Talk:Jesus/Archive 112

Archive 105

←

Archive 110

Archive 111

Archive 112

Archive 113

Archive 114

Archive 115

"one of the most influential persons" sentence

Regarding the lead, I removed these two sentences from the first paragraph, see my edit summary: "Several other religions revere him in some way. He remains one of the most influential figures in history." Instead of the first sentence, simply mention any important religions, which already have in the lead and body. And as for the second, it's just redundant and not very encyclopedic. LonelyMarble (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree; references can be found all over the article. Furthermore, while they may seem obvious to most people, a lot of people looking up this article wouldn't know of that fact. Flash 01:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)

Which fact? HiLo48 (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That Jesus was one of the most influential figure in history. I should have clarified. Flash 01:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)

Thanks for clarifying, but.... Hey! Hold on a bit there! Let's discuss this without reverting so often. (I will leave it for now, because too many reverts is a bad thing.) Those two sentences, which have just been stuck back in again, again, and again, are very poorly written. Expressions like "in some way" and "one of the most" are not at all encyclopaedic. If there is something useful to say, please find a better and clearer way of doing so. For the first sentence, listing the names of those religions where Jesus is significant, on a large scale, not down to minor sects and denominations, would not be out of place. The second sentence really is just rubbish. It simply sounds like barracking. (For Americans, that's Australian for rooting - a term that means something very different in Australian English.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that "one of the most influential" is POV. It would be POV to say the word "greatest", or to say that the influence is good or bad, but "one of the most influential" is a matter of fact. Flash 02:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)

I did not use the term POV. "One of the most influential" is clichéd. It is synthesis. Such words are not used anywhere else in the article. There is no source referenced to say that any reputable scholar has said so. It may have occurred. It may be true, but it's not encyclopaedic language. It is journalistic. It is also unnecessary. It adds nothing to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 03:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think it's unnecessary? Will this not be useful information to someone who knows very little about Jesus? Furthermore, there are numerous sources which can be cited. "one of the most influential" is not cliched; although I can understand why you would view it as such. Influential has a clear, concrete meaning.

Would it be better to say "some consider him the most influential"? sources can be cited Flash 03:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)

It is so subjective it is absurd. Maybe we could put "According to his mother, Jesus was one of the most influential people ever to have lived." But most Jewish mothers think that of their boys. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia, as well as this article, is full of subjective opinions, which is why it has to have a qualifier such as "some consider" or "some scholars consider". And the sentence has many more reliable sources than you seem to be implying.

Or, alternatively, the sentence could stay as it is. I haven't encountered any sources which say that Jesus was not influential. Flash 12:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Your first point implies WP:Weasel words of "some consider". Your second point implies WP:Synthesis that since no scholars say he wasn't influential then he must be so. Besides throwing around guidelines, the sentence is simply subjective and not encyclopedic. Comparing articles isn't necessarily a good thing, but I don't see this sentence on Abraham, Muhammad, or Gautama Buddha. On Confucius it directly says what cultures he has influenced. This is comparable to saying Jesus is the central figure of Christianity. Adding that he is "influential" is vague and redundant. I request at least one or two good sources stating that Jesus is "one of the most influential figures" be added to the lead, but I would much rather just have the sentence taken out. Also the other sentence of "several other religions" is vague and unnecessary as well, but we'll argue one at a time. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really say a lot, and just seems there for fluff. And to me, it seems a bit amateurish, one step removed from "Jesus is awesome!". I mean, sure he is, but that doesn't mean we need to say it in an encyclopedia article about him. We revert such edits as vandalism. I was looking at the George Washington article, and it suffers a little bit from this as well, but I think the key differences is it is more specific, and sources. Compare Because of his significant role in the revolution and in the formation of the United States, he is often revered by Americans as the "Father of Our Country".[5][6] and Historical scholars consistently rank him as one of the greatest United States presidents. to something more like George Washington remains one of the most influential figures in American history. The former, I feel seems more high school level, while the latter is more grade school. Just because you think something is true and self evident doesn't mean it is proper or appropriate for an encyclopedia article! -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, it is better to be specific with facts or else you are venturing into WP:Peacock puffery. Saying he is the central figure of Christianity, and revered as God incarnate by many, are more specific ways of saying he is influential. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

His influence goes beyond being the central figure in Christianity, and I can give sources saying so. Omitting such information makes the article incomplete. As some of you said, that Jesus was one of the most influential persons may be seen as self evident, but many people, especially those who would look up this article, would not be aware of that fact. Flash 21:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Flash - Influential is a sloppy word. Many dictators and military invaders have been influential, but I doubt that is the kind of meaning you intend. Maybe it would help if you told us some of the ways you think Jesus has been influential. Then we could work on forming some words that retained your meaning but fitted better into an encyclopaedic structure. Since most readers here already understand his role as the key figure of Christianity, maybe concentrate on areas beyond that. HiLo48 (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

How he has been influential has already been covered in the article, in detail. Thee is a whole discussion dedicated to it. So at this point the the discussion is moot. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No, How he has been influential has not been covered in the article. The word influential is only used three times, once in the case in question and two other times where it is not describing Jesus. As I just said, it's a sloppy word. It can have very positive overtones (presumably the intention here), or be used to describe some of the most horrible people in history. If such a thought MUST go in the lead, we need another word, in a better sentence. Please help create it. HiLo48 (talk) 21:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The Legacy section is dedicated to explaining the lasting influence of Jesus. If you think it does not adequately describe "how" he has been influential then that information belongs in that section. The lead is already a good summary I think, a vague sentence about being influential is not needed. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

How many crucified Jews from the time of the Roman occupation get their own Wikipedia articles? In fact, Wikipedia has basic notability standards for inclusion as topic of an article. I do not think anyone is challenging whether Jesus is important enough that he meits an encyclopedia article. So we agree we meet the notability requirements. That should be enough. Again I think it is a moot point. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

From http://www.buy.com/prod/jesus-outside-the-new-testament/q/loc/106/30559465.html

Jesus of Nazareth is arguably the most influential person in history.Through the Christian faith, the world's most widespread and numerous religion, Jesus has had a direct impact on Western culture and an indirect impact on many other cultures. Today many followers of other religions also know about Jesus, and his teachings influence them. Jesus' teachings even attract some agnostics and atheists, who profess to live by the Sermon on the Mount or its "Golden Rule." For scholars, Jesus is a leading figure of the past. Far more learned books and articles have been written about Jesus than about any other person,and the "quest for the historical Jesus" is one of the largest enduring enterprises in humanities scholarship. Yet the quantity and intensity of the academic study of Jesus suggest that interest in him is far more than historical and scholarly. Most people's deeper interest in the life and teachings of Jesus springs not from historical study, but from faith in the present Jesus as the Son of God and Savior of the world. For them,he is not just "the historical Jesus," or much less as a waggish British scholar once dubbed him, "the late J. Christ of Biblical fame," but the living Lord Jesus Christ.

Information such as this could go in the Legacy section. Flash 12:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, I sense a point of view here. Anyway, I think the point made here - that people who believe Jesus was a god believe Jesus was a god, is already made in the article. And as HiLo48 wrote, correctly, "influential" is a cliche and practically impossible to prove. I have no idea how anyone can demonstrate how many non-Christians were influenced by Jesus. But it comes down to this (1) there are many diferent interpretations of the Gospels and (2) that the Gospels reflect Jesus's teachings rather than views unique to their authors or views circulating more widely at the time is contentious and hence a matter of POV. With these questions out there, it is impractical to measure influence. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Slrubenstein | Talk 16:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Influence cannot be measured but is certainly not cliche. As the source, among others show, his influence goes far beyond being the central figure of Christianity. Excluding this information not only makes the article incomplete, it is POV. Flash 17:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that excerpt says is that his teachings may or may not influence people outside of Christianity. And like Slrubenstein said, the teachings of Jesus cannot necessarily actually be attributed to the man himself. Other than the vague influence sentence, what part of his legacy is not mentioned that you want included? That source does not even back up your claim that his legacy goes beyond being the central figure of Christianity. It says most people's interest in Jesus is believing he's the "Son of God". LonelyMarble (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The excerpt also mentions articles, literature, and the influence of his teachings.

This excerpt from the book the essential Jesus expands further:

No matter what you think about Jesus, there's no denying he is the most influential person in all of human history. And what's truly amazing is that his path to influence was so unlikely.

Jesus never became a political, military or government leader; he never wanted to. He never owned a multinational corporation or acquired any wealth to speak of; he didn't need it. He never wrote a book, never staged a concert tour, never appeared on television and never had a radio talk show or even his own blog. He was born in a barn, grew up as a laborer, remained single and childless his entire life, and was executed at the age of thirty-three.

Yet somehow Jesus became the reference point for life ever since - we mark our calendars by his death. He has inspired some of the world's greatest art, literature, music and architecture. His ethical teachings have been hailed as the world's greatest - even by those who aren't his followers. He's been the subject of countless books, articles, television programs and movies. ... Not only that, the book that gives us the most information about him - the Bible - has sold more copies than any volume ever printed.

---

simply saying that Jesus' only influence is that Christians see him as the son of God is not only misleading, it is simply wrong. Flash 17:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The Legacy section does discuss the influence of his teachings and his influence in art, literature and other mediums. Perhaps we can add a sentence to the lead that basically summarizes the Legacy section, this would be in line with what leads are supposed to do. This sentence should mention specific products of his legacy though, not just vaguely state he was influential. I'd also like some sources for such a sentence too. LonelyMarble (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The legacy section does miss some information, such as the influence on culture, literature, etc, and the calendar system.

It will be hard to summarize all this information in one sentence and not have it be a run-on. Which is why I liked the general clause "most influential". Flash 18:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The sentence as it was didn't convey any real information and was just fluff. A sentence or two summarizing the Legacy section by mentioning specifics would be more encyclopedic. If other users agree on this I'm sure a good sentence or two can be formed. LonelyMarble (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that Dionysius Exiguus or Charlemagne had a much bigger influence on the calendar than Jesus. I'd say that Doestoyevsky had a much bigger influence on literaqture than Jesus. So, I still do not see the influence you talk of. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I came across this reading last night, just to annoy everyone. "There is no doubt that Jesus of Nazareth is one of the most important historical and religious figures of all time." --Ari (talk) 02:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, reading Bock would annoy me :/ -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Flash - Firstly, carpenters are tradesmen, not labourers. My chippy mates wouldn't like being called labourers. Secondly (and I've been resisting using the first name), but Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin were influential too. I use those examples to less subtly make the point that influential doesn't necessarily mean good. If you want to make some sort of positive point, you really do need a better word. Even important, as in that last quote, wouldn't quite express the POV you obviously want in there. HiLo48 (talk) 04:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Some carpenters are actually more craftsmen than tradesmen. In any case although Hitler was influential, his remaining influence is through what he stood for rather than who he was. Jesus's influence is primarily who he is claimed to be. What he stood for is often of lesser importance - hence the almost Hitleresque (Hitlerliche?) propogation and manifestation of Christianity (and interpretations of it) at points throughout its history. Had the influence of Jesus focussed on what he stood for (serving and loving one's neighbour) then the spread of the religions, and their influence may have been somewhat tempered. As it is the autthority of who Jesus is claimed to be (Son of God and master of creation), the churches have adopted a kind of "inherritence of authority" without necessarily the responsibility, discernment and wisdom which must accompany it. And in essence the influence of Jesus on human history does not even require the actual physical existence of the historical Jesus (a point which some would still argue). In contrast to Hitler's specific sphere of influence, Jesus's influence pervades many different spheres: philosophical, ideological, humanitarian, authoritarian - even affecting what some consider to be the truth of science and scientific interpretation . So when all things are considered I personally would say that Jesus (even if his actual existence is untrue) still ranks as not only one of the most influential, but probably the most influential characters in human history. It will be NPOV and left to the reader to decide whether the influence was positive, or negative, or a combination of the two, and to what degree. JohnArmagh (talk) 06:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice perspective. But I'm pretty sure our colleague Flash wants the word influential to have pretty much an exclusively positive connotation. HiLo48 (talk) 06:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Being a Christian myself (and I hope that was not reflected in my comments, as I intended them to be neutral) I would like influential to be positive. But one has to look at the facts - and it cannot be denied that some of the influences, when adopted by agenda-driven people, have clearly been negative. So, once the term influential is used, it is best then to present the facts to the reader and let them decide. JohnArmagh (talk) 08:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

No, didn't pick your writings as having any particular bias at all. I agree with presenting facts to the reader and letting them decide. That's where the word influential bothers me. It's a conclusion being drawn by an editor, based on a combination of other material. That's WP:SYNTHESIS, and is strongly disapproved of. And it's simply not needed. As for "one of the most", well, that's just WP:WEASEL. HiLo48 (talk) 09:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm .... If Jesus's influence is tied up with people's believf in his divinity, we might as well just skip this article entirely, go to the God article and say God is one of the most influential characters in history. In any event, @ John Armagh, Jesus' influence is (like anyone's influence) in the eye of the beholder. King David, Cyrus the Great, and Caiaphas were all messiahs, and David was Son of God to boot, so none of these are marks of distinction. But the bottom line is, we really do not know what Jesus claimed to be from any immediate influence, and the Gospels are by no means clear that Jesus was one with God, and this is something Christains themselves debated for some time. This is why it is much better to list some of th enotable legacies of Jesus, rather than comment on whether jesus' legacy is greater than that of Hammurapi or Moses, or the Buddha or Mao, or James Watt, or Henry Ford, or Albet Einstein, or Alan Turing, or Richard Gatling, each of whom I think someone has made a good argument for having changed the world, which makes them pretty influential. Better just to list the forms of the legacy; it is more informative. What I find most remarkable about this proposal is that it seeks to use a cliche instead of providing substantive information. This to me is always the sign of a POV pusher rather than someone who wishes to contribute to an encyclopedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Right - so you are accusing me of being a "POV pusher" and not interested in contribution to an encyclopaedia? JohnArmagh (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he was necessarily talking about you. But anyway, I mentioned earlier, the best thing to do would be to summarize the Legacy section so you get a sentence or two mentioning specific things. A vague sentence stating he is influential is unhelpful. Whether his influence is good or bad is not the problem, the problem is stating a vague sentence with no specifics. LonelyMarble (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The last two sentences are a comment on the proposal, not any individual editor. That said, i did not think that the proposal was made by JohnArmagh. But if he is claiming credit for the proposal, well, okay, but my opinion of the proposal stands. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not claiming credit for a proposal. My opinions on the use of the term most influential are strictly NPOV, and most certainly not promoting any agenda. That the subject is influential cannot be denied - because influence is demonstrated not by an individual's own actions but rather on the actions of those to whom the individual is known, or known about. I certainly do not advocate any slant to positivity - as it is clear, as I said previously, that the actions of those influenced have often been negative in the extreme - however it is the job of this encyclopaedia to ensure sufficient information is available on the particulars of the influence, with appropriate links to provide the reader with the information in order for them to come to their own conclusion as to the significant influence which the subject undeniably has had over the past 2000 years. JohnArmagh (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

(responding on this request for opinion) While accepting the idea that the text itself proves "Several other religions revere..." and "He remains one of the most...", and that it doesn't needs references in the intro, I think they signal some peacockyness that is a little unencyclopedic. Removing them is justified, and the current state of the article is better. Apart from style, the contents of the intro is accurate and pretty well balanced. The only addition I propose is the system rejection of Jesus from Judaism, where some council of high rabbis somewhere, claim that any religious system containing Jesus as an important spiritual figure, is non-Judaism. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply.

The reason why I want to include the sentence is because it is important information, without which the article is incomplete. It's not about conveying a "positive" message, it's about giving the relevant information.

There are many sources which say Jesus is either one of the most or the most influential person. IMO, "most influential" is general, but it is not vague or cliche. It belongs in the first paragraph because it is very general information; specific information should be in the Legacy section. Censoring such information is POV, although I don't believe any editor is doing this.

The influence of Jesus, as I see it, can be divided into two parts. The influence of his teachings (turn the other cheek, golden rule etc) on philosophy and the influence of Jesus on culture (literature, architecture, Easter, Christmas, Gregorian calendar, etc.). Flash 13:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I propose to replace the deleted sentence with:

Many consider Jesus the most influential person in history.

OR

Jesus and his teachings has significantly influenced culture and moral philosophy.

