Talk:Jesus/Archive 63

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

→

Archive 70

To do list

The article concerning Jesus of Nazareth, and indeed all articles centered on Christian topics, ought to evoke only the BC/AD system of dating. As a longtime patron of Wikipedia I have noticed that articles relating to non-Christian religions very rarely reference the birth of Christ for setting the hisotrial context. Articles relating to Judaism for example most frequently use BCE and CE to establish the date of a particular event. This is most likely done to remove Christ as the frame of reference for a religion that does not accept Christ. If this is the accepted standard then Wikipedia should maintain the BC/AD standards exclusively when discussing Christian issues. 68.14.24.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I moved the above from the to list page because it's the sort of comment that really belongs on the talk page. Frankly, I've seen AD/BC vs CE/BCE vs both notations argued so many times that I'm getting tired of hearing about it, but feel free to comment if you have anything to add.

Just to confuse the AD vs. CE debate, since AD grammatically should precede the date, should neutral dates correctly be given as AD 32/32 CE? Joel Bastedo 06:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I also had a question about a couple of items on the list. There has been very little editing to the life & teachings section, so can we consider item 1.1 to be complete? What about item 1.2? Do we still need more details on the Last Supper, Passion and the Sermon on the Plain, or did we decide to let this go? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 20:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, the only thing I can really think of at the top of my head that really ultra super obviously needs to be done is reference the "other views" section. Homestarmy 00:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Not soo much that as much as adding the external link:[[1]]70.8.49.228 03:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If CE/AD is really a sticking point, I can code a template where we can allow the viewer to choose which one displays by clicking a link at the top of the page. Does this sound workable? אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 13:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think a larger goal for the whole wikipedia project is to have that option, so a user could choose from a number of different options, more than just CE vs AD. However, I think that should be a cite wide change, not just on a per article basis. So I think we have the best solution for the time being until something that would effect all articles comes along.--Andrew c 16:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Islamic views

I have and addition to the islamic views about jesus miracles because there is no account for this in christianty...if you may think this is valiable you can add it...if you think it may harm....don't...we beleive that he did talk to those around him when he was in the cradle (a newly born baby) stating that he is a gift from god to Mary....and this was a heavenly testmony that Mary was a virgin....it is said that isrealites other than her family were skeptical around his origins.....and this put an end to all the fuzz. --mzkaddah 21:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't some of that in the section already? It's possible we just couldn't find a citation, I remember trying to verify some of those sections awhile ago and I think I might of had to throw out some beliefs because I couldn't find any citations for them. Homestarmy 18:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

God and Jesus

Are god and jesus the same person Dragon Emperor 06:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

God is three persons in one; the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; see Holy Trinity. Jesus is God, but since being born on earth is also a perfect human. ^rossnixon 09:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Those who believe in the Trinity believe that there are three manifestions of One God; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. There is a perfect union between the three and they are one. Others believe the Jesus Christ is a separate being from God the Father, but would also say they are One. This is one of the myterious of Christianity. The description I have given above is the barest minimum that does not begin to provide a complete reponse to the question. This single question has attempted to be answered by Christianity for two thousand years.

It should be understoood that the vast majority of Christian churches would state that the concept of the Trinity is correct. You are encouraged to read and study, then make your own decision. Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

And then there are some people who believe that he was a horribly misunderstood Rabbi who taught a form of grass-roots Judaism. That question, unfortunately is not one that Wikipedia can answer. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 13:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Resurrection and Ascension

I think cleaning up this subsection should be a priority. There is no consistency in the formatting for references, there's some vague reference to 'other ancient sources' (presumably extra-cannonical?) mentioning Jesus' resurrection appearances, and in general it seems choppy. Joel Bastedo 06:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sikh view of Jesus

I think that the sikh view of Jesus should be added to the other religious views section. It should be something like this, although obviously open to final edit.

"Sikhs show the utmost respect for Jesus because of the values he has taught and his enlightenment of humanity. However, Sikhs do not accept any one prophet as the savior or the only son of god. In Sikhism every living thing has been made by God so every living thing is the son of God. Many of the things Jesus taught, such as love for fellow Humans, the existance of one God and the importance of belief, are important aspects in Sikhism." 14.16, 24th June 2006 (GMT +1)

Hmm, im not exactly sure what Sikhism is myself, is it eastern? How many adherants are there? Homestarmy 22:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Try looking it up. I don't this passage adds much. It's essentially no different from a common Hindu view. Paul B 10:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Jesus original name

