![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 95 | ← | Archive 98 | Archive 99 | Archive 100 | Archive 101 | Archive 102 | → | Archive 105 |
HORUS AND MITHRAS
We should really add a disclaimer to the part of the article that speaks about the life of Jesus, because clearly it's rubbish. Fiction based on much older fiction, nothing else.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.52.81 ( talk) 20:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I have removed a large amount of text that has been added without(?) any discussion on the talk page. There was much duplication of info that was already in the article. There was original research. There was info that better fits in the 'Historicity of Jesus' (or whatever it's called) article. The Jesus article is already long enough - too long many would say.
ross
nixon
01:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Ross, how about this deal? You cut anything you want out of the Historical Jesus section, and you paste it here. I won't restore the deletion. We can talk about the material here instead of fighting over it on the page. Leadwind ( talk) 02:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
In the first paragraph of the Historical Jesus section, it reads: Biblical scholars and most historians accept the historical existence of Jesus and regard claims against his existence as "effectively refuted".[38] That reference is attributed to Van Voorst, Robert E.: Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Uh, Robert Van Voorst is a professor at Western Theological Seminary, a university that "equips men and women for Christ-centered, biblically based, theologically integrated, culturally sensitive, and mission-oriented Christian leadership." http://www.westernsem.edu/explore/history Does Christian faith imply a conflict of interests in a discussion about historical existence of Jesus? 163.252.66.238 ( talk) 19:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a conflict of interests. There are Christians that believe out of Faith, which is believing even if there is no factual proof, and those who believe because thats how they were raised. Studies usually do not effect religions as people go on believing them. As there was very little to no documentation at that time it is very hard to get historical proof of such a figure. Very few things from religions can be proofed. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Metalocalypse (
talk •
contribs)
13:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not trying to step on any toes here, but the above "To-do" section (that heads this discussion page) does not seem very helpful. Actually it seems to be vandalized. Cublue ( talk) 04:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Remove all the ridiculous bias! Start by getting rid of unsubstantiated (impossible to substantiate) claims that "most" scholar/academics/historians believe that Christ existed. Either cough up the impossible evidence or remove this joke.
The rest of the text should then be restructured to reflect that not everyone agrees he even existed. The use of subjunctive grammar would be obvious.
As is stands it read like some Bigfoot watcher's blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.212.231 ( talk • contribs)
Well, that attitude explains the POV problems. This artcle should be delisted till it fixes its bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.85.187 ( talk) 12:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Lonely Marble accuses me of deception because I commented out a paragraph in Historical Jesus. I often comment out sections rather than deleting them outright for two reasons. One, I've had my material deleted outright too many times (Hi, Ross). Two, I want to leave the text on the page so that another editor can easily see what I cut and easily restore it, which LM did. So LM benefited from my commenting out the section and then accuses me of deception. I love this page. If folks would rather that I delete stuff outright and stop commenting-out stuff as an intermediate step, let me know. Leadwind ( talk) 14:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Where can this go in the article:
Why is the historical section so long when there are two major articles on the topic. Is it my imagination or did it grow recently. -- Daniel J. Leivick ( talk) 04:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand that the three mainstream views are summarized in this section, but they should still be called out individually. EOs believe that the incorporation of Jesus' body into the Trinity paves the way for our own theosis. RCCs believe that the Church is Christ made manifest on earth. Protestants emphasize personal faith in Jesus over the saving power of the church. Most of the majority view stuff is also held by the minority: Jesus as divine, as the Son, as judge and savior.
Plus, this section should cover where Christians get their beliefs: the NT, the creeds, and church tradition. The page mentions the gospels, but what about Paul's epistles and Revelation? The historical Jesus section points out where these historical ideas come from (200 years of historical and literary analysis). The Christian views section should have a subsection on "sources of Christology" or something.
