Wikipedia

Talk:Jesus

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Archola (talk | contribs) at 21:54, 19 March 2006 (→Map: Recent edits by Clinkophonist). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 19 years ago by Homestarmy in topic Map
Learn more about this page

Template:Calm talk Template:Talkheaderlong


Archives of older discussions may be found here:
 Key to archives,
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24,25, 26,27, 28,29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44.
Subject-specific: Talk:Josephus on Jesus, Talk:Virgin Birth, Talk:Jewish views of Jesus
ACTIVE sub-pages /Cited Authors Bios, /Christian views in intro, /Scribes Pharisees and Saducees, /Dates of Birth and Death, /2nd Paragraph Debate, Related articles, /Historicity Reference, Comments, Sockpuppets, Languages Spoken by Jesus

Archives and Live Subpages

Recent Archive log

/Archive 40 sorted, here's the key: Archive and subpage logs. Discussion of first three paragraphs, including date issues (range and notation). Skeptic's view of Jesus, including philosophy of ethics and literary analysis. Other stuff: Help with Miracles of Jesus article, Rick Norwood's copyedit, and calm talk.

/Archive 41 is a long debate over the use of Hebrew in the first paragraph (etymology of the name "Jesus").

/Archive 42: Life, the universe, and everything; Ecumenical councils and Biblical canon; New NIV Template; Dates of Jesus; Led Zeppelin and Jesus; Gnosticism; sources controversy and a picture; Assessing the FA Drive.

/Archive 43: March 9 archive; Translation of Mishneh Torah; Proposal to rename this article "Jesus Christ"; Referencing (new footnoting system); SOPHIA's revision of the intro; Redundant sections on Christian views; etombment vs. burial; Andrew c's recent changes.

Subpage Activity Log

Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate

Discussion moved to Talk: Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate. A summary of motions follows:

  1. Agreement achieved on modifications. Archived. Current form left on subpage for further discussion.
    1. Clearer explanation of majority opinion
    2. Clearer explanation of nonexistence hypothesis. (previous discussion at Talk:Jesus/Historicity Reference) --CTSWyneken 15:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
  2. I have archived the discussions on this subpage and posted there the latest agreed text. It will be moved to the main page sometime today. We are ready for further discussion of the text there. This version I will revert to up to two times a day unless agreement is reached on this page to change it. --CTSWyneken 13:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I moved everything on the subpage except the latest proposals to /2nd Paragraph Debate/3, and moved stuff from the main talk page to /2nd Paragraph Debate. Both the subpage and its third archive are over 90K in size! See #The omnicontroversial second paragraph for a summary of current discussion. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 08:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Judaism's views of Jesus

To save space, this section has been moved to Talk:Jewish views of Jesus/Judaism's views of Jesus.

Sockpuppet issue, Kdbuffalo's proposed revision

Discussion of recent sockpuppet allegations against Robsteadman and Kdbuffalo have been moved to Talk:Jesus/Sockpuppets. Discussion of Robsteadman's draft has been moved to Talk:Jesus/PR-and-FA.

Paragraph 3 (Christian views in intro)

Discussion archived to Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro.

Haldrik has inserted the Hebrew

Moved this section and its subsections to Archive 41. Man that is a long archive! But isn't that where they should go? If not, I trust someone will fix it, and sorry for the trouble. --MonkeeSage 07:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

If you think Archive 41 is long, you should see Archive 22! Since Archive 41 is all about the languages issue, you might also create a separate topic subpage. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 05:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Non-Christian religious views

Eastern religion section

Latest comment: 19 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

It doesn't appear to me that we have any citations or references beyond those 2 things in that paragraph, I thought i'd find some websites for some of it so we can either reference or cite it more:

| 1 | 2 (I think that second one might be what our article gets everything from) | 3 these all seem to be be good for citing everything before the Swami part. I can't find anything about Ayyavahzi or whatever, a google search of "Ayyavahzi and Jesus" yielded I think 720 results, and none of the first ones seemed helpful. Is this even a notable religion? | 4 | 5 (This one has a list of books on the subject) these 2 seem to be helpful for the Buudhist sentence, the first one especially for the gospel of Thomas thing. Im not so sure the Bahai sentence is correct, alot of the websites im seeing seem to say that Jesus was Bahaulla or that Jesus was God, | 6 | 7while some apologetics sites claim Bahai says He wasn't much of anything, | 8 so im a bit confused there. Are any of these links helpful source-wise? Homestarmy 19:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

You may prettify, but don't kill my babies! Please? ;-) --CTSWyneken 19:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Is this to me? I was careful with your babies : ) Go look, I converted to exactly what you had, it's just linking differently. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 20:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Oooops-sie! This belonged in the section above. Yes, its for you and you put baby to sleep very gently. ;-) --CTSWyneken 21:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Im not good at scholarly reference standards, i'll just add in a few as numbered links so that they can be reference-ified in the future. I'll try to see if I can change the Bah'ai sentence without making it too long as well. Homestarmy 19:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Homestarmy, I was just going to convert your latest links to the new style, but I'm not sure that first one is an appropriate link. It's better to cite Hindu beliefs from an authoritive Hindu source, rather than from a site that's targeting Hindus to convert them to another religion. Do you want to replace that with a better source?
I did think about that when I was citing it, but you know, I just plain trust apologetics sites :/. I'll go try to find a different citation though. Homestarmy 21:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
These might count almost like blogs but im not sure, once again from beliefnet.com, it has 3 sections concerning stuff in this article including the yogi and journey to india things: 42 Homestarmy 21:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hindu views on Jesus christ could include