Both of these sentences has multiple sources which can be cited. Flash 22:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Again Flash, I don't think you have absorbed most of the discussion above. The line in question has many issues. One is that influential is a sloppy word. I'm pretty sure that what you want people to read from your proposed statement is that Jesus had a very large positive impact. But influential can mean a negative impact. Stalin was influential. Do you really want that possible meaning in the article? HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I don't want the statement to be "positive" or "negative", I want it to be informative that Jesus is influential. Influential is not a "sloppy" word, it's used all the time in wikipedia, and can be found in many sources which talks about Jesus. Flash 23:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

We have been discussing this for ten days. And the proposal still fails to gain any traction. I would say that thoughtful editors have given it consideration and are uninterested. After ten days, we can drop this topic and move on to others. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You are the one who removed it without consensus. Several issues have been brought up with the sentence, and the ideal solution is to resolve the issues instead of discarding information. Flash 00:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

So what is your proposal? Would you like to suggest a new wording, based on new sources? -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Flash - you say that you don't want to discard information, but your proposals contain very little information to discard. If we aren't clear whether influential means good or bad, it's not information. And expressions like many consider and significantly, being non-quantitative, tells us very little as well. HiLo48 (talk) 02:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

influential doesn't need to be good or bad; it just means having an effect; whether that's good or bad should be left to the reader to decide

the information you're referring to is specific information, influences such as literature, architecture, Easter, Christmas, calendar, moral philosophy, etc. Such information is missing from the legacy section, and ideally, there should be one summarizing sentence which gives only general information. Omitting such information about the influence of Jesus results in an incomplete article.

If you think influential does not provide any information, how do you suggest we word the sentence? Flash 02:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Just leave it out. HiLo48 (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Which, as I said, would leave important information and make the article complete. Flash 02:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I have given extensive explanations for my position. I guess we don't have consensus. HiLo48 (talk) 03:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

From what you have said earlier, you probably don't agree with any information about Jesus' influence appearing in this article. However, it is policy to try to preserve information, and not liking information or disagreeing with it is not a suitable reason to delete it. Flash 04:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You are a very difficult person to discuss things with. I have already said that I don't think there is any information there to preserve. And there's no point seeking my opinion on what should be there, because I cannot see anything significant in what YOU want there. HiLo48 (talk) 04:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not my intent to be difficult.

That Jesus was influential is important information; he has greatly impacted history, culture, and moral philosophy, and I gave a few examples, along with some sources. While to some it may seem obvious, there are others, especially those who would look up this article, that would not know this information. Flash 13:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:PRESERVE, the information should be retained unless it is not useful information and would not belong in a finished article. Flash 08:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

"Lord" Jesus

Since Jesus was first introduced via Christianity and the Bible, and in that source he is said to be the "Lord", I would like to suggest that somewhere within the first paragraph of the wikipedia article that he be referred to as "Lord Jesus". Currently the word Lord is not found in the Jesus article until about half way down. Christianity's idea of salvation hinges on the idea that "Jesus is Lord" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit. There is another good reason to refer to him as "Lord Jesus", seeing as he rose from the dead-- when he comes again, one would want to refer to a person of such great power with the title (Lord) due unto him. When the president comes into town you don't just call him Barack, you say Mr. President or President Obama. Likewise, when you are dealing with the Lord of Lords, it is highly advisable to honor the name of Jesus using the title that God has given his son, "Lord". Thanks for your consideration. I believe it is right to make this edit because without the Bible, there wouldn't even be an idea of who Jesus is, and the Bible is very clear about Jesus being the Lord. Thanks 75.60.228.75 (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)discipleofjesus12345

When the messiah comes, ALL the dead will be resurrected. I don't think we are going to go around calling each other "Lord;" I am just hoping I will remember the names of all the dead people I know! Slrubenstein | Talk 14:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I have enough trouble remembering the live people I know .... His title is Christ, rather than Lord, anyway, isn't it? I'm not a christian, so I'm not sure. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

He's also King of Kings and Prince of Peace. I wonder if he's also a Duke of something? Paul B (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Essenean monk? Because that what he was. And now he is the archetypal leader, as he was the founder.WillBildUnion (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The title "Lord" for Jesus came along early in the tradition and deserves perhaps more mention. Maybe we can refer to him as "the Lord Jesus Christ" instead of "Jesus Christ" at some point when we're outlining terminology for him. Leadwind (talk) 01:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed dubious ref/footnote # 27

I have removed footnote #27 from the lede within:

Most critical scholars in biblical studies believe that some parts of the New Testament are useful for reconstructing Jesus' life,[12][13][14][15] agreeing that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]

The footnote was introduced 2006-NOV-11 by User:KillerChihuahua and revised 2006-NOV-11 by User:LostCaesar

It reads:

Though many historians may have certain reservations about the use of the Gospels for writing history, "even the most hesitant, however, will concede that we are probably on safe historical footing" concerning certain basic facts about the life of Jesus; Cruz, Jo Ann H. Moran; Gerberding, Richard (2004). Houghton Mifflin Company. pp. 44–45. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)

with a hidden title of |work=Medieval Worlds: An Introduction to European History

Today I had revised the note to:

Though many historians may have certain reservations about the use of the Gospels for writing history, "even the most hesitant, however, will concede that we are probably on safe historical footing" concerning certain basic facts about the life of Jesus; Cruz, Jo Ann H. Moran; Gerberding, Richard (2004). Medieval Worlds: An Introduction to European History, 300-1492. Houghton Mifflin Company. pp. 44–45.

Notice the years in the title, notice also that it seems to be misplaced and if it belongs anywhere should probably be after [15]. If anyone wants to tackle talk from talk from 2006-NOV to try to make sense of this, please do. --JimWae (talk) 05:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

principal sources hard to understand

".. are the four canonical gospels, especially the Synoptic Gospels, though some scholars argue such texts as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of the Hebrews are also relevant."

I would like it to read:

".. are the four canonical gospels, though some scholars argue such texts as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of the Hebrews are also relevant."

Ideas please?

Etymology

The statement 'A "Messiah" is a king anointed' is not complete. Anointed ones (Messiahs) in the Bible include prophets, priests, and kings not just kings.

Kvitekrist

Kvitekrist, meaning "white Christ", Jesus' Norse name should be added. Most likely in the heading as in other articles.St.Trond (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that we need to add the name of Jesus in every language in the world? If not, why is the Norse name of such importance? --^StormRider 17:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Many entries are provided in multiple languages. If they had a different name for Jesus when Christianity was introduced, why not provide it here? St.Trond (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

In short, because it's irrelevant. What Jesus was called when Christianity was introduced to Scandinavia is of no importance at all for an understanding of the historical Jesus, his teachings, his followers, or his effects on the world at large. Christianization of Scandinavia may be a suitable place for such information if you can provide a reliable source. Huon (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this the word still used in Norway? I suppose we could make the name a page that redirects here, in case anyone uses the word to refer to jesus and wants to find the right article. But isn't this really a matter for the Norwegian encyclopedia? I just do not see what the point is. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the term was quite derogatory when it originated (I have no idea if it is still in use), as the Vikings didn't think a great deal of Christianity and coined the term to be deliberately offensive (to describe a man as 'white' meant he was less than manly, shall we say). We now return you to your scheduled talkpage. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The missing years [...]

(Removed copyrighted material) Marauder40 (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice wall of text, but it strikes me as a fringe position. It also seems to be largely speculation, with the only source I found (though I may have overlooked others) a 1887 book written not by a historian but a journalist. It's also wrong that Caesar's calendar reform was based on Caesarion's birth; a quick search found that Caesareon was born in 47 BCE, while the calendar was introduced in 45. Given that Caesar left Egypt in 47, it would be an impressive miracle if his son were born in 45. Huon (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The terrorizement of the calender has been so extensive, we do not actually know if Caesar left Egypt bc45 or bc47. Nevertheless, this minor detail three year gap in nonrelevant to the fact that there is a +30 years a gap, a man size hole, in between Julian and Gregorian calenders.

What comes to the sources, the text is largely filled with biblical sources.WillBildUnion (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Those "Biblical sources" don't say what you want them to say. And are you also claiming that the ancient writers didn't correctly report the time between Caesarion's birth and Julius Caesar's introduction of his calendar? Any competent Roman historian would be able to tell us that the calendar was introduced 18 months after Caesar returned from Egypt, and whether that was in 45 BCE or 47 BCE, it would rule out any connection to Caesarion's birth. Anyway, what Julius Caesar changed was the length of the year - but the Romans still counted their years ab urbe condita (or by Consuls, later by Emperors' reigns), they didn't start with "year 1 after the calendar reform". Anno Domini numbering was started a few hundred years after Julius Caesar's reforms and was not a bastardization of a previous Roman numbering system. Huon (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Was Caesar a mastermind with Cleopatra behind the new era plan is a minor issue considering the big picture. Caesar however thought himself to be divine during his last years, for example, he placed golden statue of Cleopatra in the holiest places of Roman worship, next to a statue of Roman goddess Venus, as equal, as new Venus. Caesar also did not stand up when senate came to meet him in the temples of Apollo and Venus, sitting in their throne. Caesar was killed because he was to setup heritable monarchy. So it seems Caesar was also masterminding the new era plan. Cleopatra on the other hand zeroed the Egyptian calendar at least twice, first to mark her queenship and second time when she started coregency with Caesarion. Egyptian mathematicians/astronomers were working for Caesar to renew the Roman calendar, Cleopatra supplied this humble help.WillBildUnion (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

We could discuss your essay at length, and it might actually be interesting, but unless you can provide some reliable sources (such as historians or theologians writing about this theory in the peer-reviewed literature), it's unsuitable for Wikipedia. Suffice it to say that I doubt:

• Your identification of Mary of Magdala with Selene. Sounds plausible in English, too bad that the one name is Greek, the other Aramaic. Besides, Selene got married to King Juba of Mauretania, and her tomb in Mauretania is known.
• As a matter of principle, any claim based on "ancient scrolls from an isolated Buddhist monastery hidden high in the Asian mountain tops". How unfortunate that the journalist probably didn't leave enough information for modern historians to find that monastery and have a look at the scrolls.
• That the Song of Solomon was created at about 1AD, give or take a few decades. The claim that for some reason the Jews added a contemporary Egyptian love poem to their holy scriptures (which had been canonized for a few centuries by then) is bizarre. Besides, your translation doesn't agree with any I could find.
• Your description on Joseph of Arimathea. That's not Biblical, and I'm not aware of any contemporary sources ascribing that much wealth (and a Roman office!) to him.

Those are just a few rather outlandish claims that would require reliable sources. Huon (talk) 00:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

While Juba II is buried with his wife in the tomb, Selene was her first wife, he remarried after Selene went with Caesarion. The tomb might be given a name also to his first wife and honored there with cristian reference, however, a corpse of the woman is not there.

Gospels of Mary and John have similarities. Do an image search on John the evangelist and notice the woman-like androgynous unisex appearance and the grail that he/she is holding. In France there is a cult movement based around Mary Magdalene, who came to southern France by boat companied by young girl Sarah, Maximinus (means greatest, who became "the first bishop" of France(bishop of Aix)), Joseph of Arimathea and Mary of Bithany and Mary's sister Martha and brother Lazarus. Joseph and Mary continued to Britain where a cult is formed around them and there are medieval sources saying they came through France preaching there before the settled in Britain.

Thomas Judas Didymus went to India. There is a tomb in Srinagar, Kashmir, which is from the first century, a tomb of Egyptian man who came the region at the times of Jesus. Muslims believe it's the tomb of Jesus and Christians believe it's the tomb of Thomas. Despite too much is not known, the Egyptian has crucifixion marks.

Mary Magdalene and Maximinus were buried in Saint Maximin la Sainte Baume in southern France.

After the three days, the resurrection, the wounds of Jesus had miraculously healed when he made appearances. This was only possible by the hide and showup game Cleopatra's children played, the other one was placed on the cross for a short time, when the other one made the appearances showing no wounds. Selene and Helios were twins, and Helios was Caesarions twin half brother.

Which of the siblings were placed on the cross?WillBildUnion (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No sources whatsoever. Huon (talk) 10:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not write the text. Biblical sources given along the article.WillBildUnion (talk) 13:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If you did not write the text you still need sources otherwise it is a major copyright issue. You are not allowed to cut and paste other people's work/theories/etc. without their permission. This also fits under WP:FRINGE so even if it would be included it would have to be cut down to a paragraph or sentence at the most. You need to clarify where you got the information from right now or this section on the talk page will have to be deleted due to the copyright issues. Marauder40 (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, the text is copyrighted.WillBildUnion (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If the text is copyrighted it can't be on the Talk page and it can't be in the article. You have placed way to much of it on here to qualify for fair use. Marauder40 (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"Viewing" in the lead

Currently the lead says that Jesus is "viewed" as the Messiah. We all know that seeing is believing so you might as well just say that Jesus is the messiah, which is a clear violation of NPOV. Wikipedia articles should not take any sides. I want you to rewrite the lead to say that some people argue that Jesus was the Messiah, that is more neutral because everyone knows arguments have two sides. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

However the case is, the Jewish patriarchs do not get much further. Incestuous marriages is sign of nephilim, and nephilims are not gods, but fallens angles, misleading people. Many of the old testament patriarchs practiced incest and interbreeding.WillBildUnion (talk) 14:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Whaaat? What does that have to do with what he was saying? Ian.thomson (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

((edit conflict) best to ignore, see ANI) It says Christians view him as the Messiah (has it changed?). I wouldn't object to it being changed to believe, and I don't think Christians would, but I fear that might cause a problem for some wikipedia editors (if memory serves from other articles)... Verbal chat 14:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought that "Christians believe he is the messiah" is actually more accurate, as it makes it clear that this is a matter of (religious) belief, not constructed argument.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Currently it says that Christianity views him as the messiah, which seems right. It's not right to say that Christians "argue" that he's the messiah. There isn't much of an argument for rank-and-file believers. Leadwind (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Article needs complete redo

The article is written like an advert and a personal essay based on the four gospels. Please help Wikipedia by rewriting the article and/or sections of the article, in order to meet Wikipedia's standards. Article needs globalization, and no, Wikipedia does not offer advertisement space, not for anything, not for religions.WillBildUnion (talk) 09:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

As was already said to you before, we need reliable sources for the kinds of changes you are wanting to make.Farsight001 (talk) 10:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not pushing any certain changes. I pointed out that the article is written like an advertisement, which does not meet encyclopedic standards.WillBildUnion (talk) 11:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Advertisement? That makes no sense to me, could you explain more. As for "based on the four gospels", I guess you are ignoring The principal sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical gospels, especially the Synoptic Gospels,[9][10] though some scholars believe texts such as the Gospel of Thomas are also relevant. and The four canonical gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are the main sources for the biography of Jesus' life; nevertheless, these Gospels were written with the intention of glorifying Jesus and are not strictly biographical in nature Unless you are disputing our sources. I'm not sure what you want us to base the article on then (and furthermore this claim probably only applies to the "Life and teachings as told in the Gospels" and to a lesser extent "Christian views" section). -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is written like an advertisement rather than an encyclopedic entry.WillBildUnion (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Advertisement? For what? I have no idea what you mean by encyclopedia entry, unless you man "my science fiction essay." Slrubenstein | Talk 14:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

While I am sure there are a sprinkling of people out there who think this article has pov issues, you very well may be the only one who thinks it reads like an advertisement. I have absolutely no idea where you get that concept from and I've never heard someone else describe the article as such, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or otherwise. Farsight001 (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is surprisingly good considering what a touchy topic Jesus is. I'll agree that the "four gospels" section is poor. It implies that these four gospels are the best sources on Jesus' life and combines the accounts as if they comprised a single, coherent account. That's the devotional way of reading the gospels. According to historical-critical methods, each gospel should be treated and understood separately, the way that they were each written. According to our best historians on Jesus, the gospel of John has little historical value to add to the synoptics. A four-gospel section makes sense only from a Christian POV. Leadwind (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Outside the archaeology and sources from the time that give more general information about what life was like, or relating to specifics such as the censuses, the canonical Gospels and St Thomas are pretty much the only primary sources. At the same time, the article itself should not be written from these sources, but from reliable secondary sources - preferably top rated academics, given the contentious nature of the subject. Sources specialising in archaeology, hermeneutics, theology, and the general and military history of the times would all be relevant. I don't have a problem with including the single "story" that forms the basis of Christian teaching, but I would expect input from the hermeneutic sources to discuss the separate nature of the four gospels, and how these are reconciled to make the one account used by the Christian churches.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Joshua ben Joseph

Why there is no mention of the historical name on the main page? --TudorTulok (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Well... there isn't the letter "J" in Aramaic/Hebrew, so wouldn't "Yeshua ben Yosef" be even closer? That said, we need sources saying this transcription and formulation is notable and/or historical, and then where would you propose we add this content to the article? -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

After getting the source I propose it right in the beginning of the article as the scientific name. --TudorTulok (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw this: [1]. It's ok? --TudorTulok (talk) 07:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't know what to say but there was a page with the scientific view: User:Scientz/Yehoshua ben Yosef. I saw there is already the Historical Jesus. Very delicate, that's why we have all of them separately. --TudorTulok (talk) 12:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Joshua Ben Joseph is a son of Joseph of Arimathea and Mary of Bythinia, the parent guardians of Jesus. Was JBJ Jesus? That I don't comment.WillBildUnion (talk) 11:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Source: M. Baigent, R. Leigh, H. Lincoln /1982/chapter 3, ISBN 0-552-12138-XWillBildUnion (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a work of fiction. It has no standing among historians. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Blatant POV RE: fact vs fiction

The article seems to lack caveats in very prominent sections. The existence of Jesus as a real person is disputed, yet the article talks as though he had a definite date of birth & death. Can the language be changed to a subjunctive voice, since no evidence can be cited that he was a real person, or that the Bible is a reliable source in this matter. 94.2.1.254 (talk) 10:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia bases its information on and cites reliable sources. The vast majority of notable/reliable sources and historians agree that Jesus was historical. The myth view is still a small minority, at least scholarly speaking. However, I do see your point regarding the dates of birth and death being included in the introduction and the infobox; perhaps they should be removed from these areas. But the fact remains, the vast majority of sources accept Jesus' historicity, and the myth view is acknowledged in this article. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 10:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

"the vast majority of sources accept Jesus' historicity", based on what evidence? 94.2.1.254 (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Based on the kinds of evidence professional historians use. The article provides many citations and references to books by established historians, feel free to go to your local library and read a book. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, you don't have to believe in the Bible to believe in Jesus. He's referred to in ancient, non-Christian sources. Leadwind (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah.. like Suetonius mentioned "christian upheaval". Surely that says everything was the way gospels say they were.WillBildUnion (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

"Possibly fictitious" nativity

I put a fact tag on:

The historical incompatibility of Luke's chronology for the birth of Jesus, as well as the silence of the Pauline Epistles and the Gospels of Mark and John with respect to the nativity, have been suggested as evidence that the birth traditions contained in Matthew and Luke are historically unverifiable or even possibly fictitious.

