Talk:Jesus/Archive 74

Archive 70

←

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Archive 76

→

Archive 80

Era notation vote.

Actual vote moved to [/Archive 72].

Final vote tally: 16-11-1-9

Voting ends 0600 UTC on 3 September 2006 (Voting now ended). Result: No consensus, no change.

View from outside

I don't think I have ever participated in this article. I have it on my watchlist as a core biography.

But my view of the poll and discussion above is that there is no consensus for change. My view is that the compromise has stood for a while and is most harmonious. Maurreen 21:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Which is much as I suspected.

Notice the irony that I both started the vote and protested it. Let's place a moratorium on further voting on this subject for another 15 months or so. See y'all in December 1997 ;) Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 00:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Why would I want to give money to Wikipedia if the "BCE" editors deny Christ on, of all pages, the "Jesus" page? "BCE/CE" is not "neutral." I was disappointed after reading the jokes and comments about other users on this Talk page.

Smirk

If I really had my druthers ... We would totally abandon both "AD" and "CE", and instead just write "Year 1" or "Y 1" (= 1 CE), "Year 0" (= 1 BCE), and "Year -1" (= 2 BCE). I cant stand this crazy archaic BC/AD system that was formulated before the discovery of the number zero! --Haldrik 21:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Why? So you also hate the days of the week in English because they're archaic? What's wrong with traditional systems? If we keep changing things we won't have a history anymore.— OLP 1999 16:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I hate the lack of a "Year Zero". --Haldrik 17:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, today is Wednesday, but I don't worship Woden. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 06:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• - and calling it Wednesday does not actually mean that Woden is the/your Lord either. In other languages, you would not be worshipping the planet Mercury either --JimWae 07:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Verdad, no adoro Mercurio en el miércoles. Ni uno ni otro es Mercurio mi Hidalgo. No en España tampoco. ¿Pero, tan qué? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 07:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Vérité, je n'adore pas Mercure dans mercredi. Ni l'un ni l'autre est Mercure mon Gentilhomme. Non en Espagne non plus. Mais, tellement que? Wahrheit, verehre ich nicht Quecksilber in Mittwoch. Auch nicht mein Hidalgo ist Quecksilber. Nicht in Spanien auch nicht. Aber, so was? Αλήθεια, όχι adore υδράργυρος στην Τετάρτη. Κανένα Hidalgo μου δεν είναι υδράργυρος. Όχι στην Ισπανία ούτε. Αλλά, έτσι τι; Правда, я не обожаю ртуть в среде. Никакое мое Hidalgo не будет ртутью. Не в Испании также. Но, так? Verdade, eu não adore o mercúrio em quarta-feira. Nenhum meu fidalgo é mercúrio. Não em Spain tampouco. Mas, assim que? Never on a Sunday? --JimWae 07:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you win. I only know a little Spanish (es-1) and can't follow the other languages. (German, Portugese and what else?) Especially when you leave the Roman alphabet. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 07:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks to babblefish - Greek & Russian - Only the English to French translated Hidalgo. If I had the time I'd have substituted out Espana for the appropriate country - Note how Germanic languages gave up on Woden & became mathematical --JimWae 07:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

  On Babelfish, just a word of warning, it's very bad at translating entire sentences, (I used it alot last year for spanish class) hard for those translators to keep up on the grammer rules, someone who knows everything about those languages may not be able to understand everything you wrote heh. Homestarmy

Babelfish helps. Hmmm... French, German, Greek, Russian, Portugese. Did I miss one? Mittwoch=midweek? BTW, Portguese also translated Hidalgo (=fidalgo). I also see the "quarta" in the Portugese. Perhaps we should stick with Fourthday? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 08:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Era notation reverts

and lo they all agreed agreed "let us work upon the Great Book adding factual material, and removing POV, building brick upon brick until the great project shall reach higher than any other towards Truth and neutral point of view". And lo there came a dispute about notation, and a great Babel arose among the editors...

It appears OLP1999 has changed the era notation to BC/AD citing the above vote as "consensus". JimWae reverted this change stating there is no consensus. OLP1999 then reverted Jim. IMHO, a 16-11 vote with 9 abstentions is by no means a new consensus. —Aiden 02:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus to rely only on BC AD. Only one person voted for what is in fact the working consensus, to use both forms, and that only one person voted for that shows just how silly this whole process is. All the people who voted for BCE CE or who voted to abstain are oppsed to using just AD bC and this group is in the vast majority. Let us leave well enough alone. We have a stable working consensus that a couple of POV pushers want to muck around with. Why waste time on this at all. Why not, I dunno, research writing an encyclopedia? Slrubenstein | Talk 02:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC

This is hard to follow? What was decided on? BC/AD, BCE/CE, or both? --Russoc4 04:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, no majority, no consensus, therefore no change. Although some people want to throw out the abstain/protest votes and count BC/AD as the majority. I disagree. I included that category for a reason. The relatively high number of protest votes are essentially supportive of the status quo.

BTW, "Not voting" wins most elections ;) Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 04:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not a vote, it's an attempt to reach consensus, which often includes compromise. Counting votes is not how consensus is determined. Discussion is. Peyna 05:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you not yet realised that a consensus will never be reached on this matter? Views on both sides are too entrenched. The current position is not a consensus. It is what remains after most people gave up on the argument last time around. It might be a compromise - a stupid one at that - but it's not a consensus. For issues such as these a vote really is the only way to make progress. Arcturus 10:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, there is on consensus to use the compromise either, so no matter what we are left with a non-consensus. Lostcaesar 10:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The way it works is that if no new consensus has been achieved, the previous consensus stands. —Aiden 15:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There was no previous consensus. What's happened here is that an editor has called for a vote on an issue. Of those who cast a meaningful vote a majority favoured a particular course of action which was at odds with the views of those editors who think they own this article. Accordingly, those editors - or their representative - has now protected the page to ensure their minority preference stands. We have an expression in the UK to describe this type of action; they have spat out their dummies - an excellent analogy. Arcturus 16:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there was a previous consensus, which had held for many months. A one issue editor returned to the page and tried to get the consensus changed, by initiating a vote. As expected, the vote did not produce any new consensus, and, in fact, produced a large number of editors who protested the entire process. Someone who protests a vote is not supporting any alleged results of that vote, and 16 out of 37 is not even a majority, much less a consensus for any kind of change. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

What's more important: Arguing over a couple of letters that have nothing to do with the content of this article, or actually working on the dreded historicity section? Come on now people, voting didn't get us any further, and arguing about it now isn't either. Please, contribute to the actual content of this article, and stop wasting so much time and energy on debating such petty matters. How are we ever going to reach FA status, if we can't even work on the actual content of the article?--Andrew c 21:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Once it's unlocked.

