Talk:Jesus/Archive 85

Archive 80

←

Archive 83

Archive 84

Archive 85

Archive 86

Archive 87

→

Archive 90

Was Jesus "cured" by the soldier’s spear when he was crucified?

Please discuss and do not remove this article! There is no copyright violation!

(Copyvio from (JAMA 1986; 255:1455-1463) redacted by Jpers36 -- see here and here) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.141.14.231 (talk) 21:53, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

This really isn't something for the talk page, maybe more like in the Reference Desk. Even so, it's a pretty weak, last-ditch argument if you ask me. We are supposed to believe that Jesus after suffering severe blood loss from being flogged and crucified was able to breathe better with a spear through the lung? Moreover, we are supposed to believe that the ancient Romans knew about the management of hydrothorax and hemothorax by chest drains? bibliomaniac15 Prepare to be deleted! 22:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't something for the talk page at all, unless it's relevant to some proposed edit to the article. Nor is it suitable for the Reference Desk either, since it's not a free discussion forum. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I realize what I am about to say is OR, but I think the only thing this article proves is that physicians are as capable as BS as anyone else. I wouldn't want a historian diagnosing my stomach ache (unless of course she has some training and experience in medicine), I also feel better when MDs keep their noses out of history (unless of course she has some training and experience in history)! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Medical history is a viable field, at least. bibliomaniac15 Tea anyone? 02:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, medical and forensic anthropologists do it all the time. When they have evidence. Real research would be to excavae 1st century skeletal remains to establish statistically significant pathologies, and ry to link that to what we know of sanitation and diet based on historical records and archeological remains. That is fine. And I have a lot of respect for Wm. McNeill and his colleagues. But in this case it is just MDs ignorant of history playing at being historians and ill-equiped to do so. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Idea for Change to a sentence in the "Christian Views of Jesus" intro paragraph, for clarity

An idea:

"Other Christian beliefs include Jesus' Virgin Birth, performance of miracles, fulfillment of biblical prophecy, ascension into Heaven, and future Second Coming"

could read

"Other common Christian beliefs regarding Jesus include belief in his Virgin Birth, performance of miracles, fulfillment of biblical prophecy, ascension into Heaven, and future Second Coming." Emerymat 22:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone could have a problem with that. Feel free to be bold, and change it.--C.Logan 22:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Christian views on gospel's historicity

The intro to the "Jesus' life and teachings, according to the gospels" section states: "Christian scholars generally believe the gospel accounts to be historically accurate;"

I am disinclined to believe that as a blanket statement (and I speak as an ordained Christian clergyperson). Possible ways to edit the sentence that would make it more likely to be true: "Christian scholars are inclined to accept more of the gospels' account as historically accurate" or "Most Christian scholars accept are inclined to accept the general outline of the gospels' accounts as historically accurate", or even at the very least "Many Christian scholars generally believe the gospel accounts to be historically accurate"

There has been so much debate within the circle of Christian scholarship around the historicity of this or that aspect of Jesus' life as told by the biblical accounts that the blanket claim that "Christian scholars" generally believe the accounts to be "historically accurate" is tenuous at best. Plenty of Christian scholars would question the historicity of the virgin birth, for instance. Plenty of Christian scholars acknowledge the difficulty in reconciling the timeline of Jesus' life presented in the synoptic gospels with the timeline presented in John. Plenty of debate has been had, by Christian scholars, about the historicity of various miracles. Emerymat 22:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We had a similar discussion back in May (top of archive 83), but we never really reached a conclusion that I was satisfied with. I believe it is an overstatement of conservative views to present the universal Christian view on the historicity of the gospels in the manner we do in that sentence. Your suggestions are an improvement.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I was a part of this discussion back in May, and I was the one who inserted "Christian" as a modifier for "scholar." The statement is not whether or not such-and-such scholars personally believe that certain events recorded in Scripture are true, or that they are known to be true with 99.99% accuracy. That would be a matter of faith, for we cannot know for sure why the New Testament authors felt compelled to record such events. What the statement is meant to convey is that there are "plenty" of scholars out there who hold that the New Testament documents are historically reliable. The term "Christian" was inserted as an acknowledgment that these scholars also often happen to be Christian. I am not attached to this wording -- we can go back to saying "Many scholars" (or something along those lines) instead of "Christian scholars." BTW, as I mentioned then, the term "Christian" implicitly meant "orthodox Christian" (N.B.: "conservative" is an inaccurate, transient political adjective -- there are many cases where an orthodox Christian might hold views considered politically "liberal" today; orthodox views that are now considered "conservative" may have been liberal in bygone eras). The term "Christian" first appears in the Book of Acts, written by the historian Luke (who, incidentally, provides quite a bit detail on the Virgin Birth), and these individuals suffered persecution and death for bearing the label. LotR 19:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I realize that the Gospels themselves reflect the early Church's view of Jesus. But (as work by Christian scholars like elaine Pagels demonstrates) today they are themselves primary sources that is the object of Christian views. For that reason, I think that there ought to be a section on "Christian views of Jesus" which includes the views of scholars since the effective canonization of the NT. However, if we are also to have a section on "Jesus according to the Gospels" I do not think it should provide the view of any scholar, Christian or non. If we have this section at all it should be as neutral as possible an account of the Gospels. At most, we can begin or end with a note that scholars are divided as to the theological and historical value of these texts with a link to articles on NT scholarship. I have in my mind the idea that there is a difference between a literal account of the Gospels and the claim that the Gospels ae a literal account of the (theological or historical) truth; I am of course advocating the former, and neutral (for present purposes) regarding the latter. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Fake reference

For the following statement:

the great majority of modern scholars believe Jesus was a historical figure

Can someone provide a quote? -- Peter zhou 03:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The historian Michael Grant states, for example, that, "To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." - Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (Scribner, 1995) ^rossnixon 01:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not a citation for the statement. Michael Grant's quote merely says that for the years til 1995, there were very few serious scholar had ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus, and this doens't mean the great majority of modern scholars believe Jesus was a historical figure. Please provide a real citation. -- Peter zhou 19:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Do scholars really have to keep updated dossiers on their opinions to turn in at the end of every month, verifying that they haven't changed their mind on things? Homestarmy 19:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said, that citation has nothing to do with the statement. -- Peter zhou 19:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Michael Grant's quote here doesn't specify that it is only valid at the exact time he said it. Grant says that modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory, modern critical methods in 1995 are pretty much still identical to modern critical methods now, and unless you've got something that says otherwise from people just as authoritative as Grant, I really don't see why Grant cannot be used as a reference any longer here. Homestarmy 19:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said, that citation has nothing to do with the statement. For example, does the following statement:

Very few scientist have ventured to postulate the non existance of God.

imply the following?

The great majority of scientists believe God exists

The answer is NO. Note also Earl Doherty published his book "The Jesus Puzzle" in 1999. -- Peter zhou 19:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Peter z, I think your parsing of this phrase is unreasonable. If you want to stick to your argument, however, maybe we can change the text from "the great majority of modern scholars believe Jesus was a historical figure" to "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus", which is incontestably supported by Grant's quote, because it is the quote.The.helping.people.tick 19:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest to change the statement to

Some modern scholars believe Jesus was a historical figure.

or

Some modern scholars don't believe Jesus was a historical figure.

-- Peter zhou 19:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Moern scholars of a relevant field? I am not asking about German professors or geologists. I am asking about people with PhD.s in Biblical history or Ancient Near Eastern history or Ancient Near Eastern literature, scholars who are active in the fields of Biblical studies or 1st century Palestine history. I have read many and know of none who claim Jesus never existed. To whom are you referring? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ditto what Slrub said. The.helping.people.tick 19:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You may also want to see WP:UNDUE:

"Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties."-Wafulz 19:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe here we need a citation for the statement, but not your own original research. --Peter zhou 20:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've used the same citation from the historicity section/article, which says as plainly as possible that modern scholars in the relevant fields agree that Jesus existed as a person.-Wafulz 20:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Peter, we need a citation for your statement. You want to add that "Some modern scholars don't believe Jesus was a historical figure." Okay, provide your source. The issue here is not "original" versus "appropriate" research, the issue here is "reasearch" versus "no research." I do not think you have done any research. If you have, provide a source to support your claim. Should I do the same? well, guess what: aside from the fact that rossnixon already provided a source right here - don't be afraid, just open your eyes and look at the quote up top, I have added several references for works by modern scholars to this article. Now it is your turn: provide a source. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

We can change it to "Most scholars agree that Jesus was a historical figure." This is an NPOV factual statement. The term "modern" is unnecessary, the difficulty surrounding "great majority" is removed, and the term "believe" is replaced with a more accurate adjective -- there simply is agreement among most scholars on this one. BTW, 1995 is a ridiculously recent source. The ratio 1995/2007 is 0.994. To put this in perspective, on a 24 hour clock this source would have been published at 23:51:21. Admittedly, there are certain rare times in certain scholarly fields when developments are rapid and a couple of years can make a big difference. But that is not the case here. And the analogy posed by Peter zhou about scientists and God is completely off -- "God" is outside of the realm of "natural science." A far more accurate analogy would be:

"Very few climate scientists have postulated that global warming is a hoax."

and

"Most climate scientists agree that global warming is a real phenomenon."

