus could be called a Pharisee, if he must be put in a branch of Judaism (which I believe would be a mistake). Mkmcconn (Talk) 22:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how important it is to note that opinion. We get into the trap of how notable whos perspective is without bloating the article. That I am iwlling to discuss. I am very skeptical however, that this is notable enough to include in the lead.--Tznkai 22:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Another, more direct, reference: Jesus the Pharisee by Hyam Maccoby ISBN 0334029147. The notion that Jesus was not a Pharisee tells a great deal about the believers of that notion. See also: Crossan, John Dominic. Who Killed Jesus?: Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus.

Rather, what "tells a great deal" about believers in a notion, is when they cast extreme accusations against conclusions, regardless of whether they are drawn for causes entirely separate from the charged fault. There are many reasons not to place Jesus among the Pharisee party, and it is quackery, conspiracy theory and sensationalism that would discount those reasons in favor of the theory that the real roots of the contrary opinion are in anti-semitism. Somebody is selling something. Mkmcconn (Talk) \

Please sign your notes in talk. Mkmcconn (Talk) 23:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

It is beyond thought that Jesus would be considered a Pharisee; the label is a slur to those who seek the Spirit. They were doctors of the law, but did not understand the law. I don't believe Christ ever referred to them in a kindly light.

T's point is that it does not belong in the lead and not that it does not belong. If you are committed to it, put it lower in the article. I agree with T. Storm Rider 23:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I think we're gaining consensus that This is a strong claim that requires a great deal of support, especially to suggest it is a major uncontested position except by antisemites.--Tznkai 00:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

And besides, the use to which the quote was put was an exaggeration. At least in that quote, Sanders did not say that Jesus was a Pharisee; only that, he did not preach against the law. In other words, he was a Jew ("born of a woman, born under the law"). But the editor cited Sanders as claiming that Jesus was a Pharisee - quite a different thing. Mkmcconn (Talk) 00:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

from http://www.duke.edu/religion/home/EP/sanders.html

"E.P. SANDERS (1990) received his Th.d. from Union Seminary (NY) 1966. In 1990, he was awarded a D. Litt. by the University of Oxford and D.Theol. by the University of Helsinki. He is a Fellow of the British Academy. The author, co-author or editor of thirteen books, as well as articles in encyclopedias and journals, he has received several awards and prizes, including the Grawemeyer Prize for the best book on religion published in the 1980s (Jesus and Judaism). His work has been translated into nine different languages. He came to Duke from Oxford, where he was from 1984-1990 the Dean Ireland's Professor of Exegesis and also fellow of the Queen's College."

from http://www.duke.edu/religion/home/EP/Intel%20autobiog%20rev.pdf

"To put the main arguments of the book briefly: Jesus was a prophet of the restoration of Israel, who began as a follower of an eschatological prophet (John the Baptist), and whose ministry resulted in an eschatological Jewish movement (early Christianity, especially as seen in Paul’s letters). He pointed to restoration in word and deed, proclaiming the kingdom as soon to arrive and indicating the restoration of Israel especially by calling the Twelve. He made dramatic symbolic gestures pointing to this hope. One of them, overthrowing tables in the temple court, led Caiaphas to the view that he might start a riot. The requirements of the Roman system resulted in his execution. His followers continued his movement, expecting him to return to re-establish Israel. This naturally led to their incorporation of the prophetic hope that in the last days the Gentiles would turn to worship the God of Israel."

E.P Sanders may be a brilliant and well-respected scholar; I don't dispute that. But in this field I can name a hundred people who are equally brilliant and well-respected. Should all of them have a paragraph in this article explaining their views? It would make the article unbalenced. As is said above, a point of view has to be exceptionally widely held to belong in the opening paragraph, and this doesn't make it. Absolutely no objection to it being mentioned later in the article. (But please don't bring the quote back. I copied it to E.P. Sanders page. DJ Clayworth 13:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I never knew that he subscribed to the kooky idea that Jesus was a follower of John the Baptist, though. That's just nutty. Mkmcconn (Talk) 15:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Kooky? Nutty? They were blood relatives, John the Baptist baptized Jesus and Jesus then went into the wilderness as part of the initiation process which was related to if not actually the process of being a Nazirite. John and James the Just were probably Nazarites, Jesus was known as "The Nazarene". The Nazirites exceeded the Pharisees, see Matthew 5:17-20, part of the Sermon on the Mount, the actual teachings of Jesus, for what that means. Christians have to decide whether they are followers of the religion of Jesus or just one of the many religions about Jesus. If you are a follower of the religion of Jesus - the question is what was the religion of Jesus? See Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5-7, for details.

Yes. It's a perfect example of how people prefer to read past what is written, pretending to know what is happening in the background, so that what is obvious suddenly seems less important than some hidden message. To say that Jesus was a follower of John the Baptist is quackery. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

There certainly are other important critical Bible scholars, but I can't agree with DJ Clayworth's claim that there are a 100 just like him. He is among the five or six most frequently cited, well-respected historians of Jesus. As such his views should be prominent (but by no means exclusive!) in any article or section on "the historical Jesus." As long as we make the distinction between the historical Jesus and the Christian Jesus clear, Tznkai's comments are just irrelevant. Of course Catholics, Protestants, and other groups of Christians will have their own accounts of Jesus's life. And if a person spends most of his time discussing Jesus with people whose knowledge of Jesus is mediated through their relation, there is no reason to think s/he'd ever hear anything about Sanders (or Vermes, Fredriksen, Meier, Ehrman, maybe Crossan and a few other top-ranked criticle Bible scholars). That does not mean that Sanders is not important nor that his views are not widely shared. They are widely shared (or at least, some of his views are) by most critical Bible scholars. Discussion of their views should be in a section "the historical Jesus" and a detailed discussion of their views should be in a separate article. It would be ideal to have all points of view equally represented in this article, but we won't have the space for it. But we definitely have to acknowledge some of the major views of critical scholars. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I was wrong about a hundred, but even if it's twenty its too many to give them a paragraph each in this article. Myself I wonder why Sanders says "I am one of a growing number of scholars [who believe that Jesus was a Pharisee]". I usually associate that language with people who are still in a minority but hope to be in a majority one day. If he was in the majority he would probably say so.

Just to be clear, in an article (or a section) on the Historical Jesus I'd be much more inclined to give this view prominence. And I have no trouble with it appearing further down the article. DJ Clayworth 18:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

My comment on the Catholic Church was to point out with an obvious example the huge amount of mainstream opinion against this interpretation of sander's view. Now, I am not saying that bible scholar's opinions are not notable, but they do not belong in the lead, nor deserve to be portrayed as mainstream opinion, or indisputed fact. They should be described as prominent, notable scholarly views.--Tznkai 16:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to check our NPOV policy. No one view should dominate. Look at it this way: only about a third of the world's population is Christian. That means that two-thirds of the world's population either believe Jesus never existed, or believe that he existed but was not a god. Now, of this 66% of the world's population, I can't say how many know of Sanders' works — I conceded that it is probably a small number. But whether they know his name or not they are more likely to share his views than those of Christians. I will further concede to you that Sanders (and Vermes and Fredriksen and Meier and others) views should not be presented as "mainstream opinion." But I would then have to insist that there is no "mainstram opinion" or whatever you believe is "mainstream opinion" should not be expressed in this article. There are simply different points of view — the scholarly (we'd have to add "critical" so as to distinguish them from Catholic or Protestant scholars who work within the framework of their theology) view, the Roman Catholic view, and so on. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Breath Slrubenstein. Take a look at my edits and my other comments on this page. I've never suggested that the Catholic view should dominate. I'm not even Catholic myself. My point was our representation of notable, and neutral tends to make concesions towards the mainstream and away from the fringe opinion. We respresent more of the mainstream, and less of the fringe. More of the notable, less of the less notable. My contention was only that Sander's view was not a consensus held view either in the world or in Wikipedia. My understanding of the mainstream opinion is that there was a man named Jesus, born a jew, somewhere in the vicinity of Jeruslem, who ran around preaching something having to do with love, and got nailed to a couple of sticks and hung like a painting for a while. He may or may not have been divine, was probably a nice guy, and is an infleuential person in history, possibly the most. You have a problem with that? --Tznkai 18:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, Tznkai. I appreciate your clearing up your position which is not very distant from my own. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 21:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Why doesn't this article present different views of Jesus, rather than attempting to present a lowest common denominator kindergarten sunday school view that no one finds offensive? Jesus as some Jewish guy, but not too Jewish, more like a Nordic sun god, who taught about love and hung out with the Greatful Dead in Haight-Ashbury? There is no "mainstream" view of Jesus - he was and continues to be a controversial figure. If this article was faithful to wikipedia it would present Augustine's Jesus, Luther's Jesus, Calvin's Jesus, the Evangelical Jesus, the Roman Catholic Jesus, the Orthodox Jesus, the born-again Jesus, Jefferson's Jesus, Schweitzer's Jesus, the Jesus' of modern scholars, the Jesus of the Jesus seminar, the Jesus of the recent PBS series ...