Meh. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 09:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

Why can't I edit this page?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.203.190.135 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 2 September 2006.

Please read the notice at the top of the page. We are temporarily blocking anonymous IP users. To edit the page, you can request changes here on talk, or simply sign up for a free account. Also, when using talk pages, "sign" your comments by typing four tildes (~~~~). Hope this helps.--Andrew c 14:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Greasysteve13, does the scientific community include Einstien? Einstein believed in God. He is also widely considered to be the greatest scientist that mankind has ever known. Also, there's lots that the scientific community doesn't know and it admits it. It has no evidence for or against the existence of God -- or of Jesus having supernatural powers. Whiskey Rebellion 21:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The "greatest scientist" was probably Sir Isaac Newton. Yes, he believed in a personal God. ^rossnixon 01:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

One of the things I get from the Christian religion and Quantum physics is that the 'powers' of Jesus and his disciples may in fact not be "supernatural" but rather, utterly natural and available to everyone. I don't see a great gulf between science and religion. Science is full to the brim of unexplained miracles. User:Pedant 16:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

We have an article called "Evidence of evolution" but...

Can we have an actual article Evidence of the existence of Jesus? Because while I know he didn't have super powers (no offence) I certainly do not know whether he did or didn't exist.--Greasysteve13 13:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, how do you know he didn't have superpowers? 2nd Piston Honda 13:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know personally but since the scientific community bases its self on facts, I tend to side with the scientific community. Now forget about this unfortunate and unendable debate about the devinity of Jesus and start talking about whether or not the acticle idea is a good idea.--Greasysteve13 13:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, wait. There is an Article of sorts: Historicity of Jesus.--Greasysteve13 13:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i was just about to post that. Also, there's Historical Jesus. As for the other topic, if you (or the scientific community) truly base yourself in fact, then you'd have to admit that supernatural forces could exist, and that we just don't know if they do. 2nd Piston Honda 13:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Greasysteve13, does the scientific community include Einstien? Einstein believed in God. He is also widely considered to be the greatest scientist that mankind has ever known. Also, there's lots that the scientific community doesn't know and it admits it. It has no evidence for or against the existence of God -- or of Jesus having supernatural powers. Whiskey Rebellion 21:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand." Albert Einstein

A few quotes does not a believer make. Einstein's a difficult one to figure out religiously, but I certainly think a statement like "Einstein believed in God" is taking some unjustified liberties. Peyna 23:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

To Whiskey Rebellion. Einstein may or may not have belived in God ([1]), but He certainly didn't revere Jesus and It isn't known if he belived Jesus existed so I don't know what point you are making. And if he did belive in God we can far from assume it was a biblical God and not some sort of generic binding force.--Greasysteve13 01:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Any anyway, Sir Isaac Newton was the greatest scientist ever; and he believed in a personal God. ^rossnixon 01:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Imagine if the Newton wikipedia article said Newton was the greatest scientist. Imagine if the Einstien article said he was, and the Darwin article that he was. Now imagine an article about a religious person that said he was the holiest or the best prophet or saint or whatever. Now imagine an article about a personage that used language which said that that personage was God. Wait... no need to imagine. --JimWae 01:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Whoever said that either Newton, Einstein or Darwin was God? Now imagine that Jesus returned and we could just ask him. (BTW, he's smaller than the Beatles.) Or we could just go to Africa and ask His father.</sarcasm> Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 02:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

When I said:

...since the scientific community bases its self on facts, I tend to side with the scientific community," I was referring to its proceeding question "Just out of curiosity, how do you know he didn't have superpowers". So this discussion of scientists (especially Einstein) believing in God is irrelevant. Especially as there is no-consensus defining God.

I was just reasoning that the general consensus of the scientific community is not to hold a book that could have been written by anyone thousands of years ago as fact. And if you consider what the scientific community already knows about physics, it easy to put two and two together to suggest that the scientific community do not consider Jesus to have superpowers. You also have to consider that many in scientific community are not Christians. --Greasysteve13 01:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You must understand that the vast majority of religious people don't claim to know with certainty the things they believe. It is simply a choice to believe in something that no one can or has disproven, therefore it's not an error in logic or factuality. That said, we do support our beliefs with logic (ie starting with the truth of "I exist" and going from there; see Summa Theologica). The popular misconception that religion is the opposite of science or logic couldn't be further from the truth. 2nd Piston Honda 04:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wasn't saying science is the opposite of religion I was just implying that religion usually isn't based from what we now know about life, the universe and everything. While the vast majority of religious people don't claim to know with certainty the things they believe in, they still hold it in a higher regard to the alternative(s)... it is for this reason that belief can not be chosen... although belief can change based on absorbing in various information though living life etc.--Greasysteve13 07:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Now I was originally talking about if should there be an article called “Evidence of the existence of Jesus”, but there seams to be a few similar articles already.--Greasysteve13 01:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Try Historicity of Jesus. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 02:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks--Greasysteve13 07:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Next steps?

Thanks everyone who helped with the overhaul of the Life section. Now, I believe the weakest link is the historicity section. I have voiced concern in the past the wikipedia doesn't have an article about the historical Jesus, despite names. And this section fails from not covering the topic at hand, being wordy, and being all over the place. I would urge editors to look it over and post here the biggest problems, while being bold and fixing whatever they come across. Maybe after examining the section, we can set goals and focus our efforts into creating a better historicity section.--Andrew c 02:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the "Pending Tasks" list. Can we strike the life section? Do we need to do anything else, or can we bump the historical up to #1?--Andrew c 02:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The Historical Jesus article is among the most important of all the Jesus articles. --Haldrik 05:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, would you like to read my proposed overhaul outline and maybe work to improve the article so it talks about the scholarly quest for the Historical Jesus, as opposed to the cultural background of Jesus? I just got Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz's The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide which should be an excellent source for content, however my writing skills and time commitments aren't up on taking on the whole overhaul.--Andrew c 19:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I recently added an "other view" of Jesus to the correct section, and It has since been removed. Can I have some explination? All the links, sources, and format were correct. I have an established account, and didnt see any errors. Second, if it was removed by someone who thought it was an untruth, then I need to ask why there are so many refrences to Josephus' writings but his account of Jesus gets removed. Any insight would be greatly helpful. Thanks J. 13:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