The second statement may indeed be inferred from the first. LotR 15:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Your phrasing sounds good to me. I think it's well thought out and portrays what's needed very well. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 16:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The vaugeness of the adjective used implies that there are some scholars who agree Jesus is not a historical figure, and in a field with I presume many thousands of scholars, this would imply that at least several hundred are Jesus-mythers, which is not factual. Homestarmy 16:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be phrased in a way that makes it clear that the statement is true of a wide range of scholars, not just clergy and theologians, not just Christians, not just people of faith. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, these are valid points. This was an effort to address the original objection, which was couched as a problem with the reference. However, the problem really stems more from the sentence wording (the reference itself is perfectly legitimate, as my posting implicitly argues). The proposed rewrite is just a means to rectify this -- it is certainly open to iteration. LotR 18:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the sentence as written is the ambiguity in the word "scholar." Scholars of Christ have a vested interest in portraying him as historically existing, not to mention a financial motivation in book sales given the number of Christian adherents. However, as the article itself states, the primary evidence for the historicity of Christ are the gospels - which few would argue should be regarded as accurate historical texts. It's clear that the intention of this sentence is to perpetuate the proposition that Christ existed, while it is unclear to me based on present evidence, news stories, and books in print that this is true.TheInsomniac 15:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The word "scholars" in this sentence refers to the overwhelming majority of modern scholars who study the Bible as any other historical source (meaning simply, text from the past) and who study the history of 1st century Judea and Galalee as they would study any other place at any other time. if this is still unclear to you I suggest you read any of the many books cited in this article.Slrubenstein | Talk 16:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"Few would argue" that the Gospels (and the other 23 NT documents) should be regarded as accurate historical texts? Huh? What is the historical reasoning for this? And now that accusations of "vested interest" and "financial motivation" have been leveled, if it were up to me and these were my primary motivations, then I would lean toward publishing/producing the usual anti-Christian drivel we find in the popular culture, given how sensationalism sells, and how I would not be bound by an inconvenient, objective moral code. Fortunately, there is one thing we agree on, and that is the term "scholar" is ambiguous. LotR 16:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I misunderstood, I was referring to the sentence that starts this thread, "the great majority of modern scholars believe Jesus was a historical figure" as well as the one by Michael grant. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Is this talk page automatically archived? =David^(talk)_(contribs) 16:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not; currently, it is only archived when done manually. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to archive it this time or would you prefer someone else do it? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is rather large (212 kb), and so it seems to be time...but I'm a relative newcomer. I've archived other TPs before, but I'm also aware each page has its own conventions on which threads to keep on the main talk page, how to link, how to summarize, etc. so I'd prefer to see how it's done before I tackle it this time around. If no one else wants to do it, I suppose I could tackle it, though. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 20:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Another (related) question; the RfM tag is still at the top of the page, even though the RfM was rejected. Is there an established procedure for this? =David^(talk)_(contribs) 20:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have archived the page. Here is what I did. I first opened a new window to the start an article page for the new archive (#84). I then scanned the current talk page to see what discussions were still open, and decided to archive everything before the 21st of last month (basically everything 10 days or older). I then copy and pasted all of that into the new archive, and added the {{talkarchive}} header. I saved. I then went back to the current talk page, and added a summary and link at the top under "Recent Archive log" for #84. I do this by scanning the topics and headers, and making sure the most important discussions are mentioned. I then saved the talk page. Finally, I added the topic summary entry for #84 (the one I just wrote in the last step) to the bottom of Talk:Jesus/Archive details. If you have any questions about what I did, feel free to ask, and hopefully you will be comfortable archiving the next time!-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help, and for letting me know what you did. I'll keep this for future reference. Thanks again! =David^(talk)_(contribs) 22:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, one last thing to keep in mind. In the future, you may find yourself in a situation where you will need to add a link to the new archive to Talk:Jesus/archivebox. I didn't have to do this step because archive 84 was already linked (as a redlink). But we will need to update the archivebox once we get to archive 86 (as you can see, #85 is currently redlinked).-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Not too jargony at all (per your edit summary). I appreciate the tip. Thanks again!=David^(talk)_(contribs) 22:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

BC/AD

What is the argument in this article about using the BC/AD system as opposed to the BCE/CE system? -- Avi 20:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Basically, every argument used in the main debate which is archived somewhere has likely taken place on this page as well at some point, since the subject of this article is the ultimate reason for both dating systems. (Since AD/BC was based on the subject, and BCE/CE was created directly in response to it). Homestarmy 20:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

However, I would think that while articles that are not exclusively Christian have a valid argument using the CE/BCE system, articles about Christianity, and Christ himself, should be using the dating system that directly refers to him. -- Avi 20:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is about Christianity and is not a Christian article. Therefore the choice of dating convention should be the one that most editors feel works the best, which is why we have the composite dating system. Sophia 21:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's about Jesus. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel this debate is very much like the English/American spelling issue. If an article is predominantly about an English subject e.g. the Harry Potter articles, English spelling is used. Thus, if an article is predominantly about Christ, BC/AD should be used. SparrowsWing _(talk) 21:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that BC/AD should be used as well, but there will never be consensus on that. Anyone who is pro-BCE will often come here to rant about it so that's why we use both systems. Though I do feel strongly that articles should reflect our reading audience's ease of reading rather than Wiki user bickerings. Just shows nothing can truly be neutral — John Stattic (talk) 11:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Jesus/Archive_84 and about one in three of all previous archives. The last time people agreed that there was no consensus to change (which, apparently, is different from a consensus not to change, but whatever...), or maybe only that there was a consensus about the fact that there was no consensus to change. Again, whatever ;-). --Stephan Schulz 04:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

The paragraph under life and teachings, as told by the gospels, has been vandalised. Could some-one correct this? 196.203.19.196 15:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not see any vandalism. Could you explain or even quote the problematic text?-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Some people seem to think it's funny to add a message on a talk page saying that some rude word has been put in an article, or that there is unspecified vandalism. It happens regularly. They like the idea that editors will scurry off to scour the text in vain. It gives their little minds childlike joy. Paul B 16:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There was vandalism. It was corrected by CSCWEM. -- Avi 16:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologise to user User:196.203.19.196. Paul B 16:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

But hang on, that was corrected less than a minute after it was made, and it was many many hours before User:196.203.19.196 added the comment. Paul B 16:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I've actually seen old versions of an article show instead of the most recent version. I don't know why. Perhaps that is what happened here. Jinxmchue 22:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

the historicity of Jesus ... continued

Some people find it easier to shift debate from this page to linked pages. People who care about this topic, please see this recent edit ... consider reading the section (to get the context) and commenting. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Important claim not supported - claim about disbelief of historicity of Jesus being in vogue at one time

In the beginning of the article the article states and I bold for emphasis: "While disbelief in the historicity of Jesus enjoyed a brief vogue at the turn of the 20th century, modern scholars believe Jesus was a historical figure[5] and that early documents provide at least some historical information concerning his life — though there is much debate over the extent of the accuracy of these accounts" This rather strong claim is not supported. How much, if any, was this view in vogue at the turn of the century? If this view was in vogue, was it in vague as a minority view among scholars at the turn of century? If it was a minority view at that time, how much of a minority view was it? I think these are important questions and the article does not support its contention and gives no specificity if it is true. Mabol 20:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

We had discussed this section back in July. However, the most recent version is not the version that we had agreed on here at talk. So while we are discussing this further, I have reverted to a version that was table for about a month following that discussion. You raise some valid concerns. Also, with a number of publications released in the last decade, the Jesus myth may be back in "vogue" as a minority view, where the previous phrasing didn't account for any of the recent scholarship found in the footnote. Finally, while we are discussing this, does anyone have some sources we could list for authors who hold that gospels as being 100% accurate?-Andrew c ^[talk] 20:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You've cited Wells and Freke+Gandy among others in the revised refs. To the best of my knowledge Wells has 'recanted' in that he now accepts that there was 'a historical figure from the first-century Palestine'. Freke+Gandy are not suitable refs, as their work has not been 'peer-reviewed' by reputable scholars. The others I do not know, other than to observe that Martin is a well known atheist philosopher and not a historian.

If you are looking for support for the 'historicity of Jesus' you could reinstate the Van Voorst ref you appear to have deleted. I do not know his work but it does at least provide a counter ref! Mercury543210 21:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't cited anything. If you look closer, footnote #5 in the current revision is identical to footnote #6 in the previous revision (hence, the text of the footnote isn't highlighted in red in the diff). These references have been in the article for basically over a year to represent the minority Jesus myth view. While Wells may have recanted, the book cited is still an example (thought that is interesting if Wells did recant, you got a source for that?). As for the reference I deleted, it wasn't in the version which was discussed and got consensus back in July, and there isn't a place to put it back in, the way things are currently worded (maybe we could move it down to the historicity section?) I'm not opposed to having the reference somewhere in the article by any means.

I just noticved that the Van Voorst ref is already included lower down in the article. Reference #30 in the current revision is verbatum identical to the deleted ref #5 from the previous revision.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair comment, please accept my apologies - however my basic points stand. Freke+Gandy are not suitable as refs. George Albert Wells'recantation' is documented in 'his' Wikipedia article. Similarly Martin does not appear to be either 'objective' nor a 'scholar in this area'. Also it was you Andrew c who asked for counter balancing refs and I simply suggested van Voorst as it was (previously) there. Hope this clears up my earlier post. Mercury543210 21:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I believe you misunderstood what I was asking for in regards to references. We say that most scholars neither believe the sources on Jesus to be entirely mythical or entirely accurate. Right now we footnote that a minority does believes them to be entirely mythical. We do not footnote that a minority believes them to be entirely accurate, although that position is implied in the way we phrase it. I was asking if we could get a reference, similar to the one we use for the Jesus myth, of conservative Christian scholars who believe that the accounts on Jesus' life are entirely accurate. -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Reset indent I now understand your request, with which I'm not sure I can help. However I am still unhappy that we are using F+G, Wells and Martin as 'authorities'. F+G clearly are not. Wells has 'recanted' and so now, presumably, regards his earlier work as flawed. It seems perverse to continue to use work now regarded as flawed, as 'authoritative' in this context. Surely the only appropriate 'authorities' are historians or theologians whose work has been peer-reviewed? To quote WP:V (note 4) "Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them." Mercury543210 08:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Have removed refs to F+G as not refereed work (see WP:RS) and GA Wells as he has moderated/clarified his views and no longer believes that Jesus was a mythical fabrication but does have some (v.ltd?) basis in history. I am still unhappy about Martin's inclusion but will wait for a while for any further comments before proceeding.Mercury543210 13:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