Because the article would get too long (technically, too long for many servers). Thus, the bulk of what you suggest should be in linked pages. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

It does. The more notable something is, the more it remains in the main article. The less notable, the more it gets spun off into other pages.--Tznkai 17:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but whether highly notable or less notable, this article (the main one) at least has to mention it, if not provide a brief summary, and provide a link to the larger, dedicated article. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, so long as it passes the bare minimum notablitly requiremenets we have for everything.--Tznkai 18:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Roland Walleij painting

Latest comment: 20 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

--I'm pretty sure that's Lil Kim and NOT Walleij's Jesus.

I can't help feeling that the Walleij painting would be practically unknown (and in my opinion, deservedly unknown) if it weren't for Wikipedia displaying it on this page. Personally, I dislike it intensely; so, it may be that my personal taste is getting in the way of a sound opinion. If a non-traditional pictoral representation of Jesus is sought, Rembrandt van Rijn's "Head of Christ" is much more familiar. Am I alone in this? Mkmcconn (Talk) 19:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

You are not alone, but it is what it is; art. It is certainly not a common interpretation. The article includes several other pictures; but I am surprised not to see the crucified Christ and Christ risen. Storm Rider 19:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)</nowiki>

I agree with Mkmcconn. As we don't appear to have an article for Roland Walleij (as of 09:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)) and the image was uploaded by one User:Linus Walleij I think we could probably delete it as vanity. Like you say there are better known (and better!) non-traditional representations. Does anyone object to this image being removed? --G Rutter 09:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Someone who can read German [5] slum around there please. Otherwise, it seems to have no notability, which is too bad, since I like the picture a great deal.--Tznkai 16:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's Swedish (it's a Swedish coded website- .se and it's certainly not German). The Swedish wikipedia (and the Norwegian and German ones!) doesn't have an article on him either, so I don't think he can be classified as particulary notable.

Mkmcconn- is there a copyright-free version of the "Head of Christ" or are there any similar images we can use? I actually quite like Walleij's picture, but I think we probably need to use a more notable non-tradition image. --G Rutter 17:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

G Rutter, I don't work a lot with images, so I don't know whether any of those that are on the web might qualify as "fair use" or "copyright-free" - such as this, for example?. I do like the Rembrandt, as a version that's open to varieties of interpretation, and for that reason possibly more appropriate than either, the Walleij or the Rouault (my taste and interpretation favors the Rouault, however). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Rouault replacement

The article, Georges Rouault, has an image that I would prefer over the Walleij. If there's no objection, I'm using that. If there is objection while the page is still protected, let me know and I'll revert it to bring the issue back under discussion. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I like the old one better personally, but this one is more notable, so I have no prolem with it.--Tznkai 18:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy with the Rouault. Mark, the website with the Rembrandt had a copyright notice on the front page and especially as they want to sell posters, I don't suppose they'd be very happy about us using their photo! (I tend to assume that unless they actually say we can use the images we can't, but I'm probably being too cautious). Whilst we're on the subject of images- has anyone got any non-Western images of Jesus we can use? --G Rutter 10:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposed change to Section 9: Interpretations of Jesus

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Add Emmet Fox The Sermon on the Mount: The Key to Success in Life and the Lord's Prayer : An Interpretation

Add Swami Prabhavananda Sermon on the Mount According to Vedanta

Actually, Sermon on the Mount would cover them both plus provide more info.

Who wrote this? Can you please sign your comments? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Replace The Passion of the Christ with Dramatic portrayals of Jesus as it covers that movie and others

Add Raymond E. Brown 1928-1998 Union Theological Seminary Professor Emeritus, Does the New Testament call Jesus God?, Theological Studies #26, 1965, pp.545-573

Category:Mythology

Latest comment: 20 years ago28 comments9 people in discussion

Just a note: to link to a category, make sure you include a lead-in colon in thw link. Otherwise, the link doesn't work, and the page is included in the category. For example, [[:Category:Mythology]] results in a link to Category:Mythology, whereas [[Category:Mythology]] only includes the page in the category. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 22:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Could someone please add [[Category:Mythology]] once this is unprotected, as this category is blatently missing. unsigned comment by user:FestivalOfSouls -- Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 21:23, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Category added as per request Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 21:23, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

FestivalofSouls, I'm very surprised that you made this request half an hour after you'd been blocked for similar behaviour and three quarters an hour after Jayjig made his initial comments on your talk page. ~~Can an admin please remove Category:Mythology please?~~ It might be appropriate in a subcat, but this requires consensus first. --G Rutter 21:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The page has been unprotected, so I've removed the Cat. Thoughts on an appropriate sub-cat (if any) people? --G Rutter 21:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I can't think of anything at this time, but I do agree, listing it in category:mythology is blatantly PoV. It shouldn't be there. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 22:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad I didn't notice a response on the talk page so I just put the request through when an admin unprotected the article since there at the time was no objection on the article talk page. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:04, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

First of all, the reason I brought it up was because the users complaining told me to get a concensus before adding it. That is what I am doing. The definition of mythology from the good ol' wikipedia :"Mythology is the study of myths: stories of a particular culture that it believes to be true and that feature a specific religious or belief system." That definition make it eminatly clear that a mythology category of SOME sort is needed here. It would be more POV to not include anything at all, since well, it fits that definition completely. christianity is a culture. The stories of jesus are believed to be true, and they are very much based on religion. FestivalOfSouls 14:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Many Christians believe that either their faith is grounded in history, or it is not to be believed. They defend the historicity of their beliefs. Simply to categorize their belief as mythology because it is a "religious or belief system" is not neutrality, it is argument - the view of those who subscribe to belief in Christianity as a myth, notwithstanding. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you read Mythology or at least skim it, since nothing you have said actually disputes the fact that the category is needed. Here is another quote :"Myths are generally narratives based on tradition and legend designed to explain the universal and local beginnings..., natural phenomena, inexplicable cultural conventions, and anything else for which no simple explanation presents itself. Not all myths need have this explicatory purpose, however. Likewise, most myths involve a supernatural force or deity," Your arguments actually show how well this category fits. To say that the christian stories are not myths is to ignore the very definition of mythology as defined on wikipedia. FestivalOfSouls 15:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

FestivalOfSouls is correct from a definitional basis. The issue is how "grounded in history". Most believe that the Bible was not meant to be for "historicity" or for science, but to show the way to God. The word "mythology" is someone accurate strictly speaking, but is perjoritive. Many of the stories are more appropriately titled "parables", which Jesus was fond of using and which our own culture can relate to without the negative connotation. --Noitall 15:32, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I understand that this is the way that the word is being used. However, it is absolutely prejudicial to the point of view that the account of Jesus is history; and for that reason, the imposition of the word, together with its disingenuous modern definition, is offensive. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Noitall sort of missed the point. The label is not for the stories jesus told, but for jesus, at least on this article. Mkcconn, I am sorry you feel that way, and feel free to suggest a different word/ category to use. Apparently there is a subcategory on mythology that is "christian mythology" would that apease you? I am truly sorry that you are so detatched from reallity that calling a myth a myth is insulting, and for that I appologize. However, your offense does not make the lable any less true, accurate, or nessicary. The absence of the lable is insulting to science, claiming that the "miracles" he allegedly proformed are true, but you don't see me complaining about that. Again, I am sorry if you are offended, but if you feel personally affronted, maybe you need a bit to cool down and think it over.... FestivalOfSouls 15:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

If it is determined that the article should be categorized as "mythology", then, it would be better suited for the subcategory as mentioned above (Category:Christian mythology). --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 17:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for you concern, FestivalOfSouls. However, I am not speaking only for myself when I say "it is offensive". I am speaking of the point of view of those who believe that Jesus is an historical figure. It is argumentative to categorize the article as mythology. Perhaps you would be interested in starting an article on Jesus myths. Such an article, clearly, would be the appropriate place for anyone to list every account of miracles or claim of deity pertaining to Jesus, in the New Testament. And, such an article would most appropriately be categorized as Category:Mythology. Would this be acceptable to you? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I would start that article if i felt I had the time and energy. However, I don't, so I feel like making contributions to existing articles. Wikipedia strives to be an encyclopedia. As such, it needs to be NPOV and factual. Part of factual means correctly and accurately labeling things. Short of finding a more NPOV category, category:Mythology or category:Christian mythology will have to be it. I agree that mythology is not the most NPOV category for this, but i cannot find a category for contested mythology, possible mythology, mythology from the standpoint of science or any other such thing. Even though mythology does have a slight connotation to it, it is still much more NPOV than not including the categorization, and according to the definitions 100% accurate and appropriate, even in the light (and partially due to) the fact that some people believe it to be truth. FestivalOfSouls 16:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

FestivalOfSouls I admit that I don't have a lot of time either. But if an article like this were to be started, and linked conspicuously from this article, would this satisfy your requirement? I understand why this is not satisfying from a skeptical point of view, and I acknowledge that it lowers the credibility of the encyclopedia from a naturalistic point of view if the article is not labelled as pertaining to some type of mythology. However, the present article already accomodates the anti-supernaturalistic perspective to such a degree that the credibility of the claim of neutrality is strained, for anyone who does not share that perspective.