Six books were given as sources, but no page numbers, so the statement did not appear verifiable. I'd suggest that six sources is overkill in the first place. Not saying the statement in the article is wrong, just that it would be better for readers to be able to check it. --FormerIP (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Then you should have added a tag such as {{verify}} or {{request quote}} instead of deleting all the sources--JimWae (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Most critical scholars

I also changed "most" to "a number" at the start of the third para. You may think "most" is correct, Jim, and you may be right, but it does not appear to be supported by the cites. Four sources, even if the they agree on the point, don't constitute "most critical scholars". What would be needed for that would be a summarising source. --FormerIP (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the readers would also like to know exactly what this historical incompatibility is as well. In an article like this, I don't think you can just stick out a statement like that without a little explanation.Farsight001 (talk) 03:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The main section seems to be locked. Could someone correct Afaprof01's revision to the sentence starting with "critical scholars in biblical studies believe that" - it needs a "Some" in front of it. Cheers. Luciform (talk) 09:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be locked. Do you have support for it being only some? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"Some" would at least pass WP:V (we have some sources, do we not?), but I would agree that it would be a potentially misleading way to word the text. "Most" seems to be based purely on the impressions of some editors, which is not good form. I don't think "a number of" has that problem. Another alternative might be to name some of the writers ("..such as..."). --FormerIP (talk) 10:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

trouble is, for me they are all a bit weaselly (weasley??) and invite a "well, what do the others say" kind of question. Looking again, I'd take Critical scholars in biblical studies believe that the New Testament is useful for reconstructing Jesus' life. right out of the lede, and just keep the second sentence.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

As near as we can tell, critical scholars regard the nativity stories as inventions. Certainly the prominent, notable ones do (Sanders, Vermes, Theissen, Crossan, etc.). If someone can cite a notable critical scholar who credits either nativity story with historicity, then we would need to say that only "some" critical scholars regard them as inventions. Until we get any such citations, we take our sources as represented what critical scholars say. Leadwind (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Leadwind. Think the discussion has become a bit confused because two separate statements are being discussed - I can see how, if you just dropped in, that might not be clear. Don't think there is a proposal to qualify the statement about the nativity, but I was concerned that there was no verifiable sourcing for the claim. Have created a new section heading above to help make things less confusing--FormerIP (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Elen: if WP:WEASEL is the right place to be looking, then guidance seems to be "claims about what people say...should be clearly attributed". This ought to give us something like:

Writers including Stephen Harris and Robert Funk believe that the New Testament is useful for reconstructing Jesus' life.[12][13][14]. Raymong Brown, Géza Vermes and Paula Fredriksen are amongst those who agree that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.[15]

Or, following your suggestion:

For writers including Raymond Brown, Géza Vermes and Paula Fredriksen, Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.[15]

(Reformulated to avoid "agree" per WP:SAY).

PS: [2]

--FormerIP (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget Sanders, who agrees with Vermes and Fredricksen on these points. What about Meier? And Ehrmann? We should try to include their views. Does Funk not believe Jesus was baptized by John, or crucified by Pilate? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not a roll-call. We don't have to name everyone. And there might well be an issue as to whether all the writers are in agreement on all the points, but that might have been an issue any way. It certainly isn't a problem that's created by providing their names - it might make it more noticeable, but obscuring problems is not a virtue. --FormerIP (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, for common, majority, or 'mainstream' positions (i.e. when we say "most scholars"), we use this phrasing because our sources are the ones make the claims, not us. I agree that if we open 3 books and find 3 people holding a position, it is drawing too much of a conclusion jump to saying "most scholars", and would agree that we'd need to instead simply specify who holds those positions. However, if our sources are saying "most scholars" themselves, then I think it is fine to follow our sources, because is it really accurate to say "Raymond Brown says X happened" when we open up Brown and he says "Most scholars say X happened"? With that said, we should double check out sources, and see if there are claims being made about what scholarship believes, or if these are simply individual scholar's opiniosn/ -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not calling for a roll call. I mentioned three of the leading historians of Jesus, who are also cited in the article already. I would thinkg an educated readership would want to know whether these scholars agree or not. And I asked a question bout someone Former IP mentioned, a question that has not yet been answered. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to your question, Slruberstein. At the moment, Funk is not cited as believing those things, so, if the sentence were reformulated to mention authors in-line, there wouldn't be a reason to include his name in that connection.

Andrew, I'm not sure if you're categorising common practice there, but per WP:WEASEL it looks to me like we should avoid "most scholars" here. I would agree that if the sources say "most scholars" then it would be appropriate to reflect that in the text. However, we do not appear to have any such sources to do the sythesising for us. If I'm wrong and we actually do, then that's a different story altogether. What we have is a small number of sources which say something being used to support a broader claim - "too much of a conclusion to jump to" IMO. --FormerIP (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought you had a copy of Funk's book. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

An RS on what most scholars believe. I. Howard Marshall writes "It can be said with confidence that there are very few elements in the summary presented by Perrin which would be considered inauthentic by even the most sceptical of scholars." These are what he quotes as what most scholars agree on:

"He was baptised by John the Baptist, and the beginning of his ministry was in some way linked with that of the Baptist. In his own ministry Jesus was above all the one who proclaimed the Kingdom of God and who challenged his hearers to respond to the reality that he was proclaiming. The authority and effectiveness of Jesus as proclaimer of the Kingdom of God was reinforced by an apparently deserved reputation as an exorcist. In a world that believed in gods, in powers of good and evil, and in demons, he was able, in the name of God and his Kingdom, to help those who believed themselves to be possessed by demons. A fundamental concern of Jesus was to bring together into a unified group those who responded to his proclamation of the Kingdom of God irrespective of their sex, previous background or history. A central feature of the life of this group was eating together, sharing a common meal that celebrated their unity in the new relationship with God, which they enjoyed on the basis of their response to Jesus' proclamation of the Kingdom. In this concern for the unity of the group of those who responded to the proclamation, Jesus challenged the tendency of the Jewish community of his day to fragment itself and in the name of God to reject certain of its own members. This aroused a deep-rooted opposition to him, which reached a climax during a Passover celebration in Jerusalem when he was arrested, tried by the Jewish authorities on a charge of blasphemy and by the Romans on a charge of sedition, and crucified. During his lifetime he had chosen from among his followers a small group of disciples who had exhibited in their work in his name something of his power and authority."

--Ari (talk) 10:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

From my own reading of critical scholars, I would say all agree with everything but the last few lines - several question whether he was arrested on charges of blasphemy (suggesting disturbing the peace instead). Slrubenstein | Talk 10:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ari, I think that is helpful. I don't think it quite supports the specifics of the text as it is, because Marshall doesn't tell us what parts of the summary are and are not accepted by "most scholars". Perhaps it could be used to support something not quite so exact, though:

'The majority of scholars agree that a number of key historical facts about the life of Jesus are established.[fn - Marshall] For writers including Raymond Brown, Géza Vermes and Paula Fredriksen, Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.[15]

BTW, I am not speaking for the accuracy of the second sentence (maybe the sedition claim should not be included, for example), but I don't have any reason to suppose that it isn't a fair representation of the sources. Perhaps the first sentence sounds a little odd as well, but I can't figure out why.

--FormerIP (talk) 12:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I am a bit confused by why he would say what most scholars do not agree on when he is giving the positive of what scholars do agree upon?

I should also point out: The statement about the facts that even the "most sceptical of scholars" is said by Marshall, but that big exert I quoted was of Norman Perrin (Marshall quotes this so it isn't synth on my part ;) ). I.e. Marshall stated that 'what Perrin says here is what most critical scholars believe to be authentic.'

For another consensus statement but focusing on the passion narratives:

"Overwhelmingly, modern scholars accept as secure the broad outline of the passion narratives, from Last Supper to final breath. ...there is a strong consensus...that affirms at least the following few facts: Jesus shared a final meal with the twelve during the Passover week of AD 30; he was betrayed by one of the twelve; he was arrested by the Temple guards; he was interrogated by the Jewish authorities and then 'officially' tried by Pontius Pilate; after scourging, he was crucified outside the walls of Jerusalem under the charge, 'King of the Jews'." (John Dickson, Jesus: A Short life p.110.) --Ari (talk) 12:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Marshall quotes the summary and says "most scholars would agree about most of this". It is clear that there are some parts of the summary to which Marshall does not think this applies, but he doesn't say which. So, I think Marshall is a good source for a general statment that there exists a general agreement that there are some historical "facts" about Jesus. But, because of the wording, the source doesn't allow us to be specific (Marshall doesn't say which bits, so neither can we). BTW, the head claim is about the agreement amongst scholars, so I think Marshall is the source here, rather than Perrin.

On the passion narriative, my impression is that there may be a scholarly consensus that testimonies about this contain more "fact" than accounts about Jesus' earlier life. I'm sadly not an RS for this, but wouldn't object to that being included if one can be found.

What do you think of the wording I proposed in my last post?--FormerIP (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You are misreading Marshall. He is not saying that there are elements in that list that do not apply. That list is the "bare minimum" that even the most sceptical scholars would affirm from the life of Jesus. Perrin and his notorious stringent use of double dissimilarity is why he is the anchor point for the minimum. Your list is quite limited - as the scholarly mainstream says a lot more than that. Sanders' for example list has 14 elements and he is on the sceptical side of the mainstream. --Ari (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Marshall says: "There are very few elements in the summary presented by Perrin that would be condidered inauthentic by event the most sceptical of scholars.". That clearly implies that there are some elements that would be condsiered inauthentic by at least a significant section of scholars.

The second sentence isn't my list, it is what was already in the text. --FormerIP (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope, it does not imply that there are elements there that would be considered inauthentic by a "significant section of scholars." Firstly, that sentence says the very opposite - even the most sceptical scholars agree with this list. Secondly, the context of it gives us no doubt that this is what Marshall is saying. He states that the list provided of what Perrin affirms is the "bare minimum" (in fact, the section is called the "bare minimum")that even the "most sceptical" and "radical" scholars affirm. --Ari (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"There are very few elements..." does not mean none - in fact it excludes the possibility of none. He doesn't say "even the most sceptical scholars agree with this list", he says "there is only a small part of this list that scholars do not agree with". But he doesn't say what part, who exactly the scholars are or to what extent they disagree. It could be a few minor quibbles or one absolute clanger, we just don't know. --FormerIP (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You have failed to address the quote and context in forcing your interpretation based on an extracted sentence. --Ari (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Most critical scholars do agree that Jesus was most likely executed on orders of pilate with the charge of sedition. I say this because I have read many books on the topic and they all made this point.

This is getting silly. Semantically, "very few" functions analogously to "most" - it is indeed why we use the word most, and if "most" is a weasel word, well, then I guess "very few" is too ... and this shows that there are good, scholarly contexts in which such phrases are used. I think FormerIP is wikilawyering about weasel words. Certain terms are indeed often weasel words, but they are not automatically weasel wordas and we editors have to use good judgment. In peer-reviewed articles we all use words like "most" and " a few" on occassion and just have to use good sense as to when. I certainly do not think the word "most" was being used in the article in an abusive or obscurantist way, it was not being used to mislead, and here is the main thing: it was not being used as a substitute for research. What do we mean by "weasel word" anyway? It is when we use words that are vague because we have not actually done serious research on a topic. This may not be written in the policy but I'd say that is because it is good common sense. And the fact is, the editors who are most active here have in fact done a GREAT deal of research, and when we say "most" it is because among us we have read a great many books, and in our judgment "most" is the right word. This is not one editor trying to squeeze in an editorial comment in lieu of research, it is the considered judgment of several editors who have done a lot of research. In my view, that means it is not a weasel word. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(after EC) What is this all about? DO you know of critical biblical scholars who don't accept those simple facts about the historical Jesus? Is this entirely speculative, or is it based on real world knowledge? Do you have evidence that we are presenting the information inaccurately, or do you just not like the wording? -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Slruberstein: It's not about the difference between "very few" and "most", it is about the structure of what Marshall is saying. He is not saying "most scholars agree with this summary". He is saying "scholars agree with most of this summary". Which makes a big difference. That means it is a good source for the claim that there are a number of areas of agreement amongst scholars, but it is not a good source for saying what those areas are exactly. "Most" is acceptable here only if it supported by a source. We do not have any source, so far, that tells us that most scholars agree about anything in particular. We do have a source that tells us that there is such an agreement, just not what is covers.

Andrew:I don't have evidence that the informaion is inaccurate (as in wrong, necessarily), but it doesn't pass WP:V until there is a source that agrees with it (which should be a single source, not a sythesis of sources). --FormerIP (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

We discussed this recently here. The reason why we padded the sentence with references was a bit reactionary. People would complain "we can't use source X because he's Christian" or "we can't use source Y because she's Jewish" or "we can't use source Z because he's agnostic". In the past, we did have one source which was a summary, see source 8 here, in addition to the long list. But including the large list of individual scholars gives not only some of the biggest names in historical Jesus research, but also is a diverse spectrum of religious views. People seem to always find fault with a single source (not Christian enough, not skeptical enough, etc). So padding the sources with the big names was an attempt to address past and future concerns. Of course it isn't a perfect solution, because people have complained that we have too many sources, or your complaint now. But it works for me. I'm not sure why the Introduction to European History reference was removed from the lead. If we added it back, would it address your concerns? I personally don't see this as a major issue because I've contributed to the research that formed the sentence, but I know that puts me at an advantage that our general readership doesn't have. Verifiability is important, but this seems a bit nitpicky unless you think the sentence is inaccurate, or not representative of what "most critical scholars believe". -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

FormerIP, you are still misrepresenting Marshall. I take it that you do not have the book, so you are not in the best position to tell others what Marshall is really saying when he has made the position so clear explicitly and in context. --Ari (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

IP, you misundestand WP:V. This policy requires that all claims in Wikipedia be verifiable; it does not actually require that all claims be verified. That is, there is no necessary obligation for an editor to provide a source. Now, the claims made are verifiable because you can go to the library, read all the books on Jesus by critical historians, and you will discover that most of them agree about these things. Is it worth your effort to read avery book? Buddy, that is up to you. You may decide after reading four books that you have a good enough sample to conclude that the claim is so uncontroversial that you do not need to read any more. I think AndrewC's point is precisely this question: do you have any reasonable grounds for considering this claim controversial? Saying "Obama was born in Indonesia" for example is a pretty controversial claim and beyond the fact that it is "verifiable" (meaning, one can determine whether or not a reliable source makes the claim), editors working on an article might reasonably insist that you actually verify the claim by providing a reliable source. Again, we use common sense about different kinds of claims. I think to anyone who knows anything about the scholarship on jesus, this claim is so uncontroversial that no one needs to waste their time going out to prove it. Remember, most of us have day jobs and volunteer our time at Wikipedia, some of us doing a lot of research for free. I wouldn't know Andrew c if I walked right into him, but I know he has done enough research on this topic to trust him. Some people want more. The article currently provides a great many citations of works by critical historians on jesus. We have fulfilled the verifiability requriement. if you think it is a controversial claim, by all means, go to the library and read the books.