  1. Fable of Saint Peter's arrival to india in early christian era.
  2. Syrian christians coming to south india as asylum seekers
  3. Colonian period and conversion. Infamous Goa inquisition.
  4. Spread of Gospel in regional languages - through the missionaries of Germany, Spain, Portugues etc.
  5. English education and renaissance period
  6. Keshavachandra Sen and brahmo get influenced by Christianity
  7. Life and teachings of Jesus christ on leaders and saints like Sri Ramakrishna, Swami Vivekananda, Mahatma Gandhi etc
  8. Acceptance of Jesus Christ as divine personality while rejection of Churchianity by hindu leaders
  9. Christian separatist movements of North-East India
  10. Role christian missionaries in the field of health, education and evangelism
  11. Missing years of Christ, Jesus in India
  12. No hindu religious leader ever making derogatory statements against Jesus Christ though colonial masters were christians

Ramashray 16:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Islamic section

Latest comment: 19 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

More references:

Jesus as prophet, 1 similiarities, (virgin birth, miracle capability) 2 return to earth stuff in Islam 3 Injil stuff 4 and I might look up the life of Jesus claims and that last sentence when I get home. Homestarmy 20:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why are there so many fact tags in the Islamic view section? Are the articles on Isa and Yuz Asaf not reference enough? I believe all, if not most of this information is repeated in these articles which are referenced themselves.--Andrew c 21:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

That's just it, the Isa article didn't have references when I looked, wikilinking to other articles doesn't cut it, we're aiming for FA status. I was going to finish looking up that section, but im a bit busy with school :/. Homestarmy 21:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Well the first fact tag is covered by source #14. The part about Yuz Asaf is just a statement of belief of one small sect. This belief is stated in an article on the offical webpage of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community [1]. As for the second fact tag, I haven't found anything yet to back that up, but i'm still looking--Andrew c 22:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
that first sentence seemed to go more into specifics than source 14 could cover, and i'll try to add in what you found. Homestarmy 22:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I could have added the source I found, sorry. Anyway, this is what the first fact tag is referencing Muslims believe he will return to the world in the flesh following Imam Mahdi to defeat the Dajjal (an Antichrist-like figure, translated as "Deceiver") once the world has become filled with sin, deception and injustice, and then live out the rest of his natural life. Source 14 says " Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) will have two flexible swords and one shield with him and with these he will kill Dajjal at the Gate of Hudd. " and "It will be time for Fajr prayers, and Imam Mahdi will be the Amir (leader) ... at the time of Fajr, Isa (A.S.) will descend. " and "After his descension on earth, Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) will marry. He will have children, and he will remain on earth 19 years after marriage. He will pass away and Muslims will perform his Janaza Salaat and bury him net to Rasulullah ". The only part of that sentence that isn't sourced by 14 is the "once the world has become filled with sin, deception, and injustice" but it does mention the Day of Judgement and the "last era of the Ummat". I would say source 14 covers that sentence, but I could be missing something.--Andrew c 22:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, I must of not noticed it there or something, I was just skimming over the stuff I found to see if I could see the information, I guess 14 does apply then, which just leaves that last thing, which im pretty sure is backed up somewhere by something. Homestarmy 22:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Life and Teachings section

Moving the article forward

Latest comment: 19 years ago18 comments5 people in discussion

Many of you may not know, but Arch has developed a great outline of Jesus related articles on Wikipedia and placed this on his userpage at User:Archola/Wikiproject:Jesus. And as I've said many times in the past, such a biographical article as this should include more of a biography, and I think his outline does a great job of organizing events in Jesus' life as well as his teachings. Based on this outline, I've copied the current article and began reorganizing it implementing Arch's layout. This is located here: User:Aiden/Jesus. If you would like to help by contributing to the summaries of the new sections or discussing changes with the layout, please stop by the talk page. I feel once we get "version 2" of the article up to par, we can work on a acheiving consensus to implement the changes and avoid a conflict this way. I think Arch's outline has great promise and will defitinetly bring the article up to Featured status. —Aiden 21:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