J: "Josephus' account of Jesus gets removed"? Ummm... wrong Jesus. In 1st-century Judea, approximately 10% of the Jewish male population was named Jesus (Yeshua/Yehoshua). There were many many people whose name was Jesus. (Josephus himself mentions many different people called Jesus.) You seem to refer to another person that Josephus mentioned, called Jesus, who was alive around the time of the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. This is not the same Jesus who Pilate put to death around year 32 CE. --Haldrik 15:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to give a tentative sketch of my concerns, I think any article about the “quest” for the “historical Jesus”, as distinct from the Christ of faith, needs a frank and clear summary discussion of the philosophical assumptions (and the related issue of historical methods) involved in the process. In my experience the literature in this field often fails to express philosophical views that precede the historical work. Also, I would like the article to include historical contributions that have been made throughout the historiographic process. Often insights of antiquity and the middle ages are excluded because they are not “critical”, and I find this an inappropriate reason, taken alone, as to why they should be excluded. Lostcaesar 14:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have the same concerns that I did before. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 22:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree the concerns. The "reliability of the Gospels" belongs in the Historicity of Jesus article and is for the most part OFF TOPIC in the Historical Jesus article, unless there's a point that is relevant for sorting the evidence to reconstruct the actions and scenes of Jesus himself. --Haldrik 02:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I still agree with Arch. I think the historicity section in its current form is more a historical look at the NT than of Jesus. I think a cleanup is in order. —Aiden 04:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that the vote is over, we can return to discussing this point ;) Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 00:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Are we ready to discuss yet? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Protected, please change this for me

Well, I have just be[EN] locked out as per the upgraded pertection [=PROTECTION], so if someone would please change the translation of Ante Christum Natum from "before the birth of Christ" to the correct "before Christ was born", as per the mainpage [2] Lostcaesar 08:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"Before the birth of Christ" is a correct translation of Ante Christum Natum. "Before the birth of Christ" is also a correct translation of "before Christ was born". Good translation does not slavishly match parts of speech... Copey 2 10:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Denomination

It probably says this somewhere in the article but I figured it would be easier to get a straight out answer from here. Could someone tell me which demonination of Judaism Jesus was part of, or at least some equivalent? Some kind of Jewish subdivision or grouping or something of the sort? VolatileChemical 12:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised that i had never even considered this question in my entire life. Thanks for asking it, and i too would like to know the answer. 2nd Piston Honda 12:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There were no denominations in the modern sense. Josephus speaks of four main groupings, the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and Zealots. Apart from the fact that everyone agrees that he wasn't a Sadducee, there is no agreement about the degree of his similarity to the other groupings. The Gospels are particularly keen to dissociate him from the Pharisees, but some commentators think he had significant similarities to them. You reads you commentator and you takes your choice. Paul B 12:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the Pharisees themselves were divided into two "denominations", the followers of Shammai and the followers of Hillel. The followers of Hillel, such as Gamaliel, are portrayed in the NT as sympathetic to Jesus, the followers of Shammai are not. The "Shammaites" (Beit Shammai) were the ones in control at the time. So the Pharisaic "bad guys" in the gospels may simply be the Beit Shammai. Paul B 13:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Typically the closest groups hate each other most. Like Trotskyites and Stalinists. A.J.A. 19:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Very true. Paul B 21:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the Talmud, while the followers of the school of Hillel and Shammai strongly disagreed with each other on practically every point of law, they still treated each other with great respect. In fact, in Yevamot it points out that even though they disagreed on what constituted a valid marriage, they still married into each other's families. Pirkei Avot 5:17 says "Which controversy was for the sake of heaven? That between Hillel and Shammai". The sources present them as having the opposite of hate for each other. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course that's true. But scholarly disputants are different from the powerless semi-literate fishermen, subject to the judgement of the "experts", who made up most of Jesus's followers, and who may have seen things as a stark conflict between sympathetic admirers and "evil" opponents. Paul B 22:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. Thanks. VolatileChemical 23:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The Jewish Encyclopedia article on Jesus notes: "Jesus, however, does not appear to have taken into account the fact that the Halakah was at this period just becoming crystallized, and that much variation existed as to its definite form; the disputes of the Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai were occurring about the time of his maturity."

E. P. Sanders' next major book was Jesus and Judaism, published in 1985. In this he argued that Jesus began as a follower of John the Baptist and was a prophet of the restoration of Israel. Sanders saw Jesus as creating an eschatological Jewish movement through his appointment of the Apostles and through his preaching and actions. After his execution (the trigger for which was Jesus overthrowing the tables in the temple court of Herod's Temple, thereby challenging the political authorities who then sought his death) his followers continued his movement, expecting his return to restore Israel, part of which was Gentiles worshiping the God of Israel (Isa 56:6–8, proselyte). Sanders also argued that Jesus was a Pharisee, as he could find no substantial points of opposition between Jesus and the Pharisees, especially as Jesus did not transgress any part of the law. He argues that Jesus did not oppose or reject the Jewish law and that the disciples continued to keep it, as is shown by their continued worship in the Temple (e.g. Acts 3.1; 21.23-26). Sanders also argues that Jesus' sayings did not entirely determine Early Christian behaviour and attitude, as is shown by Paul's discussion of divorce (1 Cor. 7.10-16), who quotes Jesus' sayings and then gives his own independent rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.199.134 (talk • contribs)

Jesus' Family

While many relegate it to lore / fiction, the Don Brown best seller Da Vinci Code popularized the idea that Christ had a family via wife Mary Magdalene. And that his descendants survive down to today.

This information is readily available and discussed in depth in the book The Jesus Presidents setting out the facts including tthe descent form Jesus to today which includes USA Presidents descending from Jesus and includes many readers who also descend from Jesus.(Noting the fiction in the Da Vinci Code that 2,000 years later, there would be only one descendant from Jesus lines being silly.)

These facts, then being established, do not in any way detract from or change the traditional religious beliees of Jesus Christ as God incarnate, when the birthdates of the children are before he died on the Cross.

And almost all the apolexy in regard to this subject are rants that are off point and do not consider any of the actual facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.101.10 (talk • contribs)

Then let's stick to the facts. The daVinci code is a work of fiction and is mentioned in Jesus#Cultural_effect_of_Jesus. The REAL Jesus family is explored in the Desposyni article. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 21:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

just as aside and a related note, that may be interesting as other legends or tales of what happenned to jesus after he escaped see the [The Japanese Jesus trail http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/5326614.stm]. It was rather amusing. Though this may actually warrant a seperate article, thoughts?--Tigeroo 15:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so, Jesus visited England, Kashmir, Japan, and the Americas, not to mention Heaven and Hell. The guy really gets around. No wonder, when you consider who his travel agent is ;) Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 02:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

And did those feet in ancient time ...

Locked page.