In the meantime, having done so much research on the topic I would actually change "most" to "virtually all," I want to see some meaningful evidence from you that casts doubt on this sentence before I put any more time into this. I have already contributed a lot of my time, reading books and articles and working out different scholarly positions. I see no need to do more. But like I said, if you actually care to do research, well, we have already provided you with a list of authors to start with. Go ahead. Read the books. Nothing is stopping you. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The source does say that even the most sceptical scholars believe these "bare facts" to be authentic so there is no reason to object to strong wording such as "virtually all". In fact, it suggests that a more representative majority would include many more details. In fact, EP Sanders was kind enough to provide us with two lists of 14 points in this regard. --Ari (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of the statement being misread in the most obscure ways, here is another consensus statement on the bare minimum: "For example, there is widespread (if not always total) consensus that Jesus was baptized by John, that he taught and preached in Galilee, that he drew followers to himself, that he was known as an effective miracle worker and exorcist, and that he made a final journey to Jerusalem for Passover where, in conjunction with an incident in the temple, he was arrested, convicted by Pilate and crucified." --Ari (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

That's another useful find, Ari. It says something valid and citable, although not to support the exact wording that is currently in the article. I think it would also be good to reference what comes immediately before the bit you quote ("...consensus in Jesus studies today is elusive..."). Y'know, for balance. --FormerIP (talk) 22:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

How about:

There is little academic consensus regarding the details of Jesus' life, but a majority of Bible scholars agree that he was baptised by John the Baptist, that he preached in Galilee, that he was know to his followers as a miracle-worker and that he was crucified in Jerusalem under the orders of Pontius Pilate.[fn - Eddy and Beilby]

This seems to me to be very close to the current version.

--FormerIP (talk) 10:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The source does not say that there is "little academic consensus regarding the details of Jesus' life". A majority of Biblical scholars agree on much more than this list as we have seen (e.g. Dickson on the mainstream "consensus" on the passion events and Marshall). This is an "example" of consensus, and they provide other "Jesus studies" examples that are not about the events of Jesus' life such as his "Jewishness".

John Dickson writes "Nevertheless, there is very wide agreement amongst contemporary scholars - whether Christian, Jewish or agnostic - that we do in fact know quite a bit about Jesus. Virtually everyone agrees that we know at least the following:

• when and where he lived;
• that he started out within the orbit of John the Baptist;
• that he was famous in his day as a teacher and healer;
• that he proclaimed the kingdom of God and warned of a looming catastrophe in Israel;
• that he insisted on a radicalized ethic of love;
• that he selected a group of twelve to symbolize a renewed Israel;
• that he attracted many women into his circle and was notorious for dining with sinners;
• that he caused a major, albeit symbolic, disturbance in the Temple;
• that he shared a final meal with his disciples during Passover;
• that he was handed over to Pontius Pilate by the priestly elite;
• that he was crucified under the mocking charge of 'King of the Jews';
• that numerous men and women insisted they saw him alive shortlty after his death;
• and, finally, that these followers established communities that looked forward to Christ's kingdom and sought to win Jews and Gentiles to that vision.

Plenty of other details are considered either probable or plausible, but these are the acknowledged facts about the historical Jesus. Doubting them requires an arbitrary type of scepticism insensitive to historical method and consensus."

EP Sanders, who is described as a mainstream scholar on the sceptical side, writes that "There are no substantial doubts about the general course of Jesus' life: when and where he lived, approximately when and where he died, and the sort of things that he did during his public activity." In his two books he explicitly states the following historical events in the life of Jesus:

1. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist
2. Jesus was a Galilean who preached and healed
3. Jesus called disciples and spoke of there being twelve
4. Jesus confined his activity to Israel
5. Jesus engaged in controversy about the temple
6. Jesus was crucified outside Jerusalem by the Roman authorities
7. After his death Jesus' followers continued an identifiable movement
8. At least some Jews persecuted at least parts of the new movement.
9. Jesus was born circa 4 B.C., at the approximate time of the death of Herod the Great
10. Jesus grew up in Nazareth of Galilee
11. Jesus taught in small villages and towns and seemed to avoid citied
12. Jesus ate a final meal with his disciples
13. Jesus was arrested and interrogated by Jewish authorities, apparently at the orders of the high priest
14. although they abandoned Jesus after his arrest, the disciples later "saw" him after his death. This led the disciples to believe that Jesus would return and found the kingdom.

--Ari (talk) 11:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Ari, your source says:

...Crosson begins his major study by stating that "historical Jesus research is becoming something of a scholarly bad joke". The primary reason for this, he notes, is "the number of competent and even eminment scholars producing pictures of Jesus at wide variance with one another". For some this radically divergent assortment of Jesuses suggests the quest has hit a dead end...But while consensus in Jesus studies today is elusive, it is not entirely absent... [3]

I don't see how you can deny that this supports a statement that there is "little academic consensus". That would seem to me to be actually a fairly mild way of putting it, compared to what is in the source.

I also don't see how you come to the conclusion that it would be reasonable to use this is support of a statment that there is consensus, ignoring the fairly important contextual information that, for the most part, there isn't consensus.

Dickson is a popular writer of polemics against atheism, so I don't think this can be regarded as a disinterested scholarly source (or, if this can be used, then it would make sense that Richard Dawkins, for example, could also be used).

Sanders is a perfectly good source, I think. But I also think you'll agree that the list you've posted above represents the views of Suanders, rather than the views of any consensus or majority of scholars. --FormerIP (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The source does not say there is little academic consensus about the "events" in the life of Jesus - it talks of "Jesus studies". There is wide agreement on these events as multiple sources have attested to in no uncertain terms e.g. Sanders commenting on the state of play writes "There are no substantial doubts about the general course of Jesus' life: when and where he lived, approximately when and where he died, and the sort of things that he did during his public activity." You misunderstand historical Jesus studies as an enterprise if this is what you mistakenly take Crossan's comment to mean. There are different models of Jesus, and they widely affirm the same events in the life of Jesus. That is why there are different models for understanding Jesus - an eschatological prophet, Spirit filled man, Hasid, etc. It is far easier to take what multiple sources clearly state than to go and obscure some statements.

Regarding John Dickson, he is an academic ancient historian and is a Senior Research Fellow in the ancient history department at Macquarie University. The book is a reliable source, and Dickson is a reliable expert. Why would we make reference to a biologist like Dawkins when we can easily make use of a bona fide historical Jesus scholar? --Ari (talk) 12:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, my proposal doesn't say "events". That aside, it would seem fairly obvious that there is little meaningful disctintion between "Jesus studies" and "studies about the details of Jesus' life". None of the sources draw a distinction between "events" and "models" in the way you are trying to, and it is clear that, whichever we are talking about, scholars on the subject differ quite widely. You also seem to me to be misrepresenting Sanders, who is obviously speaking in very general terms (he even uses the word "general") about very very basic outline details about Jesus' life, which I don't think are in dispute. The next thing he says, which you don't quote is: "When we begin to probe beneath the surface, difficulties and uncertainties arise".

Dickson is a writer of popular works with a particular POV. I'm not saying he's a bad writer, just not a neutral academic source (whatever his credentials, his main writings are clearly not academic). In that sense he is equivalent to someone like Dawkins (who, biologist or not, is obviously a noted popular writer on religion, if that is the standard we are going for). Talking about different sources may be a little moot though - it seems to me that Eddy and Beilby covers everything and it is now just about ensuring NPOV. --FormerIP (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)FormerIP stillhas not responded to my comments. In any event, it is becoming clearer and clearer that FormerIP has not done any research on Jesus and does not know this scholarship. Ari, you do not have to keep spoon-feeding her stuff from what you have read. It is not even clear to me that FormerIP knows anything about the field of history. Obviously Crossan's comment is not referring to the details of Jesus' life but rather how they are interpreted. In all the books I have read, the historians spend relatively little time debating over what they think happened in Jesus' life, and instead spend a lot of time developing an analysis of what they do know. In fact, our article lays out the major interpretations of Jesus' life and do let readers know what the wide variance is. But isn't that what history is all about, interpreting the meaning of the past? Oh, wait, FormerIP would have to read actual books to know that, maybe. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you are correct, Slrubenstein. Multiple statements on the position of the mainstream have been provided, this in itself dismisses the entire synth claims. However, it seems that at every turn there is a forced reason to dismiss these statements. It is ridiculous by this stage. C'mon, FormerIP, you are calling a professional historian at a secular university who is actively engaged in the field of historical Jesus studies the equivalent to Richard Dawkins views on Jesus. Seriously? --Ari (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Break

Slruberstein: AFAICT, the only significant comment of yours that I haven't repsonded to is the one about WP:V not requiring an editor to provide sources for an assertion that can be checked in a library. To be honest, I didn't think it merited a response. I'm really happy for you that you have read so many books, but it's a bit beside the point and you should avoid ad hominem arguments against editors.

Ari: Dickson is a popular writer and a polemicist, which is why I don't think he is a good source for such an appartently contentious issue. However, I don't see that this needs to be such a big issue. Eddy and Beilby already contains support for a statement so close to what is in the article at present that the remainder is not worth arguing over, I would suggest, and I have agreed that this is a good source. It is also a good source for the wider context (ie "scholars disagree for the most part, but there are some items they on which most of the agree"). Even if Dickson were allowed as a source, Eddy and Beilby would still be a good source for the context and the paragraph would most likely turn out pretty much the same. (ie whether Dickson is or isn't usable doesn't seem to me a determining factor when considering how the paragraph should be worded). --FormerIP (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Dickson is Senior Research Fellow in the Ancient history department at Macquarie University. He has a PhD in ancient history, he teaches early Christianity in an ancient history department, he supervises theses in historical Jesus studies, he presents academic papers, etc. Your personal opinion of him does not count for anything; he is a more than reliable source for something that is not even almost contentious. --Ari (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Jumping in: Sanders is the most mainstream expert we have, and a key feature of his books is that they mostly represent not his personal conclusions but rather the broad agreement of mainstream historians on Jesus' life. When he voices his personal opinion (such as how many Jews could have been in Jerusalem for Passover, or that Jesus didn't preach repentance), he calls it out as his opinion. The vast majority of his work in, for example, The Historical Figure of Jesus is not his original work but is instead his framing of contemporary historical opinion. When Sanders says that Jesus was renowned as a teacher and healer, that's not "According to Sanders," and it's not what "some scholars think." What Sanders reports as contemporary scholarship we can readily cite as representing majority, mainstream scholarship. The same goes for scholars like Harris and Ehrman. While they have their own opinions and mention them, they are primarily relating academic consensus to a broader audience. When you get an author like Spong, however, much or most of the material is his argument, not mainstream thinking. Here on WP we have often done a disservice to our reader by treating scholars such as Sanders and Ehrman as if they were just individual scholars, like Spong, when in fact they speak for good scholarship in general. Leadwind (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC - is "most scholars" synthesis? (closed)

The article lead currently contains the paragraph:

Critical scholars in biblical studies believe that the New Testament is useful for reconstructing Jesus' life. Most agree that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.

A number of sources are provided to support these claims, but none of these tell us about the view of "most critical scholars" or "critical scholars" in general. Each gives the view of an individual scholar.

Is combining sources in this way an unacceptable example of WP:SYN (see also WP:RS/AC), or can it be defended on the grounds that the contents of the paragraph are judged to be accurate by editors?

In discussion, a further source [4] has been presented which includes the sentence:

There are very few elements in the summary presented by Perrin that would be condidered inauthentic by even the most sceptical of scholars

Is this sentence best interpreted as meaning:

a)that most scholars, even the the most sceptical, fully agree with Perrin's summary;

b)that scholars in general, even the most sceptical, agree with most of Perrin's summary?

Prior discussion here: Talk:Jesus#Most critical scholars.

Thanks FormerIP (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional information for the RfC: Although FormerIP states that"but none of these tell us about the view of "most critical scholars" or "critical scholars" in general." However, I they are in error. Most likely because they do not have access to the source, and for this reason I would be sceptical of their presentation of something they have not read. I. Howard Marshall does tell us what "even the most sceptical" agree with. He calls these the "bare minimum" of the "radical" scholars, and this is exerted above as two extensive paragraphs of things above. For this reason, the whole idea of synthesis is irrelevant as we have a single reliable source that acts as the basis for this. --Ari (talk) 04:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

See my comments below. Briefly, the source is here: [5]. I'm am not sure why ari is saying I don't have access to it. This is the source I refer to above, containing the statement: "There are very few elements in the summary presented by Perrin that would be condidered inauthentic by even the most sceptical of scholars". Note that this is not the same as Ari's interpretation of it ("even the most sceptical of scholars agree with all elements of the summary presented by Perrin" - this is not what the source says). --FormerIP (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, it is synthesis. However, I believe that you can easily source it to a textbook. I recall reading such statements in textbooks years ago. I think that it is easy to source, and so should be. ^BE_Critical__Talk 23:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a source that states that this is what the "most sceptical scholars" which invalidates the whole synth claims, but another would be great to add to it. --Ari (talk) 04:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, we already had a general citation in the article, Ann H. Moran Cruz and Richard Gerberding, Medieval Worlds: An Introduction to European History Houghton Mifflin Company 2004, pp. 44–45. I have no idea why it was removed, but now we have two general citations which make claims on what most scholars think about the historical Jesus, in addition to listing very prominent individual scholars in the relevant fields (from various religious backgrounds). -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• no it is not synthesis because we are not patching together diverse views into one sentence. Rathe, we are providing a series of sources that make the same claims; they reiterate and reenforce one another. That is not SYNTH. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yes I will start out by saying that I am not an expert on this topic by any means, and I have not read the sources cited. However, unless Slrubenstein (or someone else who supports the statement at issue as written) disputes the factual accuracy of FormerIP's objection, then yes, this is a pretty clear violation of WP:SYN, especially in the light of WP:RS/AC. What Slrubenstein is talking about might be one type of synthesis, but it seems to me (s)he is reading it way too narrowly. Saying, "Scholars A, B, and C agree on X, therefore most scholars agree on X," is original research unless you can produce one or more sources that draws that conclusion, "directly and explicitly" (see WP:NOR) and is precisely the kind of thing WP:RS/AC is warning against. I agree with Becritical that if this is as widely agreed upon as several editors have said it is, it should be quite easy to cite a source that comes right out and says it. CBHoncho (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Please note, a single source provided states what "most sceptical scholars" affirm as the "bare minimum." --Ari (talk) 04:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Not synthesis. I have the book, I have provided the content. Here, I. Howard Marshall has stated that this is the "bare minimum" that even the "most sceptical" scholars would agree with. Frankly, FormerIP who does not have access to the source except for this incomplete sentence is misleading you all. Prima facie and in context, Marshall is stating what even the most sceptical of scholars would affirm. --Ari (talk) 04:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The source referred to is the one mentioned in the RfC [6]. I'm not sure why Ari is saying I don't have access to it. My contention is that this would be a good source for something like "there are numerous points of agreement amongst scholars...", but not for specifiying what those points of agreement are. A summary is provided and we are told that "very few" parts of the summary are doubted by scholars. But, since we are not told what these parts are, we cannot point to any part of the summary and safely assume that it is universally agreed. --FormerIP (talk) 09:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a correct argument on the face of it. ^BE_Critical__Talk 14:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not sure I understand the nature of the dispute here. I initially thought it was a disagreement over the use of multiple sources, but now I'm getting the sense that it's actually a disagreement over the text of the Marshall source specifically. FormerIP, if what you say is accurate, that the source states that there are a "few" points of the whole that are not necessarily widely accepted, then I can definitely see your point that the statement in the article needs to be changed to reflect that. However, Ari89, you seem to be disputing that the text of the source qualifies it that way, that FormerIP is selectively quoting the source out of context or something. If that's the case, could you perhaps explain what that context is and how it supports your position in a little more detail? I don't think FormerIP is trying to mislead anyone here; I think he just doesn't see you specifically addressing the matter of the "very few" qualification. CBHoncho (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi CBHoncho. Yes, the basic dispute is over the use multiple sources to back up a "most scholars" claim. I'm especially objecting to the formulation of a list of things "most scholars" agree about Jesus, because this is, in reality, a list of positions advanced by various scholars, and there is no evidence that they all concur on each individual point. This is contrary to WP:RS/AC, and I think it is difficult to see how that can be disputed.

Ari has put forward the Marshall source in defence of the list. I think it is a good source for a general claim saying that there are points of agreement, but it doesn't support the inclusion of a list for the reasons I gave in my last post. The list should either be removed, or the different views should be attributed to the people who hold them, according to the sources we have.

Hope that's the sort of clarification you were after. --FormerIP (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks FormerIP, I'm pretty sure I understand your position. I'm really hoping for some clarification from Ari89, because it looks to me like (s)he agrees that synthesizing a consensus view from a list of sources is a problem, but seems to think that Marshall explicitly identifies this list of views as the consensus. So far I haven't seen any response to your objections to using Marshall other than a general statement to the effect that (s)he thinks you are misreading the source. That's what I think Ari89 should elaborate on. CBHoncho (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Multiple sources state what most mainstream scholars believe about Jesus, the whole idea of synth is irrelevant. These sources include everything in the statement that: "Critical scholars in biblical studies believe that the New Testament is useful for reconstructing Jesus' life. Most agree that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire" + more. --Ari (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

A further source has been put forward which supports wording that is very similar to what is in the article. So similar that I think it was probably the source origninally used, but for some reason at some point it must have been replaced with a sythesis of sources. However, assuming this is the original source, it has been used quite selectively IMO and distorted somewhat.