Can we get an expert to confirm that Jesus name was "Yahoshua" (Yahweh is Salvation). I think it's imporatant that we clarify Jesus original name, and not just the latin/roman/english form of it. I do not know what kind of "evidence" we need to refer to in order to prove it, but I will do my best. --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it was Yeshua, the short form of Yahoshua. Check Yeshua or http://www.direct.ca/trinity/yehoshua.html ^rossnixon

ישוע [yeshua`] was the convention in the 1st Century, and was that way since the Exile to Babylon when the vernacular language of the Jews changed from Hebrew to Aramaic. אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 21:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we post it in the first section? I mean we have the "Christ" part in the first section, nicely explained out. I think we should show some of the same clarity for his actual name. Again I do not want to post it myself. But the word "Jesus" has a meaning and was translated from Hebrew into Latin, just like the word "Christ" has a meaning trnaslated from Hebrew to Latin. Put em both up there! :) --Zaphnathpaaneah 14:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

We could have a brief explaination, linking to the main article: Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament. Does that sound good? אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 14:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No, Steve, all I want is just the little linguistic origin next to the name. look at [[2]], see how you have his name's original meaning and the Hebrews pronunciation next to his name? Same thing with [[3]]. Here I will put it here, and we can figure out what the deal is.

Jesus ( יְהוֹשֻׁעַ "God is salvation", Standard Hebrew Yəhošúaʿ, Tiberian Hebrew Yəhôšuªʿ, Greek "Iesous")

The subject is already covered in the historicity section. The "correct" name of Jesus seems a facinating issue for some people, but all of the Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, and other names (unless one speaks those languages) are of little interest to the common reader; thus the explanation in the body of the document. This has been discussed many times in the past; you may want to review the archives to see the discussion. I would suggest you read the cited section and edit it, but reserve the introduction for only broad statements about the topic. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait a moment, that's not making sense. The origin of the name "Jesus" is of little interest to the common reader, but the origin of the word "Christ" is more interesting? This article is an encyclopedia entry, how can you reason that the origin of the article's title "Jesus" is not interesting. Wikipedia's common format is to show the origin of the words. So please do not dismiss this as an issue of "interest". In article after article of names, you have the "tiberian" hebrew and the "common" hebrew next to the name, for a wide varitey of far less interesting topcis. For example, with the "Joshua" article, you have a nice small 2 sentance description of his name and it's origin. Will you please put the "Ieosus" Greek, "Yehoshua" Hebrew and the little hebrew letters next to "Jesus" as well as "Christ"? A lack of interest is not a "reason".--Zaphnathpaaneah 12:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Zaphnathpaaneah, there is nothing wrong with your request - except that a few experts went over just this question several months ago. The problem is that the first recorded mention of Jesus' name is in Greek. There are many good reasons to suppose that his actual name was in Aramaic, but any attempt to reconstruct it is pure speculation. We simply do not have direct evidence. This is why any attempt to begin the article mentioning his original name is impossible. Any attempt would violate NPOV or NOR. At most, we can have a section in which we review different scholars who have claimed to reconstruct Jesus' original name, explain how they did it, and point out any differences between reconstructions or reasons why scholars have not yet achieved an absolutely certain consensus. Such a section is not appropriate for the introduction to the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Very Long notice

Up top there's a "Very Long" notice, is that referring to the actual article or just this talk page? Because if it's the article, we might need to do some decision making.... Homestarmy 21:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The article (I assume). (Talk pages can always be archived The maximum size suggested is 32 kb, and this one is 87kb. I don't think we have a real problem considering the necessary breadth of the article, but perhaps we can merge and condense into subject-specific articles (Geneology of Jesus, Baptism of Jesus, etc.) AdamBiswanger1 14:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Jesus' heirs

Obvious questions about the debate (films, books etc)

Why didn't Mary Magdalene and child (if such existed) simply go outside the Roman Empire - there is enough evidence of the borders being porous Silk Road, St Thomas in India etc. Doing this would just mean going across land rather than over the sea to France. Alternatively she could decide to "disappear" into a Jewish community outside her immediate area.

What is the point of protecting the heirs of Jesus - rather than letting them merge into the general population?

Is there any mention of the "siblings of Jesus and their heirs" after the Gospels - who would have some claim to fame.

Given the high death rate, extended familes etc of the pre modern period - an awful lot of records would have to be kept - and thus chances of the information "seeping into the general consciousness."

I'm not sure I follow all of what you're asking, but there are a number of things about Jesus' brother James, though Catholicism holds that he was more of a stepbrother. Sxeptomaniac 16:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No, Catholicism holds that he was a cousin. Eastern Christianity holds that he was a stepbrother. As for other relatives, see Brethren of Jesus. I think there are historical records for the grandchildren of one of Jesus' brothers/stepbrothers/cousins/whatever (namely Jude/Judas). After that it gets rather murky. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)