It's been a week. Are we ready to request that the page be unlocked, and move on? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Date Format Inconsistencies

There is not a consistent format in which dates are given in this article. For example, in the "Chronology" section, one finds "25 December," "January 6," "December 25," and "14 Nisan." I don't know if there's a standard format for representing Hebrew dates, and I know the format for Gregorian dates varies in different locations, but I recommend changing the Gregorian dates at least to "Month DD," since the ISO 8601 way of doing things is to put the most significant value first. In any case, there should probably be consistency.

Also, "25 December" is not a link, while "December 25," which comes later, is a link.

69.254.34.38 02:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, if only the article were unlocked, we could fix it!

What d'y'all prefer: 11 September 2006 or September 11, 2006? European standard, or American? WP:Date, anyone? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 02:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Or 2006-09-11? (ISO 8601) Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 02:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I just made note, some time ago I had customized my computer so ALL dates will look like: 2006-09/11 --Haldrik 05:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I definitely definitely definitely agree with Arch O. La's 2006-09-11! (I see somebody has to sort chronologically often!)--Haldrik 05:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

September 11, 2006. Month day, Year. —Aiden 06:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

2006 September 11, works better as a universal electronic standard. --Haldrik 03:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me, I didn't realize Wikipedia reformatted linked dates according to user preferences as described in WP:Date, above. I guess the change that needs to be made, then, is the dates need to become links. 71.54.17.213 15:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

central figure to founder

"is the central figure of Christianity." Please amend central figure to read founder, as per Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words the historical and global perspective that he is regarded as --Tigeroo 06:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)the founder of a distinct community needs to stated unequivocally. Even the encylopedia brittanica does the same [3]. See Talk:Muhammad for a similar discussion.--Tigeroo 15:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Was he the founder or his disciples? Peyna 15:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

He would be, they would be just propogators, i.e schools of thought are founded by the person who articulates the theory and concepts, though they may only be expounded upon, expanded, detailed and later popularized later on by his disciples/students and their students etc. If they break with the founder they can be either schisms, variations or new branches depending on the extent. To some Paul was the founder of the Church and the tradition of the Papacy.--Tigeroo 15:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Muslims would disagree that Jesus founded Christianity. They see institutionalised Christianity as a distortion of his teachings. No-one disputes that Mohammad founded Islam. Paul B 15:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a better way to state it would be something along the lines of "Christians generally regard Jesus as the founder of Christianity; however, Muslims see Christianity as a distortion of his teachings and therefore do not view him as the founder of the religion." There is probably a better way to say it, but why not present both views? Peyna 15:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

These points are already in the body of the article. We don't need to introduce them in the first sentence. I think the current "central figure" is the best option so far suggested, otherwise all sorts of people will pop up saying "some people deny he existed at all" or "he was a follower of Buddha who went back to India" or "he was a Jew who had no intention founding a new religion" etc etc. Some of these views are simply loopy, but some are notable. We can't list even all the notable ones in the intro. Paul B 15:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats true they would disagree indeed, but thats based on theological POV, and for similar reasons they dispute Muhammad as the founder preferring Adam. See the talk page, but that can be mentioned if need be, there is still a huge chunk of the world population who if asked who were muhammad, jesus or moses they would reply founders of islam, christianity and judaism because as they are seen as the headwaters of a religious vision as much as mani is for manichaeism, buddha for buddhism, mahavira for jainism, zoraster for zoarastranism, ofcouse in the theology of each of these religions this is absolutely not true. This is not about that, Muslim view has a section and thats fine to address the details there, this is about the sentence in the intro, which is just weasels words to skirt around the subject. Agreed the usage of the word is controversial but it is a view held by most of those outside the prism of that particular beleif. See List of founders of world religions and the talk pages as well.--Tigeroo 15:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Muslims believe that Adam, Abraham, Jesus (and many others) were all "submitters" to God's will, and thus "Muslims" in a certain sense, but there is no dispute that Muhammad was the founder of the specific religion we now call Islam. Musloms's of course would also say that Mohammad was a mere vessel through which God spoke, but whether it was God or Mohammad himself speaking, the fact is that the specific religion started with him. Jesus is a much more contested and elusive figure. Paul B 15:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a clear POV issue here:

Tigeroo states that "he is regarded as the founder of a distinct community needs to stated unequivocally" and "To some Paul was the founder of the Church".

So either Paul or Jesus as founder is POV just from what Tigeroo says...

There is the issue of Jesus' actual existence as a historic figure: It is not neutral to state that someone who we cannot state unequivocally was an actual historic figure founded a religion, someone who didn't exist (as some historians clainm) cannot have founded a religion.

It is however, quite conveniently neutral to state that Jesus is the Central figure of Christianity, that is absolutely true, as there are no Christian sects for whom He is not the central figure. Muslims and Atheists agree that Jesus is the central figure of Christianity. All historians agree that Jesus is the central figure of Christianity, even those who hold that he never existed. User:Pedant 15:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a POV problem with a statement based on the historical existence of Jesus. The idea that he didn't exist is really a loony fringe view that cannot me taken into account everywhere. That would be undue weight, akin to referring to pseudo-science all the time in science articles. (Not that they should not be mentioned, but they cannot be included in every statement.)

"All historians agree that Jesus is the central figure of Christianity, even those who hold that he never existed." - that is probably right and regarding the latter group we can invite them for tea at the next phone booth and ask them.

However, I see other problems with stating that "Jesus was the founder of Christianity" or even more that Christians "regard him at the founder" - Christianity has become a distinct religion but when it began it just considered itself a certain, the true branch of the Jewish religion, fundamentally one with the religion of Abraham, Moses, Elijah etc. Hence to call Jesus the founder is only true when speaking colloquially. If we define Christanity as belief that Jesus is the Messiah (Christ), can we say that Jesus began that belief, or were it the ones that first believed in him. The only possible wording I can see is to say that "Jesus is commonly considered the founder ..."

Paul we can leave out alltogether, as this is just another theological-ideological viewpoint based on the attempt to reject Christianity without rejecting Jesus.