Incidentally - since we're chatting (but in the context of a disagreement, I hope it isn't taken as flattery) - I really like your nick. In English it has a very nice ring. It's a reference to O-bon, right? I'm surprised there is no article of that title. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

No relation on the name. If the article was written, and written well, and very prominatly linked, maybe. I still think it would be much better to just lable this with the correct category in the first place. "However, the present article already accomodates the supernaturalistic perspective to such a degree that the credibility of the claim of neutrality is strained, for anyone who does not share that perspective." just FYI...18:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

There are many myths about the United States. We don't categorize that geo-political entity as a Mythology. People have many beliefs about hair treatments; we don't sully the article on Hair by labelling it Mythology. What we know about Buddha, or what we might write in explanation of who he is, is predominantly legend and, and arguably, myth; but it is not appropriate to categorize the Buddha article as Mythology. The subjects of Mythology are not Mythology, unless it is beyond argument that the figure is not historical but actually the issue of myth. Otherwise, the categorization is simply another way of advancing an argument. No one argues that Mount Olympus is geographical, historical, real - it is a pure issue of myth - unlike Jesus. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you are wrong, and Category:American folklore agrees with me, since the USA has not really been around for folklore to have grown into full blown myths. Quite a few of the myths about the USA and people from it appear there. Additionally, quite a few people believe that mount olympus was a real place. They believe that it was the highest mountain in Greece, at which mythical events are located, much like many people believe that mount arat(that the right one I am thinking of?) exists, but it was just "lost". I am also quite certain that if their was a story about hair and the beliefs related to it, say that a man put raw egg on his head every day for a year, and suddenly sprouted hair all over his body on the 365th day, and the story was prominent enough to be on wikipedia, it would be labeled a myth. You are forgetting the story part, it is not just a belief that makes something a myth. If I recall correctly from my college courses on the subject, the Buddha didn't proform a whole heck of a lot of miracles, and isn't primarily know for the stories about said miracles. Infact, the wiki makes almost no reference to outside supernatural actions. The only real supernatural claim it makes was enlightenment...FestivalOfSouls 20:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

You are pursuing a policy that can only be implemented by brute force. It invites edit wars, and proposes to solve the conflict it creates by encouraging all editors to adopt your POV. This is not neutrality. it is argumentation. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

just because you say it over and over again, doesn't make it so. Even it it DID, and you wern't just blowing it out your ass like you are, how would that be any different than say the 3rr? or the anti-vandalism policy? or NPOV? or, well, the entire premise that wikipedia is built on? next time, try and think before you type. Just because I don't agree with your dogma, doesn't make me wrong. FestivalOfSouls 21:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the final sentence in the introduction to this article is the crucial one: "however most scholars agree that the actual existence of a historical Jesus is probable.". Therefore, Jesus himself is arguably not a myth, although many scholars would argue that particular parts of the Gospel narratives are mythical or legendary. Looking at the mythology page, I think the phrase "enriched history" would probably be closest to how many people see Jesus (while many more would see him as simply historical). I think only a small minority would see Jesus as basically mythological, so I (and it appears most other people on this page) would argue that the placing of this article in the Mythology category is misguided or a mistake. --G Rutter 21:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Myths on the page mean the category fits. FestivalOfSouls 21:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Exactomundo. (update: refers to GRutter's comment, not FestivalofSoul's) --goethean ॐ 21:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

FestivalOfSouls, the fact that you think it is an issue of "doesn't make me wrong", makes you wrong - you are arguing for a perspective. And I am saying it over and over again - you're right. You might as well get used to it. You will never hear the end of it - it's inherent to the action you are taking. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

You are right on one thing, I AM arguing for a perspective, which I have made blantenly clear and have admitted time and again. NPOV is a perspective, and it is the sanctioned wiki pov, which puts me in the right and you in the wrong. NPOV is one of the highest standards for wikipedia, please don't twist it and abuse it. FestivalOfSouls 21:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Fest, although you appear to be quite certain that you are "Right" (isn't that such a self-congratulatory word; feels so self-aggrandizing) and others are "Wrong" (it almost makes you look down on the poor soul beneath your feet when you say it, doesn't it), WIKI is based on a community that seeks consensus within a frame work of rules. I suspect that there is enough twisting of policy going on for both sides to take a breather.

The man, Jesus, is deemed by many, if not most, to be a historical figure... i.e. Christ is not a myth. The article is entitled "JESUS" not the Philosophy of Jesus, or Stories of Jesus, but Jesus. However, this article attempts to define the individual, again, not a myth. Simply because you believe that people believe myths about Jesus does not mean Jesus, or this article, is appropriately labeled mythology.

Your POV is not swinging the righteous sword of NOPV over the rest of us mere mortals, but just your POV. When you try to dress it up like it is NPOV it just comes off like eathing strawberries in an outhouse. You might be having a good time, but the rest of us will steer clear of you and your POV. Storm Rider 22:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Reaaly quick folks, before I get into this ugly mess of POV accusations: This article is on Jesus, also called the Christ. It is not the christian view of Jesus. It is not the Muslim view of Jesus. The vast majority of historian's agree that a guy named Jesus ran around preaching. This is not myth anymore than the moonlanding is a myth. The fact that singificant portions of the population disagree does nto make it a myth. This is an article on a figure and his effects, in summary. The ressurection, the Bible, the religious views, the parables, the miracles. Those are all myth. They may also be true, but they are myth. Thats what I think anyway--Tznkai 15:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

There is a major misunderstanding going on here. I recognize that popularly, most people use the word "myth" to mean "not real." But this is not how scholars use the word, as as an encyclopedia we should try to represent the scholarship on any given issue. What definies a myth is not whether it actually happened or not, but that people refer to it as a way of giving meaning to their lives, or explaining how they live their lives to themselves and others. Most beliefs N. Americans have about the "founding fathers" — including beliefs that are based on documented, historically acurate events, are "myths" in this sense. It also follows that "myth" refers to a stories about people and events, not to people and events themselves (e.g. Paul Bunyan and George Washington are not "myths," they are "objects of myth"). There is no doubt that at the very least many people treat the NT account of Jesus as a myth, and in so doing are not making claims one way or the other as to whether Jesus existed. They use the word "myth" to refer to an account, a narrative, a text. Stories about the US moonlanding of course are myths, not because they are historically innaccurate but because they play such an important role in how N. Americans understand themselves and their country. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

ahem. Exactly. FestivalOfSouls 15:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The word "myth" is loaded with sometimes unintended implications. I do not misunderstand. I do not object to explaining in the article, how scholars use the word or the idea of "myth". My objection is to categorizing the article "Jesus" as "Mythology", "Mythical figures", "Myths", etc. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

A few points. 1) Because an article contains some things about a subject doesn't mean it should be in the category for that subject. Otherwise the category for a city will end up including the article for everyone who visited that city. 2) We need to be able to distinguish between Christian stories that are accepted as true (by Christians) and those that are not. 3) While technically 'myth' does include true stories, that is not a widely held understanding and is likely to be confusing.