The only issue I have is that your version may be too long and detailed. As I understand it, "Life and Teachings" (possibly renamed to "Biography of Jesus") is meant to be a summary of New Testament view on Jesus' life. I've also raised the question about why we say so little about the biographical details of non-Biblical sources. Again, I'm talking here about secular historians, not Christians. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 21:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
I agree that Aiden's version based on the outline seems way too long for the biography section. Maybe it would go better for one of the many articles already dealing with that topic in more detail. Next, what exactly do you mean by non-Biblical sources? Finally, in reference to your PS, I got the Ehrman book out of the library and expanded the sections on Ebionites and Marcionites. I'd appreciate it if you or any one else looked it over and edit where needed.--Andrew c 00:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your help. As for what I mean, let me put it this way: why is the biographical section titled "Life and Teachings, based on the Gospels" instead of just 'Life and Teachings" based on everything we have? It seems to me that if we limit the biography to the cannonical Gospels, what we wind up with is a minimalist version of the Christian perspective of Jesus: basically the Biblical Jesus stripped of His divinity and all miracles. I just know that Christians are going to find the portait to be too secular, and non-Christians will find it to be too religious. In fact, I've already seen some say that it reads like a Sunday sermon, and that it is more hagiography than biography.
At first I was asking what biographical details from the New Testament apocrypha were used in the historical reconstruction of Jesus. I've thought about it a little more, and what seems to be missing is the historical context, ie some of the stuff in Cultural and historical background of Jesus. One of the things I immediately think of is the politics among Jewish sects and among the Romans that helped to contribute to Jesus' path to the cross. Another thing is that the intro says that Jesus debated with the Jewish authorities, but the biography section gives little mention of this. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 03:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
PS: I've also reordered the article so that the historicity section comes before the religious views section. Since Jesus was a religious figure, religion, especially Christianity, is a major part of Jesus' legacy. We've also been expanding the "other views" section, recently adding Gnosticism and Marcionism. I'm still waiting to hear more about the secular philosophical ethicist view of Jesus. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 21:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Whoever did the "Life and teachings..." section - well done it reads so much better. SophiaTalkTCF 21:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
We should of thought of that sooner, I always thought it looked odd in that paragraph :/. Homestarmy 22:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
That was me. Thanks for the encouragement. The long list of verse links made it hard to read in paragraph form.--Andrew c 00:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Now we are moving forward - where can I read about the collaboration process and what happends next? SophiaTalkTCF 00:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please take a look at my progress with User:Aiden/Jesus#Genealogy_and_Family and User:Aiden/Jesus#Nativity_and_Childhood. Following a modified version of Arch's layout, I've condensed material from each section's main article and information in the current version of this article to yield what I think are more readable, well-rounded sections. Let me know what you think. —Aiden 01:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

P.S. Judging by those two sections, which seem to cover a good amount of biographical data without being too long or unreadable, I honestly would have to disagree that the biography section would be too long. I think by merging some of the related sections (such as Geneology and Family, Nativity and Childhood, Resurrection and Ascension) we could cover all the bases without making the section too long. —Aiden 02:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'll reserve judgement until I see the final version. One of my main concerns is to make sure that we have summaries, not duplication, where appropriate: this goes for every single article on my outline. My other concern is that by limiting the biography to the cannonical gospels, the "life and teachings" section may lack the context that higher criticism provides; ie, we have a stripped-down Biblical Jesus that will be seen as either too secular or too religious depending on the reader's POV. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 03:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Well my intention is to summarize most of what is in the main articles. I've duplicated some information just to get the jest of what each section would look like, but will begin summarizing each section soon. I really would like this to be more of a collaborative effort, so if anyone would like to contribute or sees something that needs changed, please feel free. —Aiden 06:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
I shall definitely look through the above as they sound really good ideas but I was referring to the "official" project page on our collaboration - I wondered if outside bodies have been commenting yet? SophiaTalkTCF 08:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
I've been wondering about that too, I mean we have a big banner announcing the collaboration and I added in the end date, yet im not sure if anyone is even here :/. I think we're planning to extend it another day since this is our first collaboration or something.... Homestarmy 13:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've just looked at the recently-revised section "Life and teachings, based on the Gospels." Now that the section mentions the New Testament apocrypha and Josephus, shouldn't we rename it "Life and teachings," or perhaps "Biography of Jesus"? Arch O. LaTalkTCF 15:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Robsteadman appears to disagree. I suppose however that since it seems accurate, a name change would be in order. Homestarmy 22:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
You are correct. I changed the title to "Life and Teachings," and Robsteadman reverted. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 23:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Life and teachings, (based upon the Gospels?)

Latest comment: 19 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

I feel like the header for the section "Life and teachings" is inaccurate. It is not describing the life and teachings of Jesus (unless you are from a specific POV). I understand that saying (based upon the Gospels) is not entirely accurate because a link to New Testament apocrypha, a sentence about Josephus are included. It remains that the vast majority of this section is a plot summary based on combining the 4 Gospels (and a touch of Acts in the last section). I personally see nothing wrong with summarizing the Biblical picture of Jesus, as long as it is clear that is whats going on. The current header is missing this, and I would propose changing back or to something else like "Life and teachings according to Christian scripture" which may include non-canonical scripture. And maybe we can work to fill more information in from non-canonical sources, but the fact remains that these are just stories about Jesus, and cannot be confirmed as his actual 'Life and teachings'. I can see it now, if we include more non-canonical sources under "life and teachings", Christians will object that these non-canonical sources clearly do NOT represent Jesus' life and teachings, only the "life and teachings" according to a specific source. Does anyone else see it this way? Any suggestions on possible name changes?--Andrew c 18:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