As noted above, I do not agree with these deletions. GA Wells book is still an example of the Jesus Myth hypothesis. Maybe what we could do is note that has has tempered his view in the past decade. Also, F+G have written one of the most notable books on the subject in the past 20 years (besides Earl Doherty's book), which I just noted we don't cite either. But as it stands, it's just me against you. Unless someone else comments here, I'd be willing to let it go for now, with the archives noted that I feel we should mention Doherty, Wells, and F+G in the footnote as simply examples of notable individuals that hold (or held) this position, and nothing more.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is my opinion. I think that while some historians have noted that Christianity incorporated elements of pagan mythology (and I do not count Wills and F+G among these historians, by which I mean academic historians), no major scholar supports the "Jesus as myth" view in even its broadest features. Therefore we are unlikely ever to find sources for this view from peer-reviewed journals or prestigious academic presses. Theefore this cannot be an acceptable reason for rejecting a source. On the contrary, we should cite Wells and F+G for this view, and - at least paranthtically - note that they do not have PhD.s in Biblical literature or history nor have held full-time academic positions in Biblical history or literature, and that their books are outside of the mainstream of academic research. In other words, non-refereed (or even recanted) work (Einstein on dark matter, anyone?) is an appropriate source - just so long as we make it clear that it is a source for a popular claim not a scholarly one. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

How popular can the view be though if one of its main proponents is abandoning ship? :/ Homestarmy 18:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Reset indent Firstly apologies (yet again!) to Andrew c. I had taken your 'non-replies' to my proposals to indicate that you had no strong objections to the 'removals'. I had stated (three times) that I thought F+G are not credible sources (see [WP:V]]+[WP:RS]]) and so cannot be used here. As for Wells - on reading his article in the New Humanist, and I must confess I found it difficult to pin down EXACTLY what he was saying, nevertheless Wells did conclude by denying that he had EVER held the 'complete myth position'. Taken at face value this means that his earlier works cannot be used to support the 'complete myth position', since he (appears) to deny that is what he meant!? Hence my removal of his citation. I hope this helps explain my reasons more clearly. Mercury543210 11:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Give me proof that Jesus existed please

There is no solid proof that Jesus actually existed in this article. Does anybody have any??? Shutup999 17:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is a legitimate question, or if you're just trolling. No Wikipedia article will ever try to "prove" anything to you, as we are here to present a neutral POV, and therefore all views are covered without any slant towards one or another (ideally, though more popular views receive more elaboration than obscure ones. In any case, this is a general article on the subject. If you'd like some encyclopedic elaboration concerning the subject you've brought up, see Historicity of Jesus.--C.Logan 17:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"Solid proof"? As in mathematical proof? Sorry, to disillusion you, but ancient history is not a mathematically tenable problem. Note that there is no "solid proof" in any of the following articles as well Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Buddha, Confucius, Mohammad, Pontius Pilate, Mary the Magdalene, Paul the Apostle, etc. LotR 18:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Or what? You'll delete the article? There are various Christian apologetics website out there on which you can find answers to your questions. This is not the place for your request. Google it or Yahoo it or something it. Jinxmchue 18:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Chill, please. No need to return rude and nasty with more rude and nasty.

User:Shutup999 has been registered for just over a week but, other than some rough edges, is not clearly a troll. I think the question is valid. This article cites a reference (4) that says "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". Presumably those "basic facts" are the ones listed in the article. The answer to Shutup999's question is provided in Historicity of Jesus. This may not satisfy him but it's the best we have to offer at the moment. --Richard 18:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry? Where was I "rude and nasty?" I was stating the facts: (1) Christian apologetics websites exist, (2) they can answer his questions, (3) Wikipedia isn't the place for such questions and (4) the websites can be found via Google, Yahoo or any number of other search engines. Jinxmchue 19:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand why you asked the question "or what?" To whom were you directing the question? And why do you think anyone would delete the article? I do not understand who you were addressing or why or what you meant. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The answer to any question like this is always very straightforward: "Please read our NPOV policy. There you will learn that Wikipedia articles are not concerned with 'the truth' but rather with presenting accurate accounts of different views. In other words, it is not for us to say whether it is true or false that Jesus is one with God, the son of God, or even that he ever lived. What we can say is that it is true that some people believe that he is one with God, and that some people believe he existed. When we specify who we are talking about, we can say even more: it is true that all Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus. And it is true that the vast majority of Biblical historians believe he existed. This is why the motto of Wikipedia is 'verifiability, not truth.' If this does make sense to you, please read over our core policies which try to explain in greater detail." Slrubenstein | Talk 18:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Regular editors take note. Shutup999 (talk · contribs) is the newest incarnation of permanently blocked Zephead999 (talk · contribs). Both are infact user accounts set up by permanently blocked Zabrak (talk · contribs) who formerly edited under the name Dragong4 (talk · contribs).(a twsted web of parasite edits) There are many other temporary names and IPs from this user but the editing history is very repetative. Do not bother trying to respond to his trolling. Simply delete it and move on. 156.34.220.111 02:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Give me proof that you exist and that I am not simply imagining this. Tourskin 20:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: "it is true that all Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus.":

A rather sweeping statement. Does this mean that there exist in the world no persons who profess to be Christians solely by virtue of their cultural upbringing? That would seem to me unlikely. TheScotch 07:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't take his statement to refer to nominal believers, but I'm concerned about whether or not he includes all non-Trinitarian groups as "Christians", because there are certainly some groups that contradict that statement, depending on the specific meaning of "divine" intended. Of course, maybe he's just being vague for the sake of easy examples; I don't know.--C.Logan 09:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about "nominal believers", but--as long as you bring this up--I don't know what you mean by "I wouldn't take his statement to refer" to them. Does this make "nominal believers" Christian or non-Christian?

In any case, I (maintain that I) am Christian because Christian mythology and symbolism were bequeathed to me as part of my cultural heritage no matter what I may profess to "believe". Furthermore, to my mind Christian culture is much more significant in the greater scheme of things than the putative "divinity of Jesus". I'm far from the only one who thinks this. (I'm using myself here as one example.) TheScotch 05:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Nominal believers are Christians, but only in name (as should be obvious). Christianity, at its core, is based on the belief in Jesus Christ as the Messiah and as the incarnation of God Himself. Though this skirts the line of the old "no true Scotsman" fallacy, it's clear that true Christians (and true believers of any faith) hold to the doctrines by which their religion is suspended. This is why "I wouldn't take his statement to refer" was my choice of words. The further away from orthodoxy one becomes, the less statements concerning orthodox belief pertain to them, obviously.

I hate to disagree with you on things here, but I don't see nominal-ism as a valid expression of religious identification. Regardless of where your beliefs lie, if they aren't Christian, you shouldn't base yourself upon that terminology. Doing so essentially alienates the word from its meaning. I could grow up in a carpenter's home, but if I'm a cobbler who calls himself a carpenter, there is a disconnection from reality. Again, mind that there is no Christian "culture"- only those cultures which are inherently tied to that belief system. As I am French, I was founded upon a culture for whom the resonance of Christian faith is hard to ignore. If you are a secular person who identifies with a cultural-religious heritage, then it would seem proper to refer to oneself by cultural heritage, which in your case does seem to be of Christian nature (Spanish/French/Italian/Greek/Russian/Polish/German/Armenian/Ethiopian etc...).

Of course, you aren't the only who thinks in such a manner (or rather, behaves in such a manner sans pondering). Many Mexicans may hold special affinity for religious iconography, such as the Virgin of Guadalupe, while themselves holding no belief in God at all. To quote Carlos Fuentes, "...one may no longer consider himself a Christian, but you cannot truly be considered a Mexican unless you believe in the Virgin of Guadalupe." (Ah... Wiki-convenience).

Concerning the effect of Christian culture vs. the divinity of Christ in the grand scheme of things... well, that depends on how grand you view such a scheme to be. In a secular worldview, perhaps, although one must recall that the foundation of Christian culture revolves around this "putative" divinity, and the effects of this belief permeates our heritage.--C.Logan 08:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Nominal believers are Christians, but only in name (as should be obvious).":

Logically, "nominal believers" should be those who believe only in name, which obviously do not include those I've described. Your calling me a "nominal believer" based on what I said above would be rather like your called me "Pro-death" because I support Roe v. Wade. Don't foist your own ideology on me, please.

Re: "Of course, you aren't the only who thinks in such a manner....":

For wikipedia purposes this concession is all that need concern us. Your obiter dicta about the validity of our calling ourselves Christian is not needed (and not appreciated). TheScotch 10:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ideology? That's the first time I've heard that, which I find humorous because my statement far from reflect my primary ideologies. I don't really understand how you can say "I am Christian because Christian mythology and symbolism were bequeathed to me as part of my cultural heritage no matter what I may profess to 'believe'", and argue that that is not nominal belief. If you truly mean the latter part of that statement, then you might be Sikh, while claiming that you're Christian. That is nominal, whether you seem to perceive that as an insult or not. That is to say, you are nominal because you ascribe to a title without accepting the defining characteristics (primarily, actual belief). Like I've said, one can can call themselves whatever they want, but that is only nominal identification. This isn't my opinion; it is simply how it is. If you'd like to clarify what you mean by your above statement, then by all means do so, but as it is, I don't understand your fuss. Again, if you call yourself a carpenter but you make shoes, I'm not forcing "my ideology" on you when I call you a shoemaker/cobbler; I'm using the proper terminology.

Again, you may need to re-read my comment at certain points: nominal-ism is not a valid expression of religious identification. I didn't say self-identification, but religious identification. It is the former, but not the latter. You can still make such a statement, but it's as valid, again, as calling oneself a carpenter (when one makes shoes) is a valid occupational identification.