Just my two Euro-cents. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Paul if gotten into or whoever prolly need a seperate section with maybe two lines and a wikilink at the most. Jesus is quite overwhelming regarded as the founder of Christianity. It is not NPOV to use weasel words, NPOV dictates that all POVs be stated, and not be avoided by not being addressed. Muslim views is not really an issue, there is a lot more to the world than christians and muslims, muslim view is a specialized view so it has a section as would the "loony" Paul fringe. The Messiah concept POV would similary need to clearly state itself, as would the concept of it being a branch of Judaism. I do not see Founding as being as somehow excluding it from any of those concepts, but as a defining charecteristic of something new or distinct enough to be considered new coming into existence. If there is a doubt to his existence, thats not mainstream and deserves a special mention but not in the intro if its ain't significant enough, there are even doubters to the existence of Muhammad and until comparitively recently even the Buddha was merely considered a folk tale. There is no need to force fit founder, but the word is infinitely more precise and common usage than central figure.--Tigeroo 18:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Tigeroo is just pushing his POV. Everyone agrees Jesus is the central figure in Christianity, this is not a use of weasel words. Some pèople believe he was the founder, others believe he was not. This is something that ought to be explored in depth in the Christianity article, not the Jesus article. for the Jesus article it is enough to emphasize his centrality to Christianity. "Founder" is not more precise, it is a different word meaning something different. As to its wide use, well, it is widely used among Christians, which is precisely why it reflects a Christian POV. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

As Slrubenstein says, there's no dispute that Jesus is the central figure of Christianity. There's no reason to remove this fact regardless of whether there is mention concerning the "founder". I also agree with SLR that the founder issue is better dealt with in the Christianity article where the extant views on who founded the religion can be more adequately addressed. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the current wording is accurate. IMHO Jesus is not the founder of Christianity, Paul is. And Jesus is the "central figure of Christianity". Not all founders are central figures. We dont follow everything George Washington said (much less worship him) just because he is a founder of the US. Washington is not a central figure. --Haldrik 04:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think the Roman Emperor Constantine is the founder of Christianity. Before Constantine, it's more accurate to talk about "Jesus movements", but after Constantine and the Nicene Creed, it's usually accurate to talk about "Christianity". Paul is the founder of a non-Jewish Jesus movement. --Haldrik 00:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Washington? I thought that Thomas Jefferson founded the US. The pen is mightier than the sword... or the musket. And what of Benjamin Franklin? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 04:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That's why I said "a" founder. :D --Haldrik 07:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Not only Muslims, but also liberal Christian scholars insist that Christianity as it exists today was not founded by Jesus, and that the religion has a lot more of Paul and of the Council of Nicea than of Jesus. Das Baz 19:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

To refer merely to Christianity "as it exists today" is biased against the past. This point has often come up here and on related pages such as Talk:Christianity.

AFAIK, It is true that all extant branches of Christianity are forms of Pauline Christianity, but there were nonpauline groups in the past. (CF Ebionites, Valentianism, &c.) That's why we added the "Other views arising from early Christianity" section a while back. These groups do accept Jesus (as they see him), but not Paul.

But even in terms of "as it exists today" Christianity, the First Council of Nicaea is not accepted by everyone. It is not accepted by Latter Day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, many Restorationists, or by nontrinitarians in general. Yet, all these groups identify as Christian, and they exist now. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 02:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is about Jesus. It is long enough already. Mention of non-orthodox Christian groups should probably not go here. Stick this under Christianity or other articles. ^rossnixon 02:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"Pauline Christianity" is already a certain POV, going back to Marcion, furthered much by the Protestant Reformation and by essential non-Christian groups. I guess Saint Stephen should be very much surprised to hear that Paul was the founder of Christianity. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, Paul approved of Stephen's stoning. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver}

To clarify what options I consider tenable: That Jesus "is the central figure of Christianiy" is an undisputable fact and should be clearly stated. Re "the founder of ..." some have voiced opposition for various reasons. I myself do not like this wording, for completely different reasons. However, it seems okay by me to state that Jesus "is (generally) considered the founder ...", but not that he is considered so "by Christians", as this creates the problems I voiced above, and also (more importantly maybe) creates the impression that this is view held only by Christians, when in fact many historians would agree. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is any call for generally or Christians view him as. Unless you take the messianic view, the overwhelming majority plus existant litereature from solid sources accept that he is the founder. Rival claimants are marginal and as such need to be discussed to seperately. He was the pivot point about which others exercised force for establishing christianity, a different and new tradition. Central and Founder are equally valid, but is the usage of Central being used to skirt an issue?? I it is it would imply weasel wording, though it could also be argued that is more represenative of all views. That would required the article to either take up the issue or have the issue explored in another article which is linked to somewhere.--213.42.21.76 14:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Reading the Christianity article, we see that Christianity started as a "1st century Jewish sect." It did not immediately form as a wholly new religion. Remember, Jesus was a practicing Jew who sought to be accepted as the Jewish Messiah. Only after he was rejected by the Jews did the small band of 'Christians' over time form entirely new religion. As has been stated above, most of the central tenants of modern Christianity were developed by Paul after Jesus' death. To say Jesus is the "founder" of Christianity is not only incorrect in that sense, it marginalizes Christianity's view of him. Christians do not regard Jesus as merely a founder. —Aiden 17:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Aiden is right. Some scholars define Jesus's students as a "sect" in the sociological sense, however this is highly controversial. Either it should be called something like a "1st-century Jewish movement" or else the controversial use of the term sect be explained. --Haldrik 23:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Acts 24:5. Also, Acts 24:5. Also, Acts 24:5. If the word (Nazaerene) "sect" is good enough for a wide variety of Bible translators, then it's good enough for me. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 04:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

But the verse is talking about PAUL! - who indeed founded a "sect" (= non-Jewish). Jesus did not found a non-Jewish sect. --Haldrik 20:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The verse in Acts is about Paul's trial before Antonius Felix, but Jesus himself is referred to as a Nazarene in Matthew 2:23 and Mark 14:67, 16:6. Not to mention that Paul wasn't from Nazareth. If the term "sect" was referring merely to Paul, wouldn't it make more sense to refer to it as the "Tarsene" sect"?

"Jesus himself is referred to as a Nazarene". Nevertheless, the verse refers to Paul's "sect" of the "Nazarene--s", plural. The context explicitly says Paul is a trouble-maker. It's about Paul. And remember, Jesus's students and family who were Jewish werent exactly thrilled with Paul either. Paul? "Wouldn't it make more sense to refer to it as the 'Tarsene' sect"? Uh, no, they cant be called "Tarsenes" because Paul is the founder, but ... he is not the central figure! ;) --Haldrik 21:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that as late as the fourth century, Jerome referred to the Nazarene (sect) (the Nazuraioi) as those who, while "desiring to be both Jews and Christians, they are neither the one nor the other." Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 21:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, Jerome actually says that this sect, which Jerome calls "Nazuraioi", are in fact followers of Paul!!! --Haldrik 22:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, looking at WP:WEASEL, I don't see anything in there about it being wrong to call something the "central figure" of something. Just food for thought. Homestarmy 22:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