These are the source materials not only for the Christian religion, but also for the historical reconstructionists who accept some details while rejecting others. I like Haldrik's suggestion of "Biography of Jesus." A biography can be either historical or fictional. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 18:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
What exactly do we want in this section? If we are trying to include all sources, we need to say that and expand the section (maybe calling it "Life and teachings from a number of perspectives"). I think biography is not accurate because that is an attempt to construct a single narrative about a person (whether real or fictional). But right now, I think I am favoring the format of the Moses article. Say you are giving a plot summary of the NT, and leave it at that. Give the other POV their own sections as opposed to trying to combine them into one 'biography' (and wouldn't that be OR anyway?). --Andrew c 19:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
I see the distinction between "Moses in the Bible" and "Moses in history" as well as all the religous perspectives, but for Jesus we already have separate sections on historical reconstructions and religious views. You are right that our Life and Teachings/Biography section includes details that some perspectives accept, and others reject. I guess you can call it "Jesus in the Bible, in the Apocraphya, in Josephus, and in other extant sources." You could, but that's a rather long title. If we limit it to "Jesus in the Bible" or "Jesus in the New Testament," then I don't really see the difference between that and Christian views (other than differences in interpretation). The idea I've been promoting is to have a section on "Jesus according to all sources," followed by sections that distinguish between different perspectives (historicity, Christian, Islamic, Judaic, eastern religions, Ebionite, Gnostic, Marcionite, New Age and Skeptical is what we have now). I'm not sure how many agree or disagree with my idea. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 21:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Seeing the 'Biography of Jesus' title, followed by the plot summary of the Gospels, I have to say I don't like that wording at all. It may work if information from outside of the Gospels is ever included in that section, though I would prefer the plural "Biographies". Until then, I propose at least acknowledging that the section is summerizing the event of Jesus' life as depicted in the NT. If we ever decide to include referenced to Jesus in the Koran, in non-canonical works, and whatever other sources we decided to include, maybe we can call it "Various perspectives on Jesus' life and teachings" something that suggests that numerous and sometimes conflicting accounts of Jesus' life follow. I'm going to re-add "according to the Gospels" . I think the biggest concern here is that under the Family subheader, there is a discussion on outside explanations for the claims within the Gospels. Church fathers and Josephus are mentioned to cast light on what the Gospels meant when they said Jesus had a brother. This is almost a historical accuracy question. It doesn't really fit with rest of the paragraphs, because none of them refer to outside sources, or discuss possible explanations for the words in the Gospels. See where I'm going with this? My main point is I see no problem having a section summerizing the events in the Gospels, as long as it is labelled as such.--Andrew c 00:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I thought that we were starting to expand that section beyond the Gospels, but perhaps I was wrong. I haven't been working on that section myself (other than to remove links to a disambig page). Arch O. LaTalkTCF 02:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Sorry about all this, I feel like I'm bringing up all these non-issues. I am not working on that section currently either, but I don't want to direct or put stipulations on the direction of that section. I was just saying I felt the current title didn't match well with the current content. If one changes, the other should follow. I'll wait a few days to see what sort of progress happens, but if the content stays the same, I'd like to eventually edit the header back to reflect that. I personal don't see how we can expand that section. For example, take this existing paragraph:
According to the New Testament, Jesus was raised from the dead on the third day after his crucifixion. This day is celebrated by Christians as Resurrection Sunday during Easter.
How would we expand that section? Quote the Qur'an and mention Islam's view that Isa survived the crucifixion. Mention docetism and the Gnostics and Marcionites and the wording in the Gospel of Peter's crucifixion scene. Mention various hypotheses that historians hold in regards to the crucifixion? See where I am going with this, any information I could think to add to expland that section outside of the gospels is already include in the other sections dealing with those POVs. Thus, this is the reasoning behind why I have been saying just leave it as is: a plot summary of the Gospels.--Andrew c 03:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
You do have a point. Most of the "plot" is in the New Testament, with some of the apocrypha to fill in the gaps. However, a good biography will go beyond plot and place the subject in the proper historical context. What I'd really like to see is more stuff from cultural and historical background of Jesus to provide depth. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 04:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

The omnicontroversial second paragraph

We have been debating the second paragraph for nearly two months, and it remains controversial. We created the subpage /2nd Paragraph Debate so that we could continue the discussion withoout stifling discussion on other parts of the article. I just moved 66 kilobytes to that subpage. I, for one, do not mind having some discussion on this page, because many editors will be more likely to notice it here. However, please keep any discussion of paragraph 2 within this section, and not in other sections of this page. Also keep in mind that any comments may be moved to the subpage at any time.

Among the items currently being discussed:

  1. The definition and context of "healer," especially how to clarify the difference between the Gospel portrayal of Jesus as a supernatural healer, and the view of critical scholars that this is a social role within Jesus' historical religious context.
  2. Where to place the reference to the main source documents, which are the cannonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John).
  3. Clarification of the identity and reasoning of the "majority" (historians and Bible scholars) and the "minority" (nonexistence hypothesis, mostly from philosophers of religion and the like).
  4. The "sources controversy": use of the phrase "lack of extant contemporaneous documents," dating of the Gospel texts, and whether this means anything.
  5. Accuracy of the phrase "King of the Judeans."