In any case, I'd prefer if you took things a little lightly- First of all, I'm unconvinced that I've said anything which should really agitate you (rather, I've been noting things which I think we could logically agree on, with an opinion or two of my own as well. Additionally, one shouldn't come to a heterogeneous discussion and expect to hear only opinions that one agrees with, as that's certainly a set up for disappointment.

Finally, I'm unsure what you mean by "Wikipedia purposes". We're not discussing content, so I'm unsure how Wikipedia should affect our casual conversation.--C.Logan 17:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Adding my five tuppence's worth. Back to the top of the section 'Give me proof that Jesus existed please'. Of course no proof can ever be provided. As mentioned earlier, history is not mathematics. Why not ask 'Give me proof that the Earth is not flat' or indeed a current favourite 'Give me proof that Princess Diana died in simple car accident and was not assassinated'. These are equivalent in their absurdity. To my mind, the existence of the four Gospels nails Jesus' existence. It is inconceivable to get 4 texts about a single figure, which agree in the most important areas, two millenia ago unless the subject actually existed.S = k log W 16:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, one can sail or fly around the world and prove that Earth is not flat. Happens quite often actually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.80.129.107 (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Even the four gospels don´t verify Jesus' existence. They could have been written by anyone, anywhere and anytime. As far as we know the whole bible could have be written by anyone, anywhere and anytime. As in the song Land of Confusion: "There´s too many men, theres too many people making too many problems...Can´t you see this is the land of confusion..."Skele 22:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Chronology Mistake

Under "Chronology", the article mentions that the Eastern Orthodox Church celebrates the birth of Jesus on January 6th, due to the celebration of Epiphany. This is not true. The Armenian Apostolic Church celebrates their Christmas on that date because they have combined the Feast of Epihpany and the birth of Jesus into one celebration. The Eastern Orthodox church however, celebrates Christmas on January 7th. This is simply the date on the Gregorian calendar that corresponds to December 25th on the Julian calendar (which is the calendar we use in America). The Feast of Epiphany is celebrated later. This is the first time I have ever written anything for Wikipedia, so I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do to make an effort to correct this mistake. If anyone can let me know, I would appreciate it. Serb14325 15:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposing a change here on the discussion or "Talk" page is a great way to introduce changes. I believe you're correct, so I tried to incorporate your change in the article. If I got it wrong, either let us know here, or make the further change in the article directly. Wesley 04:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I'm coming in late to this parade, but Serb14325 has is backward. The single feast celebrating the mystery of the Incarnation on 6 January, from the Nativity to the Epiphany, was the original Eastern tradition. The separate feast of the Nativity was a Western import, as Epiphany was an Eastern import to the West. The Armenians didn't combine the feasts; they never separated them in the first place. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Muslim view

There's something I don't get : if the Muslim consider the Gospels to be sacred, as the article why don't they consider Jesus as being the son of god. I think the article is quite cosing on this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitch1981 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite get what you're saying here. Why should this article go into great detail to explain such a thing? I think Islamic view of Jesus may give a more extensive and insightful explanation. In any case, the question is a little too complicated to answer in the Wikipedic medium.--C.Logan 07:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but...

It's my understanding that Muslims believe that the original gospel (Injil) was given to Jesus by God, but was later corrupted by Christians (Muslims refer to this corruption as Tahrif). Simlarly, they believe that God gave Moses the Torah (Tawrat) and David the Psalms (Zabur), but that these were later corrupted by Jews.

Muslims consider the Injul to be sacred...but this is not exactly the same as the Christian Gospel. cf Christianity and Islam. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds about right.--C.Logan 16:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms of Jesus

Why is there no Criticisms section in this page?--ॐJesucristo301 12:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This has been raised before, and my response is the same: What kind of criticism? This is an article about the historical person, not about the movements that surround him or were sparked by him. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 12:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The article claims that according to most historians he was executed for sedition - that is certainly a criticism. Also, according to the Gospel account, the Sanhedrin convicted him of blasphemy. So two different criticisms of Jesus are already in the article. Do you have any other verifiable, reliable, notable sources tht mention any other criticisms? Most people would say blasphemy and sedition are pretty harsh criticisms. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Those aren't criticisms of Jesus. They're citations of criticisms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.17.135 (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Pliny: carmenque Christo quasi deo dicere secum invicem

I have added this in the Principal View. This is an account of a Roman official and writer, which is considered the "earliest external account of Christian worship" (see Pliny the Younger). I believe this should be included being the earliest non-Christian historical account of the Principal View.

In the second century, the Roman official and writer, Pliny the Younger (63 - ca. 113) stated that Christians were "singing responsively a hymn to Christ as to god" (carmenque Christo quasi deo dicere secum invicem). Ref: Pliny the Younger: C. Plinius Traino Imperatori Liber Decimus Epistula XCVI.

This additional information and expansion of the section is in accord with my earlier proposal on NPOV proportionality, i.e. more extensive treatment of the Principal View based on the NPOV policy: to fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. People then agreed to my proposal.

• Marax 02:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, we have Josephus on Jesus and Tacitus on Jesus...so why not Pliny on Jesus? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

some truth

Hello I am very open to ideas and I have been researching and discovered the name Jesus comes from Greek/Latin, the Greek part is Je or in Greek Ge which means Earth or Soil and sus is latin for Swine or Pig and Iesous is Greek for Man Horse the site that explains this information is the following site please read, http://www.seekgod.ca/htwhatsinaname.htm thank you if you have any comments please contact me at moogle1979@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moogle1979 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess those on the extremes of belief will buy into anything, even direct misinformation and crackpot theories. Additionally, note the earlier discussion concerning names. This is actually a fairly informative site, but it seems that Moogle1979 has misread the link (as I did, initially)... the website presents the above claim as a fallacious assertion that the writer has heard, and he goes on to refute this notion, along with several others. The site is a good response to proponents of "Yahshua"-only usage, but it doesn't seem acceptable for incorporation as a source.--C.Logan 06:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I study Greek and Latin. Yes, 'ge' does mean earth in Greek and 'sus' does mean pig in Latin. Iesous, however, is not a composition of these two words, for a number of reasons.

Firstly, words are not formed by combining two words from two different languages. I can't think of a single example from ancient times. Also, even if Iesous were a combination (which I emphasize it is not) the word would be Gesus not Iesous. Iesous does not mean horse in Greek or Latin. Hippo and Equus are the respective Greek and Latin words. Lastly, Jesus was Jewish. He was raised Jewish and came from a Jewish family in a Jewish society run by a Jewish king. There were little Hellenizing effects in the area which Jesus is said to have preached. It would be so extremely odd that his parents would choose to name him a complex amalagation of Greek and Latin words to the point where I (if I may insert my personal opinion) would say it is impossible. The truth is unfortunately less interesting than what you've heard. Jstanierm 00:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Jstanierm 00:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Jstanierm, I think that the above user simply misread the text. First of all, he conflates a few different arguments into the short mess above, to which you have replied. The site itself actually lists such "theories" as silly propositions that the writer has heard. It seems apparent that Moogle didn't read past the initial listing of "theories" when he'd made the comment, because the writer goes on to discredit these later in the article.--C.Logan 02:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

External Link added to Christianity Wikia

I have added http://christianity.wikia.com/wiki/Jesus to this article. Kathleen.wright5 03:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed http://christianity.wikia.com/wiki/Jesus from this article. I don't see why we need to link to an article that is basically a mirror of this exact article, with the NPOV stripped from it. Plus, wikis are not considered reliable sources.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that the CKB article was originally a fork of this article (from March 23, 2006). Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Fictional Character

An editor keeps adding this page to the category "Fictional Characters". I wish to assume good faith and that he is not simply trying to vandalise (although I did not do so initially, and was wrong not to do so).

Nonetheless, it is clearly not an appropriate change. Regardless of whether Jesus was or was not fictional, there is a scholarly consensus in relevant fields that he was not - to include him in a category of fictional characters is therefore contrary to our policies of proportionally representing already published research in reliable sources, and is contrary to WP:NOR. TJ 11:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting. Jesus also is used as a fictional character in the arts - from Jesus (South Park) to The Last Temptation of Christ. Still, I think the category would be misleading. --Stephan Schulz 12:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

Regardless of the merits of this edit, it needs to be done in a way more in keeping with wikipedia policies. This editor seems content to continue edit warring without commenting on this on talk pages (beyond this rude comment), despite me making multiple attempts to engage him, both on his own talk page, and here.

Brandonha, if you feel strongly enough that this article should be in this category, please state your reasoning here, in terms of the relevant wikipedia policies. If your edits have any kind of merit according to the rules of the wikipedia, one of the editors around here (many of whom are not religious) is bound to agree with you.

I still want to assume good faith and that you are not simply trolling, but it is becoming increasingly difficult. TJ 12:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

jesus is a historical character he founded christianity, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.216.134.34 (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

There are no historical documents of jesus finding christianity.Skele 22:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

How do you know that? --Boguslav 23:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Matthew 16:18. People debate this historicity/historical reliability of this verse. But certainly, that it is considered historically reliable is one notable POV. Slrubenstein | Talk

Help

Sorry about posting this on this page, but I cannot view this article anymore. Whenever I go onto this article (and only this one) I can only see a gigantic pixillated picture which takes up all of the screen. I could look at this article fine, until today, but now I can't read it at all. Any help will be appreciated, although I realise this may not be the most appropriate place for this comment. Thanks.86.150.251.208 11:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It's ok now, it fixed itself.86.150.251.208 16:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Infancy Gospel of Thomas

Ok, time to talk rather than revert. I don't feel strongly in favor of keeping the text that was deleted by User:B. However, I think we need to ask "what are the criteria for including a gospel"? It seems obvious that we are not restricting ourselves to the four canonical gospels. However, once we get into the non-canonical gospels, how do we determine which gospels are "taken seriously" and which are not?