Christians' views of Jesus are a big, important topic that deserves more space. I'd say two or three more paragraphs. Leadwind ( talk) 13:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, there's a noteworthy division in contemporary Christianity between liberal Christians (many of whom doubt some of Jesus' miracles in the gospels) and traditional Christians (who hold that it's all true). Leadwind ( talk) 13:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't seem right to have a list of authors and books (especially redlinked books) in the myth section. I think just having the authors' names should suffice. But I'm a little concerned because I believe G.A. Wells has backed off his mythist position, and Bob Price has said he is an "agnostic" about the historical Jesus, and I'm not sure his views are nearly as extreme as say Doherty and Freke/Grandy. I also believe Doherty should be listed with the "popular" authors. What do others think? Perhaps something like More recently, arguments for non-historicity have been discussed and to some extent advocated by scholars such as George Albert Wells and Robert M. Price. Additionally, The Jesus Puzzle and The Jesus Mysteries are examples of popular works promoting the non-history hypothesis. Nevertheless, non-historicity is still regarded as effectively refuted by almost all Biblical scholars and historians.- Andrew c [talk] 00:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I tried researching your claim that G. A. Wells backed off his mythist position and couldn't find it. Would you have a reference handy? 189.138.241.198 ( talk) 19:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I feel that if you are going to represent different religions viewpoints on Christ then you should have a person from that religoin doing the writing. Many churches now have publisists that would be happy to submit something. I don't mind getting this information if it will truly be posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morninbrd ( talk • contribs) 19:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The article states that "The name Jesus is an anglicization of the Hebrew name that would have more closely been pronounced as spelled Yeshua.", it doesnt name any source though. Isnt "Jesus" a latin form of Yeshua?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwalters8 ( talk • contribs) 13:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Jesus is the greek form of the name "eesha". Latin is an Indo-european language. And in indo-european language and even in Indian language of Sanskrit, "eesha" means 'God', or 'Godly'. So there is a theory that his name comes from 'eesha'. I beleive this too can be added. ( Niketsundaram1977 ( talk) 09:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC))
Jesus - the spelling is a Latin version of Yeshua. In ancient Latin the letter J was pronounced as the English letter Y, and S on the end of a word is silent. (similarly Jehovah J=Y V=W and you get Yehowah) The letters in Latin sounded out the correct sounds, it is because in English the letters are pronounced differently that the confusion enters in. So technically, Jesus is a English pronunciation of a Hebrew word transliterated to Latin. Cool10191 ( talk) 19:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I never said Hebrew has no Y. Your misreading a simple statement I made makes me further wonder whether you are telling the truth. In any event, you need to provide a reliable source and your website I think does not count as a reliable source. Be that as it may, it seems you did not even read your website clearly, since, like our article, your aebsite says that Latin came from the Greek, and Jesus' original name was first transcribed into Greek (not Latin). Slrubenstein | Talk 11:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
this page may display a horizontal scroll bar in some browsers. -- Emesee ( talk) 04:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Since this page has such an extensive catalog of archives, I propose creating a separate page to serve as an index of archives. Then this talk page would only need a single line indicating that info about the archives can be found on that index page. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Two things:
Critical Scholars wouldn't accept it as accurate. This sentence is misleading, it should be changed to something that encompasses all scholars.
What is an example of a Christian that doesn't believe Jesus was God? RJRocket53 ( talk) 15:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
No not all Christians believe Jesus is God. Jehova witnesses believe that Jesus is inferior to God and therefore, being less than God cannot be God, but rather the Archangel Michael. Tourskin ( talk) 03:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I made some corrections to the summary of how historians view Jesus, and also deleted material that seemed to be expressing a Christian point of view. Of course I have no objection to Christian points of view being in this article, but they should be in the section on Christian points of view. We could build up this section more, drawing on the important historians like Saners and Frederikson, but I think the links to other articles is sufficient. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to participate in the editing of this page.
13 millions LDS members beleive that Jesus Christ is the literal living Son of God. He is the God of this Earth but is not his father. They are separate beings each having a body of their own. It is proven in the bible when Christ was baptized and the Son is there in the flesh, his father speaks to us, and the holy ghost descends upon Christ.