I'm closing this RfC and I'll launch a new one reflecting the changed situation. --FormerIP (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit requests to this semi-protected page

Any editor who would like to edit this this semi-protected page is invited to contact me at my talk page - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Reviewing

Are you offering yourself as something similar to a WP:MEATPUPPET, Ret.Prof? --FormerIP (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Is that a joke, or don't you understand what semi-protection is? ^BE_Critical__Talk 22:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I do understand semi-protection. However due to the hostile response I am retracting my offer. It is clearly an idea whose time has not yet come. Happy editing - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The hostile response seems to be from Slrubenstein on my talk page. I was talking, as I thought the indentation showed, to FormerIP, whose response you could interpret as hostile, but which I interpreted as a genuine question. ^BE_Critical__Talk 23:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Becritical, you are absolutely right that I misinterpreted you and I apologize. In situations like this it often helps to begin with an "@ —" so it is clear whom you are addressing. But this is not meant to excuse my misreading. I am sorry, and thank you for your explanation. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem, misreading people is extremely easy in a text-only environment. Cheers (: ^BE_Critical__Talk 00:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

And I could have been more clear about who I was talking to, on re-reading it. ^BE_Critical__Talk 04:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Should the lead contain apologetics for religious beliefs?

Apologetics such as:

Judaism rejects assertions that Jesus was the awaited Messiah, arguing that he did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh.

Should religious beliefs be simply stated or should apologetics behind those beliefs be stated as well? Apologetics in this case being the defense of a religious position. Flash 02:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting one. The lede should summarise the lemma, but one could equally argue that it should limit itself to summarising the stances taken, as religious apologetics are often lengthy and convoluted. However, in the case you list, 'he did not fulfil the messianic prophecies' is not an apologetic but part of the stance. One could rewrite the sentence as "The view of Judaism is that Jesus did not fulfil the messianic prophecies present in the Tanakh."--Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The sources do not list it as a belief, rather than an argument for a belief. The structure of the sentence also suggests it is an argument. Flash 11:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If there is no problem with presenting the argument to support the belief that Jesus is not the Messiah, the arguments for why he is the Messiah should be presented as well, namely that he did fulfill the Messianic prophecies. Flash 13:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we should totally say that he was the Messiah that the Israelites were waiting for based on the prophecies in their religious texts... or rather that he was simply their awaited Messiah... oh wait. (BTW, I believe most Christians acknowledge that Jesus did not fulfill ALL messianic prophecies, but will finish the job during the second coming...)-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)@ReaverFlash: No, this would make the article anachronistic. Jesus' disciples did not believe he was the messiah while he was alive; it was not until some time after his death, when Paul and other Christian leaders changed the definition of "messiah," that many of his followers began to believe he was the messiah. Many Christian misread Paul's epistles which contain much midrash, i.e. he is presenting his own interpretation of Biblical verses, this does not mean that those verses were understood by Jews before Paul to refer to the messiah. The idea of "messianic prophesies" is more a construction of medieval Christianity which used the idea to debate with Jews. In the Middle Ages both Jews and Christians had different beliefs about the Bible than they did in the first century. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

So are you saying that Messianic prophecies should not be mentioned in the lead section? Flash 02:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

My point was, we already are making the ARGUMENT that Christian (scholars, no less) argue that Jesus was the awaited messiah in the lead, currently. ;) -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The lead makes no such argument. Simply saying they believe he is the awaited Messiah is not an argument for it. Flash 23:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

However, while we are on this subject - the body of the article gives perspectives from other religions, so should the lead just focus on mainstream Judaism and two out of the three main Islamic denominations.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The lead should focus on the most important religions or nations relevant. Jesus was Jewish, so the views of Jews are obviously important; his life is also an important source for historians of 1st century Jewish life. He is worshiped by Christians as if he were a God, so of course their views are important. He is venerated by Muslims as a prophet so their views are important. Are there any other religions in which he is nearly as important? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, modern Hinduism has taken the position that he is another reincarnation of Krishna (I'll find a reference for that, so it can go in the article). He's quite significant to the Ba'hai faith. Having now read the lede several times over the course of this discussion, I think the different faith views don't belong in the lede, and should be trimmed out.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't that reference, but I find it absolutely fascinating. It is a Hindu's explanation to other Hindus of what Christianity is about [7]Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

My humble contention is that the lede is fine as it is. Trim the succinct, summarized "views" and the TOC will be at the TOP just beneath the hatnote.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  17:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont think "Hinduism" as such has taken that position. Hinduism is a compendium of traditions and practices. The most one can say is that in certain Vaishnavite traditions he has been absorbed - as Buddha was before - into the system of incanations of Vishnu/Krishna. Paul B (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

While Hinduism does not have a central "position," in general Jesus is considered a avatar of Krishna I think. If the Baha'i Faith is going to be mentioned, then I would think Hinduism should be as well. ^BE_Critical__Talk 14:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply to original question: We should explain the context of a religion's beliefs about Jesus, wherever it's relevant and can be kept concise. In this case, the bald fact that Jesus didn't fulfill messianic expectations is worth mentioning. Christians say that Jesus was the messiah that Jews were expecting, so the Jewish view on this issue is clearly germane. Christians say that Jews were wrong to expect the messiah to be a conquering human king instead of a crucified and resurrected god, but it remains a plain historical fact that Jesus failed to meet 1st-century Jewish expectations of the messiah. Leadwind (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact that Jesus' Jewish disciples believed him to be the Messiah causes much of a problem for the idea that it is a historical fact that Jesus failed to meet contemporary expectations and, whatever we mean by "Judaism" and its rejection. On the historical question, we only have a limited view of Messianic expectations, and those we do have are very diverse, many of which are not shared by contemporary Judaism. Michael F. Bird in Are You the One Who is to Come? writes, "I would shy away from the opinion, once commonly held, that there was a uniform hope for the coming Davidic king in common Judaism. What messianic aspirations did exist display a variety of beliefs about a coming deliverer. One obvious distinction is that some conceived of the Messiah as an earthly warrior..., while there were others who conceived of him as a preexisting and transcendent figure... Or there again, some, like those at Qumran, could conceive of two Messiahs, one of Aaron and one of Israel..." Furthermore, historically messianic expectations were not necessarily based on the Tanakh. Contemporary Judaism may reject it on that basis, but in the first century the expectations were greatly developed in the intertestamental literature. Then there is the whole Messianic Judaism thing. This leads to a number of problems for the current form of the sentence. --Ari (talk) 02:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not certain that Jesus' Jewish disciples believed he was the Messiah when he was alive. Most historians believe that they did not, for obvious reasons. It is not certain when his followers began believing he was the messiah, but it does seem clear that the process by which they came to view him as "messiah" coincided with a transformation in the meaning of the word "messiah." How about rephrasing it as "because they did not believe he conformed to their traditional expectations of a messiah?" This covers the "earthly warrior" thing. Which is very much based on the book of Samuel. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Paula Fredriksen, James Dunn and others believe that Jesus was perceived as Messiah by others during his ministry such as the crowds at Jerusalem. Many argue that Jesus' ministry was self-consciously messianic in terms of actions and eschatology (D.C. Allison, N.T. Wright, Theissen and Merz, etc.) --Ari (talk) 05:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but don't they also suggest that the vast majority of these people concluded he was not Messiah when he was crucified? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the beliefs of the largest Abrahamic religions should count. Islam, judaism, and bahai faith are all abrahamic with significant populations so these three should have priority, whereas hinduism is dharmic. It does seem however islam makes up too much space in this article. Islam already has two articles ; Jesus in Islam, Isa (name) Someone65 (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Christian antisemitism and Legacy section

I recommend that this entire paragraph be stricken from the article because it does not address the topic at hand. The topic at hand is Jesus Christ not Christianity. The paragraph is misplaced in this article and has no relevance to either Jesus or his teachings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.28.164.2 (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

What paragraph are you referring to? --FormerIP (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I am referring to the last paragraph of this article titled 'Christian antisemitism'. Christian anti-Semitism has nothing to do with Jesus Christ, his life or his teachings. It clearly appears to be misplaced here. It could be mentioned in an article on Christianity because it would be pertinent; however it is totally irrelevant to an article about Jesus Christ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.28.164.2 (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No. This is an important part of Jesus' legacy. Unless your point is that the entire legacy section is irrelevant to an article on jesus. Now, if your point is simply that too much weight is given to it in this article, I agree with you - except I think the entire "legacy" section is now overblown, and given too much weight in an article that is on Jesus and not Christianity. I would much rather we pared it back to the more proportionate size we had back here. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree with you Slrubenstein when you assert that "This is an important part of Jesus' legacy.". 'Christian anti-Semitism' is a legacy of the Christian denominations that practiced it and not Jesus Christ. There is nothing in his teachings or his life that even hints at anti-Semitism. An article on Jesus Christ should be focused on Jesus Christ and not his followers (Christians) especially when we have a separate article exclusively dedicated to Christianity. Adding a paragraph on 'Christian anti-Semitism' to this article is like adding a paragraph on 'Islamic Terrorism' to the article on Mohammad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.28.164.2 (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

So? You disagree. That's what we have an NPOV policy for. But you are responding only to the secondary of my two points. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

He is right that the section does not belong. This is because it is a comparitively minor part of the legacy, and obviously just there because someone at Wikipedia wants it. Where is the section on wars and crusades? Where is the section on the impact of the church on the industrial revolution? Where, even, is the history of the Roman Empire under Christianity? The impact of the Catholic Church? This is a matter of undue weight, more than anything else. The whole legacy section should be cut out, or it should reflect the Christianity article and also the articles such as you see in the box on the Christianity page. ^BE_Critical__Talk 19:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with those saying it doesn't belong. Jesus legacy is the early church, and (ultimately by occasionally convoluted routes) the whole of Christianity, but most of it is too complex to be summarised in this article - is it Jesus legacy that the mother in Angela's ashes has to (allegedly) bury her unbaptised infants on waste ground? Or are we getting into territory better covered by comedians here.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's just get rid of the entire section six. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted the antisemitisim section as a first step, but think maybe WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM applies to the section as a whole.

Apologies IP for my initial challenge. I scanned the article but maybe my brain wasn't expecting to see something so egregious so it didn't. --FormerIP (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion:

Legacy

Main article: Christianity

Jesus' legacy includes the Christian religion, as well as innumerable and ongoing impacts on ethics, metaphysics, culture, art, politics, literature and economics.

And just leave it at that. ^BE_Critical__Talk 22:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems good to me. You could write a dozen books on the legacy/impact of christianity - we're not going to be able to do it any justice in half a dozen sentences. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You cannot just delete something you do not like without consensus. Whatever happened to NPOV? No one is saying that Jesus was an anti-Semitie ... just as no one is saying that Jesus was the artist who painted, or even the living model for, so many representations of Jesus in Western art ... or the inventor of the Gregorian calandar. "Legacy" includes everything that the person inspired in people after him - and sadly, anti-Semitism is one of them, already appearing in the Gospels, accourding to some significant scholars. I repeat: the few sentences we had a year ago were fine, and had been stable for years. We should just go back to them. But any section on "legacy" has to mention anti-Semitism, even if it is just a link to other articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Disagree entirely. Any section on legacy has to mention the oppression of women - far more important than anti-Semitism (because I'm a woman but I'm not Jewish - and yes, Iam just saying this to make a point). And the crusades - must refer to the crusades. Absolutely profound influence on the military development of Europe. Colonialism - very significant in the modern political development of the world. In short, it's an WP:UNDUE nightmare. The legacy of Jesus is the Christian Church. Everything else is the legacy of the Church. Far better to leave it that way. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Even though you are presumably being provocative, its worth pointing out that the oppression of women is absolutely not a distinctive product of Christianity. Patriarchal societies exist all over the world, in all religious traditions and long predated Jesus. The crusades might be mentioned. Colonialism had very little to do with Christianity (and again, empires and colonisation long predated Christianity). I don't really have strong views about whether or not there should be an antisemitism section, but a good argument can be made that it is a specific product of Christianity, whereas oppression of woman and colonialism are not. Paul B (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I am of course being provocative, yes:) But anti-Semitism isn't a legacy only of Christianity either, and anti-Semitism (and the oppression of women for that matter) is not directly transmitted from Jesus. I just think the whole 'legacy' thing doesn't work in this particular case. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

And where does anti-Semitism have its origins? You know, the Romans came down very brutally on the Jews, but as far as I know no one has ever accused them of being anti-Semities, or suggested that anti-Semitism has its origins in Roman policy in occupied Palestine or towards Jews living elsewhere in the empire. It starts with Christianity, and it starts with Christianity because of specifics of Jesus' life. Now, if you "disagree entirely," feel free to provide a reason. But surely you know that arguing that part of Jesus' legacy is x is NOT an argument that it wasn't y. Jesus' legacy is manifold. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a very confusing thing to say. Anti-semitism existed without Jesus and including in the Roman empire. Roman writers often attacked Judaism such as Seneca calling Jews an "accursed race". Philo recounts mob violence against the Jews, and the emperor refused to step in for protection. Josephus responds to the criticisms of Apion. Lawrence H. Schiffman categorises this as "anti-semitism". --Ari (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The Jews are a minor people who have had a inordinate impact on history... through Christianity (and maybe Islam but that's irrelevant. But antisemitism is a footnote in history (not notable at all for Wikipedia in this article) till you get to WWII. Perhaps one could include it on those grounds if there are sources which say that Christianity is the cause of Nazi antisemitism. However, this disregards the problem that we can't do an adequate legacy section for this article. I definitely don't think this one promoted by Slrubenstein works per WP:UNDUE. I'm not a scholar and I may be wrong, but it reads to me like an essay focused on pet interests, and seems to include original research. ^BE_Critical__Talk 19:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I like the legacy section but think it should be cut back or cut entirely. There's no way to give due weight to all the issues. Maybe the section could survive as a couple of sum-up paragraphs. First, review the nice things that Christianity is associated with (hospitals, etc.) and then the bad things (pogroms, etc.). This man seems to have had more influence on Western civilization than any other single man. It would be a shame to have the article imply that his legacy is limited to theology. Leadwind (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Becritical, what you write is just incredibly ignorant. Christian anti-Semitism is a major aspce of Jewish hisotry in Europe from the rise of Christian Europe on. It is covered in depth by every major work on medieval jewish history. For you to characterize it as a footnote is simply offensive. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If you do not like the "Legacy" section I suggest because you think it violates UNDUE, I do not see how you could accept the current "Legacy" section, which is five times as long. But as for the one sentence on Jews and anti-Semitism, there certainly is no original research, I can provide a couple of cites from major Jewish history works if all you are asking for is a citation. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. You unintentionally make my point: antisemitism is a large part of Jewish history, not of world history till WWII and not of Jesus' legacy. If you will read above, you will see I do not accept the current legacy section, per my suggestion for its replacement. ^BE_Critical__Talk 23:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Jesus' influence should be summarized in the lead as well. Omitting this information makes the article incomplete. Although it is hard to give due weight to all the issues, a short summary should not be difficult. Flash 00:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps but no one here seems to have a suggestion about how it could be done without [[WP:UNDUE|giving undue weight to various parts of the legacy. If you have a suggestion which people here can agree on, then we might be able to do as you say. ^BE_Critical__Talk 13:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I was opposed to a legacy section originally, and still think it is unnecessary and causes hassles. If we MUST have such a section, I think the one we had a year ago, which was carefully crafted with much discussion and then stable for quite some time, is the best we can expect. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You may be right, in which case it seems like an argument for limiting the section to listing the various subject areas. And I think the one you point to [8] is very arguable. It says "For some Jews, the legacy of Jesus has been a history of Christian antisemitism," which I think is like saying the legacy of Lincoln is the policies of George W. Bush. There are other issues surrounding wp:undue (such as focusing too much on media depiction), but I just noticed the antisemitism one now. I'm sure it was carefully crafted at the time and a consensus of the editors who were there at the time, but I'm not at all sure the editors who are here now would agree to it. ^BE_Critical__Talk 14:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be the general consensus that the Legacy section needs to be cut down to listing subject areas and pointing to other articles. This could include an article dealing with antisemitism. There is one person who disagrees, and others who have ideas but can't tell us how to apply them (and did not address the problems brought up here concerning how we create an adequate section while avoiding WP:UNDUE WEIGHT issues). So I'm wondering if it's time to apply this to the article? ^BE_Critical__Talk 17:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Um... The discussions seem to have mostly died.... but I'd like to proceed as described with the Legacy section if nobody minds? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Is my proposal, that we replace the entire section six with the the "legacy" version here, unacceptable to you? If so, I am open to your suggestion but I would ask that you present it here first, see if others have any suggestions, before actually changing the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well my suggestion above seemed to garner some support, and it seems to be where this discussion was leading us. And yes, I think the section you point to is inadequate and also questionable. We can discuss that if you want, but see what you think about the suggestion below which might be equally acceptable and includes antisemitism. I suggest we replace the Legacy section with something like this:

Main article: Christianity

Jesus' legacy includes the Christian religion, as well as innumerable and ongoing impacts on religion, ethics, metaphysics, culture, antisemitism, art, politics, law, war, literature and economics. Jesus also influenced Islam and the Baha'i Faith.