And, at a higher perspective, we should ask "what is this article about?" Is it about the "historical Jesus"? I would think not. We have an article on that. So then, what does it mean to "take a gospel seriously"? Are we trying to discuss those gospels which, although not one of the four canonical ones, were considered canonical by some "respectable" group (thus admitting the "Gospel of Thomas" but not the "Infancy Gospel of Thomas")?

I probably know far less about these gospels than other editors of this article. I ask the above questions not as polemic but in a sincere desire to understand what criteria are being applied here.

I also point out that there is a difference between saying "X is true about Jesus because Gospel A says so" and "Gospel A says that X is true about Jesus". The former asserts something about Jesus. The latter only asserts something about Gospel A. Whether that asserts anything about Jesus depends on how much credence you give to Gospel A.

--Richard 00:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of brevity, I'll keep it simple and clear. The problem with listing this description is that it is merely one of hundreds of extra-canonical writings, and of all extra-canonical scripture, it doesn't hold any place of notability or reliability. To show preference and extensive coverage to one, insignificant extra-canonical writing is somewhere along the lines of POV pushing- there are several dozens of other scriptures which may cover the same time period, and many of them contradict on many points. At best, one can give an overview of Christ within the extra-canonical scriptures, using broad examples: "In infancy gospels such as X and X, Christ is shown to be wise beyond his years and wholly benevolent, but in works such as X, he is portrayed as a quick-tempered youth". There are a few extra-canonical writings which hold prominence (outside of the deuterocanonical scriptures, I mean), such as the Protoevangelium of James (often one source used in support of Mary's perpetual virginity).--C.Logan 01:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Nobody considers the "Infancy Gospel of Thomas" to be a useful source of biographical information about Jesus. It would be like using Encyclopedia Dramatica to source an article about Jimbo Wales. Take a look at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ - it has a lot of the non-canonical texts. Some of them are very worthwhile to read and to use as a primary text. For example, the Didache and Epistles of Clement are pretty well agreed to be authentic - they aren't a part of the Bible because they aren't apostolic, but they are certainly useful for learning about early church history. But books like the Infancy Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Mary are universally agreed to be non-authentic and, while they may be interesting, are not at all useful for gaining biographical insight. --B 01:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. I can buy these arguments. The problem with edit summaries is that one is forced to say things in a few words that might be better discussed on the Talk Page.

I think we should make it clear in this article that there are canonical and non-canonical gospels and that some of the non-canonical gospels are considered "authentic but not apostolic" and therefore, although not considered worthy of being included in the canon as "divinely inspired", still valuable for instruction and spiritual guidance. Then, if you think it is appropriate, we can include a sentence like C. Logan wrote "In infancy gospels such as X and X, Christ is shown to be wise beyond his years and wholly benevolent, but in works such as X, he is portrayed as a quick-tempered youth".

Also, it's really not our place to decide which gospels are to be accepted as reliable. We should attempt to describe the academic landscape. Who are the people who think we should accept the Didache and Epistles of Clement (these are part of the Patristics, the writings of the Apostolic Fathers). These are accepted by the Catholics and the Orthodox. I'm not so sure about the Protestants.

Which groups think we should accept the Gospel of Thomas? What about the Gospel of Judas and the various infancy gospels?

This is probably not the place to go into detailed discussions of each of the major non-canonical gospels. However, we need to introduce the reader to the subject and point him in the direction of more detail if he wants to pursue it further.

--Richard 02:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think an important distinction to make here is "accepted as authentic" doesn't mean "accepted as true" or "accepted as part of the canon of scripture". We accept that the letters of Clement really were written by Pope Clement, as opposed to being a forgery 200 years later. That doesn't mean everything Clement says is true, nor does it mean that Christians consider it to be a part of the canon. Books of the Bible has a list of who considers what to be a part of the Bible. I'm pretty sure that everyone agrees that the Didache and Clement are authentic, but no modern denominations consider them to be part of the canon of scripture. As for the Gospel of Thomas (not to be confused with the Infancy Gospel), I know that there are a lot of non-Christians that are all over it because of some of the pan-theism in there. I don't think that any Christians consider it to be a part of the canon. The Gospel of Judas is an interesting read into gnosticism and there may be some historically accurate statements in there, but it was a propaganda piece for gnostics, so I don't know how much there is in terms of worthwhile biographical information there. It isn't a complete and total joke like the Talmud Jmmanuel (a 20th century farce) and it isn't completely discounted like the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. I would liken it more to Conservapedia. There may be some truth there, but it's extremely slanted. Does that help? I know there's some rambling there. --B 02:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Richardshusr: I certainly agree concerning edit summary limitations. Sometimes, the greatest task in a revision is construction a sensible and complete summary for your actions.

I also agree with your layout proposal. Something (roughly) like:

"Though many scriptures were not accepted into Biblical canon, there are several writings which are considered authoritative by X churches, and are still referred to in part for the purposes of spiritual growth, or for supplementary details to the lives of the saints, the apostles, and of Jesus himself. The majority of non-canonical texts, however, are rejected on various charges, and are not considered useful to the individual or to the X church itself. The Protoevangelium of James is considered to possess valuable information which supports the X church belief of the perpetual virginity of Mary, but was ultimately rejected for X reason. Other texts, such as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas and Example 2, are assumed to have been written and circulated largely to satisfy the hunger of laymen concerning the details of Jesus' early life and work. These texts are widely rejected as legendary accounts, though Christian historian X referred to the Infancy Gospel of James in his 'Letter of X'. Texts such as the Gospel of Thomas, which have gained popularity for X reasons in X timeframe, are condemned with X church as spurious works of Gnostics or Gnostically-influenced Christian writers."

I'm just proposing a (very) rough draft here, but I think you can see how this is a more reasonable way to present the information without over-representing any particular piece of scripture.

Thanks goes to B for his elaboration on a few things. It's worth noting that Eastern Orthodoxy seems to encourage extra-canonical references more-so than Catholicism or (obviously) Protestantism, but that could be mis-perception on my own part. I do know that a lot more emphasis is placed on Patristics; for example, the Treatises of St. John of Damascus concerning Icons, The Ladder of Divine Ascent by St. John Climacus, the assortment given in the Philokalia, the Homilies of St. John Crystostom, etc.--C.Logan 02:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah ... most Protestant churches I have been in don't quote anyone from 100 AD until 1900 AD. ;) In all seriousness, I'm not familiar with any of those works, but I would assume that nobody considers them to be a part of the canon of scripture, but they are considered authentic (in that the person who claimed to write them did write them) and of historic value. As for your draft, I think it's reasonable. Something important to point out, though, is that we generally try to rely on secondary sources. A scholarly synthesis of the gospel accounts, for example, is useful for Wikipedia purposes. --B 03:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The emphasis was simply on the fact that, far from the methods of Sola Scriptur-ists, some churches encourage the use of non-canonical writings and Patristic writings for spiritual and historical edification (although the latter writings are more acceptable, as the Fathers who wrote them were products of the canon scriptures, typically). And yes, there are very few doubts about the authenticity of these writings (although there are some early writings of questionable authorship). I'm not suggesting, of course, that Patristic writings receive coverage here, but as noted above, I'm noting the role of non-canonical texts to the Eastern Christian.--C.Logan 03:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what C. Logan and B have written above with one important caveat. Most of the discussion of non-canonical writings does not belong in this article. I'm not quite sure where the discussion belongs; perhaps Early Christianity, Patristics or Development of the New Testament canon.

What I think this article needs is a very high-level summary of the issue about canonical and non-canonical writings and how they influence what we think we know about Jesus. Leave the details for one of the other articles.

--Richard 05:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Lack of critical discussion

In the text we have:

"Though Christian views of Jesus vary, it is possible to describe a general majority Christian view by examining the similarities between Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and certain Protestant doctrines..."

Wouldn't it be instructive to also examine the differences in Christian views of Jesus more critically. It would be useful to have an insight into why different Christian groups are sometimes so full of hatred about each other. S = k log W 12:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to elaborate a bit?--C.Logan 18:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The article certainly discusses the different views of Christians but in a very top-level manner. There is no examination of any consequences of these different views (beliefs?). There must be some. Sectarian problems in Northern Ireland and in Glasgow are examples.

It should be possible to construct a (lower triangular) matrix allowing the points of contention between the different Christian beliefs to be shown more graphically.S = k log W 19:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a biography of Jesus. There is also an article Christianity that deals with the religion and beliefs. There is Christian denomination that deals with the different denominations. There might already be a table comparing the main theological differences between the denominations somewhere ... I know there used to be anyway ... but I don't think this article is the place for it. --B 19:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. Hope I haven't offended anyone. I'll move on to pastures new. S = k log W 16:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Again

This article is far too long. If you would write any other article not in contact with christianity it would be marked to be shortened. And again the neutrality of this article is to be nominated. Skele 13:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

How about shortening the "Religious perspectives" section? It could be condensed to a paragraph on the mainline Christian view and a paragraph on other religions. Everything else could go into Religious perspectives on Jesus. This section is a gigantic portion of the article and a laundry list of the intricacies of what everyone believes doesn't really add that much. --B 14:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Amen. There have been numerous attempts to move details to the various subarticles, in the series, but people keep adding details to the main article. It was too long when it was 80 K. Now it's what, 109K? Wikipedia:Article Size and Wikipedia:Summary Style both apply. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 19:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting the idea of shortening the article. B, your idea of shortening is excellent.Skele 12:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

3 & 4 could be shorter. It's so long. The new intellectual analysis being written on this subject should be given it's own section. Such as Christian Scholasticism or Gospel Analysis or something. Neutralaccounting 21:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Possessive of Jesus

Is there an agreement on how this should be done? I checked the archives, but there was only one that I found, and it was from 2004, and there was not much discussion. I don't want to scour the myraid archives, so if it was discussed somewhere, tell me.