Morninbrd ( talk) 19:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 95 | ← | Archive 98 | Archive 99 | Archive 100 | Archive 101 | Archive 102 | → | Archive 105 |
HORUS AND MITHRAS
We should really add a disclaimer to the part of the article that speaks about the life of Jesus, because clearly it's rubbish. Fiction based on much older fiction, nothing else.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.52.81 ( talk) 20:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I have removed a large amount of text that has been added without(?) any discussion on the talk page. There was much duplication of info that was already in the article. There was original research. There was info that better fits in the 'Historicity of Jesus' (or whatever it's called) article. The Jesus article is already long enough - too long many would say.
ross
nixon
01:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Ross, how about this deal? You cut anything you want out of the Historical Jesus section, and you paste it here. I won't restore the deletion. We can talk about the material here instead of fighting over it on the page. Leadwind ( talk) 02:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
In the first paragraph of the Historical Jesus section, it reads: Biblical scholars and most historians accept the historical existence of Jesus and regard claims against his existence as "effectively refuted".[38] That reference is attributed to Van Voorst, Robert E.: Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Uh, Robert Van Voorst is a professor at Western Theological Seminary, a university that "equips men and women for Christ-centered, biblically based, theologically integrated, culturally sensitive, and mission-oriented Christian leadership." http://www.westernsem.edu/explore/history Does Christian faith imply a conflict of interests in a discussion about historical existence of Jesus? 163.252.66.238 ( talk) 19:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a conflict of interests. There are Christians that believe out of Faith, which is believing even if there is no factual proof, and those who believe because thats how they were raised. Studies usually do not effect religions as people go on believing them. As there was very little to no documentation at that time it is very hard to get historical proof of such a figure. Very few things from religions can be proofed. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Metalocalypse (
talk •
contribs)
13:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not trying to step on any toes here, but the above "To-do" section (that heads this discussion page) does not seem very helpful. Actually it seems to be vandalized. Cublue ( talk) 04:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Remove all the ridiculous bias! Start by getting rid of unsubstantiated (impossible to substantiate) claims that "most" scholar/academics/historians believe that Christ existed. Either cough up the impossible evidence or remove this joke.
The rest of the text should then be restructured to reflect that not everyone agrees he even existed. The use of subjunctive grammar would be obvious.
As is stands it read like some Bigfoot watcher's blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.212.231 ( talk • contribs)
Well, that attitude explains the POV problems. This artcle should be delisted till it fixes its bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.85.187 ( talk) 12:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Lonely Marble accuses me of deception because I commented out a paragraph in Historical Jesus. I often comment out sections rather than deleting them outright for two reasons. One, I've had my material deleted outright too many times (Hi, Ross). Two, I want to leave the text on the page so that another editor can easily see what I cut and easily restore it, which LM did. So LM benefited from my commenting out the section and then accuses me of deception. I love this page. If folks would rather that I delete stuff outright and stop commenting-out stuff as an intermediate step, let me know. Leadwind ( talk) 14:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Where can this go in the article:
Why is the historical section so long when there are two major articles on the topic. Is it my imagination or did it grow recently. -- Daniel J. Leivick ( talk) 04:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand that the three mainstream views are summarized in this section, but they should still be called out individually. EOs believe that the incorporation of Jesus' body into the Trinity paves the way for our own theosis. RCCs believe that the Church is Christ made manifest on earth. Protestants emphasize personal faith in Jesus over the saving power of the church. Most of the majority view stuff is also held by the minority: Jesus as divine, as the Son, as judge and savior.
Plus, this section should cover where Christians get their beliefs: the NT, the creeds, and church tradition. The page mentions the gospels, but what about Paul's epistles and Revelation? The historical Jesus section points out where these historical ideas come from (200 years of historical and literary analysis). The Christian views section should have a subsection on "sources of Christology" or something.