Further discussion should be undertaken under /2nd Paragraph Debate or below with a new subsection (use == to start a new subheader). Again, any discussion on this main talk page may be moved to the subpage at any time. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 08:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Paragraph 2, sentence 2

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Here is now the controversial sentence now reads:

"Most scholars of either Biblical criticism or history agree that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean teacher and healer who was sentenced to death by crucifixion outside of Jerusalem on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate,[2] for being acclaimed the "King of the Judeans", a crime of rebellion against the Roman Empire.[3]"

Since this purports to state what "most scholars...agree", it should be a sentence on which most scholars agree, yes? Most of the objections are to the "healer", and I don't think the torturous explanations via a link -- that a "healer" does not necessarily mean "one who heals" -- satisfy anybody. Looking for something that, in fact "most scholars...agree" I suggest the following:

"Most scholars of either Biblical criticism or history agree that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean teacher with a reputation as a healer, who was ..."

Can we agree on this? (If not, then after the first two or three protests, please let this suggestion drop and we'll try something else. I'm looking for something that is acceptable to everyone. I do not want to start another firestorm of controversy.) Rick Norwood 17:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

"Reputation as a healer" is factually accurate. A reputation can be either true or false. As a Christian, I believe this was a true reputation, but of course those who are not Christians will disagree with me. My only concern is that, right or wrong, some will view the phrase "reputation as a healer" as equivication. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 19:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Fine by me. They only mean that he had a certain social position, not that he actually worked miracles (some of may believe that, but that is not how they are using the term "healer" if I understand them), and your wording does make it more explicit that they are refering to the specific social structure at the time. ". . .teacher regarded as a healer" would work also, but I like you wording better. Of course, I believe Jesus was God and did all kinds of miracles, so I don't have a problem with any wording, heh, but for the sake of NPOV and clarity/accuracy, I think your proposal is good. --MonkeeSage 20:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

CTSWyneken has objected. See Talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate#Choosing one or the Other. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 20:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Skeptics and other philosophers

Old talk moved to Talk:Jesus/Archive 40#Skeptic, part two.'

I mean, alot of that stuff looks easy enough to find information for, if the debate over what is and is not the popular view will continue for awhile, I think we might as well look up citations for what we have right now. Homestarmy 17:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

There were two references given for the Skeptics' view; see #Sources of skeptacism regarding Jesus. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 18:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

But do just those 2 references cover everything in that paragraph and are they listed as references already? Homestarmy 20:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
The paragraph is both brief and unsourced. All it says is, "Many Humanists, Atheists and Agnostics, whilst rejecting the concept of God, and therefore of the divinity of Christ, nevertheless have empathy with some of the moral principles taught in the New Testament." Arch O. LaTalkTCF 21:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Well even though it is pretty vauge, im sure we could find plenty of examples of it to cite :/. Homestarmy 15:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
I suspect such people see Jesus much as they see Socrates. They would say, maybe Jesus existed as a man, and maybe Jesus didn't, but that's not important. They would say, what is important is the ideas attributed to Jesus. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 20:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Here's something else to consider. The historical Jesus and the Biblical Jesus are different concepts. However, they're closely related. The historical Jesus is reconstructed from the Biblical Jesus and from what else we know about that time and place. This is the province of historians. The Biblical Jesus is the province of philosophers of religion. Some of these argue for the Jesus-Myth. The more cautious say that there may have been a real historical Jesus who is probably different from the Biblical Jesus. The less cautious argue for the nonexistence hypothesis.

Think about this: what would people say in 3959 if the only extant records of David Koresh are from Branch Davidians? In that case there would be no absolute proof. There was a real historical David Koresh, but Branch Davidians saw him as the Lamb of God and await the Second Coming of Koresh. OTOH, the Boogeyman is entirely urban legend. How would the people in 3959, so remote from our time, be able to tell that David Koresh was not as much of a myth as the Boogeyman?

I think all this talk of the Jesus-Myth is obscuring the fact that the Jesus-Myth school is just a subset of opinion in the field of the philosophy of religion, which in turn is a subset of philosophy. We have brief mentions of the Jesus-Myth school and the Ethicist school, but I wonder how well we are portraying the various philosophical views of Jesus. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 05:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I just want to cite stuff so it qualifies for FA status heh :D Homestarmy 15:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
It seems to me that those with a purely secular philosophical view either see Jesus as good like Socrates, bad like David Koresh, or somewhere in between. The reference to Koresh was also my parable about the Jesus-Myth.
Actually, Rick's got some excellent stuff on his talk page. It may need to be edited, but here it is: User_talk:Rick_Norwood#Jesus. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 18:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yet another point I found in Q document:

Basing their reconstructions primarily on the Gospel of Thomas and the oldest layer of Q, they propose that Jesus functioned as a wisdom sage more analogous to a Greek Cynic philosopher than to a Jewish rabbi.