All religions start as sects so that is a falliable argument. It's later theologians who codify the religion based on arguments and principles put forth by the "founders". The bulk of every religions theology and jurispudence was always only developed by later adherents, that does negate the founder question. Plus, founder is a word found in common usage as well as litereature wether it is religious, social or historic referring to Jesus as the founder. He is known and associoted as the founder by the greater part of the world. The more noteable and predominant view is that of founder and so deserves space in the intro. Tracking through the discussion it would appear even many christians view him in the same sense, so its really a non-issue to make the change. Sure he is a central figure, but that term does not convey his role in the religion very well, it's too vague to orient the reader appropiately. Founder fits the bill succintly, but so can other formulations as well. If you want to say "commonly credited with the founding christianity" to cover the other opinions that works well too, and incorporates a more accurate charecterization of the global world view and as it seems even portions of the christian view. I understand that the entire concept of founder for any religon for the matter is itself a quagmire of theological and historical nuances, however there is a wide easily citeable and verified concept that unequivocally equates certain religious figures as founder of certain religons, commonly credited would i think ideally fit the bill and solve the problem.--Tigeroo 08:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"All religions start as sects." So that's how the Secular Humanists started! :D --Haldrik 22:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Did not Jesus found a group that followed him? You can have all the silly debate over whether they were Christians as such and such would define Christians, but most Christians would say they are people who follow Jesus, and so he is obviously the founder of the movement of people that follow him, Christianity. Roy Brumback 10:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It can easily be cited and there is also the strength of association and world wide view ascribes to this position that does so as well. Change made.--Tigeroo 06:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

There is NO consensus here to change "central figure" to founder, indeed, there are good arguments why central figure complies with NPOV. Tigeroo, you are violating NPOV by insisting that the view that Jesus was the founder of Christianity be presented here as fact. STOP POV-warrioring! Slrubenstein | Talk 10:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I find proof in neither in the Gospels nor related commentary that Jesus intended or even wanted to found a new religion. Muhammad set out to create (found) a new faith, completely separate from others of his time. So did Sun Myung Moon, Buddha, David Koresh and Zoroaster. Each advocated complete and often violent breakage of all ties to a prevailing faith. They founded new religions. Jesus did none of these things. Paul certainly did along with Peter, but not Jesus. He did not desecrate the temple; indeed, He viewed the existing use of the house of His Father for a marketplace as abhorrent and flew into a rage. These are not the acts of a founder of a new faith but of a reformer and a radical adherent to a faith He saw as sullied or degenerated. Your best argument would have been Mat 16:18, but there He uses the word for a church as in a structure or (loosely) a congregation (εκκλησία) not a church as in a religion or faith (θρησκεία). Christ was not the founder of a religion just because one was built around His life and works. Also, please stop changing the page to fit your POV. {Kevin/Last1in posting without cookies} 63.148.206.250 23:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

All "founders" started off as reformers and by with the old traditions, they created a new identity and by default formed a new sect/religion whatever. What you argue about Jesus is not news, thats the common theme that can be found true of all "founders" of religions.

I disagree that its my POV, I have cited notable and reputable sources for my charge that he is viewed by the majority as the founder of Christianity, ask any non-abhrahamic religions followed or even many of those who do follow it and you will get the pat response that they view him as the founder, wether he desired to or not. Expand your horizons. It both violates NPOV and presents a non world wide view by not taking this view into account, plus as a cited source you cannot simply remove it and replace it with a original research version that is using weasel words to get around the issue.--Tigeroo 11:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that Jesus is the founder of Christianity. This is the majority / consensus view. However, many editors pander to fringe views to avoid edit wars. ^rossnixon 12:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ross, do not confuse "majority" and "consensus." They are two different things. There is no consensus that Jesus is the founder of Christianity. And even if 100% of all Christians view him as the founder of Christianity, that would still be a Christian point of view. Let's keep the first paragraph neutral as to point of view. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It has already been pointed out that there are also Christian theological reasons for objecting to "founder" - on the grounds that Christians do not see Jesus as a prophet or as a sage, but as the incarnation of God whose actions - sacrifice and ressurection - create Christianity, not his assertions. In other words it is arguable that in conventional Christianity he can't be properly identified as the "founder" of the belief, but rather the figure whose identity and life-story become meaningful as Christianity, which is identified as the fulfilment of a divine plan. This is fundamentally different from the standard "prophet" model in which a leader declares that true religion is "beliefs X Y Z", and then acquires followers who accept this revelation. Paul B 12:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Paul, if Jesus is God, and its God's actions that created Christianity, then didn't Jesus create Christianity; this would be even more true if you state that God's actions post-incarnation are the founding events. The only arguments against stating that Jesus founded Christianity are to assert that another after him did so, thereby severing Christianity by dividing the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith, who Christians obviously see as one and the same. Lostcaesar 13:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

My impression was not that Paul was giving his own argument, but simply reporting to us that there are others, Christians, who think this way, thus disproving my assumption that 100% of all Christians view jesus as the founder of their faith. This is not a matter of logic and there is no point to arguing with Paul because this talk page is not the place for theological arguments. It is for improving the article. And that is not going to happen through arguments of logic either. The only question at hand is, is the claim "Jesus was the founder of Christianity" a universally held claim, or rather that of certain points of view? No one desies that some people agree with this claim, but we have already seen eviddnce that not everyone holds with this claim. therefore, it is not neutral, it represents a point or set of points of view. NPOV requires that we identify whose point of view it is, provide other points of view, and that the general framework of the article be neutral with regard to this point of view. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Slrubenstein has hit the nail on the head, by citation and arguments within this section we can see the view is notable. now how can we formulate the intro to be clearer. --Tigeroo 13:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It should be represented in section 4, on Christian views of Jesus, and also in the article Christianity. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"All founders start out as reformers." Completely untrue. Zoroaster had no intention of reformation. Akhenaten, as another example, did not attempt to reform Egyptian religion; he sought to abandon it in favour of monotheism. While he founded the religion, he was nothing of a central figure. No "weasel words" are used when we say that Jesus was the central figure of Christianity. He is. That is the very definition of Christianity. Whether he is the "founder" is debated, and for very good reasons. Why is it so unacceptable to have a statement that is undisputed instead of one that is contentious? How does it improve the article to put a particular, disputed POV into the lead? {Kevin/Last1in without cookies} 63.148.206.250 17:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Zoroaster reformed pre-existing Indo-Iranian traditions. The Aten already existed as an Egyptian god, and in Akhenaten's version absorbed the names of other gods. So both were sort-of reforms from within a tradition. However, I think you make an important point that "central figure" better expresses Jesus's unusual and unique role in Christianity than does "founder". When you add to that the fact that Christian views of Jesus's intentions are disputed by both Muslims and - for different reasons - many secular and Jewish scholars, then the term foundwer seems even less appropriate. Paul B 17:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Can the page be unprotected so that the jESUS is gAY comment can be removed?