The best category for these articles that Festival is flagging is something like Christian Doctrine or Christian theology. That really tells us what we need to know. DJ Clayworth 17:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, after reading all what has been said here I have to say the following: Even if we accept that Jesus himself was a historical figure and not a myth, the article itself talk a great deal about the mythical aspects of Jesus. On the other hand, not inserting the article in a category only because the "word" used to describe the category has certain taboos is, I think, blatanly stupid. I do not think Wikipedia should tie herself to general taboos. On the other hand, why aren't the articles about Christianity and New Testament view on Jesus' life and even the Bible included in the mythology category (added the two former ones)? For the views discussed by those who don't think this article should be included certainly point out that those should be. Why, moreover, is Achilles's article in a Mythology subcategory when it's obvious he was a historical figure? Easy answer, because there's a (perhaps) mythical aspect that has been created around the historical figure: that he was the son of Thetis, a sea nymph and that he was made almost invincible by being dipped in the Styx, somwhat obvious legends created after his great ability in battle.. maybe. Because if the mythological aspects of Jesus' life that are discussed in this article are not enaugh to add him to a Mythology subcategory (and I am one who thinks that all subcategories should automatically add into the parent category) just because people think this to be true, what stops anyone to believe in the greek myths, and to demand greek mythology articles to be removed from all mythology subcategories and added to religion, or even historical facts? What makes Christianity more important in this aspect than other Mythologies? I agree this is an amazingly well balanced NPOV article, but not adding it into Category:Mythology just because it would have the wrong "sound" to it under some POV is stupid. As for who said that the article is NPOV enaugh that people shouldn't feel it POVed only out of it not being in a Mythology category　I must say, the categories that something is included in should not be there only to "balance out" POV problems --Lacrymology 08:14, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Lead changes on Aug 2nd are POV - virtually says Jews crucified Jesus

Latest comment: 20 years ago27 comments5 people in discussion

The Gospels record that he was often at odds with Jewish authorities for opposing their religious establishment and for making frequent statements alluding to his deity; for these reasons, he was was crucified in Jerusalem during the rule of the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate

Why not express both views, something like this: Jesus was either: a) killed by the Jews because he claimed to be God, or b) crucified by the Roman Pontius Pilate and his quisling Caiaphas for causing a disturbance in Herod's Temple. View a is traditional however much of modern Christianity has embraced view b instead, not least because view a is the cause of antisemitism.

"Why not?" Because the first view is not accurate? He was handed over to the Romans to be killed, he was not killed by the Jews, even according to the "traditional view". As for the view of the ignorant and spiteful, that's a different matter. The traditional view is that Jesus looked on those responsible for putting him on the cross, and said, "Father forgive them; they do not know what they are doing." — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 14:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Forgive who? The Jews? All Jews, past and present? And the traditional view of Christianity is that the Jews killed Jesus (by "handing" him over to the Romans, i.e. the kiss of Judas Iscariot whose name means Jewish Assassin or the selection of Jesus Barabbas and not Jesus the Nazarene ...). But this is a distortion of the gospel accounts. Most educated modern Christians understand this, but not all. Christianity as a whole is still dealing with its antisemitic past. Most modern Christians concede that Jesus was Jewish, but many still cling to the notion that he was opposed to all Jews past and present and forgave the Romans because they were manipulated by the Jews.

"Forgive who?" Forgive the individuals responsible - and by extension, if this can be forgiven, then any sin can be forgiven. Whoever thinks that Jesus was forgiving his Roman tormentors, but not asking for forgiveness for his Jewish opponents, he is outside of the Christian Tradition in thinking this - as Christians understand their own tradition. Nothing's stopping you from putting your own spin on things, but that is not Tradition that's teaching you to think that way. Any Christian that doesn't concede that Jesus was Jewish is willfully ignorant. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

"Now there was a fine upstanding black man" "Who?" "Jesus Christ." "Uh... Gary, Jesus was white." "No, Jesus was black" "No no, Jesus was white" "No, I'm prett sure Jesus was black!" "Guys guys guys! Jesus was Jewish!"--Tznkai 17:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The Gospel of Matthew (and I believe John, also) almost explicitly pins it on the Jews. It is a source of much anti-semitism, and it is also the traditional view. Matthew 27:20-26 --goethean ॐ 16:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Those who crucified him, crucified him. It is not a "traditonal" interpretation of tradition, that blame is placed on the entire Jewish people, as though they bear the blood-guilt of what certain individuals a long time ago had a hand in. Why wouldn't anyone of Roman descent be just as guilty? The fact that a view is widespread does not mean that it is part of the Tradition (although I'll grant that the "Christ-killer" crap is "traditional" if all you mean by that word is that, it has been believed and repeated by many). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Matthew and John present "the chief priests and elders" and "the Jews" (respectively) as responsible for Jesus' death. And John has this: Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children. I'm guessing that it wasn't Gentiles who were hanging out in Jerusalem during Passover. --goethean ॐ 19:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

What are you asking? whether the people who said "his blood be on us and on our children" actually have the ability to lay this charge to the account of their children? Of course they don't. They didn't know what they were saying. The anti-semites will think what they want to; but it is not Tradition that teaches them to blame the whole Jewish nation, and of every generation, for the killing Jesus in some special way. That's racist folklore, not the tradition - as Christians interpret their tradition. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that Matthew and John present "the Jewish elders" and "the Jews" as successfully conspiring to have Jesus executed by the Romans. Anything else is a distorted interpretation, IMO. --goethean ॐ 19:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The intro now reads:

The Gospels report that he was often at odds with Jewish authorities for opposing their religious establishment and for making frequent statements alluding to his own divinity; for these reasons, the Jewish leaders pressed the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate to crucify Jesus, bringing false charges of sedition against him.

Jewish authorities? What does that mean? Don't you really mean the Roman system of occupation, some of whom happened to be of Judean ancestry? Religious establishment? What does that mean? Herod's Temple? Or Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Zealots, John the Baptist? The implication is that you mean all Jews, past and present, and all Judaism, past and present. And "false charges of sedition"? Did Jesus claim to be "King of the Judeans?" Did he deny it? Not denying that title is sedition. Did Jesus cause a disturbance in Herod's Temple? That act would be sedition. Herod's Temple was part of the Roman system of occupation of Judea, not a symbol of all Judaism and all Jews past and present.

yes, *false* charges is rather pov. after all, he was subverting religious authority, and behaving like a drunken rockstar in the temple. "false charges of sedition" with relation to subverting Roman power, maybe, although Jesus' presence in Jerusalem certainly resulted in a surge of anti-Roman sentiment among those who were waiting for the messiah (who was, after all, expected to kick out the Romans) dab (ᛏ) 09:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I like this, but the portion after the semicolon is also reported by the gospels (and I don't believe them — hence my concern). I'm not sure how to implement this, else I'd do it myself. --goethean ॐ 17:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I restored and earlier, NPOV intro. One section of this article -- granted, the largest section, is on the Gospel view of Jesus' life. But this is not the only view and cannot be presented as neutral fact. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

How about this:

Jesus was either: 1) killed by the Jews, by "handing him over" to the Romans, because he claimed to be God, or 2) crucified by the Roman Pontius Pilate and his quisling Caiaphas for causing a disturbance, overturning tables, at Herod's Temple. Interpretation 1 was and still is popular, however it is the root of antisemitism. Instead, many modern Christians have embraced interpretation 2, which is more in accord with the history of 1st century Roman occupied Judea.

it's not (1) vs. (2), it's a combination. Jesus was causing some hysteria in town, the religious notables came clamoring he was a heretic, and the Romans just crucified him as a troublemaker without batting an eyelid. You didn't have to have messiah aspirations or special powers to be crucified in those days, I suppose a few important enemies and no important friends was enough to land you on the cross for pickpocketing. And frankly, regarding 'guilt', crucifying pickpockets I find morally much more questionable than crucifying shady characters that are suspected of revolutionary conspiracy, making oblique comments about their royalty when questioned, and whose minions go about cutting off occupation forces soldiers' ears. Jesus' crucifixion would have been such a non-event had he not risen, afterwards (and it is asking rather too much of religious and political authorities to have predicted that course of events). dab (ᛏ) 09:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The fact is, we are not sure about any of this. period. Some people think Jesus never even existed. Of the many historians who do believe he existed, there is no absolute consensus as to exactly how and why he was killed, although most agree that he was executed for sedition. The NT details may be historically accurate, they may not be. There is no compelling evidence that Jewish atuhorities thought he was a "heretic" and many historians reject this claim. We can argue back and forth about this. The point is, it is not a "combination of 2 and 3," we do not know what the truth really is; we do not agree on this. Moreover, as editors this is not our job. It doesn't matter whether one of us believes it is 1, 2, 1+2, or something else -- our personal beliefs are irrelevant. All we can agree to is that there are various points of view, each of which must be represented in the article. The only way to handle this is to have as brief and as NPOV as possible an opening, and go into details in the relevant subsections. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed with the editor job bits. I think the mainstream/traditional what not view is that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, claimed to be the Son of God (not that we can agree on what that means), and rallied a bunch of Jews into being pissed off at the Jewish authorities and the Roman authorities. The Jews didn't like him, handed him over to the Romans, who decided to crucify him.