Christians' views of Jesus are a big, important topic that deserves more space. I'd say two or three more paragraphs. Leadwind ( talk) 13:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, there's a noteworthy division in contemporary Christianity between liberal Christians (many of whom doubt some of Jesus' miracles in the gospels) and traditional Christians (who hold that it's all true). Leadwind ( talk) 13:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't seem right to have a list of authors and books (especially redlinked books) in the myth section. I think just having the authors' names should suffice. But I'm a little concerned because I believe G.A. Wells has backed off his mythist position, and Bob Price has said he is an "agnostic" about the historical Jesus, and I'm not sure his views are nearly as extreme as say Doherty and Freke/Grandy. I also believe Doherty should be listed with the "popular" authors. What do others think? Perhaps something like More recently, arguments for non-historicity have been discussed and to some extent advocated by scholars such as George Albert Wells and Robert M. Price. Additionally, The Jesus Puzzle and The Jesus Mysteries are examples of popular works promoting the non-history hypothesis. Nevertheless, non-historicity is still regarded as effectively refuted by almost all Biblical scholars and historians.- Andrew c [talk] 00:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I tried researching your claim that G. A. Wells backed off his mythist position and couldn't find it. Would you have a reference handy? 189.138.241.198 ( talk) 19:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I feel that if you are going to represent different religions viewpoints on Christ then you should have a person from that religoin doing the writing. Many churches now have publisists that would be happy to submit something. I don't mind getting this information if it will truly be posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morninbrd ( talk • contribs) 19:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The article states that "The name Jesus is an anglicization of the Hebrew name that would have more closely been pronounced as spelled Yeshua.", it doesnt name any source though. Isnt "Jesus" a latin form of Yeshua?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwalters8 ( talk • contribs) 13:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Jesus is the greek form of the name "eesha". Latin is an Indo-european language. And in indo-european language and even in Indian language of Sanskrit, "eesha" means 'God', or 'Godly'. So there is a theory that his name comes from 'eesha'. I beleive this too can be added. ( Niketsundaram1977 ( talk) 09:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC))
Jesus - the spelling is a Latin version of Yeshua. In ancient Latin the letter J was pronounced as the English letter Y, and S on the end of a word is silent. (similarly Jehovah J=Y V=W and you get Yehowah) The letters in Latin sounded out the correct sounds, it is because in English the letters are pronounced differently that the confusion enters in. So technically, Jesus is a English pronunciation of a Hebrew word transliterated to Latin. Cool10191 ( talk) 19:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I never said Hebrew has no Y. Your misreading a simple statement I made makes me further wonder whether you are telling the truth. In any event, you need to provide a reliable source and your website I think does not count as a reliable source. Be that as it may, it seems you did not even read your website clearly, since, like our article, your aebsite says that Latin came from the Greek, and Jesus' original name was first transcribed into Greek (not Latin). Slrubenstein | Talk 11:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
this page may display a horizontal scroll bar in some browsers. -- Emesee ( talk) 04:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Since this page has such an extensive catalog of archives, I propose creating a separate page to serve as an index of archives. Then this talk page would only need a single line indicating that info about the archives can be found on that index page. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Two things:
Critical Scholars wouldn't accept it as accurate. This sentence is misleading, it should be changed to something that encompasses all scholars.
What is an example of a Christian that doesn't believe Jesus was God? RJRocket53 ( talk) 15:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
No not all Christians believe Jesus is God. Jehova witnesses believe that Jesus is inferior to God and therefore, being less than God cannot be God, but rather the Archangel Michael. Tourskin ( talk) 03:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I made some corrections to the summary of how historians view Jesus, and also deleted material that seemed to be expressing a Christian point of view. Of course I have no objection to Christian points of view being in this article, but they should be in the section on Christian points of view. We could build up this section more, drawing on the important historians like Saners and Frederikson, but I think the links to other articles is sufficient. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to participate in the editing of this page.
13 millions LDS members beleive that Jesus Christ is the literal living Son of God. He is the God of this Earth but is not his father. They are separate beings each having a body of their own. It is proven in the bible when Christ was baptized and the Son is there in the flesh, his father speaks to us, and the holy ghost descends upon Christ.
Morninbrd ( talk) 19:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)