The legacy of Jesus could be covered in summary form in a whole (long) article (maybe), just not a section. We could also just remove the whole section. Any section we write is going to come up against objections of "but you left out X." BE——Critical_{__Talk} 14:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I am fine with this, although I think perhaps it could be better phrased. I think economics and metaphysics are arguable, and war and politics a little too general. While I like your simpler = better approach, I do wonder whether it would be well-served by an introductory statement. Here is my counter-proposal (inspired by yours):

Jesus' legacy firstly takes the form of writings such as the New Testament and non-canonical gospels, as well as oral traditions in the Syrian Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Churches. Through these, Jesus has left a much wider and sometimes conflicting or ambiguous legacy, influencing religion, ethics, social justice and human rights movements such as abolitionism and liberation theology, art and music, the preservation of literacy in medieval Europe, as well as anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism, the Crusades, heresies, the Inquisition, witch-hunts, the Wars of Religion, and colonialism.

I am mainly trying to be more specific; I hope people consider this balanced. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's beautifully done. I do think we should mention politics though. Suggest this:

Jesus' legacy firstly takes the form of writings such as the New Testament and non-canonical gospels, as well as oral traditions in the Syrian Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Churches. Through these, Jesus has left a much wider and sometimes conflicting or ambiguous legacy, influencing religion, politics, ethics, and ideas of social justice; human rights movements such as abolitionism and liberation theology; art and music, and the preservation of literacy in medieval Europe; anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism, the Crusades, heresies, the Inquisition, witch-hunts, the Wars of Religion, and colonialism.

If this looks good let's leave it for a few hours at least to see if others have input, and then would you like me to put it in? Did Jesus really influence witch hunts or is this an older theme that got carried over into Christianity? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 16:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I am glad you like it! I still thinkk "politics" is too broad. "Religion" is broad too, but obvious enough to leave ... but if you go to the politics article, does it mention Jesus or even Christianity? I consider social justice and human rights, as well as the wars of religion, all to be forms of "politics." Is there a more specific form of politics that you think is being left out? Do you mean Christian Democrat parties, for example? Or sometheing else? I just wonder if we could break it down to more concrete things. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, one could argue that Jesus influenced witch-hunts because Jesus cured people of demon posession and left a belief that people could be posessed by demons. However, I do not think your question, "Did Jesus really influence witch hunts" really has anything to do with legacy. A legacy is literally money left to an inheritor. How the inheritor spends it is not controled by the person granting the legacy, who of course is dead. Jesus, being dead, couldn't influence any of his legacy. I take Jesus' legacy to be what people did in Jesus' name. You ask, "or is this an older theme that got carried over into Christianity?" but if we ask this question we may as well just delete the entire legacy section and leave it blank. After all, ethics and religion existed before Jesus. Again, I think that unless legacy means whatever later people did in Jesus' name (whether we agree with them or not), then it doesn't mean anything useful at all. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Re the meaning of legacy, I suppose you're right. By politics, I mean the Roman Empire under Christianity, Feudalism and its justifications, and for example the influence of Christianity on politics in the Unites States, racism etc. etc. etc. I don't know what else we could use besides a broad category, and listing all that would be too much and we'd forget something. I also think we should include the history of science; Christianity has had a huge influence on it, see Darwin et al. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, my own view is that the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Churches cover Christian influence over the empire. I do not think Christianity had a big influence on feudalism, and I think the reference to the wars of religion get right at the real political consequences of Christianity. For contemporary examples we can just add a link to the moral majority. That's what i would do. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, Darwin is not an example of Jesus influencing science. I know there are Christians who reject evolution, but they are influenced by Genesis not (definitely not) by Jesus. I do not know of another example of Jesus really influencing science. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought feudalism was justified by Divine Right? Re Darwin, I meant his own internal struggle, plus the fight over his legacy. The influence on politics is more subtle than wars of religion. Just to take an example you would relate to, it kept Jews out of politics, at least till Hitler came along (joke), and keeps atheists from running for president. However, I'm satisfied to put it in as it is and we can debate about "politics" later. And yes, put in the link to the moral majority, that's a good contemporary example. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The entire section is uncited and could be interpreted by some as original research. Do you have sources which sums up the legacy of Jesus? Flash 00:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Etymology section Issa and Isus? / Also leader, monk, archetypal, christianity based on sermon on the mount speech

Should there be a mention on the etymology section of names Issa or Isa as Arabic names and Isus or Isu as Egyption names? There is no mention at all of Arabic/Islamic/Muslim name of Jesus. The section lacks of this. Also the Egyptian name should be taken into work on progress.WillBildUnion (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Only because you want to work in references to Isis to fit your pet "Cleopatra and Caesarion" = "Mary and Jesus" theory. If you have reliable sources linking the etymology of "Isa" to Isis or Isu provide them. Paul B (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

What Paul said. --Ari (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

My edits on Cleopatra and Caesarion are completely not related subject to the question im asking here. I would not want in the article stand anything of son of Isis, the gospels do not mention Egyptian Isis, not in bible not in quran.

Issa/Isa should be mentioned as Arabic name. In the arab world Jesus is widely recognized as prophet, called Issa/Isa, but the article does not mention name Issa in the etymology section, however, latin, greek, english and hebrew translations are covered.WillBildUnion (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Jesus' native language was most likely Aramaic which is closely related to Hebrew. The lingua franca of Jesus' time was Greek, and all of the Gospels (the primary sources most closely associated with Jesus) are in Greek. Thus, having mention of Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek seem very on topic. The English name "Jesus" (note this is the English Wikipedia) came through the Latin, so mentioning Latin as well (in addition to being a large witness to the Gospel manuscript tradition) seems again on topic. We don't go into details of what Jesus' name is in languages like Japanese or Turkish or, say, Arabic. Jesus in Islam, Wiktionary, or ar:يسوع seem like better locations for your proposed information. If we were to add Arabic entymological information, where would it stop? Would we need to discuss Chinese? Hindi?-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

To many, it does not seem off-topic. In addition to the 4 gospels, quran is a notable source of Yeshua's life (as well as Talmuds and the apocrypha), and quran is read by millions of english speaking arabs/muslims, and they don't find mention of their Issa in here.WillBildUnion (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the English Wiki. It should reflect that. The primary entymology should be Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek since those were the most likely used at the time. As was already mentioned this is not the place to list all the derivations in every language. The place for that would be in their respective wiki pages. Marauder40 (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No historian uses the Quran as a source on Jesus' life. Th largest (population) Islamic ountries are Pakistan (national languages: Urdu and English) and Indonesia (national language: Indonesian) ... so should we provide jesus' name in Indonesian and in Urdu? YES!!! in the Indonesian and urdu Wikipedias. 18:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Issa or Isa are english translations of Arabic name of Jesus. The western world is populated by great percentage of arabs and muslims. These users use english wikipedia.

There are no coherent opinions to leave etymology Issa out of the article.

Not to mention that the area of were Jesus did his ministry, was largely populated by arabs at the time, and still are.

Coherent opposition lacks.WillBildUnion (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Your edits to the lead violate many issues with WP:Lead including the fact they are stated in the lead but not referenced anywhere in the article. The lead is supposed to be an introduction and a teaser for what is found in the article. Also stating things like "Christian belef is largely based on Sermon on the Mount" is POV. Many say Christian belief is based on the entire life and teaching of Christ. Not just the Sermon on the mount. You are adding unreferenced things to the lead that are not backed up either in a reference or in the body of the article. Also by WP:Bold you are supposed to discuss any issues that people are reverting. Marauder40 (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

How much a catholic christian you are not? Sermon on the mount is his main work main speech, this is where christianity is based on. In the article it was written: "Nonetheless, Jesus was and is a leading and archetypal monk of christian faith and all its branches. Christian belief, christian movement, is largely based on Sermon on the Mount speech." You must know what archetypal means? his life and teachings.WillBildUnion (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what type of "Catholic Christian" I am. You are not following the policies of Wikipedia concerning WP:Lead, WP:NPOV and a few others. Why don't you try adding what you are doing to the body of the article instead of the lead? The lead is a summary of things that are discussed in the article. What you are adding isn't currently in the article so it shouldn't appear in the lead. Also you should read about WP:Bold because if someone disagrees with a Bold edit you are supposed to discuss it before reverting it and getting into a edit war. Marauder40 (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

He was living in the Essene community. That makes him an Essenean monk.WillBildUnion (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No he wasn't. For starters he ate meat (lamb and fish), whereas the Essenes were vegetarian. ^rossnixon 02:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Essenes also stayed out of towns and would never have gone to the Temple. Jesus spent a lot of time in town, and went to the Temple pretty often. The Gospels also are clear that Mary and Joseph observed the rituals for a new-born at the Temple, a temple which the Essenes believed was lead by corrupt officials. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

According to canon and apocrypha, he went to the temple with the Galilee and Essene crowd to proclaim his message. To the meat thing, lamb and fish have symbolic meaning, not that he ate them. Or how many of you eat the body of christ and drink his blood? Nevertheless, there is no mention of him eating meat.WillBildUnion (talk) 03:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Galilee was a region, not a group. The Essenes are not mentioned in the Bible. You have no evidence that he did not eat meat. There is mention in the Bible of Jesus eating meat.

Exodus 12:3, 12:8 - ...On the tenth of this month every man shall take for himself a lamb, according to the house of his father, a lamb for his household... ...Then they shall eat the flesh on that night; roasted in fire... - On Passover, you eat lamb.

Luke 22:15 - Then He said to them, "With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer" - Jesus celebrated Passover.

On Passover, you eat lamb. Jesus celebrated Passover. Ergo, Jesus ate Lamb. If you don't accept that, there's Luke 24:42-43 - So they gave Him a piece of broiled fish and some honeycomb. And He took it and ate in their presence. The idea that this is symbolic does not argue against the idea of Jesus eating meat. However, it is a symbol that would have been abhorrent to the Essenes, indicating that Jesus and most of his early followers probably weren't strictly and totally Essene. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Even Pope Benedict himself says it is just a theory that Jesus was an Essene. Cardinal Albert Vanhoye commented on this theory saying "Even if Jesus was able to feel sympathy for the Essenes, who were very pious, his mentality was very different from theirs because they were very attached to ritual observances, which he wasn’t. Vanhoye noted that the opinion of the pope, who was referring to a theory already advanced by some experts, was an intellectual musing rather than a pronouncement with all the authority of papal infallibility." http://www.ejpress.org/article/15698 As I said before this doesn't belong in the lead and should be in the main part of the article with all the appropriate clarifications and references. Marauder40 (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Have removed the Pope's comment. Have not heard of any scholarly opinion that supports it. ^rossnixon 02:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In exodus they refer to lamb and passover, it might be a symbol, not actually eating the animal. Luke mentions Jesus celebrated passover, of course, the spring solstice, but it does not say Jesus ate an animal. Lamb is a very symbolic in bible and it means humans, caretaking others. Also fish is very symbolic in bible, also meaning humans. However, there is some indication Jesus might of eaten fish. But you are making false assumptions. For example, Jesus had few times sex with his half sister -> Jesus was in incest sexual intercourse most of his life. Or, Jesus had few times sex with Thomas Judas Didymus -> Jesus was homosexual. No conclusion cant be made what he was. You are basing it on very loose and shaky ground that Jesus was not a vegetarian.

Qumran and Nag-hammadi scholars agree Jesus was an Essene. And the Pope has jumped into this scientific bandwagon. As Wikipedia is encyclopedia, all editors of this article perhaps needs a reminder, bear in mind, that the 4 gospels are not the only sources and references to write this article.WillBildUnion (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I know Galilee was a region, why take your time with small unnecessary details? Surely I meant Essenes and the crowd _from Galilee_, not the actual region, or all of it's inhabitants. Surely it is understandable that I meant crowd from Galilee who had heard Jesus preach for em, ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WillBildUnion (talk • contribs) 18:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I was just watching this National Geographic program "The Truth Behind the Dead Sea Scrolls". The program lists a lot of differences between Jesus and the Essenes (Jesus hung out with lepers, sinners, tax collections, and taught to love thy enemy, while the Essenes shunned all those, etc) and then goes on to show Dr. Eric Cline saying there is no evidence Jesus was an Essene, and the most scholars are willing to say is that John the Baptist might have been an Essene, but it's difficult if not impossible to actually link Jesus himself With the Essenes. Just thought I'd mention this since it reminded me of this. Qumran and Nag-hammadi scholars agree Jesus was an Essene simply isn't true unless NatGeo had some strong selection bias, which I doubt strongly. -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Essenes were an older group formed long before birth of Jesus. Jesus hang out with Essenes as much as with lepers etc. Essenes influenced the ideology of Jesus, hence, a new group formed from Essenes: the Nazoreans. Anyhow it is questionable, as Essenes were healers surely Essenes also spent time with lepers and sinners. Yes, Jesus was a rebel, he wasnt a hardcore Essene which is why Nazorean group broke out from Essene ideology. During the times of Jesus there were mainly 4 groups in the area of Palestine: Pharisees, Sadducees, Esseneans and Zealots. Bible only makes a clear refers to pharisees and sadducees, Jesus was not both of these. What is left are Essene and Zealots, and John the baptist being an Essene, it doesn't leave much to assumptions.

1. The ideology of Jesus was influenced by Essene community. He also got an Essene baptisment. 2. Essene were healers with similar skills and methodology as Egyptian and Indian healers. Jesus was a healer. 3. From the Essene broke out nazorean group led by Jesus. It was a spiritual movement. 4. Zealots. Attacking the money lenders in the temple was a Zealot action. Disciples like Peter and Matthew were Zealots. The rivalry with Zealots and Essene Mary Magdalene being there in the middle were an early acts towards what later became canon. 5. Jesus based his ministry and succession to two groups, sort of a divide and conquer, order out of chaos, Essene/Nazorean being a spiritual movement, a backdrop, when the Zealots were a frontal group. 6. Jesus wanted a revolution, and it took longer than his lifetime. But he achieved at least some of it. And he only used a very basic setting of two groups: spiritual front and rebel front.WillBildUnion (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You are topic banned from this article [9]. I recommend you revert the above edit (on the merits of which I make no comment) before an administrator decides to take some action against you.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Elen, I just blocked him for three days. I hope he will study other talk pages to learn how they are best used to improve articles, or peruse the encyclopedia to find other articles he can work on. In the meantime, since he violated the topic ban, I have blocked him to try to get him to put his mind on a more fruitful track. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think because it had been archived at ANI he thought it was forgotten. I hoped that if I reminded him he'd instantly revert it (I reminded him within 10 minutes of posting). However he didn't. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocks are not supposed to be punitive, but I do hope tis makes it clear to him that these things have to be taken serioiusly. If the post above is all that he is coming to WP for perhaps at some point he will be banned. I'm all for giving him another chance; my hope is that three days is enough to make him want to take a more constructive approach to editing. But we all have to kep an eye on him, I am glad you called attention to the above. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV in lede section

I believe that this sentence:

"Judaism rejects Jesus' prophethood, arguing that he did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh" is POV.

The lede gives the viewpoint of all major religions, but only for Judaism does it give an argument for those beliefs, and is therefore apologetics.

Does anyone see a reason to keep this information in the lede? The information already appears in the body of the article. Flash 08:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the well-chosen words should stay in the lede. They are embellished upon in a later section, and they are crucial to the following words about the Islamic interpretation.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  08:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing on the talk page.

Your response did not touch on the most crucial point. Why should the lede give an argument for only one religion's belief? Flash 08:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Truthfully, I'm on the fence regarding the word "arguing". I believe the statement is meant merely as a brief description rather than an argument. Maybe if it were to be altered like this...

"Because Jesus did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies of the Tanakh, Judaism rejects his prophethood, whereas . . ."