I don't think thats anti semetic at all. Fact is somebody killed Jesus. Jesus was Jewish in a Jewish community, ruled by Roman occupation. I think its reasonable to say he wasn't well liked and they (Jews in the area+Romans in the area) killed him.--Tznkai 15:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what it means to say that "the mainstream" view is that "the Jews" didn't like him. There were lots of Jews, many of whom probably didn't even know Jesus existed. What does it mean to say "the Jews?" "Jews" refers to some group of people. "The Jews" refers to all people classified as "Jews," right? What is the function of the definite article? In any event, "the mainstream view" is hard to pin down. I do think that we can strive to summarize the NT account as neutrally as possible. In other articles that focus specifically on Christian interpretations, it won't be too hard to find official or authorized accounts of how major Churches interpret the events leading to Jesus' execution. In another article, we provide an account of what different historians think (and none of the major historians I know of think that Jesus pissed off "the Jews"). Also, to say he wasn't well-liked is not at all reasonable. There is as much evidence that he was liked as that he wasn't well-liked. Moreover, the crux of the story, for both Christians and critical historians, is not that he was executed because he "wasn't well-liked," this is a meaningless statement. The question is, why exactly did the Jewish authorities turn him over to Pilate, and why did Pilate order his execution? "Not well liked" is no explanation at all. Lots of people are not well-liked, but they don't get crucified for it! Slrubenstein | Talk 15:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I was trying to get towards the turth while being silly, but I think my point got missed in semantic difficulties. The Jews I was refering to the relvant Jews. You know, those in Jesus' community. He was very much disliked to the point of being killed. Specificly, crucified. If you want to be more specific, go ahead, I was just trying to indiciate the direction the mainstream view was in.--Tznkai 15:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, in this case, then, it is simply an error to use the phrase "the Jews" and I ask you, with respect, not to use it this way again. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the NT account can be interpreted different ways, and that most critical historians I know of disagree with your view. Based on my reading of both the NT and historians, I definitely do not believe that he was killed because "he was very much disliked," at least if we are using the words "dislike" and "like" they way they are usually used in English. What is your source? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I am far too ill to play this semantic game right now. My understanding and personal view is that Jesus was a non violent relvolutionary who thumbed his nose at jewish authorities in the area, and represented a threat to the political stability of the area to Pilate. He had been attributed a number of miracles/sorcery, and was considered a serious threat to religious and political lawfulness, and was thus exucted by the local Romans, probably with the support of the local jewish community.--Tznkai 16:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, there's no reason to take offense at the term "the Jews", especially if the sentence in question begins: "the Gospel of John reports..." The fact is that the phrase "the Jews" occurs repeatedly and ambiguously in sections of John that I linked to above. --goethean ॐ 16:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Goethean, you are quite right about that sentence in particular. But as I am sure you are aware of (and certainly various Christian denominations are aware of this) such passages have been sore points for Jews. In any event, my point in this talk section was not about the "according to john" claim, which is specific and appropriately phrased to comply with NPOV; it concerned more general factual claims being made by another editor. As for Tsnkai, I am sorry you are ill. However, if you think I am playing a semantic game, you entirely misunderstand my point, which has to do with accuracy as well as complying with our NPOV and NOR policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Discussion on talk page does not require NPOV and NOR. Its discussion. Hopefully friendly to communicate and collaborate. Surley, I have faith that if you tried you could see what I was getting at without taking offense.--Tznkai 17:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, I am not offended -- I simply (1) asked what you meant by "the jews" and (2) observed (accurately) that many Jews have found those passages from John to be offensive. As to your point, Tznkai, I have to admit — and I am not saying this because I am angry or offended or disrespectful — I do not understand what you are getting at. You are right that the policies I invoked do not apply to talk pages. But talk pages are for discussing ways to improve the article. I still do not understand how the claim "the Jews did not like Jesus" can add anything to the article. So I am just being honest: I do not get your point. Can you explain it to me? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Would you prefer Jesus was unpopular? It was a springboard for discussion, a baseline of commonly agreed upon bareminimum ideas. Jesus was Jewish. Jesus probably existed. Jesus was not popular. Etc etc etc. I was trying to find something easily agreed upon by most persons.--Tznkai 18:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I still think that since talk pages are meant to contribute to the article, it is simply pointless for us to try to figure out what most people would agree too, as that is original research and prohibited. As far as what would be a factually accurate, NPOV statement, all I can suggest is this "Among those people who believe that Jesus existed, all agree that he was crucified by the Roman authorities." Anything beyond that has to be in the plural ("there are various explanations as to why he was executed. According to the Catholic Church ... According to historians A and B ... According to historians X and Y ..." etc.) Slrubenstein | Talk 18:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

OK. dropping it. Also, could you please use the :'s?--Tznkai 18:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to accommodate you, but I am not sure what you mean by ":'s" Slrubenstein | Talk 12:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

He means for you to put colons in front of your comments for proper indentation. --goethean ॐ 18:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

How bout this?:

Latest comment: 20 years ago27 comments8 people in discussion

Jesus was either: 1) killed by the Jews, by "handing him over" to the Romans, because he claimed to be God, or 2) crucified by the Roman Pontius Pilate and his quisling Caiaphas for causing a disturbance, overturning tables, at Herod's Temple, or 3) a combination of the above. Interpretation 1 was and still is popular, however it is the root of antisemitism. Instead, many modern Christians have embraced interpretation 2, which is more in accord with the historical context of 1st century Roman occupied Judea.

A little argumentativie, but that can be fixed with some editing. My problem is with "xxx is the root of antisemitisim" I really think antisemitism has a lot of roots, most of them involving ignorance and scapegoating Its a very strong claim, especially for the lead.--Tznkai 18:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

What is the aim, here? a change to the lead? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

change it to: "xxx is widely viewed as antisemitic". Also ", overturning tables, at Herod's Temple, " is unnecessary. --goethean ॐ 19:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

according to those who claim view 2, overturning the tables at Herod's Temple is the particular reason for Pilate and Caiaphas to crucify Jesus, just as Jesus claiming to be God is the particular reason in view 1. Both views summarize who killed Jesus and why.

Jesus was either: 1) killed by the Jews, by "handing him over" to the Romans, because he claimed to be God, or 2) crucified by the Roman Pontius Pilate and his quisling Caiaphas for overturning tables at Herod's Temple, or 3) a combination of the above. Interpretation 1 was and still is popular, although it is widely viewed as antisemitic. Interpretation 2 is more in accord with the historical context of 1st century Roman occupied Judea.

I guess my problem is the term "Anti-Semitic". Yes, the fact that Jesus was turned over by the Sanhedrin to Pilate has been used by anti-Semites, but the mere fact is that is what happened. It may be politically incorrect to talk about, but it is hardly anti-Semitic. It is a fact. Granted, was have had some reconstructionist historians who have attempted to cast Pilate as someone who would have sought Jesus out had he the opportunity, but scripture is clear. The Sanhedrin arrested Jesus, tried him, and found him guilty. The Sanhedrin turned Jesus over to Pilate because they themselves were not able to put Jesus to death. I see no problem with stating it the way it is recorded in the bible. I also see no problem with adding the thoughts of others as to why the Sanhedrin felt it necessary or why Pilate and the Romans implemented it. Just stay with the facts as we know them and forget about being polically incorrect. Also, do not say the Jews did it, as a people they did not; the Sanhedrin turned Jesus over, not the Jews. Storm Rider 19:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Dude! This is not that hard: Jesus was killed by ALL the participants, that is, it was a combination, a team effort, a group doing. Here's the proof: Without the Jewish leaders' complaints, it would not have gotten to the Roman authorities; Without the authorization of occupying force, that is, the Romans, it would not have happened. Both were necessary elements. ALSO, Jesus did this willingly, so He was a contributing factor; Lastly, He was provoked to live a "perfect" life and die, and then (I allege) rise again, all as an example for us humans to follow. So, WE are partly responsible. EVERYBODY is partly responsible, for without any one contribution, it would not have gone down. Man, how hard can all that be. Word.--GordonWattsDotCom 19:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

spelling error: seperate (should be spelled: separate) CapeCodEph 00:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I am reverting back to my native colors of blue to get a little attention to my points above, which —oddly enough —seem to be ignored. Thank you for the heads up on the spelling of separate, which I often misspell, but in this case, there were no misspelling of this word on this page ...wait! I see in the main article a misspelling- thx 4 the heads up, Cape Cod. Another Biology and Chem. double major, eh? You're smart! THANK YOU for pointing out this spelling error -but, oops! I see the page's locked. Oh that bad luck. When I team up w/ spell check I'm smart too, but I'd better stick to my genetics, biology, chemistry, and politics/religion stuff -that spelling stuff's best left to computers.--GordonWattsDotCom 20:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Ow! The article's locked. Well, I tried to fix the misspelling; Ths again 4 the heads up, but oh the bad luck.--GordonWattsDotCom 20:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Which part of the article are we talking about? I don't think anti-Semitism should be addressed at all here. It should abe addresed in the anti-semitism and Jewish/Christian relations articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