Hi,

Can the page be unprotected so that the vandalism on this page can be deleted? Thanks, Emmanuel

Emmanuel.e 10:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where this is, but our original dispute is pretty much over, and there's not much reason I can see to leave this page protected. Homestarmy 19:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Slrubenstein protected the article. You might leave him a note on his talk page asking him to change the article's status back to semi-protected. If by chance you can't get a hold of him, I'll check back in six hours or so and change the status to semi-protected. —Wayward ^Talk 22:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahh I see now; it was vandalism to the Jesus template. I was wondering how the page was locked without anyone noticing. It has been reverted. But yes, the page needs to be unlocked so we can get back to work updating the Historicity section. —Aiden 20:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Blasphemy in 2nd paragraph

Someone just readded the "blasphemy" charge to the 2nd paragraph, apparently without discussing the change first. Shouldn't it be deleted? Grover cleveland 03:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing it. Done. --Haldrik 03:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

What was wrong with it. It was true! ^rossnixon 11:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems if you claim Jesus was put to death for anything other than being a nice, ordinary guy, you run into skeptics. I suspect it comes from doubt about the historicity of John. Lostcaesar 11:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't spot the note about not editing this paragraph without discussion.

I have looked into some of the archives but can't find the page where this was discussed. I do have some recollection of the discussion, but as there is no obvious link to the discussion and no reference in the article; perhaps this should be discussed again. What happened was that the scribes and Pharisees wanted to put Jesus to death because of jealously and his apparent blasphemy. They could not do this themselves as only the Romans were currently allowed to put people to death, so they attempted to have Jesus charged with sedition. ^rossnixon 11:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This is what the Gospels claim and what most Christians believe and if we have a paragraph on what most Christians believe it should of course state that Jesus was executed for blasphemy. The major critical bible scholars and historians however reject this explanation for Jesus´execution ans highly improbable if not flat out wrong. Since the paragraph is on what the manjority of historians think, blasphemy is inappropriate. Remember, every view is the view of some particular person or group of people. "What happened" is always what happened according to a particular view. There are varying views as to why Jesus was executed, not just one view. But almost all major NT historians claim he was executed for sedition and not blasphemy. Rossnixon, you should know better than to claim "It was true!" Please abide by our NPOV policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

What happened is not always contingent upon a point of view, at least not any more than any other statement, like "without food or drink a human will die". You can call that a pov all you want, but try not drinking or eating. Besides, if what you say is true, then every statement in the article is pov and the whole page should be removed. At the end of the day we have to accept some statement and reject others based on facts. Lostcaesar 12:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Lostcaeser, you are taking my words out of context. They were meant for this specific context, and in this context remain valid. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The wording of my sentence said what he was accused of; then said that He was executed. It did not say why He was executed. It could have been because of one of the accusations; then again it could have been for an entirely unmentioned reason. ^rossnixon 04:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ross, above you wrote, "the scribes and Pharisees wanted to put Jesus to death because of jealously and his apparent blasphemy" and then you asserted that it is true he was accused of blasphemy. What I wrote is simply in response to this claim you made. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Scholars who are familiar with Jewish law read the passage of the meeting between Jesus and the highpriest and see there is nothing that occurs that can be construed as religious "blasphemy", according to Jewish law. The meaning of the Greek word "blasphemy" includes a wider sense of "speaking contemptuously" without any religious violation. That may be the intended meaning here. The highpriest had been the political leader of Judea since the beginning of the Hasmonean Period. It may be Jesus was perceived as being insubordinant to this highpriest's authority. If Jesus declared himself to be the king without the highpriest's permission, it could be construed contempt of the highpriest's authority. (Both Christian and Jewish texts are highly critical of highpriests, especially accusing them of being violent and abusive.) Alternatively, some scholars see the highpriest as a perhaps neutral figure, who observes that Jesus's self-enthronement is political "blasphemy" against the Roman emperor. The highpriest's motive is not so much to enforce the Rome's power, as much as it is to protect Judea from the wrath of the Roman armies. Thus, the fact that Jesus refused to renounce his messianic claims was tantamount to inspiring the Jewish masses to revolt against Rome - and thus to percieved suicide. For this reason then, the highpriest "handed over" Jesus to the Roman authorities. In any case, the entire incident between the highpriest and Jesus is part of a complex of specific problems that lead some scholars to suggest it never happened and was written later for other reasons. It just cant be said that "most scholars" agree about this. In the final analysis, Jesus was executed for political reasons against Rome, by Rome. Most scholars agree Jesus was crucified. --Haldrik 19:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

And all this time I thought there would be a good reason that some scholars didn't accept the charge of blasphemy. In my understanding of the accounts, which is all we have, we need not think the trial was anything more than a show, an attempt to trap Jesus into saying the wrong thing, the result of which would be the same whether he did or not. The plot was in place because, according to our only sources, the Jewish leaders were offended that Jesus described himself as equal to God. Lostcaesar 12:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, most historians accept that Jesus was crucified and note that crucifixion was the punishment for sedition. Most historians I have read have argued not that the High Priest observed "that Jesus's self-enthronement is political "blasphemy" against the Roman emperor" (´know of no historians who have used scare-quotes around the word blasphemy in this context) but rather that Jesus's self-enthronement was Slrubenstein | Talk 19:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)seditious against the Roman emperor.

I didn't mean "scare quotes". I just meant to call attention to the fact that it's not the English definition of "blasphemy", but the Greek definition which is relevant. The Greek word "to blaspheme" (blasphemeo) can mean "to speak against God", but it can also mean "to speak against, to insult, to slander", generally, without a religious connotation (Greek New Testament, with dictionary, UBS). Likewise, the Hebrew word "to blaspheme" (na'ats) means "to condemn, to spurn, to dispise" (Klein) and "to abuse, to taunt, to insult" (Melingo), so that the verb's religious connotation is only a secondary application of the wider general sense of to speak contemptuously. --Haldrik 20:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting. Can you tell me which Bible commentators or historians interpret Matthew 26:25 this way? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

With respect to the section on Gnosticism

I would like to add a comment stating that the source of the separation between normative Christianity and the Gnostics was over the interpretation of the 'resurrection', as pointed out in the Introduction to the Nag Hammadi Library in English by James Robinson.

Clearly, Christianity believes that the 'resurrection' refers to the raising of a dead physical body from the grave; but, in the Treatise on the Resurrection, it is asserted that the 'resurrection' is believed in by one 'philosopher in the world' (arguably Plato), who believed in the doctrine of 'reincarnation'. Thus, a reasonable deduction is that the doctrine of 'reincarnation' is at least similar to the Gnostic understanding of the 'resurrection'. And it would also fit in with the assertion of Jesus that "John (the Baptist)...is Elijah'.