The way I've learned, when you have a singular possesive noun ending in -s, you add 's. When you have a plural possesive noun ending in -s, you add s'. These three sites agree with that. This page says (#3) singular proper possesive nouns ending in -s take an s'—specifically proper nouns, non-proper singular noun get 's. This is the only page I have seen that on. This page says either. This article specifically mentions Jesus, and says we use s'. However, this is not supported by the other sites, except this one, but for different reasons. This page says that singular possesive nouns ending in -s take 's, but plural take s'. This is from the Purdue University website, so it should be reliable. Therefore, I suggest we change Jesus' to Jesus's. i ^said 04:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a summary of different positions on this issue at Apostrophe#Singular nouns ending in s, z, or x; basically, one can find reliable sources to justify either position. That article also notes: "Jesus' is very commonly written instead of Jesus's, even by people who would otherwise add 's in, for example, James's or Chris's". My impression is also that Jesus' is significantly more common that Jesus's; e.g., the bibliography linked from the article includes five titles using the former and none the latter. EALacey 08:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting to find this division over the form, because I was most certainly taught that "Chris'" or "Jesus'" is the proper form in my school years. Maybe they took a simple approach. In any case, I'd have to agree that "Jesus'" is the more popular format, as I've never actually seen "Jesus's" prior to this discussion (and this is my area of interest).--C.Logan 09:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Archive 49 discussed this as well (and I could have sworn there was another one, but I couldn't find it). Anyway, this is a case where both uses are acceptable, but we should probably choose one and stick with it and not switch between the two (similar to US vs. UK English). I agree that Jesus' is more common than Jesus's, and I see no compelling reason to change. (I just noticed that we have 3 instances of Jesus's when I believe a year ago we had zero. We should standardize and just use one form. Do others agree?)-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

YouTube Links on Jesus Page

there seems to be a group of people who's only purpose in Wikipedia is to keep everything unchanged.

i added 3 youtube links, under: External links | Historical and skeptical views. the videos make the first part of Zeitgeist, presenting a different view of jesus and the bible. first it was cataloged as spam, and the second time the same. but this time:

RV- Spamming of Youtube videos which seem to have no particular notability, and violate #2 of WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided.

first, Wikipedia on Linking to YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites

There is no blanket ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (which would be infrequent). See also Wikipedia:Copyrights for the prohibition on linking to pages that violate intellectual property rights.

the links are related to the content, and they are under (read carefully) External links | Historical and skeptical views. so for a free and evolving encyclopedia, and also wanted to be reliable, which has to present everything, especially contradictory opinions, the links are not having, quote:

no particular notability

and do not violate #2 of 'Links normally to be avoided.'

Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".

because the same thing I can say about the bible, jesus, or the 'jesus page'. no one decided that the bible is accurate. it is only a point of view of certain persons, so ALL the information and opinions must be presented.

and where's the spam? i don't get money out of this, while the full movie can be viewed for free.

Deny censorship.Present all the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iulian28ti (talk • contribs) 18:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that most are generally familiar with the policies, but thanks for re-adding them here. As I'd noted, there is questionable relevance as to the views expressed in these videos. I'm unsure how people are thinking these days, but I would be extremely doubtful that a video I'd personally made concerning my own or extremist theories on the subject would be acceptable within the external links of a Wikipedia article, and no less the main article about Jesus.

Though you quote the blanket ban, I'm not sure that you realize that it has nothing to do with the matter. Of course there isn't a blanket ban against Youtube videos; for instance, if video of a televised debate or a specific incident were available on Youtube, it may be considered acceptable for inclusion here. However, quoting this element from the guidelines for a video that is the equivalent of a personally-made Geocities "theory/conspiracy" site is somewhat missing the point. Anyone can post a video, and posting one with no particular notability is akin to arguing that I could create a Geocities site filled with my personal opinions and theories on Jesus and that it would be relevant or notable enough for inclusion in the external links section.

Additionally, the Bible is considered to be a primary source, so I don't understand your argumentation here. Again, please note the concept of WP:UNDUE, which basically explains that we do not have to devote any article space to extreme minority theories- and it specifically states that this applies to external links as well. Scholarly views are one case, where prominent scholars should all be listed if they are relatively notable to the subject. Beliefs should be presented proportionally, and beliefs shared by only a handful of people should not be covered at all.

Again, this is a link to a video which does indeed violate #2 just as much as a Geocities site made in 25 minutes containing personal theories and beliefs violates this same rule. It seems apparent that this rule intends to deal with links of this nature, and as videos are no special cases, this applies to them as well.

Finally, "spamming" equals to simple promotion, whether monetary compensation is involved. On Youtube, the concept of "views" is something that an individual might spam for. As a side note, with the advent of in-video advertisements in Youtube videos, I'd read that they are considering allowing ad money to trickle down on the videos which host said ads.

I hope that this responds to your points satisfactorily.--C.Logan 18:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Let me remind something: it was under: External links | Historical and skeptical views.

[1]

To be objective is to adhere strictly to truth- conducive methods in one's thinking, particularly, to take into account all available information, and to avoid any form of prejudice, bias, or wishful thinking. The forms of observation and experimentation, and the canons of deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning employed by scientists practicing the verification guide scientists to be objective.

The Bible is a main source, but no one said it is accurate, so we don't know if we can actually rely on that source, while Zeitgeist is a documentary, and we still have to account all information, including extremist theories, because skepticism can be extreme.

Wikipedia on NPOV

Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth notion, a view of a distinct minority.

Flat Earth Theory has a reference, though it's an extreme theory. But, because one person considers that Jesus Myth Theory should not be present, which is presented in a documentary and shows solid evidence (you have the sources on their website), the information becomes unavailable to all Wikipedia Readers.

Iulian28ti 08:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to re-refer you to the policy you're curiously trying to use in your favor. Bolded for emphasis:

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth notion, a view of a distinct minority.

We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

[...]

Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

If you are able to prove something that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced. See: Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

I'm showing this policy in opposition to your addition not because it is a "Jesus Myth Theory", but because it is the personal synthesis and original theories and conclusions of, apparently, of a 23 year old student, and as such, is not a "reliable source", but is a "self-published work". Concerning reliable sources, let me bring up a few relevant excerpts from WP:RS:

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim.

• Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
• Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reliable news media.
• Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
• Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people.

[...]

Self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. They may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, but such use is discouraged; see WP:SPS for details. Self-published sources should never be used as sources about living persons other than their author, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. Articles and posts on Wikipedia or other open wikis should never be used as third-party sources. Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, but only under certain conditions; see WP:SELFPUB for the details.

The synthesis of theories, even if those theories are from reliable sources (and this has not been shown from the sources listed, in any case), is new research in and of itself, and the presentation of the information must be from a reliable (in this case, not self-published) source.

Note, additionally, that the inclusion of historical/skeptical accounts within the external links is a concession to the clear fact that many people doubt the miraculous story of Jesus as proposed by the body of orthodox Christians around the world. The inclusion of a "historical" or "skeptical" viewpoint is in no way equal to the inclusion of an "extremist" viewpoint (similarly, the Muhammad article lacks any external links concerning criticism, as there are relevant articles to treat that subject, considering WP:Summary style's note concerning external links), and especially by a self-published source.

The closest thing to an external link which largely doubts the history of Jesus is Earl Doherty's article, which holds a less "extremist" stance, preferring to handle things academically as well as skeptically. Most importantly, Doherty's article has been published by the Journal of Higher Criticism, a reliable source, and therefore has been peer-reviewed. This video is self published, and considering the position held, can not be considered a reliable source, which leads it to fail many of the requirements that have been noted above.--C.Logan 14:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

When you have to choose between a possibly fictional book and a possibly true theory, you choose the fiction, just to give the bible credibility.

And from what you say, there are 3 main ideas:

1 - I should start a new article (hoping it's not deleted because it does not provide tons of information, or in your view is not related to the main article)

2 - the bible is seen as a reliable source. how funny.

3 - criticism, opinions of minorities and extremist theories are not allowed in Wikipedia. Speaking of censorship...

Iulian28ti 16:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've seen your Youtube film, and I must say I thought it was brilliantly made and wonderfully clear. It also contains some astonishing nonsense (the English word "Sunset" refers to the battle between the Egyptian god Horus (Sun) and and Set; the word 'Hour' comes from Horus etc, etc.). Your video can't be included because it is a personal essay. The sources for your views might be included in relevant articles on Jesus myth theory, of which there are several.

BTW, no-oner has said that the bible is considered a reliable source. And the opinions of extremist factions are allowed - as long as they have a substantial following and on relevant articles according to their degree of notability. Paul B 17:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Your first statement is just a ridiculous, forced presentation. It is equally valid to say that "you have to choose between a book that is possibly true and a theory that is possibly false, you choose the fiction, just to give the video credibility". That is to say, both statements are equally fallacious.

You should only start an article if your film is sufficiently notable. Believe me, this can be a difficult thing to do. Wikipedia is exclusionist, and therefore you're going to have to provide thorough reasoning that your film is truly notable- one requirement is that it is reported in reliable, third party sources. I can't stop you from starting an article, nor do I care to, but I'd warn you that your article would be deleted expediently, from my experience with Wikipedia.

The Bible is not seen as a reliable source, on Wikipedia at least. It is seen as a primary source, and therefore we cannot form interpretations of the text that are not sourced to reliable secondary sources. Therefore, if a scholar or a church body interprets a verse in a certain manner, we can present this interpretation (most preferably sourced, of course), but we cannot present a verse with a personal interpretation, whether explicit or implicit (implicit meaning listing a verse under "Verses in support of war", for example). Again, the Bible can only be presented as it is interpreted by secondary sources, or as un-interpretive quotations.