He's referring to the sentence in the proposal that reads: "Interpretation 1 was and still is popular, although it is widely viewed as antisemitic." --goethean ॐ 18:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah. Thank you, Goethean. In this case, I disagree when Storm Rider writes, "I guess my problem is the term "Anti-Semitic". Yes, the fact that Jesus was turned over by the Sanhedrin to Pilate has been used by anti-Semites, but the mere fact is that is what happened. It may be politically incorrect to talk about, but it is hardly anti-Semitic" because it doesn't matter what us editors think. It is true that many view interpretation 1 as anti-Semitic. It isn't hard to find sources. I think it is fair to include this simple accurate statement with a link to the anti-Semitism article, and leave it at that. That is, if we revert to the August 2 intro. I am not sure we need this in the current intro ...Slrubenstein | Talk 20:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm asking again, "proposal" for what? None of that should go in the article. It's synthetic ("either 1 or 2") and speculative ("however it is the root of antisemitism"). I prefer the intro as it stands, and I do not think that these alternative "interpretations" stand alone as sentences. They are over-simplified ... glib ... caricature; they are not needed. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of caricature, the current proposal reads: "...although it is widely viewed as antisemitic." --goethean ॐ 21:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

That difference makes no difference to me at all. What is it being proposed for? What is its suggested destination? Where is the material supposed to be inserted? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

As I think I have made abundantly clear, I agree with you that it shouldn't go into the intro, and if it goes into the article at all (the bit about anti-Semitism) it should be the briefest possible statement plus a link. I don't think many people if any claim that John's discourse about Jews is the root of anti-Semitism, but certainly there are many who have labeled it anti-Semitic so there wouldn't be any problem sourcing it, it is certainly not in violation of NOR. I am not arguing that we should include it, I am only arguing against one of Storm Rider's objections. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

My intent was to indicate that calling it anti-Semitic is my problem, not that others view it as anti-Semitic. There is a difference. Agreed, it would be easy to source and should be. I hope this clears up what my point was. I don't think we are saying different things, Rub. Storm Rider 22:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused. Who are "the Jews"? Isn't that construction just inherently a) anti-Semitic and b) meaningless?

Meaningless, yes. It is misleading because it is intentionally vague and general. Why not say, "Jesus was killed by white people" ? or, "Jesus was killed by religious people"? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Because the New Testament specifically blames "The Jews", technically the correct translation of the Greek would be "The Judeans" but few modern English translations of the New Testament follow this. And yes, blaming "The Jews" is exactly antisemitism. The New Testament scapegoats the Jews and downplays Roman brutality, because Christianity failed among Jews and eventually took over the Roman empire, i.e. moral of the story: Jews bad, Romans good. That's the standard popular story, the more enlightened story goes something like the Jesus Seminar's: Jesus was born in Nazareth during the reign of Herod the Great, his mother was Mary and he had a human father who was probably not Joseph. He was baptized by John the Baptist. He was an "itinerant sage who shared meals with social outcasts" and "practiced healing without the use of ancient medicine or magic, relieving afflictions we now consider psychosomatic." He was arrested in Jerusalem and crucified by the Romans as a "public nuisance", not for claiming to be the Son of God, during the period of Pontius Pilate and Caiaphas. Belief in the resurrection is based on the visionary experiences of Paul, Peter, and Mary.

There is no Jewish scapegoat in the New Testament - well - except for Judas, a disciple of Jesus. The Romans are not portrayed as "good". There is only the Messiah crucified through the unbelief of those he came to save, at the "hands of wicked men" (the Romans). What you are repeating is the twisted story that's popular to attribute to Christian interpretation. I won't discourage you from believing the more enlightened invention if that's your preference to reading the Bible. It certainly is easier to believe than either, the perverted racist version, or the New Testament's Son of God version. But I oppose any but the latter being represented as normally, present Christian interpretation; and exceptionally, some Christians prefer to hate Jews, and others prefer to hate what Christians have believed and taught about who Jesus was. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Judas means Jew, the Roman Pilate is portrayed as a kind ruler who finds nothing wrong in Jesus but reluctantly crucifies him at the insistance of "the Jews", the Roman centurian in Acts converts to Christianity as first Gentile convert, "unbelievers" is the Jews and Judaism, "wicked men" are the Jews who forced Pilate to crucify Jesus. This is not "perverted racism" but popular Christianity as portrayed in films like The Passion of The Christ which itself is based on the Gospels.

I thought The Passion of The Christ was based on some visions ("The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ according to the Meditations of Anne Catherine Emmerich") by a catholic fundamentalist "holier-than-thou" nun called Anne Catherine Emmerich. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Passion of Christ is mostly based on the Gospels

We could just put "Jesus was killed by Jesus-killers". ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

"Christ-Killers" is the term used, which by the way should probably have a wikipedia entry

See e.g., the section above, which I have changed to red to grab attention. Did someone miss my 2cents worth above -or was my suggestion merely dumb, idiotic, and stupid?--GordonWattsDotCom 16:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem with your theory is that Pilate, Caiaphas and the occupied Judeans does not equal everybody. Repeating:

Jesus was either: #1) killed by the Jews, by "handing him over" to the Romans, because he claimed to be God; or #2) crucified by the Roman Pontius Pilate and his quisling Caiaphas for overturning tables at Herod's Temple; or #3) a combination of the above. #1 has always been popular but is widely viewed as antisemitic, whereas #2 is derived from the historical context of 1st century Roman occupied Judea.

I find it incredible that we are even discussing this! How can anyone alledge that they all contributed to his death. Quit saying the Jews, the Jews did the nothing, but stand idle (Yes, that is a decision in and of itself). The Sanhedrin arrested him, turned him over to Pontius, and the Roman soldiers did as they were commanded. How can there be any arguement. Why is there any discussion on who really did it? Just stick to the facts and move on. Storm Rider 20:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Storm Rider. I appreciate the fact that this debate is taking place in the talk page instead of waging a revert war. Thank you for that. The material is a misleading oversimplification that appears to be calculated to be provocative. If not intentional, it is nevertheless offensive on many fronts to say "the Jews" killed Jesus, or to say with such brief and inaccurate summation that Jesus "claimed to be God". To speak of this being a "popular" view goes right off the end of the chart. Someone seems to be wanting to make someone angry. To imply that this was tied in such a simplistic way (to say the least) to upsetting some furniture, is outrageous. If the material belongs in the article at all, it requires much more explanation in the immediate context than the proposed sentences give. This is troll material. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

You should read this book: Crossan, John Dominic. Who Killed Jesus?: Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus

If that book just details what is said here, why do I need to? If the paragraph is an example, someone is reading books that produce hateful opinions. The article doesn't need this. All of the writers of the New Testament were also Jews. Jesus himself is a Jew. The people who killed Jesus, handing him over to be killed, according to the New Testament were Jews. The first opponents of the church were Jews, just as the first followers in the church were Jews. These are all such different statements than saying that the New Testament blames "the Jews" for killing Jesus. The latter is troll material. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Crossan's book is here:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060614803/qid=1123367197/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-2874702-2132045