From the article it's unclear whether "they" is referring to the Jesus Seminar or other "recent seekers of the Historical Jesus." If someone can find and cite sources on this, well, this definitely fits in with the philosophical views of Jesus. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 19:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sources of skepticism regarding Jesus

Other Stuff

Worth Reading

Latest comment: 19 years ago17 comments8 people in discussion

An article on a new book. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim62sch (talk • contribs)

Based on the review, it seems that Wills has seen evidence of Christian hypocracy, and jumped to the conclusion that we're all hypocrites. Well, most of us who are not Methodists never claimed to be perfect. It's something to consider when checking our eyes for beams. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 21:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Hey! I heard that Methodist crack! We're going on to perfection...most of us aren't there yet! KHM03 (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
We Lutherans are already perfect! Perfectly bad and perfectly good at the same time! 8-) --CTSWyneken 22:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
I can't seem to get the pages text to load :/. Homestarmy 22:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, KHM03, but I got that Methodist crack from a comment you made to me earlier.
As for the rest, "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives." (1 John 1:8-10). I don't know about you, but I don't want to make God out to be a liar! Arch O. LaTalkTCF 22:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Hey, I didn't say anyone would necessarily like it, I just said it was worth reading. :) Jim62sch 23:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
If I can get a copy in the UK I will read it Jim. SophiaTalkTCF 23:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
So if I buy Will's book and read it, will I be opposed at every attempt to put his viewpoint into the Jesus article? Drogo Underburrow 23:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
It depends on where in the article you put it. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 23:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

"Trying to find a construct, "the historical Jesus," is not like finding diamonds in a dunghill, but like finding New York City at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. It is a mixing of categories, or rather of wholly different worlds of discourse. The only Jesus we have is the Jesus of faith. If you reject the faith, there is no reason to trust anything the Gospels say." - Garry Wills, Professor of History Emeritus, Northwestern University. Drogo Underburrow 04:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Not suprising. Fits with the whole Westar Institute purpose and mentality, though the Jesus Seminar folks are more subtle, and use more humanities and linguistics tech-talk:
"I come now to the final point. It is a rather large one and can be made here only in the skimpiest outline. It lies central to all the other points I have made or will try to make in the course of our investigations together.
Since we are Bible scholars, let us begin with the Bible as a whole. The Bible begins, we are wont to say, at the Beginning and concludes with a vision of the heavenly city, the ultimate End. . . . And the beginning and end are viewed as wholly consonant with the real events that occur between them. . . .
There are two things to be said about this scheme. First, we are having increasing difficulty these days in accepting the biblical account of the creation and of the apocalyptic conclusion in anything like a literal sense. The difficulty just mentioned is connected with a second feature: we now know that narrative accounts of ourselves, our nation, the Western tradition, and the history of the world, are fictions. . . .
[. . .]
A fiction is thus a selection—arbitrary in nature—of participants and events arranged in a connected chain and on a chronological line with an arbitrary beginning and ending. In sum, we make up all our "stories"—out of real enough material, of course—in relation to imaginary constructs, within temporal limits.
Our fictions, although deliberately fictive, are nevertheless not subject to proof or falsification. We do not abandon them because they are demonstrably false, but because they lose their "operational effectiveness," because they fail to account for enough of what we take to be real in the everyday course of events. Fictions of the sciences or of law are discarded when they no longer match our living experience of things. But religious fictions, like those found in the Bible, are more tenacious because they "are harder to free from mythical 'deposit,'" as Frank Kermode puts it. "If we forget that fictions are fictive we regress to myth." The Bible has become mostly myth in Kermode's sense of the term, since the majority in our society do not hold that the fictions of the Bible are indeed fictive.
. . . What we need is a new fiction that takes as its starting point the central event in the Judeo-Christian drama and reconciles that middle with a new story that reaches beyond old beginnings and endings. In sum, we need a new narrative of Jesus, a new gospel, if you will, that places Jesus differently in the grand scheme, the epic story.
Not any fiction will do. The fiction of the superiority of the Aryan race led to the extermination of six million Jews. The fiction of American superiority prompted the massacre of thousands of Native Americans and the Vietnam War. The fiction of Revelation keeps many common folk in bondage to ignorance and fear. We require a new, liberating fiction, one that squares with the best knowledge we can now accumulate and one that transcends self-serving ideologies. And we need a fiction that we recognize to be fictive." --Dr. Robert Funk, Forum 1,1 (1985) [online].
When you cut through all the scholar-speak, Funk is just saying almost the same thing as Wills is, he's just suggesting a new "gospel" to put our "faith" in; one that we know is simply wishful-thinking, or more accurately, a mental projection of what we value and hold to be real, in the form of a historical-personal narrative. --MonkeeSage 10:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Since we're recommending books, let me recommend a very readable work by a traditional scholar. Paul L. Maier's In the Fullness of Time will give you all an idea why a historian of ancient Rome finds the New Testament a reliable source. Of course, you'd have to have the same sort of courage we have reading Jesus Seminar materials. ;-) Also on the good to read front is just about anything by F. F. Bruce. --CTSWyneken 11:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Interesting, The Funk quote sounds almost postmodern to me, although postmodernists use the word "metanarrative" and not "fiction." As Pontius Pilate once asked, "What is truth?" Of course, Pilate may have been quoting Socrates. Much more recently, Johnny Cash pointed out that this question comes from the lonely voice of youthArch O. LaTalkTCF 19:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Are they better written than "The Case for Christ?" I found that book quite tiresome as it was internally inconsistent and spent most of the time explaining to the reader why they dare not question the experts as they were so qualified in their fields. SophiaTalkTCF 23:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
I've seen that in some apologietcs works and have little use for it -- on either side. I've found some "critical" scholars just as condescending as you descibe. Neither marshall much evidence. Maier doesn't go there. The particular work I've mentioned is aimed at Christians to show tangency between the NT and historical data. It's popular in tone, which, of course, isn't everyone's tea. F. F. Bruce, however, writes for a scholarly audience. --CTSWyneken 00:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
I have no idea. Here's a link that is sure to cause controversy: [3]. It's basically an argument for the Jesus-Myth from a Jewish perspective. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 00:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
PS: For the sake of balance, here's a response to the link above: [4]. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 00:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Date notation silliness