Keep in mind that there are more subtle "arguments" and "apologies" throughout the lede, so this descriptive "reason" for Judaism's rejection is essentially NPOV.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  08:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the formulation "because Jesus did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies" would be POV, because it asserts as fact that he didn't, which Christians and Muslims would dispute. As currently phrased the sentence presents the position as a view within Judaism. Furthemore saying that Jews consider that he was a "false prophet", as preferred by Flash, imples that they all accept that he claimed to be a prophet and that what he prophesised was false. Well, I'd suggest that many Jewish scholars would see Jesus as as figure within Jewish culture at the time, whose life took on new meaning in stories and claims after his death; so they would not necessarily make such clear cut claims about what he actually believed about himself. Paul B (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

How is it NPOV to explicitly state an argument for only one religion's belief? There is a huge difference between supposed "subtle" arguments and one that is plainly stated. Flash 09:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't really follow your objection. The current wording says "Judaism rejects Jesus' prophethood, arguing that he did not fulfill...". That is different from saying that he was a false prophet. It a rejection of claims made on his behalf, not necessarily an assertion about the actual Jesus. The rest is a very brief explanation that follows from the much longer explanation of why Christians think he was the Messiah prophesised. IMHO, this is hardly bias towards the Jewish view. Paul B (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The Christianity section does not give an argument defending their beliefs. The Judaism sentence is the only one in the lede which explicitly gives a specific argument. The first part of the sentence sums up what Judaism believes; the second is pure apologetics. Flash 10:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree in that all the Judaism sentence gives is a source for the rejection. The entire 2nd paragraph of the lede, and much of the rest of the lede gives sources for the Christian belief. The judaism sentence merely gives a source for the disbelief that Jesus was the Messiah. In this respect it is no different from the second paragraph of the lede.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  11:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The Judaism sentence gives a reason, an argument, for the belief, and is therefore apologetics. The Christian section doesn't give arguments, such as, "arguing that Jesus has fulfilled or will fulfill the Messianic Prophecies" or "arguing that the historical evidence suggests that Jesus resurrected".

I'm making a distinction between stating what the belief IS, and stating an argument which supports that belief. Flash 12:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand, however the entire second paragraph is a subtle "argument" that supports the Christian belief, isn't it? I see no difference other than the word "arguing". If you can leave the entire statement alone and find another word for "arguing", that might work. However, I personally think it's a pretty big leap from "arguing" to "apologetics".

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  13:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk about apologetics, what does this sentence mean to you: [Jesus] came to provide humankind with salvation and reconciliation with God by his death for their sins. Furthermore, what is the difference between Most Christian scholars today present Jesus as the awaited Messiah[31] and Judaism ... argu[es] that he did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh. If we change "present" to "argue" or vice versa, they are nearly identical claims (identical opposites). Switch "awaited Messiah" for "Messianic prophecies"... really, there is great parity between those sentences. I can't see how you can read the entire paragraph on Christian belief, and then claim the one sentence about Judaism in the lead is doing something more than what the entire previous Christian paragraph did. I see no such "Jewish Apologetics". -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the opposite of "Most Christian scholars today present Jesus as the awaited Messiah" would be:

Judaism does not view Jesus as the Messiah.

There is a difference between the belief itself and the reasoning or argument behind the belief. Flash 23:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I really think it is semantics at this point. What does it mean to be "the awaited Messiah"? Is this referencing say Messianic prophecies found in the Tanakh? Is it referencing anything more? Anything less? The exact opposite of your proposed sentence would be "Christians view Jesus as the Messiah". When we introduce arguments (or presentations) made by Christian scholars in regards to a theological concept derived from Judaism and their ancient texts, such as the "awaited Messiah", I believe you are doing more than simply presenting belief. But then again, I wouldn't agree with you that the Judaism sentence is going above and beyond what the Christian paragraph did. But even if we grant that there is something more, I don't see how that is problematic. Is the sentence inaccurate? Is there something problematic with the presentation or facts of the sentence? I don't think that is the issue. Just out of curiosity, is there a sentence or two that you can think up that we could hypothetically add to the Christian paragraph that present reasoning and arguments for their beliefs?-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, "awaited Messiah" is not an argument. Where do you see the Christian paragraph presenting arguments?

If arguments are added to every belief, the lead would be unreadable.

The sentence is not inaccurate, and appears in the body of the article, but stating the arguments of only one religion's beliefs is POV.

The sentence can easily present what Judaism believes without going into arguments, such as, "Judaism believes that Jesus is the not the awaited Messiah" Flash 23:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Sorry. -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV is the perhaps the most important aspect of wikipedia. I was hoping you would defend and clarify your position. Nevertheless, thanks for discussing on the talk page. Flash 13:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I did not convey my position adequately enough. Or I'm sorry I couldn't convince you. I believe I have put forth my position, and that continuing this discussion wouldn't be productive. To repeat, I don't agree with your assessment that the one single sentence about Judaism is presenting a detailed argument and rationale behind a belief, while the entire paragraph devoted to the Christian section is doing nothing of the sort. Saying "Jesus is the awaited Messiah" and "Jesis is not the awaited Messiah" is really really similar to "Jesus fulfilled messianic prophecies" and "Jesus did not fulfill messianic prophecies". To me, it comes down to minor semantic issues. I don't see any NPOV violation, and I don't believe you have made a convincing case (and it doesn't seem like anyone else agrees). Sorry. -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying.

I disagree with you in that I believe the sentence, "arguing that he did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies" is giving an argument. I see that as a NPOV violation, you clearly do not. I believe discussion is still productive in determining what should go in the article even if there is a disagreement about NPOV.

Why do you oppose making the sentence in both sections the same? As I said earlier, changing the sentence to "Judaism does not believe Jesus to be the Messiah" summarizes their beliefs without referring to an argument. Flash 00:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Explaining why Jews don't recognize Jesus as the Messiah makes perfect sense in the lead. There's nothing in NPOV about not explaining reasons for different perspectives. Leadwind (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

There are reasons and arguments behind many of the Christian beliefs as well. Why should the Judaism section be treated differently? Flash 02:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You just keep repeating the same statement over and over. There is an entire paragraph devoted to the Christian view. The fact that it does not use the word "argue", but has "present" and other words instead does not mean it is not putting the Christian argument. It is. The one sentence devoted to Judaism is essentially a very short respose to the previous para, "aruging" is a actually a modest, tentative word in contrast to - say - "asserting". Paul B (talk) 08:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between belief and argument. Where, specifically, do you see the christian paragraph presenting the argument? Jesus is (or is not) the messiah is a belief. Whether he fulfilled (or did not) the prophecies is a reason behind those beliefs. I am simply advocating both sections be phrased very similarily. Flash 09:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like splitting hairs to me. Christianity "views him as the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament", which implies that Christians see him as fulfilling those foretellings - or are you arguing that the reader could get the impression that Christians see him as the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament despite not fulfilling said prophecies? Huon (talk) 11:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't get that impression when I first read it. It certainly implies that, but one needs at least some basic knowledge of messianic prophecies and to read into the text a bit to get the implied message.

I would be OK with the sentence saying: Judaism "does not view Jesus as the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament" Flash 13:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstand you, but are you saying that instead of clarifying Christianity's views, we should de-clarify Judaism's? While that could be seen as "neutral", it seems counterproductive. Huon (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Judaism "does not view Jesus as the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament" is neither ambiguous nor confusing, and it sums up the beliefs of Judaism. I am advocating that the lead does not contain sentences such as Religion A believes x, arguing y. Flash 06:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see a problem with the wording you object to. I argued above that, while using different wording, we say the same about Christianity's opinion, namely, that Christianity sees Jesus as the Messiah because he fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies. I don't think NPOV requires us to use templates for our sentences without variation. On the other hand, the Judaism sentence seems a little awkward to me. If I read it correctly, it makes two different points: Jesus is believed not to be a prophet in general, and not the Messiah in particular. Thus, the "arguing..." part does not actually provide an argument for the "not a prophet" part. Or am I mistaken? Huon (talk) 10:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I argued previously that I believe the Christianity and Judaism sentences were substantially different, in that it is very difficult to deduce "fulfilled Messianic prophecies" from "foretold in the Old Testament".

To me, it is more natural to say that Christians believe Jesus to be the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament because they believe he fulfilled the Messianic prophecies, and so the fulfillment is the reason behind the belief.

I am confused about the wording as well, it seems that the editor who wrote that sentence used "Messiah" and "prophet" interchangeably, and the sentence does not directly say Judaism believes Jesus is not the Messiah. Flash 12:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd consider "is the Messiah as foretold" and "fulfilled the Messianic prophecies" as synonymous, but if you feel otherwise (can you explain the difference?), we should indeed clarify that Christians believe he fulfilled the prophecies instead of making it difficult to deduce that Jews believe he didn't fulfill them - as you now say we'd do if we followed your suggested wording for that paragraph. Huon (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

To me, "is the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament" says that Christianity sees him as the Messiah, but does not specify why. It's simply a belief.

Christianity could have believed him to be the foretold Messiah simply because they see him as divine or have miraculous powers, and that Messianic prophecies could be fulfilled later. So the messianic prophecies may have nothing to do with why Christianity believes him to be the Messiah.

"fulfilled the Messianic prophecies" is not even a belief, it is more of a condition. Someone who haven't fulfilled the prophecies could be believed to fulfill them in the future, and so "have not fulfilled" does not necessarily mean "not the Messiah".

Therefore, one is not equal to the other.

The reasons behind believing whether Jesus is the Messiah is not limited to the Messianic prophecies. Flash 13:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, now I see what you mean. How about "... which views him as the Messiah, having fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament, ..." instead of " ...which views him as the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament, ..." in the first sentence? Actually, do all Christians really believe Jesus has already fulfilled the prophecies, or are there significant groups who believe that he is the Messiah, but has some work yet to do? In that case, "fulfilling" may be better than "having fulfilled". Anyway, should we also clarify that Jews don't see him as the Messiah? Huon (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The Old Testamant may be an importan point of reference in describint Christian beliefs. When it coms to Jewish beliefs however the Old testament is irrelevant; since Judaism does not accept an "Old Testament," we cannot refer to the old Testament to say anything about Jewish beliefs. As with AndrewC, PaulB and othersI must say, I have yet to see an explanation as to how the current phrasing violates NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's not an NPOV problem as much as a lack of clarity. My suggested modification was meant for the first sentence, which reads in part "the central figure of Christianity, which views him as the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament". If I understand Flash correctly, we should mention both that Christians believe Jesus is the Messiah, and that they believe he fulfilled the Messianic prophecies (in what Christians call the OT). Conversely, we currently say a few paragraphs later that Jews don't believe Jesus fulfilled the prophecies, but don't explicitly say they also don't believe he's the Messiah. We don't say anything about Judaism and the OT, and I wasn't suggesting we should. Huon (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Oky, I see what you are saying, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

However, since we do mention the views of Islam and the Baha'i Faith, and since Christianity arose out of Judaism, should we not include a sentence that states the position of Judaism as well, for completeness? Wdford (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would say that since Jesus was the leader of a Jewish sect and that Christianity became a distinct religion by breaking with Judaism, it is important to restore to the first paragraph a line on the Jewish view. Also, I added the word "messiah" to the sentence on the Jewish view later down, since what Jews really care about is the claim that he was a messiah, more than any claim about prophecy. These cannot be NPOV violations: adding attributed views is never a violation of NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The "foretold in the Old Testament" is an important clarifier to disambiguate between different Messiahs. The fulfillment of Messianic prophecies, as I previous said, is more of a condition. Christians don't necessarily believe he fulfilled those prophecies, and that they believe he will fulfill them later. Furthermore, why Judaism rejects Jesus goes far beyond prophecies, it is also due to the fact that Jesus rejected the Law in the Torah, and established a new Covenant. The Judaism section in the body also gives some other reasons.

The sentence not only singles out a particular reason, it also would be the only place in the lead where reasoning behind beliefs is discussed.

And Judaism is already mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead. As you previously said, Slrubenstein, Judaism really have no view of Jesus, and it is fitting that it is mentioned last. Flash 22:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Flash that this is apologetics for Judaism and not really called for in the article lead. POV would seem to be the only reason to include it there. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 23:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph has the views of major Abrahamic religions, and the lead then has mor detailed paragraphs, generally giving more space to those religions in which he counts for more. There was a line for judaism in the first paragraph for a very long time I see no reason to delete it. My only concern is that it say that judaism rejects claims that he is the messiah. as to why Christians believed or still believe he is the messiah, I am not trying to make any claims one way or the other about that. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Rever Flash, you say I should not make changes without discussing them here. Except i do discuss them here, i discuss them above. But you ignored my expanation and just restored your own version. Now, you should not delete what i wrote on the article page without responding to what I wrote on the talk page. You are insisting on a version that violates NPOV, and that misrepresents Judaism. Yet you have not even tried to defend either of these! Try responding to my talk, and see if we can reach an agreement, before you impose your POV on the articleSlrubenstein | Talk 23:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Judaism simply rejects Jesus, and therefore really doesn't have a view on him, even you said that earlier. There is absolutely no reason to include it twice in the lead. Please reach an agreement on talk before making changes. Unilaterally making changes before an agreement is reached upon is counter-productive.

I have said repeatedly why I think the sentence is POV: it is the only sentence where a reason/argument is presented which supports a religion's belief. Flash 00:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That does not explain why the sentence violates NPOV. Providing the reason is essential, since Christianity established itself through reasons relating to Judaism. The vast bulk of the article goves much attention to these reasons. As to Judaism "simply" rejecting Jesus, you are being anachronistic. Judaism has little to say about Jesus today but for a great deal of the Middle Ages most Jewish philosophers were asked by Christians to provide their reasons for rejecting Jesus, and did so. Judaism's reasons for rejecting Jesus were important to those Christians, and are important now, because jesus first preached to Jews. Now, even if you disagreed with all my points, that woulod still not be enough to explain how the sentence violates our NPOV policy. you have to be more specific. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have repeatedly said that giving an argument or reason behind just one religion's belief is POV. Please do not simply ignore what I have said.

Furthermore, please stop making unilateral changes before the discussion has concluded. First, it makes no sense to include the exact same information in the lead twice. Not only that, the word "claims" implies questionable credibility. Flash 11:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Reaver you keep removing material that was in the article for a very long time without any consensus. Stop doing that. You have removed the statement that Jews do not share the views of Christians and Muslims. Why? Is it false? Why do you wish to exclude this point of view? Do you not know that the only way we achieve NPOV is by adding multiple views? you have also removed the specific claim that jews reject jesus as messiah. Why? Again, you seem determined to exclude the jewish view from the article. YOU WILL NOT CENSOR WIKIPEDIA. You MUST comply with NPOV. This means including views, even the Jewish view you seem not to like.

"I have repeatedly said that giving an argument or reason behind just one religion's belief is POV." So what? of course it is POV, just as stating that Christians believe jesus is the messiah is POV and that Muslims believe Jewsus is a prophet is POV. All of these are POVs. Please read out NPOV policy again. Articles must comply with NPOV and one way we do that is by including different points of view. So your "repeated" statement is simply a reason for putting it in the article. You have yet to justify your deletions in any way. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I gave you the reasons why I objected to your edits: First, it makes no sense to include the exact same information in the lead twice. Not only that, the word "claims" implies questionable credibility.

Please do not simply ignore what I said and label my edits as "censoring". Making unilateral edits in an ongoing discussion is also very counter-productive.

And only giving arguments or reasons behind one belief is POV, and violates NPOV. Giving POVs does not mean you can add information indiscriminately, especially in the lede where information are supposed to be very general. Flash 23:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me that Slrubenstein's edits are to portions of the text that you do not contest. Unless I have read too quickly, you chiefly contest usage of the word "argue". His edits are meant to clarify WHAT the Jewish position IS, not why, and do not affect your dispute with about "argue". I think it is quite reasonable & NPOV for the lede to briefly say WHY Jews do not think Jesus was the Messiah--JimWae (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There are many reasons why Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah and why Christianity accepts Jesus as the Messiah. The lead is already quite long, and the lede would become almost unreadable if all the relevant arguments are added to it. Such specific information belongs in the body of the article. My main objection is therefore, not the word "argue".

I contested Slrubenstein's edits because they are repetitive, and add specific information to parts of the first paragraph, where only general information are supposed to be presented. Flash 00:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There is far more in the lede about Islam's views AND some of it is also repetitious. The repetition comes about because sometimes the first paragraph introduces other parts of the lede--JimWae (talk) 01:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The lone argument presented in the lead is also problematic. Why should the argument of only one religion be presented? Arguments such as "he did not fulfill Messianic prophecies" or "he will fulfill them at the second coming" should go in the body of the article. Flash 01:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Repetitious info on Islam's views is not the issue. Repetition on one thing is no reason to keep repetition on another. That said, feel free to remove an excess on Islam's views and/or discuss elsewhere if need be.