From Publishers Weekly In a book sure to generate both conversation and controversy, John Dominic Crossan, author of two well-regarded books on the historical Jesus, names the New Testament Gospels' insistence on Jewish responsibility for Jesus' death as Christianity's "longest lie." Crossan argues particularly against many of the theories posed in Raymond Brown's The Death of the Messiah. While Brown finds that many of the events in the stories of Jesus' last days are plausible historically, Crossan claims that almost none of the events are historical. According to Crossan, they are "prophesy historicized," accounts written by looking back at the Old Testament and other early materials and then projecting those prophecies on whatever historical events occurred. Because many of those early writers were persecuted by the Jewish authorities, they threw in a heavy dose of propaganda against the Jews. As Crossan aptly states, these gospels were relatively harmless when Christians were a small sect. When, however, Rome became Christian, those anti-Semitic narratives became, and continue to be, lethal. Well argued and highly readable, Who Killed Jesus? also includes an important epilogue stating Crossan's own faith perspectives on the divinity and resurrection of Christ. Scholars rarely go this far, yet such a confession provides another valuable entry into this fascinating material. Copyright 1995 Reed Business Information, Inc.--This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

From Library Journal The two main theses of this extraordinary book are that the roots of anti-Semitism spring from gospel narratives of the death of Jesus and that the Romans, not the Jews, killed Jesus as a revolutionary agitator inimical to their continued governance of Judea. Crossan, a former Roman Catholic priest and now a noted expert on the life of Jesus, fascinatingly describes here two types of historical writing: 1) history remembered?history written as it actually happened?and 2) prophecy historicized, a tendentious interpretation of what really happened made to conform to or "fulfill" ancient prophecies?in this case, supposed prophecies about the life of Jesus uttered by Hebrew prophets. According to Crossan, the passion accounts blaming the Jews for Jesus' arrest and crucifixion are based on this second type of writing and are thus myths if not downright lies. He pleads for a reevaluation of the passion stories, which have caused such animus toward Jews for the past 2000 years. An excellent study for lay readers and specialists; recommended for larger religion collections.?Robert A. Silver, formerly with Shaker Heights P.L., Ohio Copyright 1995 Reed Business Information, Inc.--This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

From Booklist Given the conjunction of concern with Jesus and public discourse in the ascendancy of the "Christian coalition" in our own historical moment, Crossan's decision to make this argument available to a popular audience is a timely one. Briefly, Crossan contends that the understanding of the passion narratives in the canonical Gospels as historical "fact" is not only wrong, but also dangerous. It is dangerous because of the particular way in which the confusion of "interpretation" and "fact" came in this case to be backed by power. Crossan notes that, for Christians, the Gospel accounts are divinely inspired, but that inspiration comes through human beings in human communities and can come as inspired propaganda. When Christianity was a relatively powerless sect within Judaism struggling like other sects for the hearts and minds of the Jewish community, its propaganda about "Jewish responsibility and Roman innocence" was relatively harmless. But as Christianity and the Roman Empire became inextricably linked, that propaganda became the lethal basis for transition from a theological controversy within a religious community to propaganda directed by one religious community against another to genocidal anti-Semitism. What may have been relatively harmless propaganda at its origins has become, Crossan argues, "the longest lie." The scholarly debate behind this discussion asks whether the passion narrative is derived from "history remembered" or from "prophecy historicized." Crossan has argued consistently for the second option, and he wrote this book largely in response to Raymond Brown's influential Death of the Messiah, which defends the first. The book is a lucid, accessible guide to the controversy, but, more important, it is one of the best accounts of how prejudice is transformed into racism in the conjunction of mythological and political power. Steve Schroeder--This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Booklist "Given the conjunction of concern with Jesus and public discourse in the ascendancy of the 'Christian coalition' in our own historical moment, Crossan's decision to make this argument available to a popular audience is a timely one. Briefly, Crossan contends that the understanding of the passion narratives in the canonical Gospels as historical 'fact' is not only wrong, but also dangerous. It is dangerous because of the particular way in which the confusion of 'interpretation' and 'fact' came in this case to be backed by power. Crossan notes that, for Christians, the Gospel accounts are divinely inspired, but that inspiration comes through human beings in human communities and can come as inspired propaganda. When Christianity was a relatively powerless sect within Judaism, struggling like other sects for the hearts and minds of the Jewish community, its propaganda about 'Jewish responsibility' and 'Roman innocence' was relatively harmless. But as Christianity and the Roman Empire became inextricably linked, that propaganda became the lethal basis for transition from a theological controversy within a religious community to propaganda directed by one religious community against another to genocidal anti-Semitism. What may have been relatively harmless propaganda at its origins has become, Crossan argues, 'the longest lie.' The scholarly debate behind this discussion asks whether the passion narrative is derived from 'history remembered' or from 'prophecy historicized.' Crossan has argued consistently for the second option, and he wrote this book largely in response to Raymond Brown's influential Death of the Messiah, which defends the first. The book is a lucid, accessible guide to the controversy, but, more important, it is one of the best accounts of how prejudice is transformed into racism in the conjunction of mythological and political power."

Book Description The death of Jesus is one of the most hotly debated questions in Christianity today. In his massive and highly publicized The Death of the Messiah, Raymond Brown -- while clearly rejecting anti-Semitism -- never questions the essential historicity of the passion stories. Yet it is these stories, in which the Jews decide Jesus' execution, that have fueled centuries of Christian anti-Semitism. Now, in his most controversial book, John Dominic Crossan shows that this traditional understanding of the Gospels as historical fact is not only wrong but dangerous. Drawing on the best of biblical, anthropological, sociological and historical research, he demonstrates definitively that it was the Roman government that tried and executed Jesus as a social agitator. Crossan also candidly addresses such key theological questions as "Did Jesus die for our sins?" and "Is our faith in vain if there was no bodily resurrection?" Ultimately, however, Crossan's radical reexamination shows that the belief that the Jews killed Jesus is an early Christian myth (directed against rival Jewish groups) that must be eradicated from authentic Christian faith.

As I said, the book is hate material. Since it is hatred of Christianity, who will care. After all, did we not kill the Jews? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Things are much easier when you realize that the historical fact is that Pontius Pilate, a man, not an ethnic or religious representative, crucified Jesus, and many others. It is the truth that sets one free, not self deception.

With all due respect to everyone I do not see the point of continuing this thread.

This article cannot say "who" killed Jesus or "why." It can only say, "According to x, y killed Jesus" or "According to A, B,C, and D killed Jesus," and so on.
Some people have interpreted the John account as an authorization for anti-Semitism, and others have interpreted it as anti-Semitic. This discussion belongs NOT in this article but in the articles on Anti-Semitism and on Christian anti-Semitism or Christian-Jewish relations. At the very most this article could mention that some have interpreted the NT account of Jesus' death as anti-Semitic," with a link to the anti-Semitism article, and that is enough for this article
Crossan does not hate Christianity and he is a legitimate scholar. The appropriate article — not this one — should provide an account of his arguments as well as other views.

Really, I am not blowing my own horn here, but do we really need to say anything more than this? Slrubenstein | Talk 03:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

For a person sensitive to offense, your radar is off on this one. But regardless, you are right that this discussion is a waste of time and is doing no good. I need to bow out, if not take a vacation from this place for a while. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Image:Ushakov Nerukotvorniy.jpg

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm not sure that it's appropriate to add a fourth Eastern Orthodox icon, especially under the "Other Perspectives" subsection. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

FYI, update from Jesus Seminar

In 1998, the Jesus Seminar published The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus (ISBN 0060629789).[6] In summary: Jesus was born in Nazareth during the reign of Herod the Great, his mother was Mary and he had a human father who was probably not Joseph. He was baptized by John the Baptist who was later beheaded by Herod Antipas. He was an "itinerant sage who shared meals with social outcasts" and "practiced healing without the use of ancient medicine or magic, relieving afflictions we now consider psychosomatic" though some claimed he did this in the name of Beelzebul. He proclaimed the coming of "God's imperial rule". He was arrested in Jerusalem and crucified by the Romans as a "public nuisance", specifically for overturning tables at Herod's Temple, not for claiming to be the Son of God, during the period of Pontius Pilate and Caiaphas. Belief in the resurrection is based on the visionary experiences of Paul, Peter, and Mary.

Re: Removal of Jesus from Diety Category

To whom it may concern,
Recently Phatcat68 added this article to the 'Diety' category, then Mkmcconn reverted the article back out of this category. While I agree with Mkmcconn's revert, still I think that the question of whether or not Jesus was a diety bears some comment here.
Within traditional Christian theology, apparently whether or not Jesus was truly a diety would remain as what I would call, 'in the mystery department'. By this I mean that unfortunately, traditional Christian theology is self contradictory on this subject, and therefore the question of this subject, when pressing hard enough, will generally result in an answer that runs something like, "Don't you know, this is one of the Christian 'mysteries'", essentially meaning, "please don't ask me any more questions about this, because I really haven't a clue."
Unfortunately this would appear to be an easy theological 'stock' answer given to any points of contradiction within traditional Christian theology. As the answer to this question will forever remain amongst the traditional Christian 'mysteries', I agree with this revert. I agree that it is not fair to assert that the the most common answer to this question from the majority of traditonal Christians would be any kind of clear 'yes'. Instead it would more likely be, "Well, he's God's Son, but he's also God made flesh, but he's part of the Trinity which means that he's different from God, but the three are really all the same, uh.... gee, ya got me....". Thank God for Wiki. Questions and comments like this that are now freely posted on this page would have probably gotten us all turned into heretical shis-kabob delights about 400 years ago!