With your third point, it's getting pretty obvious that you're not reading what I'm showing you. I'm not going to re-explain WP:UNDUE, because it's already been linked, copied and pasted. I'll give a brevitous response: Extremist theories are allowed on Wikipedia, but only when they are reliably sourced (preferably by multiple sources, as "exceptional claims require exceptional sources"). They must abide by WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, and WP:Summary style. I've already explained why these policies make it clear that this link is not of sufficient quality to be listed on anything other than its own (theoretical) article page. I think this is pretty clear.

Censorship is emphatically not allowed, contrary to what you may think, but there are boundaries to that; namely, the interacting policies which I've listed. This is an encyclopedia, and there are standards which must be met for information to be included. If someone is trying to remove reliably sourced information which is relevant and not in conflict with WP:UNDUE or similar policies, it is considered censorship. In this instance, policy is simply being followed to ensure that the encyclopedia is not filled with possibly detrimental information.--C.Logan 17:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Fellas, with all due respect, I think we have passed from the "be kind to newbies" stage to the "don't feed the troll" stage. Some people go to biiiig buildings with LOTS of books and journals in them. There they do this thing called "research" and hopefully some of them who are willing to donate their time contribute to Wikipedia, an on-line encyclopedia. Other people make up things and spout garbage, but really, we don't want to encourage these people. You guys have really bent over backwards to explain why Wikipedia has standards. I fear at this point you are wasting time. Let's move on, okay? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You know I find it odd that the Bible, seems to have more sway over what we can see in front of us on the topic of relgion. I'm no troll or noob but on some level here I see a level of bias in instances sch as these. Stabby Joe 19:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral or not?

I just tried to edit the page and was almost imediately reedited. It's a fact that there is no historical record of Jesus from the comtemporary academics, shcolars, historians of his time.

"(this is clearly an attempt to give undue weight to the Mythisist hypothesis, contemporary historians wern't exactly in ample supply 2000 years ago)" This was the statement attached to the editor who removed my contribution and its wrong. There is alot of material from that time period by many individuals. Did I try to edit the wrong article? Does this article not deal with historical fact? The only thing I'm attempting is to contribute historical fact.

Here's what I wrote "Most historians and members of academia who lived around the Mediterranean Sea during the time of Jesus failed to mention or keep any record of his excistance. Three shcolars of the time do mention a "Christ" in their writings. Being only a title with no name however, it is impossible to be sure they were refering to Jesus." Does this belong somewhere else? Is there a way to phrase it so it is more neutral? Does anybody think its even worth mentioning? Charlie

Two things: (1) Perhaps it would be better received if it were in a more neutral context. For example, include a mention that there are very few surviving historical records from the time period. (2) You'll definitely need to provide references for anything slightly controversial on this article. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, besides the bible, there are no historical records from that time period regarding Jesus, his entourage, his miracles, .. nothing. How am I supposed to phrase that with making somebody mad? It's not my fault it's a fact.(Avidreaderofhistory 22:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC))

Well, start with reliable sources that discuss this. Try looking in the Jesus myth hypothesis if you don't know where to start looking for those sources. If you're not familiar with that article, you should also check out the talk pages on it to get an idea of why some people feel so strongly about this issue. As for me, I'm not really passionate about it. I'm an atheist who believes that there was a historical Jesus. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's bring up an important note: what you term as a "fact" is simply your own conclusions from the observations you've made. It seems strange to me so many people jump into theories and beliefs and state that they are pure fact. A scientifically-minded individual should be aware that they're just making conclusions based on evidence, which is a subjective action (and therefore has no absolute answer), and that these conclusions are likely destined to change as new work in the study arises.

As it is, there are indeed some individuals who disagree with you, scholars and laymen alike, so terming your belief as a "fact" seems just as absurd to me as someone claiming their religion is a fact may seem absurd to you or Ben Hocking. On Wikipedia, we state verifiable claims from reliable sources. We mind policies like WP:UNDUE (WP:NPOV), WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:A. Using these as guidelines may help you say what you want to say, but in the right place, with the right tone, and with the correct support.--C.Logan 23:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue here is also NOR. Respected historians - with PhDs and stuff like that - have written on the topic, we should start with them. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I think that this is probably the biggest issue with the addition, in fact, although undue weight may also be an important concern, according to the deletionist in this case.--C.Logan 23:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I sure hope that one doesn't need to be a deletionist to find a good reason to remove that addition. Homestarmy 01:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I hope you realize that "deletionist" only meant "the one who deleted it". I suspect it may be a bad word to some, but I just enjoy the term. And no, I think it should be clear to most experienced editors what the problem is with the edit in question.--C.Logan 03:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

IMO, these editors are maintaining a stranglehold on Wikipedia, deleting info by their own willing and covering each others 455es with brilliantly manufactured eye-candy arguments. Still, when it comes to really contribute they only UNDO the page and then refuse to accept the mistake.

Iulian28ti 18:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I seem to see a great deal of contribution and discussion here. I'm not certain what you're describing as a "mistake". -- MatthewDBA 18:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You can say "asses", here. I've explained my deletion of your original content extensively. It's difficult to blame the editors when the binding policy opposes such an addition. You appear irked that I didn't bend the rules for your addition. I don't see how citing policy directly is "manufacturing" an "eye-candy" argument.

Like Matthew, I'd need you to clarify what you mean by "accept the mistake". Are you saying that the users are blindly reverting the addition, and then refusing to swallow their pride by posting these "eye-candy" arguments? If that's your claim, I'd have to disagree. The deletion is deliberate, and based upon rules by which we all have to abide.

I'd appreciate it if Paul Barlow were to elaborate his reasoning here. I've explained why I reverted Iulian28ti's edits in detail, and I feel that we should help users to understand the problems with these changes.--C.Logan 19:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

What reasoning do you want me to elaborate? I deleted a sentence added by Iulian28ti because it claimed to explain the reason why "critical scholars" have differing views as to the reliability of the NT. He changed the meaning of the sentence by transforming the comment into one about the historicity of Jesus, not the reliability of the Gospels/Acts. It also 'explained' the alleged beliefs of these scholars by reference to Tacitus et al. In fact I know of no "critical scholar" who thinks that the references in Tacitus and other authors - except probably Josephus - tell us anything about Jesus himself. The arguments are almost all derived from interpretation/analysis of the Gospels, Acts and Christian tradition. It's the nature of these texts, the "criterion of embarrassment" and textual/rhetorical analysis that are most important to such historians. Paul B 19:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, edit summaries only allow so much of an explanation. I'd simply asked you to explain in detail your reasoning, as it appears that our reversion of problematic text makes this user suspect some sort of "censorship" of information. Given the nature of his previous addition, it appears that this may simply be his way of thinking, but we shouldn't improperly reinforce these thoughts by neglecting to explain rules and reasons to a new editor.--C.Logan 19:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The Bible is not a historical record its a story book. Skele 08:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh really?--C.Logan 14:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that the users are blindly reverting the addition, and then refusing to swallow their pride by posting these "eye-candy" arguments?

Exactly. The mistake consists in the lack of interest to improve Wikipedia. You simply UNDO and consider you did the job. But coming back to NPOV, clearly saying you have to take into account all available information. Fine, delete it from the main page, but add it to the Myth page.

This lack of interest for improvement and commodity suggests incompetence.

Iulian28ti 09:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Commodity? If you have something useful to add to the myth page add it. Of course it may be deleted or altered. On pages about the likes of Jesus or Hitler a lot of the editing is simply undoing because there is so much vandalism and POV pushing. Paul B 10:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I'm an atheist. I have no motivation for blindly accepting the historicity of Jesus. However, from what I've read, the majority of scholars seem to accept that Jesus was a historical figure. WP:WEIGHT applies here, as does WP:RS and WP:SYN/WP:OR, regardless of whether you consider those to be "brilliantly manufactured eye-candy arguments". Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems that your definition of improvement differs from ours. We have a determined standard of quality here, and we try to hold to it by abiding by the policies and guidelines of the encyclopedia. Things are not always top notch (and in fact could rarely be considered above mediocre), and may never be as long as everyone is allowed to contribute.

When individuals vandalize the page or add inappropriate links and personal theories into the page, a simple reversion is doing the job. Now, you comment seems puzzling because we went beyond that and explained to you why we reverted you; the policies are there for you to look up yourself, and yet we're making sure that you understand how things work- that's more of a welcome than many seem to get, I think.--C.Logan 14:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I meant that too many people think that the Bible or (in this case) Jesus is a historical man. They just say that its history but dont think about it. I believed in christian things once because I once was a lutheran. But know (even thou Im still in the lutheran books) I am a realist and a bit tao too, I have thought about the things I once believed and put them aside. And one more thing I dont go undoing other peoples writings. Skele 21:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Important figure in several other religions