Latest comment: 19 years ago24 comments8 people in discussion

I agree that this subject may be dead on this Talk page, however I knew I would get some quick and educated responses so I posted here. After many endless arguments about "AD/BC" being POV because "Anno Domini" endorses the indoctrination that Jesus is "our Lord" and "Before Christ" is asserting Jesus as "the Christ", I've come to realize something quite simple that technically assures that "AD/BC" is NPOV and "CE/BCE" is unneccesary. If I were to write "JC exists beyond a doubt" at random, this is NPOV because it could be interpreted as "Jimmy Carter exists beyond a doubt", "James Cameron exists beyond a doubt", or anything else. Nowhere in that sentence to I acknowledge that I am reffering to Jesus Christ. Thus the only way that "AD/BC" could be POV is if they were presented in such a context as "Bob was born (in) 100 (years) Before Christ and then he died (in) Anno Domini 2"— saying "Bob was born 100 BC and he then died in AD 2" is literally in no way POV because I could simply interperet it as "British Columbia" and "Andy Dick". For a broader example, writing something like "JCIOLAS" isn't POV until you write it out as "Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior". I think this cripples all presented evidence of a POV stance that accusingly exists with "AD/BC". The POV is only with "Anno Domini" and "Before Christ". Any responses? Cheers –CrazyInSane 21:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC).Reply

This is a spurious argument. Hiding something behind a well-known acronym does not make it either neutral or ambiguous. Alienus 21:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Just because it is well known doesn't mean "BC" automatically means "Before Christ". Actually, there are a lot of alternate meanings for the acronym "BC" such as "British Columbia", "British Council", "Boston College". My point is that, technically, the letters "B" and "C" put together do not assert Christian POV. People are going far enough to assert that "AD" is POV simply because it "asserts the divinity of Jesus", and I'm going as far as to refute it. Nothing spurious. CrazyInSane 21:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
There are many who agree with you, and many who disagree with you. Some time ago they worked out a compromise to use both notations, ie AD/CE and BC/BCE. This double notation may be silly, but it's what we have now. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 21:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Using the same agument PBUH would be NPOV too. How many people were born in the year 1950 Andy Dick? As many as in 1951 Mobius Strip? --JimWae 21:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Again, you're missing the point. It doesn't matter that no one was born in "1950 Andy Dick", it matters that "AD" is not ultimately defined as "Anno Domini", thus POV is only present in instances such as "He was born Anno Domini 1950". CrazyInSane 21:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • this is just silly - responsible editors do not get to make up their own abbreviations -- nor lack of abbreviations --- might as well make up your own language --JimWae 21:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC) PBUHReply
Silly as it may be, JimWae, people in the outside world would just as equally find it "silly" for people to be throwing around the idea that "AD" and "BC" need to be eradicated because it "offends some people". That's just as ridiculous as being offended by the use of "Wednesday" or especially, "Gregorian calendar"–no one complains about that. So since we're in the spirit of being "ridiculous", I'm going to get down to the wire here: the acronym "AD"–undefined specifically– does not assert that Jesus is God in any way. It doesn't. CrazyInSane 21:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Both should be used for the simple reason that the literature of Biblical Studies uses both. Not to use both is to risk confusing people. This is, of course, my POV 8-) --CTSWyneken 21:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
That's the best explanation I've heard yet for the current compromise. As far as I'm concerned, the current year is 2006. I don't really care if people write AD 2006 or 2006 CE or 2006 AD/CE. I just think it's silly to argue over the notation. 6 of one, VI of the other: different notation, same meaning. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 21:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Let me give you a silly analogy. Imagine if someone modifies the biography of Ariel Sharon to say that he was born in 39 PH, which is to say, 39 years after Hitler was. Do you think this would be slightly POV? Alienus 23:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

It would be just as silly to label this 39 CE. Of course, such a dating system is not at all common, but my point is that any POV is just as much in the number as in the notation. If people are bothered by the fact that the Western calandar is based on a hypothesized birthdate of Jesus of Nazareth, we could always go back to the older system, dating years from the founding of Rome. Of course, this is just another POV. The Islamic calander is dated from Mohammed's Hegira. Any calander we use is going to emphazize one year above all others, and thus be POV. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 23:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

On second thought, my example could be better. For example, Hitler is an unambiguously historical figure and isn't commonly regarded (even among his admirers) as God. Allow me to repair my example.