I mostly see no one addressing (or understanding?) Flash's view.^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 05:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

particular text

Maybe if a partictular text was proposed here it can help move things along. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 05:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

“ Rabbinic Judaism rejects assertions that Jesus was the awaited Messiah fortold in the Tanakh. In Islam, Jesus (Arabic: عيسى, commonly transliterated as Isa) is considered one of God's important prophets, and uses the title "Messiah" for Jesus, but does not teach that he was divine. Islam also teaches that Jesus ascended bodily to heaven without experiencing death or the crucifixion. ”

I support this proposal. It presents the views concisely and neutrally. Flash 06:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a bit more informative than that, yet avoids the word "argue":

Judaism rejects assertions that Jesus was the awaited Messiah, maintaining the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh were not fulfilled.[21]--JimWae (talk) 06:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Copying the entire Judaism section into the lead would be more informative as well.

Why do you support introducing arguments or reasons behind beliefs into the lead, where information presented are supposed to be very general?

Also note there are several reasons why Christians accept Jesus as the Messiah and several why Jews do not. Flash 06:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

We could just say "Judaism does not think Jesus was the Messiah" - but that is too cursory. There's plenty of detail in the lede already, these 10 words are as informative as just about any other 10 words there. And they are still general - they do not, for example, say which Messianic expectations were not fulfilled. Since Christianity grew out of Judaism, any Jewish position on Jesus is very relevant. --JimWae (talk) 07:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There are no other arguments/reasons behind beliefs in the lead. Why do you propose to introduce them? They do not add any information about what Judaism actually believes, they just present an argument which defends it, and is therefore, apologetics. The information is general; a reason which supports a belief is not general.

If you do intend to introduce arguments into the lead, keep in mind there are several reasons why Christians accept Jesus as the Messiah and several why Jews do not. Flash 07:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

YOu insist using the word "argument" somehow violates NPOV policy. You keep repeating this, ad nauseum, as if it meant something. What part of the NPOV policy rejects the use of the word "argues?" Plase quote the portion o policy you are refering to. I cannot find it. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

A text can be an argument without the use of the word "argument."

It is POV to include an argument here because there aren't any counter-arguments included here. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 18:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It is really, really POV to say Jesus was born of a virgin, so we should remove that from the lead because we don't have counter arguments. We shouldn't say he came to save sinners either, because that is extremely offensive to non-Christian (or at least an outright lie) so without a counter to that, it's incredibly POV and should be removed. In fact, we should strike the whole Christian paragraph from suffering from POV, because we don't balance it with the scientific, atheistic, Jewish, Muslim, and other POVs. Heck, we should probably not say he was a historical figure in the lead either, because that is POV and those crazy Jesus mythers would disagree. Of course I am not serious about any of the above, but then again, I don't see why you two are so hung up on the concept of "argument". I don't see the difference between the presentation of the Christian views, and our sentence on the Jewish view. Saying there is an argument, and that it is POV, doesn't make it so (or doesn't make it a bad thing). I don't feel like when reading it there is any imbalance between the various views presented in the lead. Perhaps we need to have a RfC, and ask the reader if they think the one sentence on Jewish views violations undue weight, or is otherwise inappropriate when compared to the paragraph on Christian views... -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

So do we have consensus? I can delete the material on virgin birth, saving sinners, etc from the lead to sae it for the body where we can deal with such controversial material. Does anyone object? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe Andrew is being sarcastic. The lead is supposed to be a summary and introduction to the article, not a place for arguements, etc. If it is a summary to x, y, and z in the lead that is fine. There is no reason to have every arguement in the core of the document in the lead otherwise it isn't a summary. Marauder40 (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe SLR is being sarcastic. Marauder40, do you think the one sentence on Judaism currently in the lead is appropriate or problematic based on your notion of "summary" vs. "arguements"? I'm just trying to get down to specifics, and how your comment can be related to the current debate in this thread. Thanks!-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't see a problem with including and only including the Jewish counter-arguement due to the fact that Jesus was Jewish and either he claimed or was claimed to be (depending on how you view the theology) to be the Jewish Messiah. He wasn't claimed to be the Messiah of any other religion whether it existed at the time or not. Clarification on how each of the individual religions view Jesus can happen in the body but I don't think it is needed in the lead. If we want to include some summary a simple sentence could be added that says other religions have differing views of Jesus' importance or something like that. Marauder40 (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Just because the text is one sentence long doesn't mean it's not problematic.

Andrew, please understand the distinction between a belief (e.g. virgin birth, Jesus is the Messiah, Jesus is not the Messiah) and an argument or reason to support that belief (e.g. Jesus did/didn't fulfill Messianic prophecies).

Currently, the Judaism sentence contains the only argument in the lead, and the Judaism is the only section that is supported by an argument. Flash 22:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It is fine to say "most Christian denominations believe him to be X, Y, and Z" and to say "...Judaism does think Jesus is not-X" but it is something different to say "so-and-so believes this because of such-and-such." -- Now I think it could be fine to give arguments for the Christian view-- because Jesus is hardly noteworth without Christianity-- but this no NPOV reason to have the arguments for Judaism's view only. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 00:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

What would such arguments reasons look like? Could it be given in 10 words or less? 30 words or less? JimWae (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Reasons that could be added are:

Jesus fulfilled Messianic prophecies resurrection is the best explanation for historical evidence

Since Jesus is the central figure of Christianity, the christianity section should have more reasons given.

I would rather put all the reasons/arguments into the body instead of further expanding an already length lead section. Flash 01:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not proposing we add any arguments for the Christian view. That would add to a already long lead section, and would require starting this whole discussion again from scratch. I recommend the text in the blue quotes above. I am just indicating how "reasons" or "arguments" here for Judaism's beliefs are POV. They are arguments only for one POV. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 07:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Flash writes, "Andrew, please understand the distinction between a belief (e.g. virgin birth, Jesus is the Messiah, Jesus is not the Messiah) and an argument" but this is the problem - Christians have beliefs, Jews have arguments. What I mean is, that christian views take the form of beliefs, and Jewish views take the form of arguments. If you wish to give equal space to Jewish and Christian views, some will take the form of arguments, and others, beliefs. This is because of a difference between Judaism and Christianity. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

First, read what apologetics is.

Second, such a prejudiced posting dosen't even help improve the article-- which is the only reason for this discussion page-- even if you do really "think" your post to be true.

Thrid, this would be yet another attempt to troll for unproduction diatribes and rabbit trails-- hoping reasonable people will tire and leave-- since such there is evidently no good or genuine purpose to keep this POV in the lead, for such people to discuss anymore. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 17:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologetics for only one religion's beliefs clearly violates NPOV. I see no reason to keep the sole argument in the lead, which was only added recently by a previously banned sockpuppet. [10] Flash 08:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You guys can spout however much rhetoric as you want. NPOV is our policy. It says that al signficiant views belong in an article. You think that only those views that take the form of "beliefs" count, when another group of people's views don't count because they take the form of "arguments." that is just your own prejudice. You cannot keep Jewish views out just because they do not take a form you approve of. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The Judaism view would be included even if the argument is removed. The policy you cited is hardly relevant in the discussion. Please respond to what I wrote. Why should the lead include apologetics for only one religion's beliefs? Flash 11:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that I added apologestics to the article? Do you have any evidence? Please provide the edit difference in which I added apologetics. Now, here is an edit difference for where YOU reverted me: [11] And this is what you deleted: you deleted my adding the Jewish view alongside the Christian and Muslim view, and you deleted my saying that the Jewish view is that Jesus was not the Messiah. You did not delete any apologetics. That is because I did not add any apologetics. I did add content, and it is content that you deleted. You deleted content that expressed the Jewish view, not apologetics. Your whining about apologetics has nothing to do with your campaign to exclude the Jewish view or to distort it. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Just because I think a part of the text should not be included does not mean I'm on a campaign of censorship. Please discuss in good faith and focus on the topic at hand instead of making accusations. Flash 04:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you discuss in good faith the topic at hand? All this talk and you refuse to respond to anything I have written. The article said that Jews do not believe Jesus was a prophet. I added that they also do not believe he was the messiah. This is undoubtedly true, and it is more notable than "prophet," so should be an uncontroversial edit. But you deleted it. I added "messiah" again. You deleted it. i added it again, you deleted it. Each time you keep adding this obnoxious edit summary that I should discuss my edit on the talk page - obnoxious because I keep explaining to you that Jews do not accpet Jesus is the Messiah and you keep deleting it and you have never responded to my explanation. Your only explanation for deleting what i added is that we should discuss it on the talk page which is an insult to me and to Wikipedia given that I keep trying to discuss it and you refuse to discuss it. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The talk page is for discussing what should be in the article. Whatever complaints you have about me as an editor should be brought up on my talk page, or elsewhere; I will not discuss it here.

The lead currently contains only one argument for a single religion's beliefs, which was only added recently by a currently banned user. Including apologetics for only Judaism's beliefs is a violation of NPOV.

I propose cutting the bolded text:

Judaism rejects assertions that Jesus was the awaited Messiah, arguing that he did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh Flash 05:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Flash, I still disagree with your entire presented concept. The lede is chock-full of argument. The entire second paragraph is argument, just worded with more subtlety than the sentence you propose to change. I disagree that your bolded text is the only "argument" in the lede and therefore must be removed. I'm so sorry that you cannot see this. That is not the only argument in the lede.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  11:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The 2nd paragraph? Do you mean:

The principal sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical gospels, especially the Synoptic Gospels,[9][10] though some scholars believe texts such as the Gospel of Thomas are also relevant.[11]

or do you mean another paragraph? Where else do you see an argument being presented which supports a belief? Flash 12:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I do not even see where the jewish reasons for not believing in Jesus are provided. Sure, it says that Jews don't believe he was the messiah their sacred writings foretell - but it desn't provide a single word as to why Jews do not believe that. May we need to addd the specific arguments, why have Jews been telling the world Jesus isn't the messiah, for two thousand years? I do not see any reason provided. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Willful blindness. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 02:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not willfully blind and this is an insult. Please quote for me the argument? Reading the articl, do you have any clue what the argument is? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is an "argument"?

You, Flash and şṗøʀĸ, are contending that the following sentence, found toward the end of the lede, is an argument and an apology:

Judaism rejects assertions that Jesus was the awaited Messiah, arguing that he did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh.

Let us first note that all this sentence really does is to state the source of why Judaism rejects the assertions. It goes into absolutely no detail, therefore it cannot properly be called an "argument", let alone an "apology". The second paragraph:

The principal sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical gospels, especially the Synoptic Gospels, though some scholars believe texts such as the Gospel of Thomas are also relevant.

...also provides the source(s) of the beliefs noted in the first paragraph. Therefore it is just as much an argument or apology as the sentence above about Judaism! Just as much. There are more of these mini "arguments and apologies" throughout the lede. They are more subtle, but they are definitely there in the lede. To remove the second part of the sentence, i.e., "arguing that he did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh", would be a violation of NPOV, and that is not what we are here to do. So, editors Flash and şṗøʀĸ, since you have spent a lot of time trying to convince other editors, and you have not succeeded in doing so, then I suggest you try another tack. If you truly cannot "see" why you are incorrect, then you seem to need more editors involved to either agree with you or to agree with me and the rest here. Feel free to use the proper channels if you are unable to see the truth of our argument.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  08:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for responding and clarifying your position.

Apologetics is the defense of a belief. That Jesus did not fulfill Messianic prophecies is an argument used to defend Judaism's belief. When you ask Jewish scholars why they don't believe Jesus is the Messiah, this is an argument they would use to defend their beliefs.

Likewise, Christian scholars of theologians would use arguments such as Jesus did fulfill the Messianic prophecies, or that he will fulfill them at the Second Coming.

The sentence you cited, which lists the principal sources of information for Jesus' life, is not a defense or argument for any belief. It's just a statement of fact. Flash 08:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do know what apologetics is. You are correct when you say that his not fulfilling the prophesies is an argument. Since it does not furnish any detail, it might be called a "mini-argument". It is just as much of an argument as showing the sources for belief in paragraph two. Why do Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah? The second paragraph "argues" that:

The principal sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical gospels, especially the Synoptic Gospels, though some scholars believe texts such as the Gospel of Thomas are also relevant.

You cannot seem to see the truth in this, so as I said, rather than continue an argument that you are losing, why not use the proper channels to either garner support or to lose to greater consensus?

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  21:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Paine, can you please clarify how a statement of fact concerning sources of information for Jesus' life is an argument for the Christian belief that Jesus is the Messiah? Flash 05:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe I already have, Flash. That statement of fact does not only concern sources of information for Jesus' life. They are writings upon which the Christian faith is based, so the second paragraph is saying (a bit "between the lines") "Christianity accepts assertions that Jesus was the awaited Messiah, arguing that he fulfilled the Messianic prophesies of the Old Testament, as clearly depicted in the four canonical gospels, especially the Synoptic Gospels, and in other texts such as the Gospel of Thomas."

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  15:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

That is at best, a very, very big stretch. To say that a statement about the main sources of information for Jesus' life, which does not even mention any specific religion, is an argument for the a specific Christian belief just doesn't make sense. Flash 03:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

When taken out of context, yes, it would be a stretch. However when one reads the article and starts with the first paragraph, then one places the second paragraph in context following the first paragraph, which does mention Christianity, then one can see the mini-argument. It's "Jesus' life and teachings" that are the reasons that Christians view him as the Messiah. I've done all I can, Flash, to show you that the lede has subtle "arguments" and "apologetics" in addition to the one you want to remove. We need to move on.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  04:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

How about using the term "reasoning" rather than "arguing"?:

Judaism rejects assertions that Jesus was the awaited Messiah, reasoning that he did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  04:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The question is, is Jesus the messiah, or not. Jews say no, and have arguments as to why he is not. Christians say ye, and have arguments as to why. Our article has the following: "Christians traditionally believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, performed miracles, founded the Church, rose from the dead, and ascended into Heaven," and then concludes, that jesus was the Messiah. Now, Jews have arguments for why all this is baloney - Jews regularly had to provide community representatives to argue over this with represantatives of the pope during the Middle Ages. So it would not be that hard to find the arguments as to why Jesus could not have been born of a virgin (and why no messiah will ever be born of a virgin), the arguments against miracles, the argument agaist his rising from the dead ... All these jewish argumnts for Jesus is NOT messiah are missing from the article and if I am wilfully bind in not seeing them, maybe you are hallucinating in seeing them The arguments are not there. SO: Which do you want, should we delete the mterial I quote here, full of Christian arguemtns, or should we add the Jewsh counter-arguments? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the essential question is about the mean of the word "Jews", although I acknowledge that the material quoted by Slrubinstein above needs serious reworking, particularly regarding the virgin birth, founding of a church, and rise and ascension. Yes, that is what most modern Christians believe, I think, but that hasn't always been the case, and it would be a mistake to imply that it has. It does seem that most Jews who have historically seen Jesus as the Messiah also accepted his divinity, and became "Christians". However, at least initially, there seems to have been serious disagreement within Jewish Christianity whether Jesus was god or "just" a Prophet. Those who saw him as "only" a Prophet tended to be treated as outsiders by both groups, and apparently died out in the first few centuries, but they were and are counted as Christains. I think changing the text to read "From the 400s (or whenever) onward, the majority of Christians have believed...," would probably be preferable. John Carter (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Which historians hold this view? Most of what Jesus does in the Gospels is preach and heal, and we do not have any evidence that he was viewed as an outsider by Jews. What really was going on between say 25 CE and 100 CE is far from clear. But all historians I know of say that the vast majority of Jews rejected claims that he was messiah (using any definition/all deinitions) after he was crucified, and this has been a view of normative Judaism ever since. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Good questions. All I can really say is that the early Jewish Christian groups, which some might consider "Jewish", in some possibly broader sense, were not all agreed about Jesus being "Son of God", although they did, I think, all agree that he was a "Messiah". This may partially be about how numerically big these groups may have been, and I haven't seen a lot of evidence that they were ever particularly big, but I haven't researched the subject that extensively. John Carter (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Excluding information from the lead

We should generally favor edits that make the article more informative rather than less, especially edits to the lead, which should be able to stand alone as a concise summary of the topic. Editors who are pushing a particular POV regularly attempt to reduce how informative our articles are, especially leads. It's routine for editors to try to get information that they don't like out of an article or at least out of the lead. It's a disservice to the reader to reduce the lead's informational value. If the problem is that only Judaism gets its view explained, then we can simply add some context for Islam. "Islam recognizes many Biblical figures, putting Moses and Jesus in a class with Muhammad, as divine prophets each with a written revelation." Let's add information, not reduce it. Leadwind (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly, Leadwind, because in the classic struggle between WP:PRESERVE and WP:BURDEN, I always tend a bit toward preserving information when possible. However, articles can get very long, and ledes especially can get extremely long if not attended to frequently. When this begins to happen, that is a time when any questionable text must go, or else Readers, in this age of "Drive-thru" mentality, might just take a pass on reading long, drawn-out ledes and articles. That's why we're here. To discuss the Readers' needs and adjust articles whenever possible to those needs. Sorry, I didn't mean to "soapbox". I'll step back down, now.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  16:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)