Whether or not the Gnostic understanding of the 'resurrection' is correct, any statement about Gnosticism which does not include the fundamental reason for the separation between the Gnostics and the Christians is incomplete.

Michael J. 13:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Michael J.

Well, there were many fundamental reasons for the separation beyond their understanding of the ressurection :/. Homestarmy 13:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with this. There are not 'many fundamental reasons'. There is one fundamental reason which leads to other reasons. Michael J. 11:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Michael J.

Then i'm afraid I must counter-disagree, Gnosticism started off in a very mystic sort of fashion, and their starting point that there was more than one God,

This is the 'conventional wisdom' interpretation, yes. Michael J. 09:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Michael J.

(a lesser "evil" one and a deistic who-cares-if-most-of-the-world-gets-decieved one) is henotheistic, which is quite a deal more major than a differing ressurection account.

"Henotheistic". Exactly. The Talmud calls this henotheistic belief the sect of the "two Powers in heaven". --Haldrik 19:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This derives from different interpretations of the 'resurrection'. Michael J. 09:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Michael J.

I beg to differ, with Gnosticism, these two supposed gods certainly didn't just separate from each other because of the ressurection, their take on the ressurection isn't what their beliefs rest upon, it's just yet another in a long list of things the Gnostics cooked up basically. Homestarmy 16:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It's the very nature of God (or in their case, "gods") that they differed on most strongly. Homestarmy 14:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. In any case, be that as it may, the issue here is whether the page should be opened to further edits for the purpose of providing a neutral point of view. What is currently included on the page about Jesus provides a clear explanation of the understanding of Christian theology concrning the Doctrine of 'resurrection'; but it does not provide an accurate description of the Gnostic understanding of the 'resurrection'. That is my concern. Michael J. 09:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Michael J.

Inded, Elaine Pagels has argued that the debate was as much over the wuthority of the bishops, and whether Christianity would be popular (meaning, accessible to the masses) or esoteric. The 'authority of the bishops' depends upon their understanding of the 'resurrection'. That is, their authority was challenged if they had a 'wrong' understanding of the 'resurrection'. Michael J. 11:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Michael J.

As long as we stick to good secondary sources, we will keep learning cool stuff like this. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I would argue this is not merely 'cool stuff'. The question is whether this intellectual effort will be an objective description of the conflict. Michael J. Michael J.

There were many different movements which modern scholars lump together as "Gnostics". The obvious reason for the incompatability of Gnosticism with Judeo-Christianity, is that notable Gnostic movements literally demonized the Judeo-Christian God, God's creation, and the Hebrew Bible. The Gnostics declared the God of the Bible a false god, the "demiurge", equivalent to a kind of a satan that created the material world to blind humans to the "true" "spiritual" "god". This belief that the Jewish and Christian God is evil, is antithetical to both Christians and Jews, who believe God and God's creation are ultimately good. --Haldrik 18:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

What is obvious is, very often, the 'conventional wisdom', sometimes referred to as 'wrong'.

But the issue here is whether an alternative explanation will be permitted for the purpose of proving an objective analysis of the subject. As long as this page is protected from further edits, it is not providing a neutral point of view. It is providing only the interpretation of the 'resurrection' permitted by official Jewish and Christian theology. Michael J. 11:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Michael J.

["The Gnostics declared the God of the Bilbe a false god".] This is the 'obvious' interpretation, yes. Michael J. 11:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Michael J.

["This belief that the Jewish and Christian God is evil, is antithetical to both Christians and Jews, who believe God and God's creation are ultimately good".] This, too, is the 'obvious' interpretation. But these are not the only interpretations. Michael J. 11:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Michael J.

The obvious reason is obvious, and important, but still one of many historians have discussed. Nuff said here. Haldrik, have you looked at the article on Ebionites? There was a request for peer review and you may have some constructive comments there. Personally, I think it would be worthwhile to look at the range of articles relating second century religious movements competing for dominance or on the fringe of what would later become Rabbinic Judaism or orthodox (or Catholic) Christianity (i.e. including some gnostic movements and Ebionites) as a group, and try to establish uniform standards or areas of concern for each. Others who have contributed to the Jesus article who are expert on early Christianity or late Hellenic/Roman Judaism might want to look at these articles too. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll check it out. :) --Haldrik 08:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I must repeat my initial request that this page be allowed subsequent edits to permit the expression of a neutral point of view. Michael J. 11:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Michael J.

It appears from the above discussion that your intent is to insert a POV, not remove one. As you admit, there are several "obvious" reasons for the Gnostic split; inserting a statement saying that "the" reason was the view of the resurrection would seem, by your own argument, inaccurate and POV. {Kevin/Last1in posting from mobile - no cookies} 63.148.206.250 21:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

THE TALMUD & JESUS CHRIST

Talmud view of Jesus --unsigned by User talk:81.52.163.8

This external link has a strongly pro-Christian and slightly anti-Jewish (certainly anti-Talmudic) POV. For balance, there should also be an article or external link on the Talmud and Jesus from a Jewish POV. Das Baz 17:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to add one that you feel is acceptable. Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I have checked the Talmud 2 days ago, and the those texts are right. --unsigned by User talk:81.52.163.8

It is absurd to provide a link about the Talmud to a site that doesnt understand the Talmud. The website belongs to a Christian sect that is apocalyptic lunatic fringe, anti-government, rabidly anti-Jewish, and indulges in bizarre extremist claims for the sake of promoting hate. Not a reliable source. --Haldrik 20:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

thank you great information. --unsigned by User talk:81.52.163.8

Well, do something constructive about it. All the more reason, it seems to me, to write something from the Talmudic viewpoint, without the anti-Semitic slant. I would do it myself, as Storm Rider suggests, if I were a Talmudist. Das Baz 19:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

there already is an article about jesus and the talmud called Yeshu. Yeshu refer to a person or many different people one of whom may have been Jesus. perhaps a small section summarizing the article (and linking to it with a {{main}}) would be apropiate. Jon513 11:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the Yeshu article provides fairly comprehensive coverage of the Talmud's portrayal of "Yeshu." Slrubenstein | Talk 15:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yoshua Ben Yosef

Isnt Jesus' real name Yoshua Ben Yosef? Also, this article should list his names in each religion such as Isa in Islam

We have had multiple discussions about the "real" name of Jesus. Names are important and many have been listed in the historicity section; please review that section. There are other editors that feel it is absolutely necessary to spell the name in various languages: Greek, Hebrew, etc. My personal feeling is there is not a single English speaker who does not understand the topic when the name "Jesus" is stated; thus, our current introduction is ideal. If you think the Historicity section should be expanded, you are encouraged to concisely do so. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)