A couple of questions: (1) What are these religions? Obviously Islam is one (as mentioned in the text), but what are the others? (2) Can we name these religions instead of being vague here? Perhaps the answer is "no" due to the possibility of inflaming things. It occurs to me, for example, that some would consider Mormonism to be one of these religions, but that would imply they're not Christian, which they would dispute. (Of course, two is not "several".) I notice from the article that other religions have something minor to say about him, but would not consider him "important" (except Bahá'í where he is important in a good way and Mandaean where he is important in a bad way). Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The religions are mentionned further on in the article - I thought it would be a good idea to mention these in the introduction to maintain neutrality (Jesus is a very important figure in Islam, for example). Sfacets 15:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, and arguably in Bahá'í and possibly Mandaean (which I'd never heard of before). Is that enough to be "several"? Perhaps we could say something like "is the central figure of Christianity, is an important figure in some religions such as Islam and Bahá'í, and is mentioned in other religions such as Judaism and Mandaeism." Would that be an improvement? (Per the subarticles on Buddhism and Hinduism, those faiths don't really mention him so much as adherents of those faiths might discuss him relative to their faith. Of course, those faiths aren't exactly standardized, either, even to the fairly weak degree that Christianity is.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the text in question in the intro, but I gotta say, "several other religions" really isn't that helpful to readers. However, considering the length of this article, I think mentioning just Islam and Christianity in the intro is a pretty good summary of the article, which is what an intro is. Perspectives from other religions are not mentioned very much by the article, simply because they are generally either very small religions in comparison, or because Jesus isn't very important to the religion. Homestarmy 20:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It's the first line of the intro and still has that same language. I'll allow a little more time before making any changes (unless someone else beats me to it first). Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me try my hand at improving it a bit. Homestarmy 20:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ehh, I can't think of a good way to improve it without being really wordy.... Homestarmy 20:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Mandean ought to be removed. Aside from a couple of websites there is no evidence it exists; it is one of the things Cheese Dreams forced into the article two or three years ago and never got cleaned out (I think the idea is, Mandeans are contemporary followers of John the Baptist) Slrubenstein | Talk 21:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Mandeanism is a hoax? Wow, I can't believe such a thing has been in an article as well-watched as this so long.... Homestarmy 23:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The Mandeanism article cites some fairly reliable sources, like the BBC, so I wouldn't say it is a hoax, or that there is no evidence it even exists. Whether it is notable enough or if we are giving undue weight for this article is another question. Surely, I think mentioning them in the lead is a bit much, but having a very small section mentioning their views somewhere seems appropriate, IMO.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was never able to find reference to any scholarly sources, or to any representative organization comparable to a conference of Baptists or United Synagoge of America that represents the religion. If it exists, is it notable? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The Mandaeans do exist, but seem to be in danger of extinction. See this article. Lima 19:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Article size

The article seems too long by far. Sure, Jesus is one of the most famous blokes out there, but seriously, 113 kilobytes? It should be split. JIP | Talk 17:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just followed the instructions on WP:SIZE about not including templates, see also, references and all that jazz, and the page preview size was 56 KB. I think we do need to be conscious of size restraints, watch out for future expansion, consider making sections more concise. But I personally do not think it is the most critical task on the to do list.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Size is in many cases a function not of fame but of complexity or controversy - i.e. the demands for an NPOV article. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Claims of divinity

Considering the people whom the referenced author cites as examples of "representative quotations," there's a noticeable bias. Unless I am mistaken, they are almost all Anglican churchmen, and those who are not are still Anglican theologians. Even if he is not presenting a biased picture here, it certainly looks biased. Some other source with a broader perspective would be preferable. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with TCC. May I suggest we remove this phrase from the Principal View of Religious Perspectives, for it does not seem to fall under it:

Conversely, others do not accept that these statements were actually made by Jesus, nor that they necessarily represent claims to divinity. Critical scholar John Hick claims that most New Testament scholars doubt that Jesus made any claims to divinity.[80]

I believe it belongs to Jesus#Questions_of_reliability, and perhaps what it conveys is adequately discussed in the existing section. Thank you. Marax 06:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Section was moved to the relevant talk page at Talk:Yeshua (name)/Jesus#Hebrew translation. Erudecorp ? * 08:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Hebrew interwiki

he:ישו —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.81.137.4 (talk) 14:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Section was moved to the relevant talk page at [[Talk:Yeshua (name)/Jesus#Jesus' name Iesous is from Iaso. Erudecorp ? * 08:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Cliché

Just a drop of hint that there is a slight sparkle of cliché in the article, due to the fact that the majority of the headings are in the same format of "[subject 1] and [subject 2]". This and is too repetitive. A split of these parts into separate headings will seem logical and give an encyclopaedic touch to the article. — Adriaan (T★C) 11:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Jesus and Barabbas

There is no reason to delete the information. It is a valid theory and the references are within wikipedia guidelines. The section should certainly be shortened, but removal is not called for. There is no original research, no new generation of information, and any call for a citation has been obliged. It is fully sourced and provides relative insight. Tony Reed 17:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This section violates WP:UNDUE quite clearly, would be better treated on one of the article sub-pages, such as Historicity of Jesus, Historical Jesus, Jesus myth hypothesis, or similar articles (though great discernment must be used when deciding which here is most appropriate- I'm wagering on the second choice, but it appears to cover too much ground for that article).

In any case, the treatment is far too long for any article not specifically devoted to extreme theories. These sub articles are more appropriate for this detail, but I still think that the addition needs a massive revision to compact it down to about half of its current size (unless, of course, it warrants an article its own, which is debatable).

The information, as far as I can see it, is good (though some phrasings are questionable), but it needs to find the proper place.--C.Logan 17:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I supprt Logan's position; it is impossible to mention every extreme idea about Jesus that exists in the world. Sub-articles are where some of these ideas can be brought up, but even then we have to be careful that its importance in scholarship is not over done and given too much weight. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the idea is extreme. I've heard the argument before. Essentially the claim is that the gospel account incorporates a form of garbled oral history about popular support for Jesus' release. However, it's really very marginal to this article. The argument is essentially that Barabbas did not exist. It should go in the Barabbas article. Paul B 17:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we're all conflating the concepts of an "extreme idea" and an idea supported by an "extreme minority". I think the claim itself is somewhat extreme, but that's subjective (although even subjective judgments like this can be established with authority if many agree on it); what's not really disputable is that the vast majority of scholars reject this viewpoint. I believe that this is the major qualifier on WP:UNDUE- the minority of support for a view is the primary cause for concern, and the extremity exacerbates the need for scrutiny. As far as I can see, this view is on the fringes, in both senses.

In any case, the information is already in the Barabbas article; it has been in the article in a close-to-current form for at least 2 years. In any case, this user (Qabala/Tony Reed) has already added his personal touch (and sources) to that article. It should remain there, where the information is most relevant.--C.Logan 18:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; this material does not belong here. Obvious violation of the "undue weight" clause. Moreschi ^Talk 19:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE clearly. -- SECisek 19:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The Inn

Why has this page reverted to the medievil beliefs? The article says: "After Jesus' birth, the couple was forced to use a manger in place of a crib because there was no room for them in the town's inn (Luke 2:1–7)." The Bible used the word "kataluma" which was translated as "inn" but the Bible used the word twice and the second time it described what a kataluma was "a large furnished upper story room within a private house". This is what Christian scholars now generally accept. The manger is not unusual either as most houses in those days had several mangers indoors and they were sometimes used as cribs for convienence. Last time i read this page it read according to the research not according to popular myth and explained this. Wayne 18:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded the sentence to refer to a lack of "accommodation". I think the translation issue is probably too minor to be discussed directly in this article, though we could give it a footnote if people do think it's important. EALacey 20:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Section was moved to the relevant talk page at Talk:Yeshua (name)/Jesus#Catholic Encyclopedia says Jesus is Greek Name. Erudecorp ? * 08:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

additional citation for Reference #40

Hi there, it seems to me that (because there are comparatively few high-quality resources on this important topic) Keith Akers' "recent" book (foreworded by Walter Wink) should be referenced briefly at the end of the current subtitled Reference Note #40: I would add "See also The Lost Religion of Jesus (2000) by Keith Akers, Lantern Books. ISBN 1-930051-26-3." (He does extensive, original and scholarly work on the Essenes in that volume..) Note 40 comes in the text after this sentence: "Other scholars theorize that Jesus was an Essene, a sect of Judaism not mentioned in the New Testament.[40] "

Akers could likewise be mentioned under note #93, which even more specifically references Ebionites and their likely vegetarianism. (Akers references both Ebionites and Essenes in his book.) Mr manilow 15:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr manilow (talk • contribs) 15:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at this, it does not appear as if Akers is a professional scholar, or even has an advanced degree in a corresponding field of study. I'm not sure it is exactly fair to put his book on the same footing as some of the authors we site (who are heads of religious study departments at prestigious universities and such).-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but Akers is an independent scholar of some note whose books have been foreworded and otherwise endorsed by the likes of Walter Wink and Peter Singer. I think he should get some attention; he's done some of the best work on these subjects IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr manilow (talk • contribs) 15:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Misleading statement re Jesus references prior to Gospels ?

The following statement (from the Jesus article) is somewhat misleading and should be more carefully nuanced: "Some texts with even earlier historical or mythological information on Jesus are speculated to have existed prior to the Gospels,[48] though none have been found." The Pauline epistles should at least be tacitly/implicitly referenced here, seeing as they pre-date the Gospels by a significant stretch AND provide minimal (however scant) historical and mythological data. I suggest that this statement is prefaced with: "Apart from Paul's letters," or "Other than the Pauline epistles," or another similar "disclaimer" statement - so as to achieve the highest technical accuracy possible with this article. THanks Mr manilow 15:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Jesus as God

After this statement "In his book Jesus of Nazareth, Benedict XVI referred to Rabbi Jacob Neusner, a believing Jew, who concluded from his analysis of the Gospel texts that Jesus claimed to be God by asserting himself to be a higher authority than the Jewish Law which was given to the Jews by God through Moses.[79]" I think that one other book should be referenced, at least in the footnote:

Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus (Paperback) by Murray J. Harris (Author)

1. ISBN-10: 0801021952
2. ISBN-13: 978-0801021954

(This is the most clear and concise book I have seen on the topic, and it also conforms to high theological and academic standards.)

Only $200 on Amazon! ;) This could also be appended as follows: "(Murray J. Harris makes a similar conclusion in his book devoted to the topic: Jesus as God.)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr manilow (talk • contribs) 15:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's a random brief review from Amazon (by user Rick Aguirre) in case it matters/interests:

"Simply put, this is one of the best works ever written on the issues involving Jesus' deity from an all-text-focused stance. Harris' protocol is extreme detail, and once again his work bears this out."

Another one for the helluvit:

"Murray Harris took his Ph.D. from the University of Manchester and was professor emeritus of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. His book Jesus as God was possibly one of the most comprehensive, in-depth and scholarly treatment of the New Testament passages attributing deity to Jesus in print."

Thanks, Mr manilow 16:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This presentation sounds a bit too close to advertising to me.--C.Logan 00:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)