Cheers,

Scott P. 15:56, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Reverting unsubstantiated edits re the Gospel of Thomas and early oral tradition

Latest comment: 20 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

On July 23, 2005 JimWae and I agreed to add the reference to the Gospel of Thomas (G of T) in the Intro as I have reverted it back to just now, which states that,

... the Gospel of Thomas is considered by some scholars to predate the canonical/Biblical Gospels themselves.

On Aug 2nd, Westonmr altered this to read,

..considered by a few scholars to predate the canonical/Biblical Gospels themselves.

In Westonmr's editorial explanation he claimed that he was simply adding Further details about the four canonical Gospel accounts, and somehow he forgot to mention that he might actually be correcting something.....

On Aug 9, anonymous user 68.188.67.91 further modified this phrase to read,

..considered by a very few scholars to predate the canonical/Biblical Gospels themselves.

This the anonymous user did without any editorial justification at all.

I recognize that the fact that the G of T is believed by many Biblical scholars to predate the canonical Gospels may be somewhat disconscerting to some. I say this because in some ways this implies that some earlier suppositions that some may have based years of their dilligent studies upon, may need to be slightly revised. Still, obviously these types of unsubstantiated edits regarding the G of T will remain as being considered POV and will be reverted, unless the editor might be able to substantiate any further such edits with documentation here on this discussion page.

I apologize for my insistence here, but I believe that there is a great wealth of information and understanding that can be gained via the study of the G of T, and that by trying to be open minded enough to consider the possibility that Christianity as it was essentially fossilized by Constantine in the early 4th century, only slightly de-fossilized by the reformation in the 16th century, and only slightly more de-fossilized beginning with Vatican II as convened by Pope John XXIII, may not be entirely complete, and that we may still have many things that we can learn fresh. Thanks for putting up with this rant.

Sincerely,

-Scott P. 16:59, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I think that you might be going over the line here, by trying to fix what you believe to be a historical mistake and trying to promote more interest in the Gospel of Thomas. The fact is that whether by Constantine or by some other route, the Gospel of Thomas indeed has been "essentially fossilized". And by the way, I think that it might be a very rare opinion indeed, to regard its historicity as an important aspect of its meaning. It is important as a possibly early interpretation of Christ; but who regards it as a source of historical data, as for example, the Christians regard the Gospels? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe that Elaine Pagels finds Thomas more accurate than John. --goethean ॐ 19:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

More accurate as history, or more accurate as an interpretation? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what that means. She's not a fundamentalist. --goethean ॐ 19:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

That answer is somewhat related to my point. Non-gnostic Christianity sees the Scriptures as explaining Jesus as an actor in history. Gnosticism, as in the Gospel of Thomas, is more interested in understanding Jesus regardless of history. It is a way of understanding, not an account of events. The "information" that it provides is an insight, an interpretation. The collection of the "secret sayings" of Jesus, as recorded by "Twin, Twin, the Jew" - that is, the very equal of Jesus - does not depend on Thomas being real, or even Jesus actually saying these things. When you are the very twin of Jesus, his spiritual equivalent, you don't need history. This is a book of mystical religion. That is very different from the gospels, which concern acts, events, birth, death, peoples, places, history. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

There are understandings of Thomas that are different from yours. Namely, that it was an early source of the canonical gospels on a par (in regard to historical authenticity) with Q. Furthermore, despite its ___location in the Nag Hammadi cache, no gnostic cosmological terms occur in Thomas, further evidence for a date of composition prior to the second century. --goethean ॐ 21:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I recognise that there are different interpretations. I also recognize the great handicap under which even legitimate scholarship must labor - besides the difficulties of anti-catholic prejudice, by which people like Pagels are burdened. But the issue here is only whether or not it presents itself as information about Jesus, or rather "secret sayings" - secret in contrast to what? to sayings "well-known"? To sayings "published"? These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded. It does not present itself as an account, but a record of the mystical spirituality of Jesus. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

In this context, the terms "account" and "record" are synonyms. Your last sentence is incoherent. --goethean ॐ 21:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

In this context, "account" means "narrative". Does this help you? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear Mkmcconn|Mark,

Setting my own personal opinion/ rant about the historical value of the G of T aside, I have a question for you. Can I assume by the fact that your own posts are silent regarding the fact that many scholars believe that the G of T may predate the canonicals, implies that you agree with this fact about Biblical scholars?

-Scott P. 21:31, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

If these scholars that you are referring to can be numbered in the dozens, is that "many" or "few", or "very few"? It's all relative, I suppose. If the number of writers who believe that the Gospels are the product of the first and second century numbers in the hundreds, or the thousands, would it matter to you? I'm confronted with a statement of what "many" "scholars" "believe" - A little detail might disqualify the sentence from any mention at all. Do you want to risk that, or would you be satisfied with saying "some writers". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Looking at Wiki's own article on the G of T, editors there have agreed that:

There is currently much debate about when the text was composed, with scholars generally falling into two main camps: an early camp favoring a date in the 50s before the canonical gospels and a late camp favoring a time after the last of the canonical gospels in the 90s. Among critical scholars, the early camp is dominant in North America, while the late camp is more popular in Europe (especially in the U.K. and Germany).

-Scott P. 22:31, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it should read "... among which the Gospel of Thomas is believed by some textual critics to predate the Gospels of the traditional canon". I think that competing with terms like "very few", etc. is not relevant. If the scholars are not corner-case kooks, but real, published, quoted, influential to a noticeable degree, then we ought to represent their views and not fuss over "how many" of them there are on their side. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Good point about some 'Biblical scholars' being Corner Case Kooks ! I know I'm probably a Prolific, (but still) Unpublished PC Piker, if that's anything close. :-) Thanks.

-Scott P. 23:02, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Murdered activist

Latest comment: 20 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have removed the category "Murdered activist", which was added by an anon IP a minute ago, because I feel that the category does not apply in this case and is POV-ing the article. If you disagree, let me know! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Random House Webster's Unabridged, 1999:

ac·tiv·ist (akÆtÃ vist), n.

1. an especially active, vigorous advocate of a cause, esp. a political cause. –adj.

2. of or pertaining to activism or activists: an activist organization for environmental concern.

3. advocating or opposing a cause or issue vigorously, esp. a political cause: Activist opponents of the President picketed the White House.

mur·der (mûrÆdÃr), n.

....

8. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

Did not Jesus vigorously advocate forgiveness, brotherly love, and faith in God?

Was not Jesus killed barbarously?

Unless anyone might post something to disprove the contention that Jesus vigorously advocated these things and was killed barbarously, I would like to reinstate the category "Murdered activist".

-Scott P. 22:32, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Smith is not in the murdered activist section. Should he be? I might lay emphasis on the "political cause" part; the three items mentioned don't fall under such an umbrella (and, without offending, they are rather generic--most people profess advocacy of forgiveness, brotherly love, and faith in God). Now, perhaps a case could be made that Jesus as described in the Gospels is portrayed as a political activist, but that case hasn't been made yet (and might be deemed speculative, but I'd like to see what others think). --Peter Kirby 00:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Jesus/Archive 20

Contents

Archives

Removal

Attention!!

Catholic view on salvation

Apostles Creed

Do Wikipedia standards also apply to Christian/Catholic perspectives in articles concerning Christian subjects?

Disputed edits

Question to JimWae about edit summary

Gospel of Thomas

Trying to describe G of T in two intro sentences....

Less is more

Historical Reliability

Portress' extensive additions to lead

Paredōken - to whom was Jesus handed over?

Footnote

Roland Walleij painting

Rouault replacement

Proposed change to Section 9: Interpretations of Jesus

Category:Mythology

Lead changes on Aug 2nd are POV - virtually says Jews crucified Jesus

How bout this?:

Image:Ushakov Nerukotvorniy.jpg

FYI, update from Jesus Seminar

Re: Removal of Jesus from Diety Category

Reverting unsubstantiated edits re the Gospel of Thomas and early oral tradition

Murdered activist