Let's say that Nazi numerological researchers anounced that the first true Aryan was born 1,889 years before Hitler, and therefore all dates would be measured from that moment. Henceforth, Nazi puplications give the year of Hitler's birth, not as 1889 AD or 1889 CE, but 1889 DA (Dawn of Aryans). Now, given this, do you think that using DA instead of AD or CE for the year of Hitler's birth implies a political statement that is POV?

It's not the number alone, but what's ascribed to it. "AD" implies that "our lord" was born 2006 years ago. Of course, as the article admits freely, our best evidence suggests that, if he existed, the historical Jesus was born 2 to 8 years further back, which means "AD" is flatly wrong. However, "CE" is still fine, since it doesn't make specific claims about Jesus, or even mention him indirectly.

The very best argument against CE/BCE is that it's less well known than AD/BC. Then again, the fact that Jesus wasn't born on 1 AD is also less well known, yet we don't shy from sharing it. Perhaps a parenthetical remark near the top explaining CE/BCE is in order, so be can then use it instead of AD/BC. Alienus 05:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

The thing is that there are people who are bothered by both notations. The longstanding compromise is to use both. Think about this: CE isn't really "common" era, it's only common to Western Civilization. Why? Because of the influence of Christianity, especially missionaries and colonialists. So then you're back to honoring those people who believe that Jesus is both Lord and Christ. Isn't this the same problem? Arch O. LaTalkTCF 07:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Like it or not, it's a simple fact that the common notation for years starts with what used to be thought of as the year of Jesus' birth. However, the claim that this is the year of the coming of our lord is a bit more controversial. In short, even if CE bugs you, it ought to bug you less than AD. Alienus 19:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Regardless of the "formal" definitions, I've always taken BCE/CE to mean "Before/Christian Era," since "Common Era" sounds so goofy to me (like there was no "common-ness" to anything before then, and then everything became common afterward, heh -- obviously it refers to Christianity, not "common-ness"). How about "ABCDE" that covers everything, and it is in alphabetical order! ;) --MonkeeSage 08:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
As I said before, we could always go back to dating from when Romulus and Remus decided to build a town on seven hills ;) Arch O. LaTalkTCF 08:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
There are people who go through wiki changing BC to BCE and other people who go through wiki changing BCE to BC. It keeps them off the streets. But, in answer to the comment above, the "common" in Common Era refers to the fact that this system of dates is the one most commonly used in the world today. My own habit is to use BC and AD in articles about Christianity, and BCE and CE in other articles, especially those about non-Christian countries. (It sounds silly to say that the Han Dynasty lasted from 200 BC to 200 AD.) On the other hand, I certainly have better things to do with my time that fight over it. Rick Norwood 15:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
I agree that it doesn't matter Rick. I don't really think either notation is POV, since it is just a shorthand for refering to a certain type of calandering (just like 10^3 vs. 103 doesn't denote any bias for say, physics over compter programming). But as for "common" in B/CE, I think it is an adjective referring to the eras, not the popularity of the calandering system, which just sounds odd to me, and is why I mentally substitute my own meaning. But that's neither here nor there...just being the grammar/syntax police. ;) --MonkeeSage 16:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
"Common era" means that the era is commonly used, not that it is the era of commonality. "Christian era" also works because it was Christians who decided that Rome was no longer good enough to base a calandar off of. As for 10^3 vs. 103, this is much the same thing as when I said 6 of one, VI of another. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 19:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Ah, I guess that does make sense. I didn't see your comment before -- "6 of one, VI of another" -- lol! I'm going to start using that when verbally communicating "Vee Eye of another"! hehehe! That will show the Muslims that I won't be oppressed by their Arabic numbering system (which they stole from the Hindus' Sanskrit in LXVLVMCLVII on the Mayan calander)! ;D --MonkeeSage 20:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
LOL! Sorry you missed my comment before, but I last said it right before Alienus brought Ariel Sharon and Adolph Hitler into it. I bring it up every time someone disputes the dating notation. Arch O. LaTalkTCF
I said it before and I'll say it again: no debate about dating conventions is complete without mention of both Ariel Sharon and Adolph Hitler! Alienus 20:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

In the UK, everyone uses AD and BC. The idea that AD/BC is somehow POV or pro/anti Christian is regarded as absurd here. Clinkophonist 21:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

See also

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I just discovered wikinfo. Check their article on Jesus Christ. Interesting case of divergent evolution. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 23:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Note to self: Wikinfo articles on controversial topics are crap. Alienus 23:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
But still an interesting case of divergent evolution. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 23:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

True. I think it's a valuable lesson in why POV forks are a bad idea. Then again, I thought we had enough examples of that from the Mormonism articles. Alienus 05:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Map

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Anyone know of a public ___domain map of the places Jesus is said to have preached to add to article - the ones I found were quite interesting, but not in public ___domain --JimWae 20:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Would any of them qualify under fair use? :/ Homestarmy 21:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Recent edits by Clinkophonist

User:Clinkophonist has added data to the Historicity and Religious views sections that need to be fact-checked and cited. If accurate, this data does improve the article. Arch O. LaTalkTCF

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesus&oldid=44559080"